Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The subject of the unity of the church has moved to the forefront in material being published among brethren. Some are teaching that unity can be attained and maintained by agreeing to disagree on things taught in the Bible. Various arguments have been made to justify fellowship with those who are teaching admittedly false doctrines and practicing things unauthorized by Scripture. Among the different arguments that have been made over the last thirty years to justify the broadened fellowship are the following:

• Imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer
• Continuous cleansing
• Romans 14 allows for fellowship in doctrinal and sinful differences
• Redefining false teacher to mean “a bad apple”

All of these arguments lose sight of the original means of attaining and maintaining unity taught and believed by Christians. Brethren formerly taught that unity could be attained and maintained if brethren would believe and teach only those things authorized by Scripture.

Speak the Same Things

Paul wrote, “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). The divisions in Corinth were to be healed by brethren learning to “speak the same thing” as a result of their having arrived at the “same mind” and “same judgment.” As a means of illustrating how this is to be done, consider some of the problems at Corinth.

1. The problem of the resurrection. Some among the Corinthians were arguing that there is no resurrection of the dead (1 Cor. 15:12). No doubt, they had accepted the Grecian philosophy that viewed the body as inherently evil. What the Grecian long for was the soul’s liberation from the body, not the bodily resurrection. Paul replied to this false doctrine. His solution for the division over the resurrection at Corinth was not the same as some brethren  contend that we should apply today. Today, some might say that “we can no more expect to think alike than to look alike.” Rather than calling such men false teachers who should not be tolerated (1 Cor. 15:32-33), some might say, “Just because one is teaching that there is no resurrection does not make him a false teacher. A false teacher is a ‘bad apple.’” Rather, than taking this approach, Paul argued for the resurrection of the dead and told the church not to have fellowship with those who teach that there is no resurrection of the dead. He warned, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33). 

When brethren will confine themselves to teaching what the Bible reveals about the resurrection, unity can be attained and maintained. The simple solution for unity on the subject of the resurrection at Corinth was for all to “speak the same thing” as a result of being of the “same mind” and the “same judgment.”

2. The problem of fornication. Some in Corinth argued that fornication was morally neutral. Echoes of their argument are seen in this passage: “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them” (1 Cor. 6:12-13). Their argument is that fornication is morally neutral. Just as one who is hungry eats meat to satisfy his hunger, one who is lusting for sexual gratification should fulfill that lust in fornication. How should this disagreement about fornication be resolved? Paul does not use the modern contemporary method of solving this problem, by calling for a unity-in-diversity. Rather, he counters the false doctrine by showing that fornication is a sin against God and against the body (1 Cor. 6:13-20). He even said that fornicators cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Thus, Paul argues for unity by calling on fornicators and false teachers to repent.

When brethren will confine themselves to teaching what the Bible reveals about fornication, unity can be attained and maintained. The simple solution for unity on the subjects of the resurrection and fornication at Corinth was for all to “speak the same thing” as a result of being of the “same mind” and the “same judgment.”

The unity of the church depends upon men speaking the same thing. Brethren will not and cannot be united in the faith of the Lord Jesus so long as they are teaching different doctrines. “Can two walk together except, they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). 

The Source of Church Troubles: False Doctrine and Personal Judgments

The Scriptures teach that brethren teaching unrevealed doctrines will trouble churches. Paul wrote about the Judaizers causing trouble in the Galatian churches; he said, “Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ” (1:7). Regarding these troubles, Paul wished they were disfellowshiped saying, “I would they were even cut off which trouble you” (Gal. 5:12).

There were those in Thessalonica who rejected Jesus as the Lord’s Messiah and persecuted Christians (Acts 17:1-10). Paul announced that the Lord would “recompense tribulation to them that trouble you” (2 Thess. 1:6).

Those who teach unrevealed doctrines cause division. Paul wrote, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom. 16:17-18).

When someone teaches that which is unrevealed, he should not be surprised that those who believe what is revealed will answer him. The subsequent result is division — division caused by teaching that which is unrevealed.

Not only does Paul forbid the teaching of what is unrevealed, he exhorts that brethren who have strong convictions about matters that are indifferent (things that neither commend us to God, nor separate us from him), should hold their personal opinions to themselves. (That there are indifferent matters is confirmed by 1 Corinthians 8:8 — “But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.” This is the category of things we mean by “indifferent.”) In those matters, Paul commanded that brethren keep their personal opinions to themselves saying, “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth” (Rom. 14:22). Preaching one’s opinions creates division. Therefore, Paul told the brethren at Rome to keep their personal opinions to themselves.

