Truth Magazine

By Tom Roberts

With this affirmative, my part of the debate comes to a close and judgment is passed to the readers. Please consider all the material carefully in the light of the Scriptures and render a verdict on the evidence. The full debate, without additional material, is to be printed in book form as per our agreement. No new material should be introduced in the final negative.

My Third Affirmative will establish from Generic Authority that the Scriptures permit elders to make decisions in the realm of unstated options (judgments), arising from specific commands.

Generic Authority: Non-class brethren confuse generic authority for specific when they demand specific authority for Bible classes, disallowing generic authority. They, like Vance, do not understand authority. It is axiomatic that every specific command of God to do a thing carries with it the generic authority to perform that command by choosing unstated options: when, how, how much, etc. Generic authority is no less authoritative, deriving its force from God’s specifics. Specifics are stated; generics are unstated; both are authorized. Examples abound: (1) Noah used gopher wood (specific) but the tools he used were unstated options (Gen. 4:14-22). Tools, essential to obey the command, were authorized as private judgments. (2) “Sing,” is God’s specific choice; unstated options (private judgments) are song books, etc. A song leader decides privately which songs to sing, how many, etc. by generic authority. (3) Deacons “serve tables” (specific function), but are allowed unstated options concerning the care of tables: how much, how often, etc. (4) Elders are specifically commanded to “feed,” “exercise the over-sight,” “superintend,” and “rule,” but generically authorized to make decisions between unstated options: who, how much, how often, etc. Examples: elders have the right to decide when to discipline a member, how much time longsuffering requires, how often gospel meetings should be held, what subjects are needed, how long should the meeting last, etc. Wise elders ask for advice (Prov. 11:14), but they make the final decision. Notice carefully: private decisions by elders in matters of judgment are authorized by both specific, stated authority (affirmatives one and two) and generic, unstated authority. When Vance demands specific authority for each and every unstated option that elders decide (1000’s of details), he demands that which cannot be supplied even for congregational decision-making: specific authority for generic options! Deacons could not decide how many loaves of bread to take to a needy family; song leaders could not choose their songs, parents could not decide how to raise their children, and elders could not make any decisions about tending the flock. Generic authority gives elders, deacons, husbands, wives, parents, etc. these options!

Answers to Vance’s Second Negative: The Problem Grows: Eldership oversight no more promotes Boston/ Crossroads than it does popery, but women’s equal voting (which he has avowed) surely promotes feminism. Vance’s indelicate language re: circumcision (“involuntary genital surgery”) belittles the Law and accuses Paul and the elders of mutilation (Acts 16:3; Gal. 2:3). But note that a private judgment decision was made! The proposition stands.

An Interesting Debate: Vance accuses that I contradict myself or ignore his arguments. He has been answered but it is needless to respond to quibbles. Space prohibits repetition of my arguments. Please refer to previous affirmatives as well as complete citations of scholars (Thayer, etc.) for accuracy.

The Debate is About: I do not use “head” and “overseer” interchanageably, though some reference works do (i.e., Thayer). Smokescreens will not hide efforts to promote democracy and women’s equality instead of eldership over-sight.

Authority: Context: Fathers, magistrates and elders have authority in their sphere (Eph. 5:23; Rom. 13:1f; 1 Pet. 5:1-3). Vance allows fathers and magistrates to make decisions but denies it to elders, thus unequal in his application of authority. Scope: Jesus and Authority: Human authority is limited as far, but no farther, than God intended. Wives cannot reject husband’s authority; citizens cannot reject government’s authority; churches cannot reject elders’ authority (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-3). However tired of it he may be, Vance is branded as denying authority to elders when he gives women equal voting and gives to the congregation the authority that God gives to the elders. It is not congregational oversight (democracy, voting) but eldership oversight! Where is the verse that says to the congregation: “Exercise the oversight” ?

Word Study: Presbuteros, Episkopos, Pastor: These words were studied in my first affirmative adequately. Can “overseers” oversee? Evangelists have “authority,” but not eldership authority. Non-elders (even bachelors) can watch on behalf of souls (Heb. 12:14-15), but not with the qualifications and appointment of elders. Feed: Can pastors decide matters about feeding the flock? If not, they are figureheads and not pastors. Appoint: Different people are appointed to different tasks (deacons, for example), but elders are appointed to do the work of overseeing. Rule (proistemi): When people learn to “maintain” good works, can they choose unstated options about which good works they maintain (Tit. 3:14-15)? “Rule” allows choice!

