Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Pope John Paul II was chosen as 1994’s “Man of the Year” for his moral leadership by Time Magazine (26 Dec. 1994/2 Jan. 1995 issue). He told Time, “The Pope must be a moral force.” Time said, “John Paul has presented himself, the defender of Roman Catholic doctrine, as a moral compass for believers and nonbelievers alike.” Even Billy Graham, a Baptist preacher, chimed in, “He’s been the strong conscience of the whole Christian world” (p. 54).

The Man of the Year needs to read the eternal Word of God! “The word of the Lord endureth for ever” (1 Pet. 1:25). Any man who lives in open rebellion against God’s Word nullifies any claim to moral leadership. It is a tragic commentary on our times that such a man could be considered “a moral compass.”

1. Christ, not the Pope, is the rock of our salvation. Catholics claim Christ crowned Peter the first Pope and every Pope is a direct successor to Peter. When Peter confessed, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Christ responded, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:16, 18). The rock is not Peter but is the grand confession of the deity of Jesus Christ. Peter confessed the primacy of Christ, not vice versa! The rock and foundation of our salvation is not a mere mortal but is the divine Son of God. “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11).

2. The Pope is not qualified to oversee a local church, much less the universal church. Christ rules and reigns at God’s right hand as “the head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22). He said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). The Pope’s claim to be head of the universal church on earth is a colossal usurpation of the power that belongs to Christ alone. The Pope’s throne was ordained not by Christ but by the apostate “man of sin … who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess. 2:3-4).

Christ as “the chief Shepherd” ordained local bishops, pastors, or elders to oversee each local church (Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). A plurality of such men is to serve each congregation. He authorized no higher level of organization, whether it be a bishop of two or all congregations.

The qualifications for “the office of a bishop” require that “a bishop must be . . . the husband of one wife…. One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Tim. 3:1-5). Catholic priests, monks, nuns, bishops, archbishops, and popes are forbidden to marry, disqualifying them to oversee even one local church. “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, .. . Forbidding to marry” (1 Tim. 4:1-3).

3. Christ expressly forbids such religious titles as Father, Reverend, and Pope. Christ warned of men in special “garments,” seeking “chief seats,” with titles of reverence. “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Matt. 23:5-9). The title “Pope” comes from the Latin word for father.

Sad to say, this “Man of the Year” is just another incarnation of the man of sin, desperately needing to submit to the Son of man, like all sinners. The Pope is not “a moral compass” but needs to make God’s Word his “moral compass.” He needs to read the eternal Word of God with an open heart. When he does, he will find that Christ and not himself is the rock of salvation, that Christ authorized local elders (married men) but not universal popes (unmarried), and that Christ forbids the office and title of “Pope.” When the Pope lays aside the trappings of false religion, he will be ready to be immersed in water for the remission of his sins by the authority of Christ (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3-4). The Lord will then add him to the true church of Christ found in the Bible (Acts 2:47; Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 12:13).

As it stands, the Pope appears to be a moral leader for two reasons. First, our world is lost in the utter darkness of sin and frantically seeks some semblance of moral guidance. Satan raises up his ministers to fill that need. Second, error is more deceptive when mixed with truth. Catholicism offers an appealing mixture of revealed truth and human traditions, all made more palatable by the claim that the Pope is the personal emissary of Christ as a successor to the apostles of Christ.

Satan has made such false claims since Christ and the apostles first revealed the way of truth. “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11:13-15). Deception is stronger when some truth is taught. Satan correctly quoted Scripture to Christ, but used it in an effort to lead Christ to compromise with error. Christ answered by quoting some truth Satan left out (Matt. 4:5-7).

The Pope teaches a mixture of truth and error on moral issues. When he speaks out against abortion on demand, he speaks the truth. Abortion on demand is a murderous violation of the command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself ” (Rom. 13:9-10). It is right to oppose sex outside marriage with or without contraceptives (1 Cor. 6:18; Heb. 13:4). His opposition to contraceptives not involving abortion within marriage is human tradition. He is right to oppose divorce and remarriage at will, but wrong to allow annulment as a substitute, and wrong to oppose remarriage after a divorce for fornication (Matt. 19:9). In short, Catholicism is a mixture of truth and error even on moral issues.

