Truth Magazine

By Roland Worth, Jr.

When people finally realize that baptism is essential to salvation, they often react with excuses to avoid acting on their new knowledge. The excuses are invalid but it is always useful to consider in detail what is wrong with them.

1. “If I accept that, then my parents went to hell when they died.” First of all, if they are dead nothing can be changed- for them-for either better or worse. There is no Purgatory. Their eternal fate is sealed. Secondly, if the fate of our parents were the deciding factor in everything religious, how could there ever be a change for the better? The Jews, in their idolatry, could have pleaded, “If we tear down our idols, that means God has condemned our parents!” Would we have left our idols intact if such an objection had been raised? Then consider the children of those Jews who-killed Christ. (Surely some were converted as the years went by.) Did not they feel upset about the fate of their parents? And we all know the fate of murderers! Should the children have sacrificed their own salvation because of the foolishness of their parents?

Thirdly, rejection of something that is true does not change the truthfulness of what is rejected. The earth is round no matter how much the Flat Earth Society of Britain insists otherwise. The earth revolves around the sun no matter how many Medieval theologians branded it heresy. Works that are commanded by God are still essential no matter how much radio ministers rant and rave against them (cf. James 2).

Fourthly, those who argue from the non-belief of their parents are horribly inconsistent. Do we wear the same type of clothes as our parents? Do we insist on the same means of transportation enjoyed by our parents and our parents’ parents? Do we ride horses (or walk) and reject the modern conveniences (cars, trains, planes)? Logically those who argue non-obedience from the inaction of their parents should be flocking to Pennsylvania to join the Amish, since that sect is about the only one left that consistently tries to implement this type of thinking in all its consequences!

We could mention yet other areas where we do not imitate our parents-indeed, would often vehemently react against them. May we suggest politics? May we suggest contemporary music? Is there a family left in our nation that has not been divided one generation against the other over one or both of these matters? Yet you have the gall to say that in regard to the one area of life that will decide your eternal destiny-your religion-that you will imitate your parents? Come on now, just who do you think you are kidding?

Fifthly, the scriptures teach that we stand before God independent of our parents. Every person who dies faces the judgment of God (Heb. 9:27). Our parents cannot take our place nor we theirs. We escape the Divine judgment that may be on our parents only if we ourselves do what is right in the sight of God (Ezek. 18:14-18).

Sixthly, if your parents went to punishment at their death-as you fear-the greatest hope they have for you at this very moment is that you do not make the fatal mistake they did. We read of a similar case in chapter 16 of Luke. A rich man died and went to punishment that could not be escaped (v. 26). He begged, “Send him (the dead Lazarus) to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place” (vs. 27-28). This plea was rejected, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them” (v. 29). The rich man repeated his plea and it was again rejected, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead” (v. 31). Yes, those in Punishment wish you would listen to the warnings you hear lest you join them. The voices from Hades cry out for you not to join them.

If your parents are there — and we sincerely hope they are not — then their voices join those of the anonymous rich man of old, begging you to heed the warnings, found in scripture, of Moses and the prophets. They loved you while in this life and their love for you in death warns you away from their destiny. Will you not listen to their cries?

2. “I don’t want to believe that.” Look at Peter. Peter did not want to believe that Jesus would die and he was confident that if He did he would be His companion to the bitter end (Matt. 26:30-35). His refusal to believe in his own human weakness resulted in disgrace when he denied his Master three times.

Look also at Pharaoh. He did not want to believe that Moses was a genuine spokesman for God. As a result, he lost the firstborn sons of all his citizens. What a price for refusing to believe the word of God!

Look at Jesus’ enemies. They did not want to believe that He was a King and they mocked Him for making the claim (Matt. 27:35-44). Because His claims were legitimate and were vindicated by the resurrection, they stood condemned as murderers and the apostles bluntly reminded them of that fact (Acts 2:29-36). What was the solution for their evil? They were told it was repentance and baptism (Acts 2:37-38). If baptism will save the souls of murderers, how much more will it save us, who are guilty of so much less! Baptism is like an open door leading to redemption and peace with God. If we will not walk through it the blame belongs on our shoulders, not on God’s. He has given the opportunity to be saved, but we have rejected it.

3. “What difference does it make if the scriptures teach it?” First, notice the apostles. They spoke by inspiration (John 16:12-15) and they taught that baptism was essential and will save us just as much as water saved Noah while at the same time condemning to death the rest of the world (1 Pet. 3:20-21). Dare we reject the testimony of inspiration? Dare we give our personal prejudices a higher value than the revelation of the Divine Oracles?

Secondly, notice the words of Jesus. Those words will judge us if we reject them (John 12:47-49). Jesus clearly taught the necessity of baptism (Mark 16:16). Hence, if we refuse baptism then Christ’s Words will stand in judgment on our eternal fate.

True love of Jesus means obedience (John 14:23). Men loudly cry, “I love Jesus” and then they have the audacity to look at His words in Mark 16:16 and insist, “baptism doesn’t matter!” Baptism is a test of true love. Baptism for the purpose Jesus set (forgiveness) is a test of true love. Obviously, most people do not have such a true love dwelling in their hearts though they loudly proclaim it with their lips!