Recognizing that preaching unrevealed doctrines and personal opinions creates confusion and division, one can see that unity is attained and maintained by agreeing to confine one’s teaching to the doctrine of Christ. We can have unity by agreeing to teach and preach only those things that are revealed in Scripture.

The Restoration Plea

The restoration plea for unity may be unclear in the minds of some of our readers, inasmuch as we hear it preached so seldom today.

N.B. Hardeman expressed it clearly in his Tabernacle Sermons:

I would God to-night that all professed followers in the city of Nashville, Tennessee, and elsewhere, would be content to have but the Bible as their creed, their discipline, their church manual, their church directory, their rule of faith and practice throughout life. There would be oneness on the part of all the splendid people of this great country. . . . I pledge my word and promise myself to-night, if the man will thus show me that God’s book does not plainly demand it, I will gladly surrender and give that up that the cause of division may cease. . . . When I announce that platform, it is not narrow, it is not limited, it is not human; but it is big enough, broad enough, wide enough, and comprehensive enough for every son and daughter of God on earth to occupy and none feel that in so doing they have had to sacrifice a single principle of faith.     . . .Take your stand on God’s book and eliminate all things that are not plainly taught therein; and when you so do, I will gladly come to you and take my stand with you, if there be any preference as to which way the coming is done (Tabernacle Sermons II:185, 186, 187).

The strength of the restoration plea is its basis for unity — unity through the restoration of the ancient order. Think how this plea would heal divisions among us! If brethren would cease preaching their unrevealed doctrines on divorce and remarriage and confine themselves to the Scriptures, unity could be attained. If brethren would cease preaching their doctrines on church support of human institutions (orphan homes, old folks homes, colleges, missionary societies, etc.), unity could be attained. If brethren would quit defending and practicing the sponsoring church arrangement, unity could be attained.

Conclusion

Let’s not forget what makes us one. We are drawn together as “one in Christ” through the preaching of the gospel. Men from every background without any commonalities are united through the one faith in Christ. 
6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com

By Rufus R. Clifford III

The story is told of young lady who married and in her zeal to please her new husband wanted to prepare a wonderful feast for him to eat. While preparing the ham her husband noticed she cut off the end and threw it in the garbage can. Disturbed by his new wife’s apparent wastefulness he insisted on knowing why she had done such a thing. His wife didn’t know, so she called her mother who in turn called her mother, who then gave the answer. It turns out the great, great grandmother of this girl had a pan that was too short, so every time she prepared a ham she had to cut off the end! This tradition had prevailed for many years. We all can see the foolishness of this.

Today it is not uncommon to hear brethren, who have been Christians for many years, make the claim in business meetings and in classes “Oh, it’s just our tradition”! This bothers me and it ought to bother you as well. Why does it bother me?

1. It Bothers Me Because: When this statement is made it is implying that the only reason we do the things we do in our worship to Almighty God is because our parents and their parents before them did these things. What message are we sending out to those who hear us make this cry? Someone visiting our service that day (a non-Christian) might hear that statement and think “Well my parents are just as smart as these folks’ parents.” So what if we worship differently than them? After all, “It’s only tradition”!

2. It Bothers Me Because: When that statement is made it is implying that the way we are doing things now needs to change! You see if we are just following our parents and their parents’ example in our worship to God then there would be no harm in changing things to better suit the times we are living in! Let’s add some things next Sunday to our worship service say like a band and liven up things a little! After all, “It’s only tradition”!

3. It Bothers Me Because: When that statement is made it is implying that the Lord’s church is no longer sufficient to accomplish the work for which God gave the church to do! If this be the case then there would be nothing wrong with the social gospel! There would be nothing wrong with other organizations receiving money from churches to do their work! After all, “It’s only tradition”! I ask the question now “What’s wrong with tradition”? The answer lies in understanding the word itself.

Tradition: (paradosis) Thayer & Smith: “a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc. . . . a. objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching.  b. of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations . . . which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence.” 

