Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

From the “Baptist Herald,” a publication of MidContinent Baptist College, Mayfield, Kentucky, we have salvaged the following:

“WHY I AM A BAPTIST”

1. Because I am requested to do so. 1 Peter 3:15.

2. In Jude verse 3 I am commanded to contend for the true faith.

3. In Ephesians 3:21 I see that the church is for the glory of God.

4. To be for His glory the church must be built by Jesus, not by men.

5. In my study I found an others except Baptists began with some man.

6. The church must come out of Palestine and only Baptists did that.

7. Must preach only what glorifies God. Baptists only do that.

8. Must rightly interpret the two ordinances. Baptists only do that.

9. Must have the proper rules governing the church. Baptists only do so.

10. Did Jesus set up and commission His church while on earth? Answer: He surely did thus not on Pentecost. John 17:4.

11. The Bible teaches salvation apart from any church. Baptists only do so.

Preliminary Observations

First, this terse outline reveals that denominational doctrine has not changed. The same old arguments are still being used. Second, some denominational churches contend for what they believe. It is sometimes argued that “the denominations don’t care anymore, so why should we fight them?” The points above squelch and squash that idea. Third, there is a constant need to stress the fundamentals of the faith. One must not tire of sermons on the establishment of the church.. Each generation must be grounded in the elements and rudiments of the truth regarding the church of the Lord.

Response To The Eleven Points

1. 1 Peter 3:15 says nothing about one being a Baptist or anything else. One is made to wonder why, though, if 1 Peter 3:15 requests us to be Baptists, that Peter said, “If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed” (1 Peter 4:16). Or, what is the same, if Peter had requested us to be Christians, would he then have advocated that we suffer as Baptists?

2. The inference from the second point is that the Baptist faith is the true faith and that being a Baptist is part of that. It necessarily follows, then, that all other faiths are false. That indicts the Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Lutherans, and Campbellites. In fact, it condemns everyone but the Baptists. However, we need not fear. Jude is not a Baptist epistle. It speaks and warns of apostasy in almost every verse. No Baptist preacher should have written it, therefore, Jude 3 has not reference to Baptists, nor to the Baptist faith.

3. I grant that “the church is for the glory of God.” Must I be in the Baptist church to glorify God? If so, I cannot do it in the Methodist church. But the author argues that salvation can be obtained “apart from any church” (See point number 11). Is it conceiveable that salvation is apart from the glory of God?

4. True; so, the conclusion is that Jesus built the Baptist church. If He did, no mention of it is made in the New Testament, unless it has escaped my notice.

5. This is an assertion. What New Testament “study” would reveal what the author states?

6. The church of Christ came out of Jerusalem which is in Palestine. That would qualify the Lord’s church. Again, where do we read of Baptists coming out of Palestine? We read of the Lord’s people, but not of Baptists.

7. So, Methodists and Presbyterians do not glorify God with their preaching. That makes the Baptists sound like those “narrowminded,” “Pharisaical” Campbellites!

8. The two ordinances referred to are baptism and the Lord’s supper. This simply means that the Baptists are the only ones who teach the truth on baptism and the Lord’s supper. Did any Baptist preacher ever say, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?” Did any Baptist preacher ever tell sinners to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins? Did any Baptist preacher ever tell a sinner to be baptized and wash away his sins? No, they have never done so, and yet they say they are the only ones who “rightly interpret” the two ordinances. If they are no closer on the Lord’s supper than they are on baptism, the claim is a farce.

9. The proper rules for governing the church are found in the New Testament and not in a Baptist Manual. Are the Baptists the only ones who take the New Testament and govern by it? If so, where are their “elders in every church” (Acts 14:23)? But, again, this condemns the Lutherans and Pentecostals, too. Surely, these Baptists do not think they are the only ones going to heaven!

10. John 17:4 no more excludes Pentecost than it does the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Those events had not taken place before John 17:4. Were they not a part of Jesus’ work? Further, John 17:4 came before the commission of Matthew 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15, 16; Lk. 24:47-49. If it cuts out the establishment of the church on Pentecost in Acts 2, then it unwittingly cuts out the commission!

11. If salvation is taught apart from any church, and that would include the Lord’s, then salvation is apart ,from the blood of Christ. Jesus purchased the church with his own blood (Acts 20:28). He died for the church, and He is its savior (Eph. 5:23-25). The blood of Christ is connected with the church. If salvation is not a part. of the church, then, one may say, “The Bible teaches salvation apart from the blood of Christ.” That is the blasphemous conclusion of the argument.

The answers to these eleven points are why I am not a Baptist.

Truth Magazine XXII: 12, pp. 199-200
March 23, 1978

By Johnie Edwards

There are two men in the Old Testament I would like to call to your attention who walked with God. “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God” (Gen. 6:9). Noah was said to have walked with God because his faith led him to obey God (Gen. 6:22; Heb. 11:7). “And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him” (Gen. 5:24). He was a man who pleased his God (Heb. 11:5). When we through faith, believe and obey God, we can please Him and we, too, can walk with Him.

