Truth Magazine

By Ronnie McCarty

The subject material in this article has been dealt with many times before. Therefore, all Christians should have some knowledge of the topic at hand. Sadly, this is not always the case. As all the Word of God, this lesson must be taught and continue to be taught because of the lack of knowledge of the Bible in the world, and even in the church, how God has designated particular things.

In the beginning, God saw fit to name the various works of His creation (Gen. 1:3-5, 8). God also entrusted man to name the birds of the heaven and the beasts of the field (Gen. 2:19-20ff). Later, in the book of Genesis, we see that God named the child of Abram and Hagar (Gen. 16:11). Under the law of Moses, God named the place of worship as the tabernacle. He designated how it was to be designed, what the furniture would be, and how those who ministered in the tabernacle were to dress (Ex. 25-30). He also named the office of those who were to minister in the tabernacle (Ex. 40:15; 28:1).

God designated the name of the forerunner of Jesus (Lk. 1:13). Zacharias, the father-to-be, recognized the importance of not changing that name (Lk. 1:57-64). The point is, that when God gives a name or names for various things, no man has a right to designate it any other way. For instance, neither Hagar nor Zacharias could have named their children any other name. Man would not have had the right to change the furniture, or the name of the furniture in the tabernacle. To illustrate as an example, a man could not have entered the tabernacle and seeing the golden candlestick, have said, “I think this should be called the ark of the covenant.” Or, looking at the altar of incense, say, “I believe it’s okay to name this the table of shewbread.” Man did not have the right at that time to re-name or redesignate something God had previously named, nor does he have that right today. The question is asked so often, “What is in a name?” The simple answer is plenty, if God has designated that name.

It is said by the majority that the “name of the church you area member of doesn’t make any difference; any name will do.” But contrary to this, let us notice what the Bible says. Paul said, “. . .that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow. . .and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father” (Phil. 1:9-11). Also, the apostle Peter said that, “. . . in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Therefore, not just “any name” will do; only those names which were given by the Lord.

Let us note some of the terms by which the church is designated. In Eph. 1:22-23 and Col. 1:18, it is simply called the church. It is called the church of God in 1 Cor. 1:1 and Acts 20:28 (church of the Lord in ASV). Jesus called it “my church” in Matt. 16:18. The term “church of Christ” is used in plural form in Rom. 16:16 as Paul speaks of the local congregations that are located throughout the various provinces. It is called the kingdom in Matt. 16:19 and, more specifically, the kingdom of the Son of His love Son (KJV) in Col. 1:13. It is designated church of Firstborn (Heb. 12:23)

and the body (Col. 1:24, Eph. 5:22). All these are Scriptural designations for the church; any other name or names will not do. Some ask, “What about the names Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.? Are they not acceptable?” The obvious answer is no. All these names, and many others, are additions of men and cannot be found in the Word of God.

Truth Magazine XXII: 15, p. 249
April 13, 1978

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

It has been argued that Darwin believed in God, hence he was a “theistic evolutionist.” He is reported to have written to his son on one occasion, stating, ” in my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God” (A.S. Zerbe, Christianity And False Evolutionism, p. 186). There are those who oppose the view and affirm that Darwin in reality did not accept the idea of a creator in the sense of “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). They believe that what he had to say about “God” and his belief in a “Creator” was mere subterfuge, designed to lead the unsuspecting to believe that there is room in the evolutionary process for the creative act of God! A more probable view is that he referred to God occasionally to soothe his conscience with reference to his atheistic tendencies. Darwin does not take the time in his Origin of Species to tell us the nature of the God he professed to believe in, nor does he explain the relation of the creator he professes to believe in to the world. There is no doubt that at least for a while, Darwin believed in God, but the conspicuous failure to mention “God” throughout much of his writings indicates a change in his thinking. Possibly he deemed it prudent to discreetly veil his real views toward this “Creator” in his teachings. Observe the following facts and decide for yourself concerning Darwin’s belief in God: (1) Darwin did not believe that “homo sapiens” had been created by a special act of creation on the part of God. His theory is that man was the mere descendent, along with the ape, from a common, lower form (or parentage), and that man is the highest expression of evolution. Man, therefore, was not a special creation. (2) He did not believe in miraculous interventions of any kind at any stage of the evolutionary process (which he calls “descent”) of man (Robert Clark, Darwin: Before and After, p. 77, 86). He rules God out of the process. (3) Clark also tells us that Darwin said on one occasion that he was willing to believe in God if such could be brought into line with scientific concepts (Ibid., p. 87). Like all evolutionists, Darwin’s concept of God apparently was a depersonalized God. (4) Darwin almost declares himself to be a naturalist when he said, “he could have no doubt of design if he could believe that there is a Designer distinct from the mechanical forces active in natural selection” (Underscore mine, jt — Zerve, op. cit., p. 188). (5) In addition to this, it seems that while Darwin pretended to be seeking truth with reference to a harmony of science and the Bible, he was in reality using this as an excuse for avoiding the force of Paley’s Natural Theology. Thus, he spent his whole life running from God and Paley (Clark, op. cit., p. 96)!

