Truth Magazine

By Donnie V. Rader

Is marriage important? How you answer that question has everything to do with how you approach marriage, commitment to it and even di- vorce. In that marriage is a divine institution, it goes without saying that it is important. Another obvious fact is that the world’s view of marriage continues to decline.

The Sunday Tennessean (June 6, 1999) had an article on the front page entitled, “Importance of marriage declines.” The article stated:

Divorce has become so common in Tennessee that almost two-thirds of all new marriages involve either a divorced bride or groom, and 38% of weddings are between two divorced persons, a new study shows.

The report released by the conservative Tennessee Family Institute, is based on marriage data from the past 20 years.

Research analyst Roger Abramson, who wrote the report, said the numbers reflect a societal shift toward placing less importance on the institution of marriage.

“The institution of marriage generally is in a weaker state now than it was (20 years ago) because people don’t view marriage as the commitment they once did,” Abramson said. “We now have a state with a significant group of people where families are torn apart for no other reason than they just want to.”

. . . But information from the National Center for Health Statistics has for years been used to predict that about half of new marriages will end in divorce.

Tennessee’s divorce rate of 6.3 per 1,000 people is the eighth-highest rate in the country, according to an NCHS study, and state statistics show a growing number of Tennesseans are getting married for their fifth and sixth time.

The attitudes reflected in these studies affect God’s people too. We live in a world that shapes and molds the weaker ones to be like it (Rom. 12:1-3). Thus, it behooves us to teach continually about the importance of marriage.

Marriage Was Created By God

Marriage is not a creation of mankind, but of God him- self. In the very beginning God saw that it was not good that man should be alone and he thus said, “I will make him a helper comparable to him” (Gen. 2:18). So, God created Eve from his rib and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (v. 24). This principle, stated in the garden, was quoted by Paul (Eph. 5:31) and Jesus himself (Matt. 19:4-6) when teaching on marriage.

This institution, called marriage, was planned and de- signed by God. Being the author of it, God set the laws that are to govern this relationship (Gen. 2:24; Rom. 7:2-3).

The Purpose of Marriage

The importance of marriage is clearly seen when we understand why God created it. What is the purpose of marriage?

1. Companionship. When God saw that it was not good that man should be alone, he made a wife for him (Gen. 2:18-24).

2. Legitimately bearing children. It is possible to have children without the honor of marriage. However, to do so involves sin. When God created marriage in the beginning he said,  “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply . . .’” (Gen. 1:27-28).

Paul said, “Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully” (1 Tim. 5:14).

3. For sexual relations — to avoid fornication. Lest man behave as an animal and seek to fulfill his desire with any who would be willing, he designed marriage for the lawful sexual union. Paul wrote to the Corinthians,

Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own hus- band. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does (1 Cor. 7:2-4).

The same apostle wrote to the Hebrews saying, “Mar- riage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4).

Marriage Is Not Important If . . .

There are several ways that one may not honor marriage as God intended. Marriage is not important if . . .

1. There is sex before marriage. Premarital sex is not uncommon. Earlier in this decade the Tennessean reported that 63% of today’s teenagers see nothing morally wrong with sexual relations before marriage. That’s scary! That means that 63% of the people our teenagers associate with see nothing wrong with sex before marriage.

The Hebrew writer said that the marriage bed (sexual relations in marriage) is undefiled. However, the fornica- tor (pre-marital) and the adulterer (extra-marital) God will condemn (Heb. 13:4). Those who commit fornication, not only violate an emphatic prohibition, but have no respect for marriage.

2. Adultery is committed. When a married person goes outside the realm of marriage for sexual relations, his mar- riage is not important to him at all. We have already noted that Hebrews 13:4 says God will condemn such a person. Jesus taught that this unfaithful act gives the innocent party the right to put his mate away and remarry another (Matt. 5:32; 19:9).

3. One divorces without a scriptural right. When asked if a man could divorce his wife without a cause, Jesus re- sponded with four reasons why the answer was “no” (Matt. 19:3-6). Paul taught the same in 1 Corinthians 7:10-13. Jesus gave only one scriptural cause for divorce: fornication (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). When a person divorces for any other cause, they do not honor marriage or God’s law.