Walk In Good Works

A lot of people misunderstand who is to do good works but the Bible teaches that every individual Christian is to walk in good works. Paul said, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). The Christian is to do good when he has the opportunity (Gal. 6:10). One reason for walking in good works is that others may see our light shining and, as a result, glorify God (Mt. 5:16).

Walk In The Spirit

Paul told the Galatians, “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit” (Gal. 5:25). Christians must be led by the Spirit, (Gal. 5:18) and this is done as we follow the directions of the Spirit as laid down in the Word of God. When one fails to obey the Word, he is failing to walk in the Spirit.

Walk Worthy Of Our Vocation

Paul admonished the Ephesians, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called” (Eph. 4:1). Being a Christian is a vocation and one must walk worthy of it.

Walk Like Christ Walked

Peter said that Christ left us an example that we should follow His steps (1 Pet. 2:21). John said, “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked” (1 Jn. 2:6). To walk like Christ walked is to act like He acted.

Walk In The Newness Of Life

After one has heard, believed and been baptized, he then must rise to walk in the newness of life as we learn from Paul’s teaching to the Romans. “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-4). A Christian is a new creature in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).

Truth Magazine XXII: 12, pp. 197-198
March 23, 1978

By Earl Robertson

Matthew records this statement, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). What good news for sin-laden people!

The Jews had the Law of Moses for fifteen hundred yeas, but that law could not take away sin (Rom. 8:3). That law was not given to take away sin, and it never so functioned (Heb. 8:7ff). The Old Testament vas dedicated by the blood of animals and the New Testament of Christ was dedicated by the Blood of Jesus (Heb. 9). Paul was a Jew (Acts 22:3) and lived as a Jew tinder the law. As Paul grew and was taught the law (“know the Lord, know the Lord”-Heb. 8:11), he found it did not give life, but rather death (Rom. 7:10, 24). The illustration of his own wretchedness also emphasizes the way out of sin — “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 7:25).

Jesus saves from sin! He does not save from accidents, local or national upheavals and catastrophes touching humanity. He died “for the redemption of the transgressions” of mankind (Heb. 9:15).God demanded death for sin, but the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin (He b. 10:4). Since God demanded the shedding of Blood for remission of sins (Heb. 9:22), He “gave His only Son” to die (John 3:16). Jesus was “a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief’-our sorrows and our griefs (Isa. 53:3,4). When He was “wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; God saw the travail of His soul, and was satisfied (Isa. 53:5, 11).

Jesus does not save people against their will. It is on the basis of “whosoever will” (Rev. 22:17). This is not what the creeds of men teach. Some human creeds teach “irresistible grace.” Some teach that God through Christ saves some men against their own wishes! Yet, in the words of Jesus the Savior, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). The invitation to “come” expresses action on the part of the sinner; it means the sinner, being away from the Savior and life itself, can come to the Savior. Salvation is offered only in Christ (2 Tim. 2:10).

Truth Magazine XXII: 12, p. 197
March 23, 1978

By Mike Willis

In 1925, John T. Scopes, a biology teacher in Dayton, Tennessee was charged with violating a state law which prohibited the teaching of any theories which deny the divine creation of man. The counsel for the defense was Clarence Darrow; William Jennings Bryan assisted in the prosecuting of Scopes. Scopes had been teaching evolution in the classrooms of Dayton, Tennessee. The trial lasted three weeks. Scopes was fined $100 after being found guilty. However, the fine and verdict were set aside by the state supreme court without any comment about the legality of the law.

The Scopes trial brought national attention to the controversy between the fundamentalists and the modernists. The trial itself was the culmination of a movement which had been going on for years. Alarmed by the steady growth of religious liberalism, the fundamentalists banded themselves together to stay the rising tide of modernism. The Scopes trial was somewhat of a test case as to whether or not the state schools could be restricted in their teaching. Though Scopes was found guilty, the ultimate result has been that this trial has been used to guarantee the modernists the right to present their theories of evolution in schools across this nation. Perhaps the time has come for another Scopes trial to be held.

Evolution in the Schools

Whereas the first Scopes trial was held in the hopes of guaranteeing those who believe in evolution the right to present their material in the public schools, if another Scopes trial ever occurs, it will likely be to guarantee the creationists the right to present their views regarding the origin of man. For today, evolutionists have such complete controls over the schools that in some universities a person cannot obtain a degree in certain fields of study without believing in evolution.