Evidence from the pen of Darwin suggests that he viewed God as nothing more than a force, or the sum total of energy. His God was the God of evolution. This may be a false deduction, but we do know that his theory of all species of plants and animals (man included) having arisen from one simple form through a series of changes, denies the necessity of supreme intelligence. His theory strives to explain all things in nature as merely trial and error, the result of natural process, Such concepts eliminate God completely. Information supporting the position that Darwin was a strict theist in the strict sense of the term is weak, if not lacking completely. Those who argue that Darwin (at least during later life) did not believe in God, have the better argument.

Evolution In General

When we pass from Darwin to evolution in general, we are confronted with the complete mechanical aspect thereof. Since evolution demands no mind behind the process, it rules out God altogether. As Zerbe says “the consistent evolutionist holds that there is no supernatural order at all, but only a dead level of natural law . . .” (op, cit., p. 58). Earnest Haechel maintained that; evolution was the non-miraculous origin of the universe. In his history of creation, he says “no supernatural history of creation can in any way explain to us the great mystery of organic development” (Vol. 1, p. 11): The force of this statement is not minimized by pointing out that Haechel was a German Naturalist, hence a rank atheist! He was an evolutionist, and the father of the idea of a “common ancestor”. Too, Darwin was popularized by Haechel and Huxley (Zerbe, op. cit., p. 234; cf. Darwin: Before And After, p. 94).

The theory of evolution is a biological theory, which asserts that life came from non-life; that many kinds of life now existing at all levels developed from one or more forms or cells of life. The essential idea behind evolution is that which this article stresses, the natural process which rules out the supernatural. The logical conclusion that all evolutionists are drawn to is the position that a personal God is useless, and therefore it is fruitless to believe in Him at all. Hence, Darwin and evolution find no place for a personal God in their position. To be an evolutionist, one must reject god.

Can One Harmonize Evolution and the Bible?

It is asserted that evolution can be harmonized with the Bible. It is also maintained that the theory does not interfere with our concept and faith in God and Christ. This is not so, for if evolution is true, then the Bible is false! If the Bible is false, then our concept of God who created all things is void. We are dependent solely upon the inspired word for the concept of the nature of God. The Bible is true, and evolution is still as much a theory today as when it first came into being. In view of observations cited above, there is no possible harmony between the Bible and the theory of evolution.

Conclusion

Since there can be no harmony between evolution and the Bible, one must accept one and reject the other. Many evolutionists admit that the theory is not an established fact. They know that most of them admit that, to date, there is woeful inadequate true scientific facts to prove evolution. One evolutionist (W.B. Scott) admits that only a complete record would prove evolution. Since they do not have complete record, evolution is not fact, but bold guess-work (Zerbe, op. cit., p. 78). In addition to this, Earnest Haeckel tells us that evolution is limited (History of Creation, Vol. 1, p. 32). Since it is limited by the “nature of the senses and the brains,” it cannot disprove supernatural creation as taught in Genesis 1. My faith in God and the Good Book given to us by revelation, on one hand; the admission of weaknesses in the evolutionary theory, on the other, forces me to renounce evolution! “Know ye that the Lord He is God: it is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of His pasture” (Psa. 100:3). “For of him, and through him, are all things; to whom be glory forever, Amen” (Rom. 11:36).

