Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

William D. Burgess taught Biology at Florida College for many years. He also wrote a short column nearly every month in Searching the Scriptures from the time it began in 1960 and for several years thereafter. In the June 1961 issue he wrote these words under his column heading “Science and Truth”: 

There appears to be evidence that the days of creation were days of ordinary length since there is mention of “evening and morning.” If these days were, as some contend, thousands or millions of years in length this would present quite a problem. In Genesis 1:16 we read that two great lights were made, one to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night. Since these days were divided, according to Genesis 1:15 into “evening and morning” we would have to assume that the sun came up but did not go down for a few thousand or a few million years! There is another problem if we assume the “days” were eons of time. The plants were brought about on the third day of creation and the sun on the fourth day. Plants must have sunlight in order to produce their food through a process of photosynthesis. Animals are dependent upon plants as a basic source of food. Carnivorous animals are ultimately dependent upon plants for food which are, in turn, dependent on the sun. It is inconceivable, in the light of the knowledge we have in this matter, that plants and animals could exist for these millions of years without energy supplied by the sun. It is contended that the plants could have been supplied by the “light” of Genesis 1:3. If this was done it would be necessary to contend that plants were supplied by this “light” for a great and unknown period of time and then their dependence was transferred to another source of energy, the sun, at the end of this period of time. 

God told Israel in Exodus 20 to observe the Sabbath Day because He rested from His labor on the seventh day. There is no evidence that either God or Israel observed a period of time longer than our normal day of today. Even “days” of millions of years would hardly satisfy the evolution theory. Even the evolutionists are not in agreement as to the millions of years needed for the evolvement of living organisms, according to their own theory. The evolutionists readily admit that they are not sure of the time necessary for the events of their theory to come to pass. They willingly or unwillingly must admit that they cannot be sure that their theories answer the questions as to how these organisms came about in the first place. In light of the lack of evidence to support their theory, they are ready to say that they are at least sure that the creation did not occur in seven solar days as indicated by the record in Genesis. This attitude is neither new nor limited to this area of discussion. Men have always been ready to reject evidence that does not aid their positions or beliefs.”

It is strange that a teacher, not in the Science Department, but in the Bible Department at Florida College should publish an article on “The Days of  Genesis” (Sentry Magazine, 21:I) in which he contended that the days of creation in Genesis 1 “cannot be literal” and that “the days must be ages.” While Shane Scott denies any view of theistic evolution, these statements from him are unsettling to say the least. He is completing his second year as a teacher of Bible. So far, the administration of the college has defended him and retained him in his teaching position. It is my understanding that every teacher in the Science Department believes the days of creation were literal solar days. I know for a fact that there are teachers at Florida College who are very uneasy about this expressed view of brother Scott.

When we send our children or grandchildren to a state university, we expect them to be bombarded with ideas which undermine faith in what the Bible says. One of the arguments made for a school run by Christians is that parents can have confidence that the faith of their children will be strengthened and not threatened by teachers who are Christians.

So far, brother Scott has not budged from his position. Numerous ones have complained to the administration about this to no avail. David Bonner of Dumas, Texas, himself a scientist who has presented numerous series around the country on the matter of divine creation, has offered to publicly discuss this with brother Scott. So far, there has been no positive response.

As a former student and long time friend of Florida College, I wonder how long it is going to take the board and administration to take this matter seriously and resolve to do something about it. How long do they think we will encourage our young people to go there and be exposed to such an influence? I do not personally know brother Scott. I have no axe to grind with him. But I can read, and I have read several times the article he published in Sentry. I do not believe it teaches the truth. I also am convinced that the college has stonewalled this issue. Yes, I know that they published a bulletin in which some good material was presented against evolution. And yes, I know that there were quotations from various teachers stating opposition to theistic evolution, including one such statement from Shane Scott. But that issue did not touch top, side, or bottom of the complaint about the days of creation. If it had been said that he did not know exactly how old the earth is then nobody would have thought much about it. But to adamantly say (in caps as paragraph headings “THE DAYS CANNOT BE LITERAL” and then head the next paragraph with “THE DAYS MUST BE AGES” is another matter.