Evolution is not considered a theory by such teachers; it is considered a fact. The person who stands in opposition to evolution is not even given a hearing, in many cases. Regarding the manner in which evolution is presently being treated, Arthur Custance said,

Theories are essential to the progress of understanding in science because they structure experiment and inspire the asking of pertinent questions. When facts do not support the theory, it may be modified and continue to serve as inspiration for further investigation. But when a theory which is tentative is presented as fact, it no longer serves to inspire questions but rather to predetermine answers. To my mind, this is the present position of evolutionary theory. It has become “fact” and to challenge it is to run the risk of excommunication. In Medieval times, too, excommunication was one of the penalties for challenging the accepted view of things. At that time the test of whether any new theory was true or false was, as John Randall points out, whether it fitted harmoniously into the orthodox systems of belief and not whether it could be verified by experiment. This is exactly the position today; ecclesiastical dogma has been replaced by biological dogma which, as “dogma,” has been detrimental to the truth (Genesis and Early Man, p. 75).

Custance has accurately presented the situation with reference to the subject of evolution in most of our public schools. Today, there is no room for an examination of the arguments favoring creation over evolution. To teach creation in the classroom is to be guilty of combining church and state; to teach evolution does not involve this problem, according to those teaching the subject. Hence, one can teach evolution in the classrooms but dare not read the Genesis account of creation.

Not a few people have fallen down on their knees before the god of Science. Arlie J. Hoover explained what scientism is; he said,

The word scientism has been used for a long time to mean an uncritical worship of the empirical scientific method, an excessive veneration of laboratory technique. To a person who commits this error, “science” is a sacred word, and the phrase, “Science has proved,” has the force of a papal bull. To such people science has become a religion (Fallacies of Evolution, p. 16).

Such veneration of the scientists has created the disposition that science possesses all of the infallibility which Catholics believe the Pope has when he speaks ex cathedra. We cannot question whether or not evolution is true, because “science has proven” that it is true!

Evolution Still Remains Unproven

Despite the arrogance of those who believe evolution has been proven, the theory of evolution remains unproven. Let us consider exactly what would be necessary for evolution to be proven scientifically.

Bertrand Russell maintained that: “In arriving at a scientific law there are three main stages: the first consists in observing the significant facts; the second in arriving at a hypothesis, which, if it is true, would account for these facts; the third in deducing from this hypothesis consequences which can be tested by observation. If the consequences are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally accepted as true, although it will usually require modification later on as the result of the discovery of further facts (James D. Bales, Evolution and the Scientific Method, p.32).

What does this require specifically for evolution? What is necessary in order to prove the theory? In order to prove the theory of evolution, the following must be scientifically established: first, scientific proof must be given of the origin of our universe, solar system and earth; second, the origin of life; third, it must be scientifically established by the fossil record; fourth, it must be proved to be taking place in nature today; fifth, it must be proved experimentally in the lab; sixth, it must enable scientists to predict (cf. Bales, ibid., p. 56). This has not been done with the theory of evolution.

However, experimental repeatability is essential to the scientific verification of an hypothesis. “Science is built upon repeated results . . . .” By the very nature of the problem, evolution cannot be verified in this manner; therefore, it can never be established as a scientific law. No one has been able to demonstrate in the lab the changes which are absolutely essential to the scientific verification of evolution (Ibid., p. 72).

Evolution is a philosophy; it is not a science and certainly not a proven scientific fact. No one has presented sufficient evidence to prove the theory of evolution. The question of the origins of man is still open so far as the demonstrable evidence of science is concerned. Any person who maintains that “science has proven evolution” manifests his own ignorance of what constitutes science and the problems confronting the belief in the theory of evolution.

We Need Another Scopes Trial

Yet, the situation has evolved to such a degree that the proponents of evolution are almost in complete control of the educational facilities of the state. They are unwilling to present evolution as one of several unproven theories regarding the origin of man; they want to present it as an established fact. Furthermore, they browbeat those who believe in creation and make it extremely difficult to obtain a degree in certain fields of study unless that person will accept evolution.

What is the result of this? Science was allowed to present its theory of evolution but will not allow the presentation of the creationists’ point of view. As a result, our state is propagating a scientific humanism at the taxpayer’s expense. The theory of evolution may be properly defined as follows:

The word “evolution” is also used as a cover term for the total explanation of life’s origins and manifold forms. It involves the idea that the earth through a variety of natural processes became a place in which it was possible for life to exist. Life arose from the non-living, it arose by natural causes, and without intelligent oversight or direction. From the first form or forms of life, all the manifold forms have evolved through natural processes. All of this has been done without any supernatural intervention. It was not the result of intelligence, but of the blind workings of the forces of nature (Bales, op. cit., p. 25).

Hence, the indoctrination of our children in the theory of evolution constitutes the state’s involvement in the denial of supernatural creation. Instead, our state schools teach our children that the natural process must be explained without any reference to intelligent intervention into the course of nature.

The big question we now face is: How much longer are parents going to allow the selective indoctrination of their children-at taxpayer’s expense-with an exclusively, prejudiced, anti-religious view of origins that has no scientific -roof? (Hoover, op. cit., p. 85).

Hence, the world might be ripe for another Scopes trial-a trial designed to guarantee the creationist the right to present his view of origins alongside those views presented by the humanists who believe in evolution.

Truth Magazine XXII: 12, pp. 195-196
March 23, 1978