“Silent as the tomb” on 1 Timothy 2:11-12: “General approbation” is not “voting.” Vance has dodged voting and its implication to oversight and equality. One person, one vote denies 1 Tim. 2:11-12 and destroys subjection. It proves how far in principle his theory will go.

Hegeomai (leaders, chief men): Heb. 13:7, 17: I responded clearly to his use of hgeomai but deny that “men who speak the word” (evangelists) have oversight, as do elders.

Scriptures: (Please compare my second affirmative.) Acts 4:34-37: Verse 35 states, “and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need” (NKJV). The apostles (males) made decisions about the distribution. Acts 6:1-6: The judgment decision that it would be seven (not six or eight) was made by the apostles before and without the congregation. Only one example is needed to prove my proposition. Acts 9:26-28: Paul assayed to join himself to the “disciples” in Jerusalem and the apostles decided to receive him (apostolic example of deciding for the church). The apostles (12 men) decided not only for 5000 but for disciples of all ages (Phil. 4:9). Acts 11:27-30: I did not attribute “expediently” or “inexpediently” to Thayer, but to the word “rightly.” Context decides whether things “done rightly” implies judgment or doctrine. I have cited Acts 11:30 three times where the funds went to the elders (not the congregation) for distribution (judgment decisions). Vance implies they sin if they distribute the funds. Acts 13:1-3: A matter of judgment, not doctrine (when Saul and Barnabas would depart); the Holy Spirit himself used the prophets and teachers (males) as agents for the church in sending them out. Vance ignores that the church acts through agency, contending that the whole church must always be involved 100% of the time. Acts 15:6; 16:4; 21:25; Gal. 2:1-10: Vance has trouble with textual exegesis. There were private meetings in which decisions were made about matters of judgment before and without calling the congregation together. Titus’ circumcision was a matter of judgment (1 Cor. 7:19) having the potential of affecting the whole church (Gal. 2:4) in a matter of “liberty.” Acts 21:15-26: The elders met with Paul in a private meeting about an explosive judgmental matter that was about to consume the church and Vance says that it has no bearing on the proposition. This meeting was before the congregation met (vv. 20, 22), arriving at a decision of private judgment (re: customs, v. 21) to keep the entire church at peace. It describes my proposition.

“Private (not secret)”: Vance’s use of “secret” regarding elders’ meetings implied something sinister or clandestine (other synonyms for secret). They are private in the sense of agency, the part acting for the whole (Acts 11:30). The Ephesian elders’ meeting with Paul was private but not “clandestine” (Acts 20:170. “Vance says they sinned.” If sin is not charged, why this debate? His book states myposition to be “without divine authority,” in violation of “the pattern,” etc. Are you agitating brethren about a personal opinion (Rom. 14:13, 22)?

Answers to Clarified 1A Questions: This is imporant. Vance admitted that elders have a right to meetprivately, hold secret deliberations, and make decisions before and without calling together the whole congregation, including the women, in matters of faith. A deeper study of the passages in Acts and Galatians will convince him that they also made private decisions in matters of judgment. He has yielded most of his objections, with only one left to be resolved: judgment decisions. These affirmatives prove it: NT elders made choice in judgment matters.

Answers to 2A Questions: (1) The apostles chose seven men “without” and “before” the assembly and informed the assembly after their judgment decision. (2) Fellowship can be limited in the universal church (2 In. 9-11). If elders sin (1 Tim. 5:19-20) when they make private judgment decisions for the local church, charges should be made against them. That certainly creates a test of fellowship. (3) and (4). He refused to answer! These questions were asked to show inconsistency between doctrine and practice. Paul did that (Rom. 2:10. Vance is feeling the heat or he would have answered. The consequence of his doctrine demands that he charge elders with sin who practice what he condemns; a divisive doctrine. He has taught others not to participate in that which he practices. (5) If elders must have permission from the congregation every time they make a decision, the congregation is the overseer; they don’t need elders. Your threat about emergencies, 100 orphans and the dry church building makes me wonder if you believe the Lord is cruel because he put the care of orphans upon individuals (Jas. 1:27) and not the congregations. The liberals talked about one “poor little orphan” on the door step of the building and you talk about 100. Faithful Christians wouldn’t have to practice institutionalism to take care of 1 or 100 orphans. How would you handle them?