The Pope cannot serve as a true “moral compass” because his very office is a flagrant violation of the gospel of Christ and because Catholicism is an apostasy from the church of Christ revealed in the Bible. The “Man of the Year,” like all of us, needs to embrace the eternal Word of God as his “moral compass.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 8 p. 18-19
April 20, 1995

By Alex Caldwell

Greetings from the brethren at Sturgis, Mississippi. We continue to enjoy good health and rejoice in God’s most holy and divine word. All praise must go to God for his most wonderful blessings. May he also bless you brethren both physically and spiritually during 1995.1 thank God for good, faithful brethren like you who have supported me financially and prayerfully in preaching the good news of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

I have a lot to be thankful for this year. My needs have been provided for by God through good brethren. All praise belongs to God. I truly trust him with all my heart, soul, and mind (Matt. 6:33; 22:37). I pray you do, too. The Sturgis church is continually growing stronger in the Lord every time we meet. Good news! During December of 1994 we had three lost souls put Christ on in baptism. Amen! Brethren, I have been here over two years teaching and preaching on two 30 minute radio programs, and in home Bible studies, and at church every God-given Sun-day trying my best to reach lost souls, but always without success (or so it seemed). I have learned that through patience and longsuffering, all I need to do is just plant the seed, the Word of God, and let God give the increase and things will work out just fine.

I am continuing to preach twice each Sunday, and to have Bible classes at the building twice a week. Our advertising on a cable T.V. station is still drawing sinners’ interest in wanting home Bible studies or free Bible correspondence courses. We here at Sturgis want to do our best to plant the seed of God’s Word and let God do the rest (I Cor. 3:6). Home Bible studies are set up as we have opportunity. I hope and pray you will do the same. We hope and pray this will bring fruit to the honor and glory of God.

I now have one young man about 15 years old helping me in worship when I need him. I thank God for him. Please pray for the Lord of harvest to help us raise up some more workers here.

I have been very busy the last few months. I preached a three-day gospel meeting for the brethren in Oneonta, AL. I also preached a 30 minute sermon on their radio broadcast. When I preached in Memphis, TN, four brethren repented and came back to God. In December of 1994 I preached a whole week’s meeting with my good friend Ron Halbrook and the brethren at West Columbia, TX. We had many visitors in the services and we also went into people’s homes, teaching and preaching the gospel’. A Bible study group which meets at the high school allowed me to speak; I discussed differences between denominationalism and true Christianity because Ron had a recent exchange of newspaper articles with the Methodist preacher. During January of 1995, I preached for the brethren in Trussville, AL. Last of all, I also preached for two congregations in Lufkin, TX.

Faithful brethren in the area preached at Sturgis in my absence. I thank God for these brethren. Please pray for the work here at Sturgis and for me too! I thank brother Ron Halbrook and the Guardian of Truth for helping me to get this report published. Until my next report, keep the faith and pray always.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 8 p. 11
April 20, 1995

By Harry R. Osborne

If you were down to your last dollar, would you make an investment that had one chance in a thousand of making a profit? Suppose that you were starving for food, would you go to a place for food that only had meals once every three years or would you go someplace sure to have it’? If your life was on the line, would you be willing to take a course of action which would give you less than a 1% chance of survival?

If you are like most people, those kind of odds would not be acceptable in a critical situation. However, those who support the general theory of evolution as the explanation for all life forms in existence depend on odds much worse! Yet, in many places, this theory is presented as “fact” and the only “scientific” explanation for life. In the past few articles, we have seen that the Bible has a credible explanation which is in keeping with true, scientific fact.