Tradition, we see, is simply the passing down or handing down of a teaching from someone to someone else. The truth of the matter is tradition can be good and tradition can be bad! “Can one be handed down a wrong tradition”? Yes, the ham example is living proof of that as well as the countless denominations scattered throughout the country. Many people are what they are religiously simply because their parents were and their parents before them were! So we see that tradition can be good and bad! Just listen to what the Scriptures declare: The word “tradition” is used eleven times in the King James version.

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread (Matt. 15:2).

But He answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (Matt 15:3).

And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition (Matt. 15:6).

For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders (Mark 7:3).

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? (Mark 7:5).

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups; and many other such like things ye do (Mark 7:8).

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition (Mark 7:9).

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition which ye have delivered; and many such things do ye (Mark 7:13).

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ (Col. 2:8).

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us (2 Thess. 3:6).

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers (1 Pet. 1:18).

The word tradition is used twice in the plural:

And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers (Gal. 1:14).

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle (2 Thess. 2:15).

The apostle Paul answers our question for us in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 when he told the brethren to stand fast and hold the traditions that they had been taught! Traditions are good when they come from sound doctrine. Sound doctrine is Christ’s doctrine! Christ is the source of all authority. He is God’s spokesman today (Heb. 1:1). He has all authority (Matt. 28:18) and his message is from God (John 17:7-8). We are under law to Christ today, not Moses or the prophets (1Cor. 9:21). Christ gave authority to the Apostles who were guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; Gal. 1:12; 2 Pet.1:20-21) when they gave the world the Bible! We have therefore today the inspired will of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17)! In 2 John 9 we are told through the Holy Spirit through John that if we want to have both the Father and the Son we must “abide” (continue) in the doctrine of Christ!

This means if you are following a tradition (paradosis) “a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e., tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.      . . . which is not the doctrine of Christ, in other words that which has been handed down to you is not the pure doctrine, truth, or gospel of Jesus Christ, then your worship and practice to Almighty God is going to be in vain. Jesus stated this fact very clearly in Matthew 15:9: “But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” The apostle Paul in his letter to the churches of Galatia told them: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:6-7). 

I ask the question: What’s wrong with tradition? 

Nothing if that tradition handed down to you is indeed the doctrine of Jesus Christ! One doesn’t need a college degree or any special ability to learn this because the Bible was written so all could understand it (Eph. 3:4). If therefore, you have a hunger and thirst for righteousness and a sincere love for God’s word and a burning desire to study and mediate and grow in the grace of God and to speak only the oracles of God, then simply follow Paul’s advice in 2 Timothy 2:15 and “study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”! When you have done this and you find no fault in the traditions that have been handed down to you by faithful parents and grandparents and brethren who have long since departed to be with Jesus, then count your blessings and “stand fast, and hold the traditions, which ye have been taught whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15).

107 CR 458, Killen, Alabama 35645, Carey4102@aol.com

By Dick Blackford

I am neither a scientist nor the son of a scientist. My only claim is to be a Bible student. On rare and unexpected occasions I receive a small surge of common sense. I am praying it will kick in as I write. As a common man, I write for common men. What is said here will not shake the earth. It will probably be the only article I shall submit on the subject as it contains all I know about it.

The “Big Bang” Theory

Marilyn vos Savant holds the Guin- ness record for having the highest IQ. She writes a column, “Ask Marilyn,” for Parade Magazine. In a recent article she spoke these words concerning the “Big Bang” Theory: “The theory holds that, billions of years ago, everything in the universe was contained in an area smaller than the head of a pin (!) and that this minuscule speck of unbelievably dense and incredibly hot matter suddenly exploded violently. That sounds just plain nuts, right?

“But do you believe it? If so, how do you support your belief that the entire cosmos was once smaller than a polka dot? (With a strong line of reasoning? Some solid evidence? Anything at all?). If you cannot, welcome to the world of faith: You’re accepting what you’ve been told by those you respect. And that’s what creationists do. They just respect different folks.” Yes, like God and Moses.

For a thing to be scientific, it must be repeatable, observable, and testable. The “Big Bang” is not repeatable. If it was, we could all see it and there would be no debate. The “Big Bang” is not observable, since it was a one-time event supposedly billions of years before man. It is not testable, for there is no way of knowing that any testing device is accurate in measuring billions of years. That any such testing device should be questioned is indirectly admitted in that Big Bang advocates cannot tell us exactly how many billions, including fractions of a billion (such as twenty-three billion, four hundred thirty-seven million, seven hundred forty-one thousand, nine hundred and twenty-two and a half years). If they can measure billions of years, surely they can measure smaller amounts of time. But there is a big difference between what scientists believe and what scientists know, just as there is a big difference between what theologians believe and what theologians know. How can they be sure it is billions instead of trillions? This shows they have great faith in something they don’t know for sure because it is unprovable. 

