Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

For several years; I have been receiving the Present Truth magazine which is edited by Robert D. Brinsmead and mailed out of Fallbrook, California. I have spoken to some preachers among us who have been receiving the periodical without cost to them from its first issue. Just where this publishing corporation received its mailing list is unknown to me but I know that they are mailing their literature to a large number of the preachers in the Lord’s church. I have hurriedly glanced through the various issues of this paper during recent years and thought that I had a pretty good grasp of what they were teaching. However, in preparation for writing this article, I went back and carefully re-read the last two years of their publications to be sure that I was understanding what they were saying.

Emphasis on the Reformation

One thing has been evident to me from the beginning of my reading of this journal, namely, its emphasis on the reformation. Reformation scholars such as Luther and Calvin are quoted extensively and frequently. In my reading of the paper, I have almost become convinced that the quoting of Luther or Calvin in this paper is as good as the, quoting of the New Testament writers. Whether this judgment be true or not, I am thoroughly convinced that the editor and writers for this paper are bent on the restoration of the reformation. I invite any of our readers to critically examine any single issue of this magazine to see that this is so.

(Let me interject that I am somewhat concerned to. see some articles published among us which seem to emphasize the restoration movement in America to such an extent that one could get the idea that we are supposed to restore the Restoration Movement. We are to restore New Testament Christianity, nothing more and nothing less.)

Peculiar Doctrines of Present Truth

To list all of the things which Present Truth magazine is publishing would be impossible. Some of the points which they are emphasizing are altogether legitimate (such as the authority .of Goal’s word over subjective religious experiences). However, there are a number of doctrinal departures from the revealed word of God which I -want to mention to our readers and to substantiate from quotations from this paper in order that we might be on guard against some who might have adopted these views among us.

1. Perseverance of the saints. Articles which have been published in the Present Truth magazine express belief in the false doctrine of “once saved, always saved” as the following quotations clearly show:

“Moreover, they know-that the remnant of sin which is in their flesh, is not laid to their charge, but freely pardoned. Notwithstanding in the meanwhile they fight in the spirit against the flesh, lest they should fulfil the lust thereof. And although they feel the flesh to rage and rebel against the spirit, and themselves also do fall sometimes into sin through Infirmity, yet they are not discouraged, nor think therefore that their state and kind of life, and the works which are done according to their calling, displease God: but they raise up themselves.” (“Luther’s Comments on Galatians 5:17, “Present Truth, Vol. VI, No. 3, p. 9).

“Wherefore let not them which feel the concupiscence of the flesh, despair of their salvation …. But it followeth not therefore that thou shouldest make a light matter of sin, because God doth not impute it. True it is that he doth not impute it: but to whom and for what cause? Not to them that are hardhearted and secure, but to such as repent and lay hold by faith upon Christ the mercy-sent, for whose sake, as all their sins are forgiven them, even so the remnants of sin which are in them, be not imputed unto them ….And this is the true wisdom and consolation of the godly, that although they have and commit sins, yet they know that for Christ’s sake they are not imputed unto them” (Ibid., pp. 10-11).

These and other quotations which are taken from issues of Present Truth document the fact that these men are faithful to the Reformation theology of John Calvin’s doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.

2. The imputation of the righteousness of Christ. The theological basis which is used for saying that God overlooks the sins of the believer is the Calvinistic doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to the account of the believer. Here are some quotations which document the fact that Present Truth endorses and propagates this doctrine:

“There are two elements blended together in God’s redemptive act In Christ. These elements are righteousness and blood. Paul not only ascribes salvation to the blood of Christ but also to the righteousness of Christ ….The gospel to about Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:3)-His righteousness and blood. If Christ is our Sun, then half of this Sun’s luster is dimmed when we fail to rivet our attention on the grand theme of the righteousness of Jesus” (Robert D. Brinsmead, “The Righteousness of Christ,” Present Truth, Vol. VI, No. 2, p. 161.

“We may summarize the point by saying that God requires of man a holy life. The justice of God’s judgment seat requires exact and perfect obedience to the divine law. Man cannot be saved unless that law be fulfilled-every jot and title of it.

“Says Calvin, ‘The Lord promises nothing except to perfect keepers of His law,’ and then, to underline the human predicament, he adds, ‘and no one of that kind is to be found.’– Calvin, op. cit., Bk. 3, chap. 17, sec. 1. This is where God stepped to by providing for us a Surety (Heb. 7s22) in Jesus Christ. His righteousness consists in His perfect obedience to His Father’s law in our room and on our behalf. Not only by His blood (which atones for our offenses) but by His righteousness He reconciles us to God and presents us in the sight of divine justice as if we had kept the law” (Ibid., p.18).

“Since Christ lived for His people a life of positive righteousness as well as died to atone for their sins, this means that God’s justification of the believer includes more than pardon for past offenses. While the blood of Christ washes away the stain of all guilt, the righteousness of Christ clothes the believer with the righteousness which the law demands” (Ibid., p. 22).

“By faith he can bring to God the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ, and the Lord places that righteousness of His Son to the sinner’s account. This is how the believing sinner is justified by faith.

“Justification before the law is more than pardon for past sins. While on the cross Christ bore away the curses of the broken covenant so that the believing sinner might be pardoned. He also fulfilled the stipulations of the covenant by His life so that a perfect keeping of the commandments might be imputed to the believer. Being justified by faith in both Christ’s doing and dying, the believer is entitled to all covenant rewards” (Vol. V, No. 7, p. 52).

We have already encountered some trouble among the Lord’s churches because certain ones among us have accepted the Calvinistic doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ. By applying this doctrine to certain matters among us, some have extended their umbrella of fellowship to include those who are wilfully involved in support of human institutions from the church’s treasury, the sponsoring church type of organization, premillennialism, using instruments of music in their worship, diverting the mission of the church to get it involved in recreation, etc.