There are some good people and some good teachers at Florida College. But as long as the school appeals for students and for financial support, they ought not to be too defensive about criticisms in such a sensitive area. It was bad enough to invite Hill Roberts to lecture for three days during the 1999 annual lecture series. But to employ on the faculty a teacher of Bible who has publicly advocated such a position as Shane Scott has done, is inexcusable. We hope for better things from the banks of the Hillsborough River.

By Dick Blackford

Congregations often engage in practices that are questioned and defended on the basis that these are “good and wonderful works.” But are these from heaven or from men? In whose eyes are they good works? Inspiration recognizes two kinds of good works. Those in the eyes of men and those in the eyes of God. This was recognized even in the Old Testament.

Numbers 24:13

Balaam said to Balak, “If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the commandment of the Lord, to do either good or bad of mine own mind, but what the Lord saith, that will I speak.” Note the contrast between doing good of mine own mind and doing what the Lord said. He could not do good of his own mind if it meant going beyond the commandment of the Lord. See the distinction? There is a difference between the good works that are “of men” and good works that are “of God.”

Matthew 7:22, 23

The New Testament makes this same distinction. “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not . . . in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Jesus called their “wonderful works” iniquity! Wonderful works in the eyes of men are not necessarily wonderful works in the eyes of God. They claimed they had done these things in the name of Jesus. Just because someone claims to be acting in the name of another person doesn’t make it so unless that person has really authorized him to do so. Affixing the Lord’s name to a practice or project does not automatically mean he authorizes or endorses it.

When the Pharisees were keeping the traditions of washing their hands, pots, cups, and vessels, they considered these as good works and questioned why Jesus’ disciples did not do likewise. Jesus responded, “But in vain do they worship me teaching for doctrine the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7). These were good works in the eyes of men but not in the eyes of God.

2 Timothy 3:16, 17

The Scriptures claim to be profitable for everything we need in religion. They “thoroughly furnish unto every good work.” There is not a good work which the Lord wants us to do that is not furnished in Scripture. The church is authorized to engage in evangelism (1 Thess.1:8; 1 Tim. 3:15). It is authorized to engage in benevolence by taking care of its needy (Acts 6:1-7). It is authorized to engage in edification (Eph. 4:16).

In Whose Eyes Are These Good and Wonderful Works?

Churches are sponsoring bingo, mothers-day-out, adopt-a-highway, gymnasiums, video arcade, men’s macarena class, fireworks, antique car show, church operated day care centers, schools (where secular education is taught for a fee), food court, car wash, coal mines, apartment complexes, and financial planning classes (how to invest in the stock market, etc.)

Do these fall under evangelism, benevolence or edification? If evangelism, benevolence and edification can be done without any of these (and they can!) then they are no part of evangelism, benevolence, or edification, nor are they necessary to the process. They are good works which community organizations may do to make life better on earth “here and now,” but they are not authorized for the church to do. Church financed institutional boards, separate and apart from the local church, which are set up to decide how to spend the churches’ money in evangelism, benevolence or edification are not authorized in the Scriptures.

We cannot do these “in the name of Jesus” if we cannot find where such things are authorized. We need to be extremely careful lest we substitute “good works” in the eyes of men for those authorized by God. The Scriptures furnish us for every good work in the eyes of God.

P.0. Box 30321, State University Arkansas 72467 rlb6l2@aol.com

By Mark Mayberry

By the first century, religious thinking among the Jews had come to be characterized by several different outlooks. The Pharisees, the Sadducees, and Essenes each had their spheres of influence. Having staked out their doctrinal turf, they sought adherents to their particular party. Added to this mix were the distinctly political viewpoints of the Herodians and the Zealots. Thus, the marketplace of religious ideas was not merely a melting pot, it was a simmering container of confusion and counterfeit truth. Judaism of the first century had become fragmented, ritualistic, and tradition-bound. Therefore, when Jesus stepped forward and began expounding the simple gospel message, people took notice. The common people, those longing for better spiritual instruction, heard him gladly (Mark 12:35-37). He taught as one having authority, and not as the scribes (Matt. 7:28-29).