Let us consider the nature of an explosion. Defenders of a Creator have often argued rightly that a wristwatch does not happen as the result of an explosion. Nor does a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica result from an explosion in a print shop. Neither does a new Cadillac result from an explosion in a junkyard. The reason we so argue is because it is not the nature of an explosion to result in a higher degree of order. Destruction and disarray are always in the aftermath of explosions. Remember when the space shuttle, Challenger, exploded? What higher degree of order came out of that? We are still mourning the dead and the millions of dollars down the drain. What about the bomb dropped on Hiroshima? The destruction was so terrible we have resolved not to do that again. People are still suffering. What about the World Trade Center bombing? The Oklahoma City bombing? When I was in London in 1996, we were shown where London was bombed in WWII. Evidence of destruction is still there. I submit that no one can name an explosion that did not destroy something in the physical realm. I further submit that Big Bang theorists have it backward. The Bible teaches that is the way it is going to end. “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (2 Pet. 3:10). There’s your Big Bang. But it comes at the end, not the beginning. And did you notice the results of that explosion? Destruction. The same that happens in all explosions. Explosions do not result in a higher degree of order such as a wristwatch, a set of encyclopedias, a new car, or life, or a well-ordered universe.

Days Of Creation

“And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Gen. 1:5). If this is not an inspired definition of what a literal day is, then we are at a loss to define it. It consisted of darkness, called “Night” and “evening”; and light, called “Day” and “morning.” That’s still what we call it today. This definition is very specific. There are some figurative or generic uses of the word “day” in the Bible and even in Genesis (Ezek. 7:7; 2 Cor. 6:2; Gen. 2:4), but we do not have a period described as “evening and morning,” “darkness and light,” and “night and day” used to describe anything but a literal day. In understanding any language we always approach it from the literal meaning first, before consider a figurative meaning. A basic rule of interpretation is that a passage is to be taken in its plain and obvious meaning unless something in the context forbids it. What forbids taking Genesis 1 literally? Is there any passage in the Bible that speaks of days, numerically, that is not talking about literal days?

It has been suggested that we are on “God’s time” in Genesis 1, thus these are not literal days, as we normally understand them. On the contrary, Genesis is a revelation from God to man and is written for man to read and understand. God accommodates man and speaks of numerical days in sequence. 

There would be no motive to clothe his language in a highly figurative manner as in the book of Revelation. 

Time means nothing to God. He is not limited by it (2 Pet. 3:8). It is almost an oxymoron to speak of God and time together. He does not give the days numerical names for his benefit, but for man’s understanding. Why would God speak in numerical terms that suggest a sequence of events if he intended to be nebulous and indefinite? Are there “gaps” of  approximately one billion years between each of the days? To affirm there were is to speak where the Bible is silent. Notice, it does not say, “And the evening and the morning and the eon were the fourth day,” etc. What was God doing during these billion year periods between the days of creation? Was he allowing time for the things to evolve that he had begun on the previous day or was he resting? It seems to be it would have to be one or the other. We learn what he was doing in the same verses that mention those gaps.

Genesis is not an attempt to explain things naturalistically because it is above nature — supernatural. If a supernatural event occurred then science will never be able to explain it, test it, or measure it. The supernatural is far beyond the realm of science. Science explains things on a naturalistic basis. Thus, science cannot explain the virgin birth, restoring human limbs to the maimed, how Naaman was healed of leprosy, prophecy, speaking a foreign language one has never learned, calming a storm, casting out demons, or raising the dead. These are totally out of the realm of the science of nature.

Were Miracles Instantaneous?
The word “instantaneous” is not used in connection with any miracle. Neither is “eon.” It is significant that miracles were completed within brief periods of time and not dragged out for long periods to the point that one could not tell that a miracle had occurred. The complete healing of the blind man in Mark 8:22-26 occurred in two stages, but within a short time on the same day. For reasons known only to God, this may have been two separate miracles. I don’t think anyone would want to take the position that this was a partial miracle in which Christ failed on his first attempt. Regardless, the significant thing is that it occurred within a brief period of time on the same day. Does anyone know of a Bible miracle that, according to the text, took a long period of time to effect? 

