Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

While having breakfast with one of the elders of a west Texas church back in the fall, the subject of the A.D. 70 doctrine came up. He asked for some information as to what that doctrine involves. After discussing it for a time, he said, “Well, if the resurrection is past already, we might as well all go to the house.” For you city slickers, that means there is nothing more for us to look forward to. Everything that matters is already over.

Listen to the Country Folks

Our politicians would do well to listen to the country people. They might not always be right, but they have a down-to-earth, common-sense, get-to-the-bottom-of-it attitude that is lost on those who have escaped their country roots. For instance, a certain rural area was having trouble with hot-rodders racing up and down a country road late at night, scaring the cattle and keeping people awake. The local sheriff’s department was called and he called in the highway patrol (they don’t run for re-election). They sent a fine new cruiser, with the latest equipment out there to be “visible.” The patrolman met a pickup truck coming over a hill. The driver of the pickup waved his arm at the patrolman and shouted “Pig, Pig.” That infuriated the patrolman who shouted back “Sodbuster.” Then he went right over that hill and hit a 600 pound hog and tore up that fancy new cruiser. Moral? When a country boy tells you something, you ought to pay attention!

Chance or Hope?

Every now and then I hear brethren express in prayer the idea that Jesus died on the cross so we might have a “chance” of eternal life. That sounds like we might just beat the odds somehow and make it to heaven. Now I realize the Bible teaches that a child of God can fall from grace (Gal. 5:4) and there are many admonitions for us to continue in the faith (Col. 1:21-23). But Paul said we are “in hope of eternal life, which God that cannot lie, promised before the foundation of the world” (Tit. 1:3). Hope looks to the future and embraces the ideas of both desire and expectation. There is every reason for a faithful child of God to expect to receive that desirable prize promised to those who serve the Lord. If we don’t expect it, then we stand in need of some correction.

Knowing Christ After the Flesh

“Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2 Cor. 5:16). The earthly lineage of Christ was important. It established his claim to be the Messiah of prophecy. But after he died for our sins and arose for our justification, we do not know him after the flesh anymore. The notion of the dispensationalists concerning Israel and the land of Canaan, the rebuilding of the temple, the reestablishment of the Levitical priesthood and of animal sacrifices, all place emphasis on Christ after the flesh. Paul said that now in Christ, “he is a Jew that is one inwardly” (Rom. 2:28-29). He also wrote, “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29). The Jew is entitled to the gospel the same as the Gentile. God will accept either one or both by faith, but neither of them by flesh. It is wrong to teach the Jew to glory in his fleshly ancestry. We know Christ now according to faith, not flesh.

Brotherly Love

“Let brotherly love continue” (Heb. 13:1). Something cannot continue which has never started. Once started, a precedent has been set and the practice more easily flows. I have long been convinced that some brethren just don’t like each other. Brotherly love is not expressed because it does not exist in the heart. All of us must be on guard against whatever would interrupt the continuance of brotherly love. Brotherly love has suffered much from pride, jealousy, lack of forbearance and forgiveness, not to mention simply misunderstandings. I am not obligated to agree with everything my brother may say or do and may even find it necessary to publicly say so. But I am responsible for maintaining active good will toward him, for seeking his best interest and for keeping my own spirit free of rancor or bitterness. “Let brotherly love continue.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 4 p. 3-4
February 16, 1995

By Harry R. Osborne

Over the past several issues, we have discussed the popular idea in many circles that our world is the result of chance, not of divine creation. Some boldly claim that the only scientific view of the origin of this world is the combination of two theories: (1) the “Big Bang” theory which says the universe is the random result of a huge explosion several billion years ago and (2) the general theory of evolution which claims that all life forms on earth developed by chance from one single-celled organism which came to life from non-living matter.

Despite the attempt by some proponents of the above theories to portray them as established fact, neither theory has been proven. In fact, each has a number of insurmountable problems in it. Last week, we noted an admission from one of the proponents of the general theory of evolution that the whole theory rests on seven major assumptions  none of which has been proven. We could notice the same thing from every major area of study relating to these theories.

Within my library, I have statements from the top geologists and paleontologists of our day admitting that the fossil record does not prove the general theory of evolution. Name an animal in existence today and I will find you a statement from an expert who says its origin is not known. When the experts admit that they cannot state with any confidence the origins of present life forms nor show us the intermediate forms through which one major life form in the past changed to produce another present life form, it is fraud to say the theory is a proven fact.

There are, however, some facts about our world as it exists which strongly suggest that it was created. As we have discussed previously, the presence of design and order implies a designer. This is so with houses, watches, and cars. Why can we not see the same regarding our universe? The evidence of design and order is all around us. Just think about it for a moment.

Our solar system is an example of fantastic order. We can measure the time of the earth’s rotation around the sun with precision and depend upon that as a constant. The same is true regarding the movement of stars, planets, comets and other heavenly bodies. Given that precision, we can predict an eclipse of the sun or moon, the return of a comet, a meteor shower, or any number of other events long in advance with accuracy down to the second. What are the chances of this all falling into place by mere coincidence?