Questions: (1) Yes. Yes, but with deference to the mature men. (2) Yes, deacons can decide matters of their province (Acts 6:3). (3) No, the eldership should act as a body. (4) The church in Jerusalem had meetings and made decisions under male leadership without the whole church being together (see scripture study, aff. 2). (5) It is not scriptural to vote in the Lord’s church. A survey is not a vote, else “polls” might elect the next president instead of the ballot box. No, it is not settled by a survey.

Conclusion: I commend Brother Trefethen for his willingness to debate this issue and a conscientious effort has been made to answer every argument. But a divisive and dangerous doctrine is disturbing the peace and harmony of the Lord’s people and should be rejected. Godly women do not seek equality with men. Faithful churches submit to the Lord’s plan for eldership oversight. There is little doubt that Vance, because of training and sentiment, will embrace the extremes to which his principle will ultimately lead, but others will do so. He has opened a gate that cannot be closed. May God help us not to reflect the rebellion of our age.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII, No. 22, p. 19-20
November 17, 1994

By Donnie V. Rader

In Luke 7:18-35 and the parallel account, Matthew 11:2-19, we read of the disciples of John coming to Jesus asking him if he was the coming one. Jesus worked miracles in their presence and told them to go tell John what they had seen. When the two disciples left, Jesus spoke to the multitudes about John. He asked them what they were expecting in John. Were they looking for a reed shaken in the wind, a man dressed in a king’s garment or a prophet? The Lord rebukes the multitude for not accepting the teaching of John and shows that this forerunner accomplished what God wanted from him.

Let’s look at some practical lessons that we learn from this text.

God Supplies Evidence For Our Conclusions

When the disciples of John asked Jesus if he was the Coming One or if they should look for another, he did not just say “yes.” Rather, he gave them evidence to draw their own conclusion. At that “very hour” he worked miracles and told the messengers to go tell John what they had seen and heard (vv. 21- 22).

Jesus did this on other occasions. When the Pharisees asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” he gave the reasons for it being unlawful rather than saying “No” (Matt. 19:3-6).

I can think of at least three things that are accomplished when God gives us the evidence instead of just telling us the fact. (1) It encourages study and thought rather than just memorizing a list of dos and don’ts. (2) It test the honesty and faith of man. (3) It helps us see why certain things are true or wrong, etc. as well as the fact.

There are a number of questions or topics about which we may wonder why God didn’t just say “Thou shall not…” or “. . . is a sin.” We may wonder why God didn’t just say “Dancing is a sin,” “Gambling is wrong,” “Thou shall not have instrumental music in worship” or “The Lord’s supper must be observed every first day of the week.” While God did not make these points in these words, he said the same and more. He gave us the evidence to draw the correct conclusions.

Man Can Stumble Over The Truth

As Jesus sent John’s disciples back to him he said, “And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me” (v. 23). The word “offended” means “caused to stumble” (NKJV footnote). Like a rock in a path, the thing one ought to watch for and be aware of is what he falls over.

The statement of Jesus (v. 23) is in the context of Jesus giving evidence that he is the promised one of the Old Testament. He warns that men can stumble over the evidence he gives. Likewise men could and did stumble over John and his work (vv. 24- 35).

The point is that those who rejected John and Jesus not only did not get the message, but it becomes an occasion for their stumbling (cf. 1 Cor. 1:23; I Pet. 2:8).

Men today stumble over the truth in different ways: (1) Through ignorance (Rom. 10:3). It is possible to have a surface knowledge of the basics but fail to dig into and apply the depths of the word. Thus, it is easy to stumble over what we do not know. (2) Because the word doesn’t fit our own ideas. John didn’t seem to fit the concept that the multitudes had of what he ought to be (v. 25). Neither did Jesus fit in the concept of what people thought he should be (cf. John 12:34). In both cases the people stumbled. (3) Through disobedience (1 Pet. 2:8-9).

