Truth Magazine

By Tom M. Roberts

It has been suggested by sectarians and brethren alike that any use of human reasoning ability in arriving at an understanding of the Bible makes any such conclusions suspect. We are told that no one should bind any other than direct statements as limits of fellowship. Specifically, inferences and examples are to be excluded as binding authority from the Scriptures because we must use human intellect to tell which, if any, examples and inferences have that binding force. This use of the human intellect, we are told, thrusts any conclusions we reach into the realm of opinion and should never be made a test of fellowship. Among sectarians, it is stated thusly: “No one can see the Bible alike. You interpret it your way and I will interpret it my way. One way is just as good as another. ” Among brethren, there is a call for a “new hermeneutic” which would exclude a but direct commands or statements and which would permit the same situation as that describing the sectarians. In fact, some brethren are rejecting any “doctrine” as important, accepting only the deity of Christ as a limit to fellowship. The argument common to both groups is that our reasoning is faulty, unity upon God’s word is impossible and that fellowship must be inclusive of every position short of the rejection of Jesus’ deity. While sectarians have occupied this position for centuries (resulting in permissiveness toward every kind of error), it is disconcerting to see brethren embrace such a fallacy. We need to see clearly that God has required the use of human reasoning in understanding his will.

Absolute Truth

If truth is relative (subjective), each man is right in what he believes, regardless of the Bible or of the belief of others. Humanism advocates the relativity of truth to the individual and his circumstances. They aver that stealing is wrong only if you believe it to be wrong; abortion is wrong only if it hurts your conscience; incest is wrong only if it is wrong for you (however, it might be right for another). To them, “man is the measure of all things.” Truth, therefore, is to be changed to fit the circumstances.

But the truth is not relative, it is absolute (objective). The world is round even if I maintain that it is flat. Baptism is for the remission of sins whether I understand that, disagree, or have never heard about it. Jesus Christ is the Son of God whether I concur or not. In other words, truth does not need my permission or consent to be truth. It is truth and will be truth with or without my acceptance or obedience.

God has spoken (Heb. 1:1,2). His spoken Word is truth (Jn. 8:32; 16:13). And God requires of me that I understand his word. “Whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4). “Wherefore be ye not foolish, but understand what the win of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). “And now I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you the inheritance among all them that are sanctified” (Acts 20:32). Such Scriptures could be multiplied: Jude 3; 1 Corinthians 4:6; 2 Peter 1:3; Galatians 1:6-8; 2 John 9-11, et al.

Lest I be charged with believing in “perfectionism” (that one knows every answer to every question), let me state that God’s word has built into it an area in which brethren may hold different judgments (opinions) and still be in fellowship (Rom. 14), but that we must agree on matters of faith (Jude 3). But many are guilty of relegating every item of faith into the. area of opinion, making nonsense of the gospel of Christ.

If truth is absolute (arid it is), then I must seek to understand it lest I fall short of what God has said to us. And it should be noted, that absolute truth has been given to mankind for his benefit. It is relevant to our needs, given by inspiration to safe-guard its contents, having a purpose (the salvation of our souls), and it will judge us (Jn. 12:48). It is folly to say that man cannot understand the instruction given specifically to us by God. Is God not able to speak to us on our level, in an understandable manner? Is he not able to create a creature capable of receiving communication from his Maker? Either view is an indictment of God and his wisdom and/or ability. As the pioneer preacher Benjamin Franklin put it, “The Bible as it is, is addressed to man as he is, that he might become what God would have him to be.” Yes, brethren, I am charged with understanding the will of God and it requires of me that I use the native intelligence placed there by God at the creation. Adam understood more than the deity of God. He understood the revelation of the divine will and was held accountable for the violation of it. There was no one around to tell Adam that eating the forbidden fruit was right if he thought it to be right, except the Devil. The same God has spoken to the descendants of Adam and we had better listen, for we are accountable.

Reason Limited Only to Direct Statements?

It is affirmed that we are able to understand direct statements and commands by our human reasoning but not examples or inferences. “Inferences,” we are told, require human reasoning to decide when one is “necessary.” Also, we have to decide when one example is binding and another is not. Therefore, since we have difficulty in deciding, it is concluded that it is impossible to decide. Like the foolish mother that threw the baby out with the bath water, some would throw out all inferences and examples.