It may be said that God caused it to rain 40 days and nights (were these literal?) when the earth was flooded. We could debate whether God was using the natural in an unnatural way or whether this was totally a supernatural event. Granting it was a miracle, how does 40 days and nights compare with 4.5 to 6 billion years? One is brief. The other is beyond comprehension. 

Was each day of creation a partial miracle, culminating in one complete miracle when it was all over? For example, on the fifth day, God did not partially create a whale to be completed at a later time, but the job was completed on the same day. 
Could God have done everything in one day instead of six? Yes, but remember that God was also setting a pattern for man’s work week (Exod. 20:9-11). This would destroy the pattern that Moses gave. It still would not mean that the creation of sea and air animals were only partial or incomplete miracles. At the end of each day, “God saw that it was good.” He miraculously created on each day what he intended to create on that day. Everything said on the subject shows it was immediate at his command (Ps. 33:7-9; Heb. 11:3).

Naturalistic Explanations

To bridge the gap between special creation and macro evolution we may be tempted to accommodate a naturalistic unfolding of events. It is easy to fall into the “billions of years” to explain what happened. In dealing with those who accept macro evolution, we point out that evolution means the development of something existing, into something else. Therefore, evolution cannot really explain the origin of anything. A theory of how things developed does not explain how they got here in the first place. Evolutionists attempt to solve this problem by having recourse to vast periods of time. When asked how the universe and man came to be, they reply that there was a gradual development, which took vast ages. But the mere lapse of time does not explain anything. The lapse of time is not, itself, a cause of any effect. What is needed is not ages of time, but an adequate cause. As someone aptly remarked, “All eternity is not sufficient to complete that which has not yet been begun.”

There is nothing in the Bible that compels us to believe the days of creation were vast periods of time (billions of years) or that there were gaps comprised of trillions of days between the days named. The only days we know of are the ones stated. If Genesis 1 is explaining things on the basis of “God’s time” and if 2 Peter 3:8 is to be a literal description of time to God (a day for a thousand years), then we still would end up with a 6000 year creation week, not billions of years. And those days would have an evening (night, darkness) and a morning (light, day) that lasted several hundred years (Gen. 1:5). This would still not be enough time for day-age theories. Otherwise, we must hold to the view that 2 Peter 3:8 means that time means nothing to God. He is not governed or limited by it. And if he is not governed by it, it becomes absurd to say Genesis 1 is explaining things on “God’s time.” We dare not grant to the evolutionist the very foundation for his theory by reinterpreting the days of creation in Genesis 1.

Why accommodate a theory that some well-known scientists have said is faulty? “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches. The rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossil record” (Stephen J. Gould, Natural History, Vol. 86, 13). “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study” (Stephen J. Gould, Natural History, May 1977, 14). Concerning the “Big Bang Theory,” Sir Fred Hoyle said, “As a result of all this, the main efforts of investigators have been in the papering over of holes in the big bang theory to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome . . . I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers” (Science Digest, May 1984, 54).

While these quotes have been around a few years, have we been overwhelmed with new discoveries that have totally reversed what these men said? Most fossil discoveries have ended up being placed in evolutionary branches that do not lead to the dawn of man.

Consequences

1. We become guilty of mishandling Genesis 1 the way some mishandle the book of Revelation. Switching back and forth between literal/figurative and figurative/literal to accommodate the day-age theory is not unlike what premillennialists do with Revelation. The days are figurative but the sequence is literal?! This switch has to be made in each verse.

2. Exodus 20:8-11 becomes nebulous. Whatever God did is what man is to do. Just as God did his work in six days and rested on the seventh, man is to do likewise. If God took an indefinite period of time, numbering in billions of years, then the whole analogy or parallel is destroyed and scripture becomes meaningless. 

If the numerical days in Genesis 1 are not to be taken literally, then how did the Jews know to take them literally? And how can we know Jesus was raised on the literal “first day of the week”? What rule of interpretation allows this? It is confusion (1 Cor. 14:33).

3. We provide a non-compelling compromise to evolutionists that is totally unnecessary. It grants the very thing needed for their theory to work, and there is no compelling reason to do so.