The rotation of the earth around the sum and the earth’s rotation on its axis are exactly right to sustain life. If our planet rotated on its axis a little slower, temperatures in the day would be too hot and too cold during the nights to sustain life. If that rotation were faster, we would have equally grave problems. The speed of the earth’s rotation on its axis is just right to maintain the proper temperature and aid in several factors necessary to sustain life. Then there is the orbit of the earth around the sun to consider. If we were just a little farther from the sun, the earth would be too cold to sustain life. If we were closer, it would be too hot. Besides these things, there is the exacting balance which exists in the gravitational pull and magnetic fields of the earth as a result of these factors. What are the odds of such exact balances being the result of a huge explosion?

Other factors such as the depth of the earth’s crust, the thickness of its atmosphere and the amount of the surface covered by water all exist within the very narrow boundaries necessary to sustain life. The factors needed to sustain the necessary gases within our atmosphere exist in precisely the correct proportions. The more we know about our universe, the more we recognize the marvelous design and order which it demonstrates. Was it all an accident of chance?

Then there is the order and design seen in the animal world. Researchers tell us that a bee is able to communicate the direction and distance of a food source to the other bees by vibrating. Such information is essential for them to sustain existence as an interdependent colony. How did they learn such? How could they have survived to evolve this behavior when such was necessary for their existence? Is it reasonable to assume that such was the result of mere chance?

We are told that eels from America and Europe meet in a common breeding ground in the Atlantic Ocean. When the new eels are hatched, they return to the home of their parents even though the parent does not guide them back. The newly born American eels do not go to Europe, nor do the newborn European eels go to America. How do they know where to go? What design caused this to happen? Does chance explain it? To say that it is instinct does not answer the question. Where did the instinct originate?

We could note the orderly return of salmon from salt water to the fresh water stream from which they were hatched years earlier. We could study the interdependent relationship between various animals that depend upon each other for survival. The same dependence could be seen between various animals and a corresponding plant. Such examples could go on and on. How did they just happen by chance? How did they survive before evolving such relationships?

If that were not enough, we could talk about the order of the human body. We could hear of a muscle which only functions once at birth, but is necessary for us to survive the change from life within the womb to life outside the womb. How did that evolve when it had to be there for any human to survive birth? And what about the human eye? We still cannot match it for vision even using the very latest technology and allowing for many times the space occupied by the eye. As we behold the order of the heart, lungs, brain, eyes, ears, muscles, bone structure, chemical processes or thousands of other systems, we must marvel at the order in each system down to the smallest detail. When we consider that all of those systems exist within each human being, it increases our sense of awe. As researchers delve more deeply into the human body, they are increasingly amazed at its complexity. The project aimed at mapping the human genes has presented a picture of the formerly unimagined order that exists within every cell of our body. Are they all the product of mere chance? What are the odds of that happening?

Reason suggests the conclusion presented in Scripture. Regarding our world, the psalmist said, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork” (Psa. 19:1). Regarding the human body, the psalmist said, “I will praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are your works, and that my soul knows very well” (Psa. 139: 14).

(Editor’s Note: We are delighted to announce the addition of Harry Osborne to the staff of writers for Guardian of Truth. Brother Osborne has been preaching at the Alvin congregation for seven and one-half years. He has previously worked in a two-preacher arrangement with Jim Cope at Thonotosassa, FL; at the University Church in Tampa, FL with Guy Roberson; at the Mound and Starr congregation in Nacogdoches, TX in a two preacher arrangement with Robert Harkrider; Bellair in Houston, TX; Eastside in Baytown, TX; and Raymore, MO. He attended Florida College in 1975-1978 and finished his degree at the University of Houston. He did graduate work in biblical interpretation at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, KS. He married Leslie Allen from St. Louis, MO while attending Florida College and they have been married for 18 years. They have two boys  Chris [11 years old] and Ryan [9 years old]. He has preached in foreign fields in Lithuania, Belarus, and Germany. Many of his gospel meetings have been con-ducted in the western states.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 4 p. 1
February 16, 1995

By Tom M. Roberts

To set the issue of women in business meetings clearly and precisely before us, there first must be a basic understanding about what we mean by our terms. Some might jump to unwarranted conclusions anytime it is suggested that women participate at any level in a “decision-making” process (whether business meeting or not), assuming that any activity of women in such a capacity is radical feminism. On the other hand, others might be as quick to assume that a denial of women in any kind of participation relegates women to second class citizenship in the kingdom and degrades them as compared to men of the church.

In order to avoid this pendulum swing of extremes, we should be very sure that we understand our terms and that they have a firm foundation on the word of God. What we believe and practice must not be either a position based on ancient cultural traditions or a reaction against a more modem, liberalizing culture. Contrary to what some teach, the Lord’s people can establish a scriptural practice outside the constraints of time and tradition, solely upon a “thus saith the Lord,” independent of and separate from any other consideration. The question is, “What does God authorize?”, not “What is cultural at the moment?”, or, “What was cultural in New Testament times?” Women’s Liberation concepts must not be allowed to influence us; male chauvinism has no place in our deliberations. It is inspiration from God alone that guides our thinking.