As we noted previously, some believe that all present life forms originated from one case of non-living matter forming one single-celled organism. They further believe that this one, single-celled organism mutated and reproduced so that better adapted and more sustainable life forms resulted. At the point where they suppose that only one organism existed, what were its odds of mutating successfully and surviving? What were the odds when only a few survived? A famed evolutionist, Sir Julian Huxley, made the following admission about the harmful nature of the overwhelming majority of mutations:

A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thou-sand does not sound like much, but it is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organ-ism living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out of gear (Evolution in Action, 45).

More recent experiments regarding the proportion of favorable mutations as opposed to harmful ones show that Huxley’s one to one thousand ratio is not only generous, but wishful. In one researcher’s work, A.M. Winchester found that well over 99% of all mutations were harmful to life. That figure does not even consider the vast majority of the remaining 1% that, while not being harmful, would not aid the viability of a given life form. Experiments on the fruit fly and other animals involving radiation induced mutations and natural mutations show that favorable mutations are so rare as to be negligible.

Yet, let us suppose that Huxley’s extremely generous ratio were a fact. Even with this generous help, think of the chances of survival for that first organism that supposedly came into existence by spontaneous generation, a process in itself contrary to all known laws of science. That one organism had a one in one thousand chance of surviving. If it survived to reproduce, the next generation was faced with formidable odds again. Beyond that, each generation had to face those odds and overcome them without fail for generations to allow life to survive. For the evolutionary explanation of all life forms to be given a chance, one has to assume a scenario totally outside the realm of probability. Does such a theory sound like “proven fact” to you?

Assuming the general theory of evolution is allowed this enormous leap of faith to provide for the survival of these early life forms, another problem must be faced. The simple fact is that we find no evidence of the kind of mutations necessary to provide for the evolutionary explanation of life. Notice the following from Dr. Bolton Davidheisar:

When a gene mutates it produces an alternative form of the structure or condition it produced before. When a gene for a wing form mutates it produces another wing form, and not an eye color… Thus, if we evolved from protozoa (one-celled organisms), where along the way did we get genes which produce bones, blood, and teeth, for protozoa do not have these? (Evolution and Christian Faith, 213).

As more and more work is done on how the DNA in every cell works in replication, this point becomes an even larger obstacle for the evolutionary explanation of all life forms being the results of mutations from a single-celled organ-ism.

Beyond the problems already noted with mutations to account for all present varieties of life, there is a mathematical problem with the time necessary for the process. Though one or two billion years is a great deal of time, various mathematical models have shown that even the time speculated would not provide enough time for the number of mutations which had to be made to result in the present life forms if we all started from a single-celled organism. An example of this debate can be seen in The Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph (No. 5) published by the Wistar Press in 1967.

When one considers the number of changes that would have to take place in order to change a single-celled organism into every life form in existence and the length of time necessary for each change, the problem becomes a mathematical one. Several mathematical statisticians have published models showing the general theory of evolution to be statistically impossible. To date, I have seen no mathematical attempt to show that the theory is possible within the framework of time given. It is, however, interesting to note that the evolutionists have attempted to help their cause by adding a few billion years to their assumed age of the universe in order to buy more time for their theories. However, this creates other problems for them as we will see in a later article on the age of the earth.

Thus, not only does the evolutionary explanation for all life fail to show the proof that the necessary mutations could occur, it also fails to face the fact that there is not enough time for those changes to occur even if those changes were possible. Add that to the proportion of harmful mutations that do exist and the general theory of evolution faces monumental problems with its explanation for the present variety of life through mutations from a single-celled animal.

However, we have not even had time to note other problems regarding mutations as the mechanism for the evolution of all life forms. We could note that most mutations are recessive giving the change little chance of being manifested in one organism, much less an entire species. We could ask why such upward advancement through mutations is not being seen today. The questions could abound.

The fundamental problem for evolutionists is that mutations provide the only mechanism for their theory. Theodosius Dobzhansky admitted that mutations are “the only known source of new material of genetic variability, and hence of evolution” (American Scientist, 45, p. 385). Ernest Hooten, Harvard anthropologist, sounded a fitting warning when he acknowledged that he and other anthropologists are “leaning upon a broken reed when we depend upon mutations” (Apes, Men & Morons 118).