But before we deal with inferences and examples, let us back up a step. Is it not true also that we must use human reasoning with direct statements and commands as well? Are all commands binding on us today? What about the Ten Commandments? If you do not bind the Sabbath today, why not? Did you have to use some reasoning ability to determine that the law of Moses is not bound today? Have you burned any incense or killed any animals as sacrifices lately? Why not? Do you tithe? Do you observe Passover? Why not? But, more basic than that, since your name is not found anywhere in the Bible, how did you reason to the position that you have any obligations at all toward God? Should only the ancients serve God?

The point that I am making should be plain. Human reasoning is a necessity in determining which commands or positive statements, or, in fact, if any of the Bible is bound on us today. To state otherwise is to make the Bible into an absurdity, and it is not the Bible that is absurd.

As proof that God requires the use of human reason in understanding inferences, some passages should be considered. When the Sadducees tried to trap Jesus about the resurrection, he rebuked them for not reasoning and making an indifference from what God implied. “But Jesus answered and said unto di6n, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. . . Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:29-32). That “God was not the God of the dead, but of the living” was an inference that the Sadducees should have drawn from Scripture was obvious. Should it be less obvious to us? Ignore this at your own peril: God holds us accountable when he implies something that we should infer.

The parables also teach by inference. In Matthew 21:33-45, the Pharisees “perceived” that he spake of them (v. 45). Many of the parables contain implications by God that we should understand.

In Hebrews 7:11-17, it is implied that the silence of the Scriptures is binding. I have seen some treat this principle with disdain, but the objective truth contained there will stand the carping of modern Sadducees. The people to whom the writer addressed the letter understood the point, as should any person who has read the Law. Jesus could not be priest on earth. Why? Was there a command that excluded him? No, but an inference was there that he could not serve since Moses “spake nothing” of the tribe of Judah serving, Was this inference any less binding than a stated command? Did it require human reasoning to understand it?

As for apostolic examples, it is readily admitted that not all examples give binding authority for us today. But are you sure that none of them do? Paul said, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). “1 beseech you therefore, be ye followers of me” (1 Cor. 4:16). “And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord” (1 Thess. 1:6). “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus” (1 Thess. 2:14).

Were the first century Christians not discerning enough to know that they had no responsibility to follow churches that did wrong (like Corinth) or apostles that did wrong (like Peter)? Don’t you believe they could tell the difference and follow Paul “as he followed Christ”? If not, what is the force of these passages exhorting them to “follow” others? Were they not to follow Paul because he was right? And was he not right because he followed Christ? Would this be a sufficient background command to bind the example on early Christians? Or on us?

“Now these things were our examples” (1 Cor. 10:6). “. . . leaving us an example, that you should follow his steps” (1 Pet. 2:21). “. . so walk, even as ye have us for an example” (Phil. 3:17). Who says that examples do not bind? Did you learn it from these verses?

Yes, it takes reasoning power to know that we should follow some examples and not follow others. Some examples are good and some are bad, but we can know the difference. Also, some examples are of incidentals and some are binding. But we can tell the difference because of the Scriptures and because of the reasoning ability that God gave us.

Reverse the Process

If you disagree about the binding force of examples and inferences because it takes the ability to reason (and our reasoning may be faulty), then you must also apply this argument to direct statements and commands. I challenge you to be consistent. And if commands have no binding force, let us face it, the Bible is vain and empty and our faith is ludicrous.

Either the Bible leads and guides through the power of the Holy Spirit in an intelligible manner or it does not. God has addressed man on a level commensurate with his ability to comprehend or he hasn’t. Truth is absolute or it is not. The choice is clear. “Wherefore be ye not foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 24, pp. 749-750
December 21, 1989

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote. Cyril Ponnamperunis, review of Francis Crick, Life Itself. Its Origin and Nature, in New Scientist, 13 May 1982, p. 435.

We have been, considering some of the alternatives proposed to replace the concept that the universe was created by a Divine being. Modem hypotheses which attempt to do so usually postulate some chemical broth and/or make unprovable assumptions about the supposed nature of the early atmosphere – and still aren’t able to explain how the early atmosphere or chemicals came to be to begin with, thus begging the question. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick, attempting to calculate the likelihood of such events occurring came to the conclusion that “an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now . . . cannot decide” such chemical origins are probable or impossible; indeed, “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. . . ” (Life Itself, p. 88).