The Greatness of the Least in the Kingdom

John the Baptist was great (vv. 26-28). He was a prophet. But, more than that, he was a prophesied one (Isa. 40:3). He was the forerunner for Christ. Jesus said, “Among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist” (v. 28).

As great as John was, “he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he,” Jesus said (v. 28). These are in the kingdom. John never was. They have access to greater blessings. They are viewed as important by the Lord.

A Failure To Obey God Is A Rejection of God

Some of John’s hearers accepted his message and responded by being baptized (v. 29). Others rejected John and his message and were not baptized (v. 30). The text says they “rejected the counsel of God … not having been baptized by him” (v. 30).

To reject and refuse to obey the message that John preached was to reject God himself. Jesus told his apostles that a rejection of them was a rejection of him (Lk. 10:16).

Men today reject the counsel of God by not doing what God says. When men are not baptized, do not worship regularly, are not forgiving, do not practice self-control, or are not humble, they reject God himself.

Some Men Can’t Be Pleased

Neither John nor Jesus pleased the Jews. Jesus compared them to children playing in the marketplace who couldn’t please one another (vv. 31-32). Some of the children would play a flute and others would respond by dancing if they wanted to play. Some would mourn and others would respond by weeping. Jesus said these Jews were like the children who would not respond. The flute was played and you did not dance. We mourned and you did not weep. You can’t be pleased!

John did not come eating and drinking and they said he had a demon. Jesus came eating and drinking and they said he was a winebibber and a glutton (vv. 33-34). What did they want? Many of them rejected the testimony of John. So, when Jesus came he worked miracles. But, that wasn’t good enough, they wanted more (Matt. 12:38). Jesus could heal the sick. But, for them, it was on the wrong day (John 5).

Men and women are a lot like that today. We grumble and murmur because we can’t be pleased. If there is a problem in the local church and it is not dealt with, someone will complain that nothing is being done. The same one is apt to gripe when it is dealt with saying that it was handled the wrong way. There are those who look for faults in every move. If one misses services and no one calls, they fuss about how no one cares. If someone does call, they are just being nosey.

Why can’t people be pleased? For the Jews it was prejudice. That sometimes enters the picture today. It is easy to determine that whatever is said or done we are going to find some fault with it.

The Vindication Of God’s Wisdom

The way God worked through John and Jesus did not fit the thinking of the Jews. To their thinking how could a man dressed in camel’s hair be the forerunner for the Messiah? Furthermore, how could one born in a manger be the savior of the world?

Yet, God’s way worked. Even the publicans were baptized with the baptism of John (v. 29). The evidence that God’s way worked is the fruit that is born (v. 35). Thus, “wisdom is justified by all her children” (v. 35). God’s wisdom is vindicated.

We must realize that God’s thinking is different than ours. God’s way are higher than ours (Isa. 55:9-10). Thus, there will be some things in God’s plan that we may not see the wisdom in. Yet, God’s wisdom will be vindicated. We may not see the wisdom in church discipline (1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3), spanking children (Prov. 23:13; 22:15), adulterers separating (Col. 3:5-7; Acts 2:38) or how the simple preaching of the truth can change the worst sinner (1 Tim. 1:15). But, we must recognize that there is wisdom in God’s way. In time, we will see that wisdom vindicated.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 21, p. 18-19
November 3, 1994

By Tim P. Stevens

Since the beginning of time, there has always been conflict among people Evidence of this is found in the early chapters of the first book of the Bible. We can read of conflict in our world’s history, of nations at war with one another. We have learned that our own country was once divided and involved in one of the most hitter and bloodiest conflicts ever  the American Civil War. And even today, the news media keep us informed of the continuation of conflict in; our world, our nation, our states and out cities.

Unfortunately, the conflicts among men carried over into the Lord’s church, his kingdom. During the first century, John wrote “I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church. Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God” (3 Jn. 9-1 1). Conflict in the church continues even today as some brethren “battle it out” for various reasons. Some of t se reasons may be unknown to some, but according to the Scriptures. God is fully aware of what’s going on, especially within his family. “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good” (Prov. 15:3). “And there is no creature hidden from his sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of him to whom we must give ac-count” (Heb. 4:13).

