Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

As Paul said in his day, “the mystery of lawlessness doth already work” (2 ‘Mess. 2:7), so it is in our day. There are misguided souls who, though they may have the best of intentions, would alter the nature, spirit, power and character of the gospel. Their ideas, if followed, will lead to wholesale changes in the church and doctrine of Christ. There will be a revision of teachings on everything from morals and modesty to music and marriage. Some who are involved do not see the far reaching tentacles of their present posture and position. They are blind and oblivious to the consequences of their convictions and criticisms. For them, we feel the deepest sympathy. Against them, we shall wage a relentless, withering warfare. All “the weapons of our warfare,” every gun in the arsenal of the gospel shall be trained on them (2 Cor. 10:3-5; 1 Tim. 6:12). Our purpose, like that of the Son of God himself, is to maim and to kill, to cast down and destroy, to help and heal (Rev. 2:23). “See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build and to plant” (Jer. 1:10). “Cry aloud, and spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins” (Isa. 58:1).

Let no one mistake or misunderstand our mission. “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear?” (I Pet. 4:17, 18) “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins” (Jas. 5:19, 20).

The “Germ” Of Truth

There is often an element, a”germ” of truth, in what critics charge against the church.

See Chart.

Whats Wrong with the Church of Christ?

“Germ” of Truth in Complaints, but men pervert, distort truth because they love error and hate truth (John 3:19-21)

19. And this is the condemnation, that light if come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21. But he that doest truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Examples: Luke 23:2; Acts 6:11-14; 17:7

Was it true that Jesus was a king and that he had a kingdom (John. 18:36, 37)? Was it true that Jesus was a rival of Rome, a usurper of the Emperor? Jesus’ enemies said, “We found this fellow … saying that he himself is Christ a King” (Lk. 23:2). They twisted the truth. Correctly, they said that he was “Christ a King.” Corruptly, they inferred that he was royal, regal, rival of Rome (Acts 17:7).

Why did they do this? What was their purpose? Ultimately, there is no way to “white wash” it. Men resort to such maneuvers when they love darkness rather than light. At least, that was Christ’s conclusion (Jn. 3:19-21). Men pervert and distort truth because they love error and darkness, and hate truth and light!

In coming articles in this series, we shall note some per-versions and distortions that critics make. We shall deal with them in detail. Here, though, we simply want to get to the heart of their complaints and criticisms. They say things like, “There’s not enough love shown”; “Our preaching needs to stress the love and grace of God”; “We should receive homosexuals and let them know there is hope”; “We should not exclude a person as a prospect for gospel obedience just be-cause they have been `messed up’ in a bad divorce situation”; “Hurting people need the healing power of the cross, not a `bloody nose’ produced by an argumentative sermon on the necessity of baptism’ ; “People do not care how much we know until they know how much we care”; “We need to manifest a loving, positive spirit, not a combative, negative attitude if we are going to convert our friends.”

In essence, who can disagree with the “germ” of most of the statements above? Can we ever show too much real, true, godly love? Who would say that we could? Does our preaching need to stress the love and grace of God? Absolutely! Are homosexuals and divorced people to be refused “repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18)? Certainly not! Should we lovingly care for people and seek to soothe their sorrows with the balm and blessings of the Beloved? Of course! Will warmth, kindness and friendliness help us to reach more people? Yes, a thousand times, yes!

The Hidden Agenda, the Distortion

The “good words and fair speeches” above often are used to mask a hidden agenda. When they say they want more love shown, what do they mean? They want less preaching against immodest dress and social drinking, but they do not tell you that. No, they give you the “germ” of truth; they present that which you cannot deny, i.e., we need more love shown. What do they mean when some say that preaching needs to emphasize God’s grace? They mean they want less preaching against their lifestyle, their sins. They feel the pinch of preaching that condemns their manner of life, but they dare not admit that. Instead, they say we need to hear more about grace, and who can disagree with that?

When they say that homosexuals and unscripturally married people should be included, they do not tell you what they really mean. They have a relative or a friend who is caught up in a “bad marriage,” and they want brethren to accept him. When one opposes false doctrine of divorce and remarriage, they will not oppose the truth that is taught. They are too subtle and clever for that. No, they will accuse you of “attacking” others, and they will ask if you do not agree that we should try to include those who are “struggling with demons in their lives.” They love darkness rather than light. That is the “bottom line,” but they cannot tell you that.

When they profess that a “positive” attitude is needed, what are they really saying? Some mean by this that they are “uncomfortable” with sound doctrine. They are “embarrassed” by sermons that teach the truth on music in worship and water baptism. They are “questioning our traditions” and “rethinking” their views on some of the “pat answers” that “the Church of Christ s been known for through the years.” However, they likely will not admit that to you! No rather, they will ask you if you think that we should be gentle in our “approach to people who are hurting in this old, sinful world?” Well, of course you do!