Truth Magazine XXII: 15, pp. 248-249
April 13, 1978

By Ron Howes

The real burr under the saddle of the pacifist seems to be his unqualified position on the commandment “thou shalt not kill!” A number of years ago a somewhat misguided brother began telling brethren that non-Christians were not amenable to the law of God, so that, whatever marital state they were in (who’s wife shall she be in the resurrection?) was okay, once baptized. It did not take long for a few brethren with their heads screwed on straight to knock the props out from under this fragile fabrication. His proposition was quickly buried because:

(1) To become a Christian the alien must repent of sin (Acts 2:38). (2) To repent of sin you must have broken the law (Rom. 5:13). (3) Therefore, the alien is amenable to the law.

We hear from the scratching of other pens that “God is not a respecter of persons” and, His law applies to all! How then, can we say that the policeman’s act of killing a man robbing a store is not a sin, but it would be a sin for a Christian to be a policeman and do the same thing? That argument looks like this:

1. It’s a righteous act for a policeman to kill in the line of duty.

2. Christians may not under any circumstances kill.

3. Therefore, it Is a sin for a Christian to commit a righteous act.

I accuse my pacifist brethren of consistently applying a double standard here. But, we continue to hear, “Jesus said, thou shalt not kill!” And, while we agree that the United States is not Israel, we must compare apples with apples. The law God gave Israel is a model for civil government and stands as a near perfect system for administering the civil affairs of men. In a country without a standing police force or professional army from Moses to Saul, God allowed a limited and restricted amount of personal vengeance, vigilante style, in the “avenger of blood.”

We do not, however, confuse this with self defense. It is one thing to discover the body of a slain loved one and to pick up your hunting rifle and go looking for the killer, and a legitimate self defense situation. One is vengeance with malice, and the other merely self protection with fear as the motivating factor, not malice. Both God’s law and our civil law recognize and condone this kind of stop-gap justice.

To Kill Or Not to Kill

The God who said, “Thou shalt not kill” also said “if you kill the thief breaking in there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him” (Ex. 22:2). To date, no one has offered to debate whether nor not God’s definition of bloodguilt has changed from Old Testament to New Testament. A roof cave in caused by builder neglect could cause the execution of the builder if anyone died from the cave in, but to kill in self-defense carried no guilt under God’s application of “Thou shalt not kill.” Here’s the argument:

1. God said, “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13).

2. Killing in self defense carried no guilt (Ex. 22:2).

3. Therefore, killing in self defense does not violate the law.

That inspiration has made a distinction between killing that carried bloodguilt and killing that is commanded, encouraged, or sanctioned with no bloodguilt is apparent in the original tongue. While a phoneus is certainly a killer, not all killing is phoneuo. The word inspiration chose to transmit the mind of God in Deut. 5, and Exodus 20, is rahtzach, the Hebrew term for murder, as opposed to accidental death, death in war, or the killing of animals.

This distinction is more closely seen when the student realizes that the God who said thou shalt not rahtzach, commanded the execution of a variety of criminals, including murderers, rapists, negligent contractors, and unyielding children. Was God commanding Israel to disobey the sixth commandment? Does God ever command us to sin?

Jesus Himself chose an equally distinctive term in saying thou shalt not phoneuo (Matt. 5:21). According to Strong, phoneuo means “to be a murderer,” (p. 76), according to Thayer (p. 657), it means “to commit murder” and W.E. Vine (p. 291) said, “Pheneuo, to murder, akin tophoneus, a murderer.” Need we also define what murder is!? Jesus nowhere circumvents the responsibility of the Christian to kill if necessary in the protection of his own life or family.

On another occasion Jesus commanded the disciples to arm for self-defense (Lk. 22:36). In the ensuing confrontation with the guards, he never condemned the use of the sword, or reviled the disciples for having with them that which he had commanded them to possess. The Lord who said “buy a sword” (Luke 22:36), said in reference to its use “suffer them thus far” (Luke 22:51). Let the interested reader ask himself the question, “How far, is thus far!” In answering that question, you will know under what circumstances Jesus will allow you to kill in defense of your family.

The scripture is detextualized and warped which says turn the other cheek, if it is so stretched to mean that if a thief kills your son, do not resist, let him rape your wife also; and, so are the fruits of the doctrine of nonresistance. “As much as in you is, live peaceably with all men” (Rom. 12:18).