Most people dislike conflict and try to avoid it if possible. That’s good! However, there are times when we have no other choice but to face conflict “head-on,” especially when the doctrine of God is perverted. After all, Christians are taught to be aware and note those who teach falsely, who walk disorderly and “those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine” (Matt. 7:15; 2 Thess. 3:6; Tit. 3:10; Rom. 16:17). But this is not an attempt to address the division that develops over doctrinal differences. There’s another aspect to consider and that is when differing and conflicting personalities among God’s people result in division and bitterness. Many are failing to realize that when this is allowed to happen, there is a total disregard for God’s instructions concerning love and unity among his children. His word tells us, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious oil upon the head, running down on the beard, the beard of Aaron, running down on the edge of his garments. It is like the dew of Hermon, descending upon the mountains of Zion; for there the Lord commanded the blessinglife forevermore” (Psa. 133).

People are going to differ in their views and opinions, and people are going to differ in their personalities and dispositions as well. That will never change as long as man exists on this earth! Unfortunately, much of the division among brethren over the past 25 years is attributed to personality clashes. Some churches have begun in various parts of the country as a result of people not willing to work through their personality differences. What a disturbing message we, as Christians, send out to a lost and dying world when we allow such behavior to divide us! Could it be that those who choose to divide themselves for such a reason are as much a part of a lost and dying world? God’s word reveals, “If someone says, `I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar…” (1 Jn. 4:20). Liars are mentioned with the lost and wicked of this world in Revelation 21:8, “But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

A differing personality, in and of itself, does not make for a “bad” per-son! Webster defines the word “personality,” “The distinctive qualities and traits of an individual.” Our family of five consists of five individuals with five different and unique personalities. We don’t always see “eye-to-eye.” At times, our various personalities conflict with one an-other, but we don’t “quit one another” or go off in a “huff ” never to be seen or heard from again. To keep our family together, we have to work through those differences. The same is true among God’s family here on earth. Though we have varying personalities in the church, that doesn’t make for “bad” people. It does, how-ever, if we elect to divide ourselves without ever attempting to resolve our differences.

It’s startling to see a person go to such great lengths to maintain his relationships with the various personalities of worldly people in the work place, and then makes little or no attempt toward preserving his relationship with a brother or sister in the Lord just because their personalities differ. He knows that if he wants to retain his employment, he must work at his relations with others! This same person may realize that his personality clashes with that of his wife and will seek counseling from someone in the world ($$) to improve his relationship with his wife. Again, he knows he must if he has hopes of keeping his marriage together. This needs to be the same attitude when it comes to God’s family! But few, very few, will display the same attitude. It just goes to show that many are more concerned with placing their earthly relationships “high and above” the most important and wonderful relationship ever made possible  that of being in God’s family, the church. It certainly indicates where one has placed his priorities. Jesus said, “But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33).

Why do differing personalities di-vide brethren? This writer believes that pride in one’s heart is one of the main reasons for the disunion among saints and until that one “swallows his pride,” the separation will continue. Those described in the Bible who had a problem with pride were always brought down (Dan. 5:18-22; Acts 12:20-23). Pride is “arrogance, egotism, haughtiness, disdain, vain-glory, vanity, conceit.” Someone has said, “It is an absorbing sense of one’s own greatness.” From the book of Proverbs, we find that pride leads to contention (13:10), strife (28:25), wrath (21:24), and sinful speech (14:3). When we consider the fruits of pride, we can understand why God considers it an abomination. “Every-one who is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord; though they join forces, none will go unpunished” (Prov. 16:5). Pride is hated by God! A proud look is included in the list of seven things which are an abomination to God (Prov. 6:16,17). Pride is sin! “A haughty look, a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked are sin” (Prov. 21:4). Pride “is not of the Father, but is of the world” (1 Jn. 2:15-17).