Now, what? Next, you will be enlisted in their core, their coterie, their group. Unwittingly, you will help them to carry the ball of rebellion against the elders and/or the preacher. You will not want what they want, but you can serve their purposes as you join them in calling for a “kinder, gentler” gospel of love and acceptance. You do not mean for the truth to be “gutted” and watered down, but they do! You innocently want what every true disciple wants. You want to reach the most lost souls in the most effective way possible. The men who love darkness are using the “germ” of truth to infect you with their virus of error. The germ of truth is the worm of error.

So, they will use you. Your soundness in the faith makes you an ideal pawn. Everyone knows that you stand for the truth. You will be courted and wooed by their sincere spirits and winsome ways. They will give you every assurance of their love for truth. They will insist that they “stand where you stand,” and that they are “only interested in not driving people away with a needlessly negative, hateful attitude that some of our preachers sometimes manifest.”

My friend, when you hear such things, an alarm bell should go off in your heart! “Take heed what ye hear” (Mk. 4:24). “And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch” (Mk. 13:37).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 22, p. 9-11
November 18, 1993

By Ken Cooper

Bible class teachers perform a great and far reaching service. Their praises frequently are left unsung. They are engaged in noble and glorious work of teaching the Bible. I really appreciate those who serve as teachers in our Bible class pro-gram. Especially those who teach my children. I realize the great impact that you have on all our children’s lives. I want to thank you for all your efforts and continue to encourage you in this good work. When I send my child into your class, I expect certain things.

First, I expect you to maintain discipline and order in the class-room. I know how difficult that can be at times, but I also know that it is vital to the child’s attitude to-ward Bible class and Bible study. I expect you do whatever is necessary to see that my child conducts himself in a respectable, orderly way. If you cannot accomplish this on your own, or are having problems, please come to me and I will do everything I can to help.

Second, I expect you to be a good example of a Christian before my children both in the classroom and out of it. They are observant. They see how you live and they sense your attitude, not just in the classroom but everywhere and anywhere your paths cross through the week. I want them “While there are times when teachers may feel as though they are taken for granted, be assured your commitment and dedication to the Lord and your self-sacrificing does not go unnoticed.” to have the greatest respect for you and to desire to be a Bible teacher like you when they grow older.

Third, I expect you to teach them from the Word of God. I expect them to develop certain concepts and attitudes toward God and his word. I want them to develop a deep respect for the word of God. I want them to know that it is the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth and that it is relevant to their lives.

Fourth, I expect you to teach them plainly and honestly about so-called difficult subjects. I want them to love the Lord and his church. I want them to learn what the Bible teaches about moral is-sues; that sin is sin and must be avoided. I want them to learn about God’s plan for the home including his teaching on divorce and remarriage. I want them to learn to love the Word of God and strive to obey it.

Again, I really do appreciate you and all your efforts to aid me as a father in teaching and disciplining my children. Many of us have never expressed gratitude to those who teach the Bible classes of which we or our children are a part. I know I have not expressed my appreciation to the teachers often enough. I also know that your motive for teaching is not for the compliments you receive, for they are few. While there are times when teachers may feel as though they are taken for granted, be assured your commitment and dedication to the Lord and your self-sacrificing spirit does not go unnoticed.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 22, p. 1
November 18, 1993

By Ken McLemore

Every false teaching eventually argues against itself. On the question of life on Earth, evolutionary theory argues against itself by failing to answer the question of the “first cause” (Rom. 1:20-21). The same kind of assumption under-lies the argument for the premise of the popular book and film “Jurassic Park.”

While the book and movie might be considered a good monster yarn, that is all they can be because there are too many questions that bedevil the premise about cloning dinosaurs in both. Cloning is considered to be the genetic equivalent of “xerography,” but it is not the creation of life; it is, at best, the successful use of existing genetic structures from one cell to produce a duplicate of that cell in an independent environment. No-one can create the genetic material within a cell; hence, the primary need in cloning theory is to obtain a complete cell nucleus from the subject to be cloned.

That is where the scientific premise of “Jurassic Park” begins, and where it begins to argue against itself as well. In order to clone a dinosaur, the scientists in the story need dinosaur DNA, the genetic material in the nucleus of a cell which encodes the biological blueprint of the dinosaur. They extract blood from a mosquito which had been trapped in amber so many millions of years ago, and now they have dinosaur DNA . . . but how do they know they have dinosaur blood? Granted that they have blood, but how do they know its dinosaur blood since they have nothing with which to compare it? They assume what they cannot prove.

The assumptions upon which the rest of the story is based grow directly out of the first one. Consequently, because scientists assume that dinosaurs were similar to birds and, therefore, had nucleated red blood cells like birds, they know that the blood contains DNA and they can clone a dinosaur. But, no-one has yet proven that they have dinosaur blood. And, that raises the problem of the source, blood drawn from a prehistoric mosquito that supposedly bit a dinosaur and later became encased in amber. Now, consider the probabilities of actually finding a mosquito trapped in amber which happens to be full of dinosaur blood, not to mention finding 15 different mosquitoes with 15 different species of dinosaur blood in them, as is supposed in the book. The mathematical probabilities of finding one such mosquito appear so improbable as to be a negative possibility. It is suggested in the book that some dinosaur DNA is obtainable from fossil specimens, but that only raises a fundamental question about the next major assumption.