4. One remarries without a scriptural right. Jesus said, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, com- mitteth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9). The only one who has a right to remarry (in the case of divorce) is one who has put his mate away for the cause of fornication. All others commit adultery when they remarry.

The strictness of God’s law tells us that he views mar- riage as important. If his law would allow divorce for any cause, or remarriage in any divorce, it would indicate a lesser view of marriage. The very article we cited above suggests that frivolous divorce and remarriage is a sign that marriage is not important.

5. You are not the mate you ought to be. It is not only those who commit fornication or divorce who view mar- riage unimportant. Those who stay together and are never unfaithful to their mate could be guilty too. Those who do not work at making their marriage the best it can be, do not think marriage is important. If it is, they would change!

Husbands who view marriage as important seek to love their wives as themselves (Eph. 5:22-28), be understanding, honor their wives and treat them as the weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7). Wives who think marriage is important strive to love their husbands (Tit. 2:5), be submissive (1 Pet. 3:1-6), and have reverence for their husbands (Eph. 5:33).

We know marriage is important to God. We know that marriage is not important to the world. How do you view marriage?

By Mike Willis

In May 1967, I began preaching on a full-time basis just a few months before my 20th birthday. I lived near my oldest brother, Cecil Willis, who had distinguished himself as a gospel preacher. Under his tutelage, I developed as a gospel preacher. One of the best things that he did for me was to guide my studies by directing me to preach the first principles of the oracles of God during that first year of preaching. I preached many sermons on conversion and the church.

In guiding my studies, Cecil loaned me his copy of Conversion by B.F. Manire. I found this to be an excellent tool for this study. Using the text of Scripture and the studies presented in this book, Sermons by J.W. McGarvey, The Gospel Plan of Salvation by T.W. Brents, and Gospel Preacher, Volumes 1-2, by Benjamin Franklin, I methodically preached on every case of New Testament conversion during that year. Years later, I found a copy of Manire’s book in a used book sale and added it to my collection. It is by far, the best study of the various cases of conversion presently in print.

This series on conversion has been printed on several occasions. The twelve sermons on Conversion were first published sometime before 1875  in the Southern Christian Weekly of Alabama, which was owned and edited by J.M. Pickens. In 1881, they were rewritten for the Apos- tolic Church, a monthly magazine which was published by W.L. Butler of Mayfield, Kentucky. They were followed in that periodical by three parts of the sermon on Baptism. In 1890 and ’91, these were all revised again, and published in the Church Register of Plattsburg, Missouri, of which James C. Creel was the editor and proprietor.

Some of the materials in this book were first published in the book, although most of it appeared in the various series mentioned before. The sermon on “What Must I Do To Be Saved?” was written first in 1856 when Manire was in the fourth year of his ministry, and was published by Dr. John T. Walsh in the American Christian Preacher of Kinston, North Carolina. Some years afterward it was published in the Gospel Advocate of Nashville, Tennessee, and soon after the war in the Ameri- can Christian Review of Cincinnati, Ohio. It was rewritten for each of these and brought to its present form. In 1871, it was published in the Christian Unitist of Jackson, Mississippi, and a thousand copies were struck off in tract form, all of which were soon sold. In 1890, it was again published in the Church Regis- ter, and a thousand copies issued in pamphlet form, all of which were sold within a year. The author commented, “It has been the most fruitful of all the sermons I have ever preached, and is included in this volume by the request of many brethren.” The author continued,

The Book as a whole is the result of more than forty years of study and labor. In most of the protracted meetings which I have held within the past thirty years, these Sermons have been preached, at least in substance, and they have been blessed to the conversion of many souls. I also have reason to think that in their publication at various times they have been a help to many inquiring hearts.

As a “renaissance of our distinctive teaching” of the first principles of the gospel of Christ, has been called for by the Christian Standard, and heartily seconded by many thoughtful brethren, I deem it a favorable time to throw this book upon the patronage of the brethren. I do not know of any volume of sermons that treats so fully of the first great lesson of the gospel — the way of the sinner’s return to God under the mediation of Jesus.