If the evolutionists want to laugh at the faith necessary to believe in the Bible account of Creation, they better take a long look at their own theory. The Bible explanation that “God created the heavens and the earth” is believable if we are not predisposed to deny the existence of an omnipotent God. If we accept that a single-celled organism suddenly came to life from non-living matter, the evolutionary explanation is still implausible.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 8 p. 14-15
April 20, 1995

By Mike Willis

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous (1 John 5:3).

Sometimes weak Christians began thinking that the Lord’s commandments are an opprobrious burden that imposes itself on them. When they dwell on this, they sometimes begin resenting the impositions that God makes on their life and speak belligerently about God. God’s requirements deprive them of their fun, they think.

But, John says just the opposite: God’s commandments are not grievous. John speaks, not only as an inspired apostle, but also as an aged man with a wide experience of life and its difficulties. He had been arrested with Peter after the healing of the man at the Beautiful Gate (Acts 3-4). The two were threatened and told to quit preaching Christ. His brother James was beheaded by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1-2). He was exiled to the isle of Patmos for the testimony of Christ (Rev. 1:9). John had enough of the adversities of life that come as a response to his faith and preaching to have reason to know the sorrows that sometimes attend faithfulness.

His Commandments Are Not Grievous

To Those Who Love Him

W. Jones wrote in The Pulpit Commentary, “`His commandments are not grievous’ to them that love him. Love is not only life, but inspiration, courage, and strength; therefore, as love to God in-creases, obedience to his commands becomes easier and more delightful. ‘I confess,’ says Watson, ‘to him that hath no love to God, religion must needs be a burden; and I wonder not to hear him say, “What a weariness is it to serve the Lord!” It is like rowing against the tide. But love oils the wheels; it makes duty a pleasure. Why are the angels so swift and winged in God’s service, but because they love him? Jacob thought seven years but little for the love he did bear to Rachel. Love is never weary; he who loves money is not weary of toiling for it; and he who loves God is not weary of serving him.’ Says Miss Austin, ‘Where love is there is no labour; and if there be labour, that labour is loved.’ Will our love to God bear this test of cheerful obedience to his commands? Then do we love him truly; and so loving him, we shall love all his children” (159).

True Love Imposes Restrictions

A mature Christian will understand the true nature of love. A loving parent will not give his children everything they wish for. Instead he will lay down some rules and commandments on his children. These will be for the benefit of the children, even though the child may resent them at the time. He may be required to make his bed, clean his room, mow the yard, and such like things. Sometimes during his days of immaturity he will resent the imposition these rules make on his life. However, after he matures, he will likely impose very similar rules on his own children because he later discovers the reason for imposing these rules.

Are we old enough and wise enough as God’s children to see the wisdom in his rules for us? If God had not loved us, he may have left us without rules and commandments for life. He may have treated us like some negligent, unloving parent treats his teenage son  allowing him to come and go when he pleases, do as he pleases, act as he pleases, etc. Such a teenager may as well not have a father. A father who truly loves his son will impose rules and commandments on his life to protect his son from the dangers of life. Far from restraining us, God’s commandments are truly liberating and beneficial. They point us toward the happiest life available to mankind.

An Easy Yoke

When Jesus extended his great invitation, he said, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30).

What a paradox Jesus speaks when he says that the way to find rest is through taking his yoke upon you. Most of us want rest by releasing ourselves from yokes. Then he added that his “burden is light.” How differently the ungodly describe the life of a Christian. The ungodly think that living for Christ is one of the heaviest yokes that could be imposed on a person. Not so, says Jesus. True rest is found by bearing his burden and submitting to his yoke.

The galling yoke is that which sin and Satan impose on us. It cuts into us and rubs us raw until it finally and completely destroys us. Look at some of the ones carrying Satan’s heavy yoke: the AIDS victim, the man injured by an auto accident caused by drunk driving, the alcoholic and drug addict. These yokes are the heavy yokes, not the one Christ calls on men to assume.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 9 p. 2
May 4, 1995