4. “I’m a good moral person.”So was the apostle Paul. He was raised in the strict morality and restrictions of the Pharisees (Acts 26:4-5). What he did, he did sincerely, out of conviction (v. 9) and what he did was to persecute the church (vs. 10-11). In all of this evil he was acting out of a good conscience (Acts 23:1). A good conscience only proves how you feel not how you should feel!

Also a good moral man was the young person who wanted to become a disciple of Jesus. From his youth he had been extremely moral but his unwillingness to obey Jesus in other matters resulted in him deciding not to become a disciple (Mark 10:17-22). He would not give up his money; today good moral men will not give up their pride. Have times really improved? Morals are important and vital once a person is saved, but a person can be redeemed regardless of his past character. Titus 3:5 makes plain that even a person who performs “works of righteousness” cannot be saved unless he is baptized. Alone, good morals are insufficient.

5. “But I believe!” So do the devils (James 2:19)! So do most people-way over 90% of all Americans. When you merely believe in God what have you done more than others? Are all Americans going to heaven? (God forbid! How perverse a place they would make it!) God wants men to go beyond belief, to prove their faith by their conduct. As James writes of himself, “I by my works will show you my faith” (James 2:18b). When we have accepted baptism for the purpose prescribed by scripture we can begin to say the same.

Truth Magazine XXII: 15, pp. 251-252
April 13, 1978

By Jeffery Kingry

Ira Y. Rice does not have me on his mailing list since I wrote him a letter a few years back, but he certainly has the church’s address where I preach, so I still get his newsletter. It is characteristic of Brother Rice’s paper his name is always set in the largest type; even his signature at the end of the thing is ten lines of type tall. Another characteristic of Ira’s paper is that he is always begging for money from churches to feed his grandiose human schemes.

I thought that Brother Rice made an interesting observation in his July 25th newsletter (Downtown San Francisco Church of Christ presents Ira Y. Rice, Jr.’s Far East World Evangelism Newsletter). “The DTSF church sponsors not just one effort – but three – in addition to the work of the local congregation.” Yes, children, he did say that. Above and beyond the work that the Lord has given to all churches (and limited all churches) to do, the Downtown San Francisco church, at Ira Rice’s dedicated prompting, has assumed three other works that all admit cannot be found in the Bible.

He is quite unabashed about it all, “We are well aware of the contentions of some that a church should attempt no more than it can pay for all by itself without any help beyond its own local membership. . .But, be it understood, in the outset, that (this) congregation is a self-sustaining congregation making no appeals in its own behalf!” That is right, Brother Rice. The appeals you and the DTSF church make to other churches are to support human institutions you thought up, planned, and put into operation. I encourage you and all the good brethren in San Francisco to read Matt. 15:7-9,12,13.

What are these “extra-curricular” activities this noble, submissive church assumed for all the Lord’s churches to support? Brother Rice listed them as follows:

“We were approached, in 1969, relative to accepting the sponsorship of Four Seas College of Bible and Missions, in Singapore. We knew then that the only way we could accept this responsibility would be with the implicit help of . . . congregations beyond the borders of our own local membership.”

“We took it on.”

“In 1970, when it was clear that the cause of truth was being undermined by . . . false teachers practically brotherhood-wide, the DTSF Church was approached to accept the sponsorship of a periodical-Contending for the Faith …. We knew that we were not strong enough financially to do this without rather a lot of outside help. It was with this clearly in mind that ….

“We took that on too!

“We were approached to establish a college of World Evangelism . . . .Our facilities were entirely inadequate . . . .We knew that the necessary property purchase. . .was “way yonder” beyond our local capacity . . . .Nevertheless, by sheer faith, we sold our old building. . .so we could have the college.”

“And we took that on too!”

Shades of Rome! Why not take it all on by “faith” Brother Rice? There is a local McDonald’s Hamburger Haven franchise available in Baltimore. Do you think that the good brethren in San Francisco would “take that on too” if I “approached” them? Just think, we could feed the starving masses of Baltimore, give them a room for the night, shave them, clean them up, and then convert them! But of course, you already tried that in California a few years back did you not, Brother Rice?

Completely aside from the fact that there is absolutely no authority for the church to be engaged in promoting, running, or funding human institutions like colleges and paid subscription papers, I wonder if any of the brethren in San Francisco (or throughout the United States that send money to such cock-eyed schemes) ever read Paul’s words concerning the work of the local church? `Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have”(2 Cor. 8:11). Paul was encouraging Corinth to do its work as a church in caring for needy saints. But God never required the church to assume a responsibility that was beyond its means to support: “For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath and not according to that he hath not” (8:12).

The Lord must have had someone like Ira in mind when he limited the church to its own sphere of work and responsibility. If we left the work of the church up to such “Popes” as this they would soon have the salt of the earth gathered and boiled down into one massive block to hulk on the West Coast for all the world to lick at their leisure!

Truth Magazine XXII: 15, p. 250
April 13, 1978

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