4. We minimize the power of the word of God. We limit his power when we suggest he needed more time than six literal days. When doubters and antagonists ridicule the validity of baptism to do what the Bible says it will do, we point out that their problem is not with what the Bible says about baptism but in underestimating the power of God’s word to do what he says it will do. When God healed Naaman at the Jordan, the power was not in the water, but in the word! (2 Kings 5). When God healed the blind man at the pool of Siloam, the power was not in the water, but in the word! (John 9). When God says baptism washes away sins, the power is not in the water, but in the word! (Acts 22:16). This is the word of the same Being who said, “Lazarus, come forth,” and he came forth. This is the word of the same Being who said, “Peace, be still,” and the storm was calmed. This is the word of the same Being who said, “Let there be light,” and there was. The power was in the word of an Almighty God.

5. We make it impossible for God to communicate what he means. If God had intended to tell us the days were literal, how would he have said it other than the way he said it (darkness-light, night-day, evening-morning)?

6. We confuse miracles (divine demonstrations of power which supercede natural occurrences) with what occurs in the realm of nature. One would have great difficulty demonstrating to a faith healer how a genuine miracle differs from his healings that may gradually occur over a period of time through natural means. (We do not question that some people are healed at these services through the power of suggestion and positive mental attitudes and may gradually begin to feel better, but they are not miracles in the biblical sense.)

Conclusion

There are no natural or supernatural limits to God’s power. As the angel said to Abraham when Sarah laughed at the idea of giving birth in her old age, “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” (Gen. 18:14). Could God have done it in a literal six days? If so, then where is the problem? The voice of Jesus echoes the same sublime truth. “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God” (Luke 18:27). And, “With God all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26). God is unlimited in power. He is omnipotent. 

My goal has been to speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where it is silent. The reader will have to judge if I succeeded. And that’s all I know. 

P.O. Box 3032, State University, Arkansas, RLB612@aol.com

By Connie W. Adams

After living for 27 years in the same house at Brooks, Kentucky, we moved to 9601 River Birch Drive, Louisville, Kentucky 40291. Our mailing address is given at the bottom of the article. No mail will be received at the residence. As of now, we ask all correspondents to take note of this change.

Since we have not moved for so many years, I had forgotten how much fun it is! We have been going through the turmoil of selling a house, watching the new place as it nears completion, yard sales to dispose of unneeded things, furniture sales to downsize, red tape, estimates for various things and you name it. All of this has been in motion while trying to maintain our meeting schedule and have enough sense left to actually say something that is intelligible. Some things have had to wait, including some of my good intentions about writing articles for this paper.

Such a move evokes mixed emotions. We are nostalgic about leaving this place which has been home for so long. Precious memories surround this house and yard. We saw it rise from the ground. We have enjoyed its warmth and comfort and safety. Here children and grandchildren have played, laughter has echoed and anguished hearts have shared sorrow. From this house Searching the Scriptures was published for 20 years. I have worked at my desk (where I now sit composing this notice) from the window of which I have watched the changing of many seasons.

The Lord has been gracious to us. We have been privileged to work among the best people on earth and have been sufficiently supported to carry out the task. But time takes its toll. We have maintained a heavy meeting schedule for the last 25 years, devoting our time almost entirely to that. We have worked around deadlines. Yard work has been done. For a few years now we have hired a young man to do this work, but it gets harder to keep someone who will do it right and whom we can afford to pay. A two-story house with full basement has become more of a chore for Bobby to maintain than is reasonable. So, the answer seemed clear to us. If we are to continue in the work we love and honor the commitments we have made, something had to change. So, we have decided to move to a community of patio homes where a modest monthly fee will cover yard work, including grass mowing, snow removal and all exterior maintenance on the property, plus trash pickup. We will have three bedrooms, one of which I will be using as a study. It is under the same roof as another house, but the two are separated by two double car garages which provides a nice buffer. We will have everything on one floor. It will be easier for us to lock it up and go to wherever we need to go for our work without having to be concerned about things which burden us now. I would not say we are preparing to grow old but we are trying to equip ourselves  to maintain our own independence longer. This concept seems to appeal to our children, though the grandchildren are not very happy about this decision.

We moved 14 miles from Brooks. We are the same distance from Manslick Road that we were at Brooks. We are two miles south of Gene Snyder Freeway off of Old Bardstown Road.

From this location we plan to stay busy as long as we are able in sowing the seed of the kingdom and watering what others have already planted. Come to see us, if you can catch us home.

P.O. Box 91346, Fern Creek, Kentucky 40291