At the conclusion of the fifth chapter of Luke, Jesus makes several statements that indicate the radically different nature of Christianity (Luke 5:27-39). The newness of the gospel message stands in stark contrast with the worn out thinking of the Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees. Some things are so flawed, so worn out, that the only thing one can do is start fresh.

To illustrate this fact, Jesus spoke the following parable: “No one tears a piece of cloth from a new garment and puts it on an old garment; otherwise he will both tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old” (Luke 5:36). No one in his right mind would rip a square from new dress slacks in order to patch an old, worn-out pair of trousers. Not only would the new garment be ruined, but also the patch would not hold on the old garment. When the unshrunk patch becomes wet and shrinks, the new piece will pull away from the old, and the tear will be made worse. The lesson is clear: Some things cannot be mixed together. Specifically, truth and error are incompatible. Human traditions and the commandments of God cannot co-exist.

In the same context, the Lord spoke of new wine and old wineskins. He said, “And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins” (Luke 5:37-38). Old wineskins are no match for new, still fermenting, wine. Such wine would burst the skins, resulting in the loss of both skins and wine. Again, the lesson is the same: Some things cannot be recycled and reused. Some things are beyond repair. The only thing to do is throw it away and start over. This had specific application to the sectarian thinking of the first century. It has equal application to the denominational mentality of our day.

What Was Wrong With the Thinking of the Pharisees? 

It de-emphasized love. The scribes and Pharisees were unloving. They cared not about lost humanity. Observing the feast that Levi gave in Jesus’ honor, they grumbled, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax-collectors and sinners?” (Luke 5:30). On a later occasion, while Jesus was dining in the home of Simon the Pharisee, a sinful woman entered the room. As she stood behind Jesus’ feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and she kept wiping them with the hair of her head, and kissing his feet and anointing them with the perfume. Beholding this, Simon sniffed, “If this man were a prophet He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner” (Luke 7:36-39). Note the absence of love, compassion, and concern for the plight of a fellow human-being.

It de-emphasized sincerity. The scribes and Pharisees were insincere (Matt. 23:28). They performed deeds of righteousness merely to be seen of men (Matt. 23:5, 14, 28). This was particularly evident with regards to fasting (Matt. 6:16-18). In this context, they criticized Jesus by saying, “The disciples of John often fast and offer prayers, the disciples of the Pharisees also do the same, but Yours eat and drink.” (Luke 5:33). At times, their self-righteous insincerity was breathtaking (Luke 18:9-14).

It de-emphasized obedience. The scribes and Pharisees were disobedient. They had bound where God had loosed, and loosed where God had bound (Mark 7:1-13). In binding their human traditions of hand-washing, they were guilty of adding to God’s law. In other areas, they subtracted from the same by refusing to obey the revealed word of God (Luke 7:29-30). Thus obedience became an optional matter: They obeyed God’s word when they felt like it. They changed God’s law with impunity. They applied it to others but not to themselves (Matt. 23:4; Luke 11:46).

What Was Right About the Thinking of Jesus?

It emphasized love. Jesus genuinely cared about people. In responding to the criticism that he ate with tax collectors and sinners, Jesus answered, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:31-32). Tax collectors like Levi and his companions were social outcasts, despised by “respectable” members of society, classed with harlots and the like. Jesus ate with them, not to condone their base and dishonorable conduct, but to show them a better way and to save them from their sins. The redemptive nature of his ministry is clearly seen in Jesus’ encounter with another tax collector named Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10). The Son of Man came into this world of sin and sorrow to save that which was lost (Matt. 18:11-14). What an expression of divine love and compassion (John 3:16)!

It emphasized sincerity. Jesus emphasized the importance of genuine devotion. In responding to the implied criticism regarding the failure of his disciples to fast, Jesus said, “You cannot make the attendants of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you? But the days will come; and when the bridegroom is taken away from them, then they will fast in those days” (Luke 5:34-35). Jesus repeatedly stressed the need for sincerity. Fasting, a private act of religious devotion, is appropriate for times of sadness and sorrow (Ps. 35:13-14), remorse and contrition (Job 2:12-13), commitment and consecration (Acts 13:1-2; 14:23). However, fasting is not suitable for times of joyful delight. Fasting certainly is not something that is done to be seen of men. Any religious service or act of devotion that is offered for the purpose of impressing men is counted as worthless in the eyes of God (Matt. 6:1-6, 16-18).