Simply because a cell has a nucleus does not mean that all of its DNA will remain intact over time. DNA apparently deteriorates over time after active cell reproduction has stopped. Consequently, DNA obtained from a prehistoric blood sample or a fossil specimen would be incomplete. That raised the problem of DNA reconstruction and the genetic mathematics of a cell. Every cell nucleus has an hierarchy of genetic relationships which must be present for it to be complete. In humans, for instance, that hierarchy revolves around the presence of 46 chromosomes in each nucleus. Each chromosome is composed of a specific number of genes, and each gene is composed of a specific number of DNA strands, and each DNA strand is composed of a specific number of sequences of pairs of four basic compounds that interact with other chemicals to provide genetic instructions. Each human gene, for example, supposedly contains about 3 billion of these “base pairs” per DNA strand. The question is, then, even if dinosaur DNA could be recovered, who knows how many chromosomes are contained in the cell nucleus, and how many genes comprise a chromosome, and how many DNA strands comprise a gene, and how many base pairs per DNA does a dinosaur cell have? That important genetic mathematics is simply ignored in the premise of the story.

Assuming the unimportance of the genetic mathematics of the cell, the story premise becomes more concerned with the exotica of repairing broken or incomplete dinosaur DNA with that of modem animals with similar DNA, such as frogs. But how does frog DNA help if dinosaurs are supposed to have been similar to birds? And, the question arises, that, if the genetic mathematics of the dinosaur are unknown, then how will repairing dinosaur DNA with frog DNA produce a dinosaur rather than a dinofrog?

In the same way that medieval alchemists attempted to transform lead into gold, “Jurassic Park” argues for a kind of genetic alchemy that allows man to change the laws of creation. But, genetic theory cannot escape the principle that every seed reproduces after its own kind. Jesus Christ taught the principle almost 2,000 years before Gregor Mendel first observed it (Matt. 7:16-20). And, Moses revealed the principle in his inspired account of creation more than 2,000 years before that (Gen. 1:24-25,29).

The dinosaur in “Jurassic Park,” which is supposed to be from the Jurassic Period of prehistory, is not more than theoretical compilation of Jurassic Parts. It is the genetic fantasy equivalent of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein.” It is built with spliced DNA from a frog, an assumed modem relative though the dinosaur is assumed to have been more like a bird, based upon an assumed genetic mathematics of red blood cells assumed to be a dinosaur’s, which are extracted from a prehistoric mosquito that it is assumed can be found.

“Jurassic Park” assumes that its conclusions are possible because they are based upon evolutionary theory, which allows man to play the role of God, as one of the characters in the film argues, that, “God made dinosaurs; God creates dinosaurs.” Man may assume cloning to be equivalent to creating life, but that assumption argues against itself by not answering the question of the “first cause” which puts life into its genetic building blocks (Ps. 139:13-16; Eccl. 7:13; 8:16-17).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 21, p. 14
November 4, 1993

By Luther Bolenbarker

One of these days you’ll shout, “Why don’t you kids grow up and act your age?” And they will. Or, “You guys get outside and find yourselves something to do . . . and don’t slam the door.” And they will.

You’ll straighten up the boys’ bedroom neat and tidy. . . bumper stickers discarded… spread tucked and smoothed . . toys displayed on shelves. . . hangers in the closet … animals caged . . . And you’ll say out loud, “Now, I want it to stay this way.” And it will.

You’ll prepare a perfect dinner with a salad that hasn’t been picked to death and a cake with no finger traces in the icing and you’ll say, “Now there’s a meal for company.” And you will eat it alone. You’ll say, “I want complete privacy on the phone. No dancing around. No pantomimes. No demolition crews. . .Silence! Do you hear?” And you’ll get it.

No more plastic tablecloths stained with spaghetti. No more bedspreads to protect the sofa from damp bottoms. No more gates between the door to stumble over. No more clothes-pins under the sofa. No more playpens to arrange a room around. No more anxious nights under a vaporizer tent. No more sand on the sheets or cartoons on TV or comic books. No more iron-on patches; wet knotted shoe-strings; tight boots; or rubber bands for pony tails.

Imagine a lipstick with a point on it, or a work shop with all the tools in their proper place. No more babysitters. Washing only once a week. Seeing a steak instead of ground beef. Having a dress that’s not wrinkled or wet because of the baby on your lap. No PTA meetings. No car pools. No blaring radios. No hair washing at midnight.

Think about it. No more birth-day presents made out of toothpicks and paste. No more sloppy oatmeal or juicy kisses. No more tooth fairy. No giggles or pillow fights in the night. No knees to heal or boohoo’s to kiss and make well. No responsibility.

Only a silent voice keeps crying loudly, “Why don’t you grow up?!” And the silence echoes back, “I did!”

Moms and Dads, are you taking time to really enjoy your children? You should! Oh, how quickly they grow up and go. Will you do a good task in their rearing and up-bringing? “Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” “Children, obey your parents in the Lord.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 21, p. 1
November 4, 1993