Truth Magazine XXII: 15, pp. 247-248
April 13, 1978

By Leslie Diestelkamp

Perhaps no one will argue with me when I say that there is no power you can have over your children that is equal to the influence of your example. Yet it may be that it is in this respect that the greatest failures occur. We may expect our children to be directed by what we say, yet, we may fail miserably to establish a strong influence over them because we do not “practice what we preach.” Actually, what we do speaks so loudly that they may not be able to hear what we say!

It has been said that “you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time.” Parents need to remember that one can hardly deceive his children at all. They may be better able to detect hypocrisy than can the neighbors and, in fact, though they may not understand the details of wrongdoing, they will usually know if something is wrong — if one is not what he claims to be.

But aside from the fact that children are often “turned off” by the hypocrisy they observe, we need to remember that they may indeed be greatly influenced for good by the example the parents set. Please note the significant words written by Herbert Fraser:

“To get his good night kiss, he stood

Beside my chair one night,

And raised his eager face to me,

A face with love alight.

And as I gathered in my arms

The son God gave to me,

I thanked the lad for being good,

And hoped he’d always be.

His little arms crept ’round my neck,

And then I heard him say

Four simple words I shan’t forget,

Four words that made me pray.

They turned a mirror on my soul,

On secrets no one knew,

They startled me, I hear them yet-

He said, “I’ll be like you.”‘

How well do I remember a cold day in 1945 or 1946 when I lived in Stevens Point, Wisconsin. My second son, Al, who was then just under school age, had gone with me to the Post Office. We crossed the wet street and stepped up on the dry sidewalk. Soon Al dropped behind me and then he said, “Daddy, do you know what I am doing?” I said, “No, what are you doing?” He replied, “I am walking in your steps.” You see, the soles of my shoes were wet and they left a dark imprint on the dry sidewalk. He was stretching his little legs as much as possible to try to step in each track I left. The incident left a deep impression on me. I thought, as I go down this street today, and down the pathway of life in the days and years to come, here is a little boy following me. He will go where I go, do what I do and be what I am! Ever since then I have been pleading with parents to recognize the power of their example. Somebody is following you. It is probably your son or daughter!

Children must see Christ-likeness in us in moral purity, in devotion to God, in faithfulness in worship, in love for the church, in unselfishness, generosity, kindness and in love for truth.

Parents, please ask yourselves, “How important will religious matters be to my children if they acquire the very same devotion that I have demonstrated before them?” Do they see that you put God first all the time (Mt. 6:33)? Does your example show them that your greatest concern is to reach heaven yourself and to help them and others reach that place too (Col. 3:1, 2)?

I am sure fathers and mothers will find the right way to set a proper example before their children if those parents can just be very deeply impressed with the importance of such example. The following poem by some unknown author is used here to try to make such parents see more clearly:

“Walk a little plainer, daddy,”

Said a little boy so frail,

“I’m following in your footsteps,

And I don’t want to fail.

Sometimes your steps are very plain,

Sometimes they are hard to see,

So walk a little plainer, daddy,

For you are leading me:”

“I know that once you walked this way,

Many, many years ago,

And what you did along the way,

I’d really like to know.

For sometimes when I’m tempted,

I don’t know what to do.

So walk a little plainer, daddy,

For I must follow you.

“Some day when I will have grown up,

You are like I want to be,

Then I will have a little boy,

Who will want to follow me.

And I would want to lead him right,

And help him to be true,

So walk a little plainer, Daddy,

For we must follow you.

Let every hour of every day be lived in such a manner that every word and every deed will lead some child in the right way. Parents, awake! Into your hands has been given those who are not only precious to you, but who are also very precious to God. Their eternal destinies are being determined right now-not by the school teachers, not by the police, not by the neighborhood in which they live, but by you! The kind of character you demonstrated before them will probably be the very kind they exhibit before the all-seeing eye of God. With all the wisdom you can acquire, teach them well. But most of all, lead them by your example: say the kind of pure words you want them to say; do the kind of deeds you want them to do; manifest the kind of attitude you want them to have. Yes, live the kind of joyful, enthusiastic, happy life of righteousness and holiness you want to see in them. God bless all of you. Next: “Crisis Psychology.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 15, pp. 246-247
April 13, 1978