In the preparation of these sermons, both for pulpit use and for publication, I have from the first had in view mainly the wants of the “common people,” such as those who heard Jesus so gladly. I have always taken it for granted that if the common people could understand me, the uncommon people, those who are learned and critical, could also, if they wanted to; and I would much rather help the great number who need help and want help, than the few who can get along without any help.

I hope and pray then that this little book may to some extent meet the want that is beginning to be felt as never before — the want of the gospel of Christ in all its simplicity, purity, and power; that it may lead many souls to Christ; that it may be a help to young preachers; and that it may continue to preach Christ and Him crucified long after the “lisping stammering tongue” that preached these sermons, and the trembling hand that pens these lines have moldered back to dust (“Preface”).

As with any uninspired book, there are some things with which one will disagree, such as Manire’s belief that the 120 were baptized with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 (59, 70), the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit (68, 81), and his conjecture that Cornelius might have been saved had he died before hearing the gospel (90). There may be other things that one will notice as he reads the book, but generally he will be impressed, not with those areas of disagreement, but with how well he has presented the case for how conversion occurs.

There is an urgent need for brethren to get back to the basics in their preaching. We are hearing many “be good — feel good” sermons that invite a person to “come to Jesus,” but have little to say about how one is to come to Jesus and obey the gospel. This series of gospel sermons on conversion calls men back to what the Bible text teaches that men had to do to be saved by the shed blood of Christ Jesus.

This book will make an excellent gift to anyone who preaches or wishes to preach. It is an excellent study of con- version for any man, Christian or non-Christian. It would make a good gift for one who is not a Christian but wishes to learn how to become one. The book is well-written; it is a good study of the subject of Bible   conversion.

The Guardian of Truth Foundation is delighted to add this volume to our catalog of publications and commend it to our readers. We hope you will enjoy it and benefit from it as much as I did.

By Michael Jones

Have we stopped declaring the whole coun- sel of God?

Somewhere around 15 years ago, I had my first experience with unde- nominational Christianity. Like most people in the religious world, my understanding of Christianity was that it looked like a tapestry, with the various denominations likened to the patches that make up a whole quilt. I was totally ignorant that division within the body of Christ was sinful (1 Cor 1:10-13). I came from a Baptist background, but I imagine that virtually anyone from a denominational background viewed Christianity in a similar light.

When I first visited a church of Christ, I was amazed at the level of Bible knowledge that the typical member possessed. I was so amazed by it, that I distinctly remember telling my Baptist friends that, “The aver- age church of Christ member could run circles around some of the best Baptist scholars you could produce in general Bible knowledge.” After making this observation, I wondered why this was true. Then, like a bolt of lightning, it occurred to me: the church of Christ was actually teaching the Bible, whereas the Baptist church I attended was not. The command to “preach the word” was taken seriously (2 Tim 4:2).

It is with much regret that I look at the church today and wonder if we have left the mandate of true Bible teaching. I have heard many sermons in churches of Christ where there is not a single Bible verse read or re- ferred to for the first 15 or 20 minutes of the sermon. I have also heard sermons where the lack of preparation is obvious, usually filling most of the sermon time with stories and anecdotes that contribute nothing to serious Bible study. The congregation languishes in a spiritual morass, never sees any spiritual growth, and is taught by example that there need be no emphasis on actually teaching the Bible. Slowly, but surely, the congregations are becoming just like the Baptist church that I left all those years ago: full of sermons with entertaining oratories with only a few obligatory Scriptures thrown in, and rather obtusely at that. I call this preaching. If you hear more stories the “let me entertain you” school of and illustrations than Scripture verses during a sermon, you might be hearing a “let me entertain you” preacher.

Very different than the first, there is also another type of preaching malpractice going on today. It is more subtle, but equally dampening to spiritual growth. And whereas most congregations would not tolerate the absence of Bible teaching for long, those same congregations frequently embrace this transgression. There is another movement currently taking place that says there are only certain subjects that should be preached on exclusively: baptism, denominationalism, the church, and authority. With only minor variations, the congregation hears essentially one of four sermons twice every single week (morning and evening). This is what I call the “only four things really matter” school of preaching. You might be hearing a “only four things really matter” preacher if all of his sermons could always have one of the following titles: The Necessity of Water Baptism, The Sin of Denominational Division, The Nature of the Church, or How to Establish Biblical Authority. These may not have been the actual titles, but could they have been?