It emphasized obedience. Jesus emphasized the importance of full and complete obedience (Matt. 5:17-20). In our day and time, loose thinkers would call this legalism. Significantly, Jesus never condemned the Pharisees for their attention to divinely authorized details; rather he denounced them for their presumptuous additions and glaring omissions from the law (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42). To the extent that the scribes and Pharisees accurately taught God’s precepts, they performed a valuable service. When the scribes and Pharisees were seated in Moses’ chair, Jesus said, “All that they tell you, do and observe.” Unfortunately, they were not content with being mere mouthpieces, they wanted to exercise their creativity in the area of divine legislation (Matt. 23:1-4).

Conclusion

As we consider the issues of love, sincerity and obedience, one final point comes to mind. Ours is an age of moral and doctrinal accommodation. Many brethren argue that we have the right to fellowship those who teach and practice error. In such an atmosphere of compromise, brethren who tolerate false teaching often harshly criticize those who stand for the truth, accusing them of being unloving, insincere, and fanatically obsessed with strict obedience. In a word, they are accused of being Pharisaical. However, let us recognize the speciousness of such charges. Love demands that we expose error, even though such an approach is unpopular. Sincerity demands that we stand up for our convictions, regardless of the cost. Obedience demands that we oppose all forms of moral and doctrinal error, even if they are widely practiced. How is it that faithful brethren are so easily criticized as being devoid of love, sincerity and true obedience, while false teachers, or those who condone the same, are supposedly the paragons of these virtues? As Lewis Carroll once said in Alice of Wonderland, things are becoming “Curiouser and curiouser!”

In this context, Jesus says that we must learn to think differently. However, this does not imply a total repudiation of the past. We must not throw out things just because they are old. Our Lord concluded this discussion by saying, “And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, ‘The old is good enough’” (Luke 5:39). Impurities in old wine may cause it to become bitter. However, if it remains pure, it is considered better. So it is regarding religious truth. Impurities can corrupt it. However, the old paths of God are good, time-tested and true (Jer. 6:16; 18:15; Isa. 8:19-20). Therefore, as we enter a new millennium, let us lay aside all human traditions, doctrines and dogmas that are inconsistent with the word of God. Let us remain true to the old paths of God (Col. 3:16-17; 1 Pet. 4:11).

1305 Bayou Dr., Alvin, Texas 77511

By Norman E. Fultz

That was the headline of an article in the Kansas City Star, Sunday February 13, 2000, [A10]. Written about a conference called “God at 2000” and datelined Corvallis, Ore. the Associated Press article by-line stated, “Theologians study how religions view the Supreme Being.”

Frankly, a meeting of theologians isn’t going to greatly impact how God fulfills his role (unless their foolishness should prove that there’s not enough salt and light left to allow the world to continue). The problem is that their “learned postulations” may influence others to pick up their hue and cry, and thus lose sight of what God’s role really is in the world and what it should be in their lives.

The article stated, “Two of the world’s most prominent theologians say God’s image is going to have to change for all faiths if religion is to survive.”

And a professor of comparative religion at Harvard, Diana Eck, was quoted as saying, “We can’t enter the 21st century with the idea of God we learned in Sunday school.” Marcus Borg, raised Lutheran — turned Episcopalian, a best selling religious author and teacher at Oregon State University, said, “The God he grew up with had an image of a stern lawgiver and judge who required obedience within a system of rewards and punishments — a ‘monarchical model’ of God that has turned many people away from the Christian faith.” The article quoted Borg as saying, “I find it literally incredible that the God of the whole universe has chosen to be known by one religious tradition.”