There’s no question about it, God’s word tells us that we must live at peace among brethren if we intend to see the Lord and be in heaven some-day. The Bible says, “If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peace-ably with all men” (Rom. 12:18). “Pursue peace with all men, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). This “all men” includes brothers and sisters in the Lord. This “all men” includes you and me!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 21, p. 14-15
November 3, 1994

By Randy Sexton

The cover story of the March 14, 1994, Time magazine which carried the above title, says that “humanity’s ancestors left Africa almost a million years earlier than thought, and that modem people may have evolved in many parts of the world all at once.” Can you blame one for saying, “Here we go again?” The ever changing story of the speculations about the searchings for ancestors of man does it again! And what’s a million years among friends! Can you imagine the hue and cry that would be heard if creationists changed their story every few years like the proponents of evolution do!

The Time magazine article goes on to say, “despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate. Now it appears to be happening once again. Findings announced in the past two weeks are rattling the foundations of anthropology and raising some startling possibilities Humanity’s ancestors may have de-parted Africa  the-cradle of mankind  eons earlier than scientists have assumed. Humans may have evolved not just in a single place but in many places around the world. And our own species, Homo sapiens, may be much older than anyone had suspected. If even portions of these claims prove to be true, they will force a major rewrite of the book of human evolution” (emphasis mine-RS).

But this is not the first time the “evolution story” has had to change. William R. Fix in his book, The Bone Peddlers (p. xi), gives a chronology of the proposed ancestors of man and the accounting of the recanting that was done in each case. Neanderthal man first proposed in 1856 as one of the “missing links” was abandoned as an ancestral species by many anthropologies in the 1960s and 1970s. Typical of the bias of so called “scientists” when it comes to evolutionary concoctions is the following admission found in the book The Neanderthals, which is part of the Time-Life series, The Emergence of Man (1973), p. 7. “To most people, Neanderthal man is anything but human  a grunting, shuffling beast rather than an intelligent being. But recently, a true picture of him has taken place, and a different picture it is from the one commonly held. Within less than a generation of our own lifetime, this ancient man has been lifted from the misconceptions of nearly a century to deserved inclusion with the ranks of humanity.” On pages 24 and 25 of this same book, pictures are found showing how an artist can take the same Neanderthal skull and put the face of an ape or that of a man on the skull. The pictures are titled, “How Different Faces Fit a Single Skull.” This is a frank admission that many reconstructions of skeletons come out the way they do because of the prejudices and assumptions of those who are reconstructing and arranging them (from material on “Fossil Men” compiled by John Clark and presented at Hickman Mills Church of Christ, October 1993).

Homo erectus (Java man, Peking man) first proposed in 1891 as a “missing link” was made highly questionable by the discovery in 1972 by Richard Leakey of the famous skull 1470. Piltdown man first proposed in 1912 was exposed in 1953 as a hoax. Hesperopithecus first proposed in 1922 was found in 1927 to have been an extinct pig. Australopithecus africanus first proposed in 1924 was disqualified by the discovery of skull 1470 in 1972. Australopithecus robust us first proposed in 1938 was disqualified by discovery of Homo habilis in the 1960s. Gigantopithecus first proposed in 1946 was dropped by most anthropologists as too improbable by 1950. Zinjanthropus first proposed in 1959 was displaced by Leakey’s discovery of Homo habilis in the 1960s. Homo habilis first proposed in 1960, ancestral status still remains indeterminate. Ramapithecus first proposed in 1964 was found in 1979 to be the ancestor of Organgutan. Lothagam man first proposed in 1967 was disqualified by new measurement in 1977. Australopithecus afarensis “Lucy” first proposed in 1979 has been beset by man’s problems and mounting controversy since the early 1980s.

Not much seems to have changed in the area of evoluntary speculation since 1989 when the following words were penned. “For years, scenes from the daily life of our ancient ancestors have been rendered with a dab of science and a bucketful of speculation. Based as much on wishful thinking or intellectual fashion as the scanty fossil evidence left by our ancestors. . .” (U.S. News, Feb. 27, 1989). The theories of men can change daily but the Lord “is the same yesterday, today and forever” (Heb. 13:8). One day perhaps man, in all his wisdom, will find the answer God gave a long time ago about how man began. “In the Beginning, God…”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 21, p. 13
November 3, 1994