The goal of congregational Bible teaching and preaching should be to have those in attendance to conform their lives to Biblical principals. This is walking with God. “And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments” (2 John 6). When Christians pattern their lives after biblical commandments and principals, we grow in grace; when we fail to practice the truth and live according to his desires, John says we walk in darkness and lose our fellowship with God. “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:6-7).

The evangelistic nature of a sermon is always fulfilled when there is a call to conform one’s life to biblical in- struction and admonition. In one key respect, the call of the Bible is the same to those outside of Christ as well as those who are in Christ: Do the will of the God, and you shall live. But the soul that sins shall die (cf. Ezek. 18:20). To those who are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), the call is to conform their lives to the will of God in initial obedience of faith (John 8:24), repentance (Acts 17:30), confession (Rom. 10:10), and baptism (Acts 2:38). Those who are saved, are to continue in obedience to biblical commands and principals. Jesus became the “author of eternal life to those who obey Him” (Heb. 5:9).

Matthew 7:21 tells us that only those who do the will of God will enter into the kingdom of heaven. Is the will of God restricted to baptism, unity, the church, and authority? Certainly not. Why are we then content to tolerate preaching that only touches on these areas? The word of God is filled with instruction on a seemingly unlimited scope. Gener- ally, the message of the Bible is a call to     righteous and holy living. The Lord commands, “Be ye holy, because I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:16).

It is easy to see then why knowing God’s word and con- forming our lives to it is so important. The problem with “let me entertain you” preachers is that the congregation is never exposed to biblical principles in the first place since the Bible is only used lightly and more from obligation than desire.

The problem with “only four things really matter” preachers is that the congregation only learns four Biblical principals, and if something arises outside of those four areas, they are completely unprepared to deal with it. 1 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us, “All Scripture is given by inspira- tion of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Understanding that God gave us his word exactly as he wanted us to learn from it, which part are we free to neglect in our teaching and preaching? None of it, since God gave all of it for a purpose: that we might be complete. When we neglect to proclaim the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27) and we fail to teach the fully revealed will of God for our lives, we do a grave disservice to the Bible.

God has charged us to preach his word. I submit to you that the only truly effective way to do this is with verse-by- verse, systematic, expository preaching. Start in chapter 1, verse 1 and preach his word one verse at a time. By system- atic, I mean progressing through the text of Scripture as it was given without skipping any of it. By expositionally, I mean preaching in such a way that the meaning of the Bible passage is presented entirely and exactly as God intended it. The preacher is charged with the proclamation of the truth of God, not his opinions. And we are not at liberty to discount portions of God’s word because we find the passages difficult to understand or deal with.

Should not our preaching be done in a manner that treats the Bible as being what it claims to be — the inspired Word of God? If we really believe that “all Scripture is inspired by God,” shouldn’t our preaching reflect the truth that all of it is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16- 17)? We must let these truths determine how and what we preach.

Paul gave this mandate to Timothy: “I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction” (2 Tim. 4:1-2). Any form of preaching that ignores that intended purpose and design of God falls short of the divine plan.

Frequently, we criticize denominational churches for avoiding certain passages of Scripture. This is often a valid criticism. After all, when is the last time you heard a Baptist preacher teach on Mark 16:16? How about 1 Peter 3:21? Have you noticed, however, that we may need somebody to give us the same criticism? How many sermons have you heard on the resurrection and proper biblical eschatology in passages such as John 5:28-29 and chapter 15 of 1 Cor- inthians? How about the option of remaining single instead of marrying (1 Cor. 7:25-40)? I don’t think we jettisoned our commitment to preaching the whole counsel of God on purpose, but we may have let it happen by practice.

Let me detail what I mean by “systematic verse by verse exposition of the word of God.” There are three major cat- egories of preaching: Topical, textual, and expository.

Topical messages usually combine a series of Bible vers- es that loosely connect with a theme. It has been estimated that around 80% of all preachers are topical preachers.