In truth, Crick’s “profound insight into the processes of molecular biology and his awareness of the difficulties” are, in the words of Cyril Ponnamperuma, a tacit admission that “it is not a problem that can be solved by scientific methods in terrestrial laboratories” (New Scientist, 13 May 1982, p. 435). Such difficulties lead Crick to postulate the doctrine of “panspermia” (i.e., that the seed of life are everywhere in the universe), which Crick thinks may have “traveled in the head of an unmanned spaceship sent to earth by a higher civilization which had developed elsewhere” (Life Itself, pp. 15-16).

Ponnamperuma (director of the Laboratory of Chemical Evolution at the University of Maryland, noted for work done with the Murchison meteorite) notes that “with great frankness, Francis Crick tells us that his wife described his book as science fiction.” Adds Ponnamperuma, “I cannot help but agree with her.” Others, this author included, will add a hearty “Amen.”

One can begin to appreciate the difficulty of accepting ideas postulated by those who reject faith in a Creator as an explanation for the origins of life when one recognizes the improbability (or even impossibility) of demonstrating by the canons of science as we know it how life began in a naturalistic manner. Especially is this true of Crick’s “panspermia” – the concept that life began elsewhere and was transported to earth in space ships. Leaving aside the question of how one could ever test such a hypothesis in any conclusive way, we wonder: If some “creationist” were to postulate something as ludicrous and unsupported by any reasonable interpretation of scientific data, wouldn’t he be laughed off the stage?

But whether you think panspermia is science fiction highly likely, it ought to be obvious that it only makes the problem of human knowledge of the origins of life even greater. If we cannot determine through scientific discovery what happened on this planet, how on earth (pardon the pun) can we discern how it arose elsewhere? Such concepts remove any knowledge based on the principles of scientific discovery.

Of course, one could accept the concept (also unprovable by scientific methodology) that God created the heaven and the earth. Why is that more difficult to believe than panspermia, or chemical evolution, each of which require large doses of pure faith to accept? Ponnamperuma’s review of Life Itself (13 May 1982 New Scientist, p. 435) summarizes it nicely: “If life did not begin on earth by natural processes, unless of course we subscribe to the concept of special creation, life must have originated somewhere else and colonized the earth.”

Why should two of these views, which derive as much from metaphysics as physics, and require as much credulity to accept as the idea of Divine creation “in the beginning,” be any more acceptable to modern minds than theism? We are reminded of a statement attributed to the British scientist, Sir Arthur Keith. Speaking of what may be called the “general theory” of evolution (the moleculesto-man theory), Keith is reported to have said, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable; the reason it is acceptable is because the alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable.”

It is certainly not out of order for anyone to hold a view of origins which may correspond to some aspects of current scientific theory but which also relies greatly on faith. But don’t call that “science” – or look down your nose at someone else’s view of origins as less “scientific.” You might get a “Crick” in your neck.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 24, p. 748
December 21, 1989

By Rick Duggin

Recent years have seen an epidemic of preachers who have been caught in less than honorable circumstances. Bob Harrington, Jim Bakker, and Jimmy Swaggart are notable examples of men who preached one standard as they practiced another.

The May 29 issue of The Daily News journal featured a story concerning the present problems of some men who are connected with The Sword of the Lord, a Baptist paper which is published within one-half block of my house. Robert Sumner, an editor of a rival paper, has accused The Sword of the Lords circulation manager of adultery, prompting him to resign.

Even more serious are Sumner’s charges against Jack Hyles, a member of The Sword of the Lord’s board of directors, chancellor of Hyles-Anderson College, and preacher of a church in Indiana which boasts the “largest Sunday school in the world.” Sumner alleges that Hyles has misappropriated funds and that he has carried on an improper relationship with a woman for 15 years.

Curtis Hutson, editor of The Sword of the Lord, has responded to Sumner’s allegations by denouncing him as a known liar whose motives in this matter are based on jealousy.

It is not my intention in this article to take sides with Sumner or with Hutson. I wish that both of the accused men could be proven innocent of the charges against them. The interesting part concerns Mr. Hutson’s response to Sumner’s accusations.

On April 10, 1982, I purchased a copy of Robert Sumner’s booklet, Does the Bible Teach That Water Baptism Is a Necessary Requirement for Salvation? After thoroughly studying this diatribe, I too had reached the conclusion that Mr. Sumner has difficulty in accurately representing the positions of religious opponents, not to mention his acute difficulty in properly handling the word of God. (I will provide documentation of this fact for interested readers.)