Borg “suggested that God was an encompassing spirit who is part of everyday life.” And what would any good conference of modern day theologians be without someone to lend a feminist view? In this case it was given by a Benedictine nun, Sister Joan Chittister, who “drew a standing ovation at the end of her talk about God as a genderless concept. She said that science and the globalization of culture, environmentalism and feminism took her away from traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and made her realize that God is an innate part of everything.”

Realizing that some of their definitions of God bordered on pantheism (which denies God’s personality and tends to identify God with nature), Borg “described this not as pantheism but as ‘panentheism,’ which suggest that God is not only transcendent and beyond human experience, but also immanent, or dwelling within all of us.” Has he, or someone, invented a new word to avoid being called pantheists? My dictionaries (I’ll admit they’re not the latest editions) didn’t have “panentheism” in them, and my computer’s speller didn’t recognize it. But if you dissect the term you have “pan” (a prefix meaning “all”), “en” (a prefix meaning “in” or “into”) and “theism” (the belief in God). Sure doesn’t miss pantheism very much.

According to the article, the gist of these theologians’ findings seemed to be, “None of us owns the universe of faith,” said Eck. “I’m convinced it’s time for all of our theisms to be recognized.” She was referring to Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, and perhaps others, and said Christians, in particular, had isolated themselves from other religions. Couple this with Borg’s statement of incredibility (noted above). The tenor of it all is to reject the God of the Bible and make God in the image of their own imaginings. As to God’s role changing in the 21st century, I’m persuaded his role will continue to be what it has been. As to the role theologians want to assign him, that’s a different matter. And to that matter I would ask, ‘Would they instruct or correct the Almighty?” (cf. Job 40:1-2). So, what is God’s role in the 21st century?

• He’s still the Creator (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 136-5; Prov. 3:19-20; Acts 14:15; 17:24; Heb. 1:10-12).
• Through his Son, partner with him in the Creation, he’s still upholding all things by the word of his power (John 1:1-3; Heb. 1:3; 2 Pet. 3:7).
• He who stretched out the heavens as a curtain, spreading them out as a tent to dwell in, yet sits upon the circle of the earth (Isa. 40:22).
• He still rules in the kingdoms of men giving them to whomsoever he will, working his will among the armies of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth (Dan. 4:17, 32, 35).
• He is still working his will according to his good pleasure, purposed in himself in eternity and realized in this “dispensation of the fullness of times” in which he gathers “together in one all things in Christ”; and this in spite of theologians who “find it literally incredible that the God of the whole universe has chosen to be known by one religious tradition” (Eph. 1:9-10; cf. Gal. 4:4; Acts 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:10).
• He is still accomplishing man’s reconciliation to himself in Christ Jesus through “the word of reconciliation,” the gospel, the power he uses to draw and call men to himself (2 Cor. 5:18-20; Rom. 1:16; 2 Thess. 2:14; John 6:44-45).
• He, along with his beloved Son, is still taking up his abode in those who love him and keep his word (John 14:23); thus not necessarily “immanent, or dwelling within all of us” as per the theologians.
• He is still being longsuffering to a sinful world “not desiring that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” for according to his holy principle it is a matter of repent or perish (2 Pet. 3:9; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 17:30). 
•  He is still adding to the church, the realm of the saved, those who become believers in the Christ and who repent and are baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:36-38, 47; Eph. 5:23).
• He is still holding in readiness a prepared place for a prepared people to be enjoyed in that “heavenly country” (Matt. 25:34; John 14:1-3; Heb. 11:16).

I think I prefer to go with the role Scripture assigns to God rather than relying upon the postulations of liberal theologians. 

Aside from all the above, there was a very interesting bit of information in the article about believers in God in America compared with England and other European countries. A Gallup Poll “found that 95 percent of all Americans said they believed in God, compared with 35 percent of the population in England and lower numbers in other European countries.” Of course one wonders what “role” these believers have assigned to God, for it is rather evident even by casual observation that the concept of the masses differs widely from that which we read in Holy Writ. A tree is known by its fruits (Matt. 7:20). Very importantly, What role have you given God in your life?

13018 N. Oakland Ave., Kansas City, Missousi 64167 nfultz@juno.com