Textual preaching uses a short text or passage that generally serves as a gateway into whatever subject the preacher chooses to address. Somewhere around 15% of all preachers fit this category.

Expository preaching focuses predominately on the text under consideration, as well as its context. Do the math, and you’ll see that around 5% of preachers are expositors.

It is my firm belief that neither the topical nor the textual method represents a serious effort to interpret, understand, explain, or apply God’s truth in the context of the Scriptures used. This is especially true when you are merely trying to entertain the audience. Most books on hermeneutics state the following minimal elements identify expository preaching:

• The message finds its sole source in Scripture. No pop- psychology, politics, social engineering, or excessive pandering to emotions.
• The message comes entirely from the Scripture under consideration through careful exegesis. The preacher cannot expound Scripture until he has a firm grasp of its meaning.
• The message correctly interprets Scripture in light of its context, on both an immediate and overall level.
• The message clearly explains the original God-intended meaning of Scripture. This cannot be over-emphasized. We are to let the Scriptures teach us; we are not to force our view into the passage.
• The message applies the scriptural meaning for today.
• This is also known as “relevance.”

If the above sounds like it places a heavy burden of ser- mon preparation on the preacher, you can be assured that it does. Paul’s instruction to Timothy was that he was to, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). The preacher who is doing the work that God expects him to do will always be a hard worker, and will spend serious time in Bible study, frequently around

10-15 hours per sermon. Fail to adequately prepare and the preacher directly disobeys 2 Timothy 2:16: “But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness.” (A helpful hint to preachers: study to know the meaning of the text, not to prepare a sermon. When you thoroughly understand the text, the sermon will be easily prepared.)

There are many passages that exemplify this kind of Bible teaching. Two key verses are Nehemiah 8:8 (Old Testament) and Acts 20:26-27 (New Testament). “And they read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading”(Neh. 8:8). “Therefore I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God”(Acts 20:26-27).

Other examples include Jesus himself as he taught in the synagogue by expounding Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4:16-

22. (See also Luke 24:27, 32, 44-47.) Philip demonstrated expository teaching being used evangelistically in Acts 8:27-35 when he was dealing with the Ethiopian eunuch. These are not the only examples of exposition in the teach- ing of Scripture. In fact, the word of God is replete with such examples. Each of the Gospels, the history book of Acts, almost every single epistle (the one chapter epistles being the only exception), and even the prophetic book of Revelation provide many examples and exhortations to preach the complete word of God as he has given it.

We must return to the biblical pattern and example of proclaiming the whole counsel of God exactly and entirely as it was given to us. Failing to do so will lead to a genera- tion of Christians that knows very little about God’s word, who do not grow spiritually, and (worst of all) cannot reproduce themselves. We do not do justice to the word of God when we fail to proclaim it in its entirety. We do not proclaim it in its entirety when we preach on the same things over and over to the neglect of the rest of Scripture. And we certainly do not proclaim it properly when we teach sermons that merely make the occasional, casual, reference to the word of God.

Consider these verses, and ask yourself if these things are happening at your congregation. If they are not, there needs to be repentance for neglecting the whole counsel of God, followed by continued obedience to the commands and examples that follow:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age (Matt. 28:19-20).

Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching (1 Tim. 4:13).

And the things which you have heard from me in the pres- ence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also (2 Tim. 2:2).

Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruc- tion (2 Tim. 4:2).

But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine (Tit. 2:1).

By Harry Osborne

All brethren with whom I am familiar by personal discussion or reading their material affirm that God created the universe, both animate and inanimate. I think it fair to say that all brethren I know would deny Darwinian evolution which affirms the evolution of all forms of life from a single, one-celled source or a few one-celled sources arising from non-living matter. However, some of our brethren are now saying that, while they deny the animate creation evolved beyond the stated limit of “after its own kind” given in the Bible, they accept the evolving of the inanimate creation from the “big bang” 20 billion years ago.

They affirm that the earth finally came into being some 4.5 billion years ago after the cooling and condensing of gases and other matter from the big bang. They further accept the concept that the formed earth took about two billion years to cool off, clear its atmosphere and various other things needed to reach “stability” (their choice of words, not mine). They affirm that all of these changes over millions or billions of years were necessary to play out before the earth was ready for the next action by God. In other words, God acted, then the earth was allowed to “stabilize” over a long period wherein changes were explained by naturalism rather than miraculous power, and the process repeated.