Apparently I have been more charitable with Robert Sumner than Mr. Hutson has been. I was willing to assume that Mr. Sumner had carelessly passed along inaccurate information to his readers without making an effort to verify his claims. I have never referred to him as a Har. I’m sure Mr. Hutson knows him much better than I do. If Baptist doctrine were true, however, Mr. Sumner would not need to be overly concerned with Mr. Hutson’s estimate of his character. Baptist doctrine says that once a man is saved, he cannot fall from grace. Sam Morris, whose articles are sometimes featured in The Sword of the Lord, explained the doctrine this way:

We take the position that a Christian’s sins do not damn his soul. The way a Christian lives, what he says, his character, his conduct, or his attitude toward other people have nothing whatsoever to do with the salvation of his soul. . . All the prayers a man may pray, all the Bibles he may read, all the churches he may belong to, all the services he may attend, all the sermons he may practice, all the debts he may pay, all, the benevolent acts he may perform will not make his soul one whit safer; and all the sins he may commit from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger. . . The way a man lives has nothing whatsoever to do with the salvation of his soul (Do A Christian’s Sins Damn His Soul?, pp. 1,2).

Mr. Hutson says that Robert Sumner is a known liar. But Baptist doctrine affirms that lying will not endanger the soul of the child of God. According to this teaching, Mr. Sumner will be in heaven in spite of his lies, just as every adulterous Baptist will be in heaven in spite of his adultery.

Now, contrast Revelations 21:8: “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.- which is the second death.”

How can Mr. Hutson reconcile Baptist doctrine with Revelation 21:8? Sword of the Lord writers emphatically declare that the Bible must be interpreted literally. Dear reader, does Revelation 21:8 mean that all liars will be lost or that some liars will be lost? By the time the advocates of Baptist doctrine gets through “explaining” this passage, it will say the opposite of what it really says! So much for literal interpretations!

Mr. Hutson, is Robert Sumner a saved liar or a lost liar? If saved, the Bible must be wrong in teaching that all liars will be lost. If lost, then what has become of your Baptist doctrine? Dear friends, forsake this glaring falsehood and believe the truth.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 24, p. 752
December 21, 1989

By Carolyn Cains, Supervisor

If I learn my ABCs, can read 600 words per minute, and can write with perfect penmanship, but have not been shown how to communicate with the Designer of all language, I have not been educated.

If I can deliver an eloquent speech and persuade you with my stunning logic, but have not been instructed in God’s wisdom, I have not been educated.

If I have read Shakespeare and John Locke and can discuss their writings with keen insight, but have not read the greatest of all books – the Bible – and have no knowledge of its personal importance, I have not been educated.

If I have memorized addition facts, multiplication tables, and chemical formulas, but have never been disciplined to hide God’s Word in my heart, I have not been educated.

If I can explain the law of gravity and Einstein’s theory of relativity, but have never been instructed in the unchangeable laws of the One Who orders our universe, I have not been educated.

If I can classify animals by their family, genus and species, and can write a lengthy scientific paper that wins an award, but have not been introduced to the Maker’s purpose for all creation, I have not been educated.

If I can recite the Gettysburg Address and the Preamble to the Constitution, but have not been informed of the hand of God in the history of our country, I have not been educated.

If I can play the piano, the violin, six other instruments, and can write music that moves men to tears, but have not been taught to listen to the Director of the universe and worship Him, I have not been educated.

If I can run cross-country races, star in basketball and do 100 push-ups without stopping, but have never been shown how to bend my spirit to God’s will, I have not been educated.

If I can identify a Picasso, describe the style of da Vinci, and even paint a portrait that earns an A+, but have not learned that all harmony and beauty comes from a relationship with God, I have not been educated.

If I graduate with a perfect 4.0 and am accepted at the best university with a full scholarship, but have not been guided into a career of God’s choosing for me, I have not been educated.

If I become a good citizen, voting at each election and fighting for what is moral and right, but have not been told of the sinfulness of man and his hopelessness without Christ, I have not been educated.

However, if one day I see the world as God sees it, and come to know Him, Whom to know is life eternal, and glorify God by fulfilling His purpose for me, then, I have been educated!

Be educated . . . at Florida College!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 24, p. 742
December 21, 1989