Subjection: A Place of Service

One misconception that must be destroyed is that subjection equates with value. Many object to the subjection of women to men, suggesting that this diminishes the value of women. Patently, this is not true and the Scriptures teach otherwise. Jesus Christ voluntarily subjected himself to the Father, thereby elevating subjection as a means of service (Phil. 2:5-11). Men are “a little lower than the angels,” Christ himself becoming a man; but in manhood is found a place of service and none should rail against angels simply because we are “lower” than they (Deb. 2:6-11). Likewise, women are to be in subjection to men and find their place of service in that role (1 Cor. 11:3;1 Tim. 2:11; 1 Pet. 3:1). Each in his or her place, though all are in subjection, are servants of the same God and of equal value in his sight. Let us not be lead into areas of contention by non-issues.

Decision-Making Process or Making Decisions?

Another non-issue, when properly understood, is the objection to women being included in the “decision-making process.” Again, we need to be clear in our terms.

The “decision-making process” is the process of gathering information, seeking counsel, weighing options, expressing the needs of the whole church and looking at alternatives. This process, culminating in a condition where adequate information is received that will permit a decision to be made is quite different from the leadership position in which actual decisions are made. It is scriptural to include women in the decision-making process by which their voice, intelligence and soundness is appreciated and weighed. Then the men (if in a business meeting, or the elders, if such exist) retire and make the actual decisions. Women cannot remain in subjection and have an equal voice in making decisions. This is sustained by Paul’s instructions to Timothy: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:12). It would be a usurpation of women over men (especially in those congregations where women outnumber the men) for women to make decisions on an equality with men. Thus, to answer our lead question, it would be without scriptural authority for women to participate in any meeting in which decisions are made on behalf of the congregation. God has appointed male leadership in the church and this is exercised in either the business meeting of the men or the eldership (Acts 20:28-32; 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9; Heb 13:7, 17; 1 Pet. 5:1-3).

We see a parallel in another collectivity: the family. A wise man includes the wisdom and experience of his wife in discussing alternatives that face the family. In any collectivity, after full discussion, some one is charged with making the final decision. In the family, this is the husband (Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Pet. 3:1). In the church, the men (or the elders) make the final decisions.

Service (v. 3); the number of these men would be seven in number (v. 3). While it might be argued that some things decided by the apostles were matters of “the faith” and not judgment, such could not be said for the fact that seven men were to be chosen (not more or less). Here is a private meeting of men that decided on a matter of judgment on behalf of the entire congregation. This instance provides apostolic example for men having a business meeting (unless there is an eldership in place, Acts 14:23) where women are not included and where matters of judgment for the whole church are decided.

Needless to say, such decisions are made in matters of judgment, not in matters of the revealed faith, which are decided in heaven (Jude 3).

“Does Acts 6 Authorize Women in Business Meetings?”

With the above disclaimers firmly in place, we consider the events of Acts 6. In this chapter, we have males (the apostles) leading the church and making decisions in matters of judgment while the “multitude of the disciples” (vv. 2, 5), the congregation, acted as one to carry out what was decided. We infer that “the multitude” included the female members of the Jerusalem church.

But were women excluded from all considerations of the problem? No, quite clearly, they were included. Through a process not specified (thus, permitting generic options), “the multitude” “looked out from among themselves” (v. 3) these seven men whom the apostles appointed to their work (vv. 3, 6). The action “pleased the whole multitude” (v. 5), thus bringing peace and accord to a troubled church (v. 1). Similarly, faithful men in business meetings have met for uncounted years and decided matters for congregations, engendering peace and accord in local congregations on every continent of the globe. Abuses of this scriptural process (unwise men, arrogant overlords, violent arguments, etc.) do not destroy the right of such meetings to exist.

A Modern Example of a Scriptural Precedent

At the Woodmont congregation where I preach (and also serve as an elder, along with brother Ron Houchen), we have one or two congregational meetings each year in which the whole church comes together to discuss all aspects of our work. In this meeting, the women are encouraged to speak, make suggestions, ask questions, give their counsel and provide information. The elders understand that some women do not have husbands or have husbands who are not Christians and need to be informed. At the same time, we value the soundness, wisdom and experience of every member, including the women. After a full and extended discussion of our work, the eldership retires and prayerfully decides on behalf of the congregation the best actions to take, grateful for the counsel of every member. We believe this respects the Scriptures in providing male leadership (in this case, the eldership), provides the women with occasion to serve while remaining in subjection and avoids the pitfalls on either side: radical feminism or male chauvinism.

Did the apostles meet privately and make decisions before and without the whole multitude coming together (the equivalent of a men’s business meeting or elders’ meeting)? Yes, quite clearly this was done. The apostles met first to consider the problem, decided some matters and then called the multitude together to tell them of their decisions. What did the apostles decide independent of the congregation? That the apostles would no longer serve tables (v. 2); that other men (not women) would discharge this Acts 6 is a part of the inspired record that teaches us how to allow the church to function under male leadership while respecting all the principles taught elsewhere in the word of God regarding the role of men and women in the kingdom of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 3 p. 16-17
February 2, 1995