As they so affirm, they decry the use of the term “theistic evolution” to describe their views. They contend that they do not believe the general theory of evolution (Darwinian evolution) which holds that all living forms evolved from a common one-celled source. Since they do not believe in that form of evolution, they contend that they are misrepresented when others refer to them as “theistic evolutionists.” They sometimes refer to their view point as “progressive creationism” or “old earth creationism.”

My question is this: What is the difference between believing in the evolution of the animate creation and the inanimate creation? God is said to have “created” (Heb., bara) both the animate and the inanimate: the heaven and the earth (Gen. 1:1); man (Gen. 1:27, et. al.); the living things of day five (Gen. 1:21); the heavens (Isa. 42:5). Furthermore, the terms “created” and “made” seem to be governed by the same time frame in Genesis 2:4. What, then, could be the biblical basis for refuting the evolution of the animate creation while affirming the evolution of the inanimate world? It seems to me that the two views are philosophically inconsistent. Am I missing something?

There is a great deal of discussion about it being unfair to call those “theistic evolutionists” who deny the evolution of the animate creation, but who affirm what can only be described fairly as the evolution of the inanimate creation. While I agree that we need to avoid using terms that unfairly characterize one, is the term “theistic evolution” an unfair characterization of the view that says God initiated and guided a process which over a 20 billion year period of change ultimately “stabilized” in the formation of the inanimate creation? Given the qualifiers, it seems to me that the term does fairly characterize what such brethren are teaching. However, I am caught between the desire to avoid a non-central dispute over terminology and the desire to have brethren frame the discussion in the proper context.

Lest the reader think only a few radical and ignorant folks are failing to understand the more educated and moderate defenders of this doctrine, let me point you to others who are sounding the same warnings. Dr. Bert Thompson, Executive Director of Apologetics Press and long-time lecturer on Evidences among institutional brethren, expressed it this way:

Is progressive creationism theistic evolution? Both call in God to start creation. Both accept evolution (in varying amounts). Both accept the validity of the geologic age system. Both postulate an old Earth. Where is the difference, except that progressive creationism allow God “a little more to do in the system”? Both systems put God (theos) and evolution together. By any other standard that’s theistic evolution (Creation Compromises [1995] 193).

Thompson has dealt extensively with exposing the error of men like John Clayton among institutional brethren. Together with Wayne Jackson, Thompson has repeatedly warned that such teaching is a sure road to acceptance of more and more evolution. He quotes from Richard Niessen making the same point in these words:

It is currently fashionable for theistic evolutionists to go by the name “Progressive Creationists” in order to avoid the popular resentment in Christian circles against evolution and its non-theistic orientation. In practice, however, both views are essentially the same. The difference merely concerns the amount of God’s intervention within the evolutionary process (Niessen, Significant Discrepancies Between Theistic Evolution and the Bible, 1980, 16; as quoted from Thompson, 193).

Dr. Bolton Davidheiser, a long-time writer and lecturer on Evidences in evangelical circles has made the same point in his efforts to contend with the teaching of Dr. Hugh Ross. Brethren, it is not just a few “trigger happy young guns” out to create a problem who have conjured up a fight on this matter.

There is no doubt in my mind that acceptance of evolutionary concepts regarding the inanimate creation will inevitably result in acceptance of evolutionary concepts regarding the animate creation. Maybe not by the present teachers of such, but certainly by a second generation. The history of “Progressive Creationism” among the denominational world plainly shows that fact. The same historical pattern may be seen in the Abilene Christian University controversy among the institutional brethren. In The Shadow of Darwin, a book by Wayne Jackson and Bert Thompson, chronicles that digression as do numerous articles and lectures. The movement started with the acceptance of John Clayton’s teaching and ended in the full teaching of the general theory of evolution with the initial act and continuing guidance of God.

Make no mistake about it, the same movement has begun among non-institutional brethren. Those who minimize the problem and defend the brethren who affirm this error are aiding in a subtle, but devastating assault upon the very foundation of faith. Brethren, if