3. Election. Another point of Calvinism that is presented in the Present Truth magazine is the doctrine of election. The Calvinists are hurting from the extensive attacks of those of us who oppose Calvinism who have charged that Calvinism teaches that God chose to send a large group of men to Hell without them ever having done anything to deserve it. Present Truth does not like the logical consequences of the Calvinistic doctrine of election. However, rather than repudiate the Calvinistic doctrine of election, the writers of Present Truth prefer to rest in inconsistency. They recognize that the doctrine of God eternally decreeing a group of reprobates to Hell is the logical consequence of their doctrine of election but they refuse to accept it. At least these Calvinists recognize their problem as is shown in what follows:

“At the Conference of the Hague the Calvinists stated: ‘When we posit an eternal decree of election of certain particular persons, it clearly follows that we also posit an eternal decree of rejection or reprobation of certain particular persons, for there cannot be an election without a rejection or reprobation. When from a certain number some persons are elected, then by this very act others are rejected, for he who takes them all does not elect” ‘ (Kiaas Runia, “Recent Reformed Criticisms of the Canons;” Present Truth, Vol. V, No. 6, p. 27).

Klaas continued in this article to try to grapple with the problem. He said,

“It is of course true that logic’ does play an important part In theology . . . .By this very means the church has developed its doctrine of the Trinity and also its Christology, yet the question must always arise: is a particular consequence ‘good and necessary’? In general we must say that especially at the point of an eternal decree of reprobation we have to be most careful. And one should ask oneself: why does Scripture itself not draw this conclusion, if it is so natural and so logical?” Ibid., p. 281.

Of course, Unitarians would ask Klaas the same question as he posits with reference to the eternal decree of reprobation with reference to the Trinitarian doctrine of the Godhead. You see, Klaas is reluctant to accept the logical conclusions of his presuppositions. He wants to adopt the idea of an eternal election, the total depravity of man, etc. but to reject the bad side of the conclusions which result from these presuppositions.

Citing with approval the work of certain Calvinists who are unwilling to accept the conclusion of an eternal decree of reprobation, Klaas said,

“Secondly, they also refuse to change the biblical asymmetry between election and rejection, Into a symmetrical, logical system, in which salvation and perdition evolve from the one decree in two parallel lines. ‘He who wants to be ‘logical” here, must either make faith the work of man alone or unbelief the work of God’ ” (Ibid., p. 29).

Notice the position which Present Truth is taking with reference to the doctrine of election. They want to believe that God predetermined that some would be saved but do not want to believe that He predetermined that others would be lost. Consequently, they charge that the Bible is illogical and asymmetrical on this point. In essence, this says that the Bible is teaching two contradicting doctrines. Klaas leaves the matter up in the air. He states that these two doctrines conflict with each other and that he accepts the idea of an election and rejects the idea of reprobation but offers no way that the two can be harmonized. Instead, he appeals for more study in this area.

4. Total depravity. In keeping with the fact that Present Truth is pretty much a Calvinistic journal, although it does differ with the main stream of Calvinism in some points, the paper teaches that man has received the guilt of Adam’s transgression and stands totally depraved before God.

“Here is a simper. In himself he has no freedom at all. To begin with, he Is in debt to the law. Because he has failed to render to it a life of perfect righteousness, his We is forfeited, and he is obligated to make full satisfaction to the law’s penal claims. By the power of that omnipotent law he is bound to the service of sin (1 Cor. 15:56 Rom. 7:8). Or to put this another way, God’s wrath (‘the law worketh wrath’ (Rom. 4:15) 1 has abandoned him to the control of sin. All this has come about by the sin of Adam, his legal representative (Rom. 5:16-19). Then too, his nature Is disposed to hatred of God and to love of evil. So we may safely concede the Augustinian premise that in Adam man is totally lost. He is so enslaved to do evil that he is not free to live a life of righteousness” (Robert D. Brinamead, “The Legal and Moral Aspects of Salvation, Part 3s In the Matter of Election,” Present Truth, Vol. V, No. 6, pp. 12-13).

“At this point the Calvinist may ask, ‘How can the sinner, who is dead fn sin’s and totally depraved, be free to accept Christ?’ We simply answer that the legal aspect of redemption takes precedence over the moral condition of man” (Ibid., p. 13).

Notice that Brinsmead had the perfect opportunity to express his disagreement with Calvinism in this last quotation but he chose not to. Why? Because he accepts Calvinism’s concept of man. Man is born totally depraved according to the writers of Present Truth.

5. Salvation without baptism. Having seen this much Calvinism in the Present Truth magazine, I was not shocked to read that these writers did not believe that one had to be baptized in order to be saved. In fact the masthead of the paper reads, “Solely by Grace, Solely by Christ, Solely by Faith.” (Of course, the editor has never taken the space in his paper, at least to my knowledge, to explain how salvation can be solely by three different things! The masthead is a contradiction in terms.) However, let me once again document the fact the Present Truth teaches that one can be saved without baptism. In the second issue of the special on the “covenant,” the writers of Present Truth treated baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the “signs and seals” of the covenant. In this, the writer said,

“We have to acknowledge that people can be saved apart from the signs and seals of God’s covenant” (“The Signs and Seals of the Covenant,” Present Truth, Vol. V, No. 8, p. 18).

“There are still some hard-liners in captivity! Some insist that all who are not baptized by immersion according to their particular teaching cannot be saved ….We need to acknowledge that salvation is by grace alone. This means that the Lord Is in the business of saving sinners. Just as no one Is without sin, so no one is without error. If error damns us, then we must all be damned” (Ibid. ).

Repeatedly this paper mentions that one is saved through repentance and faith without ever mentioning that baptism is essential to salvation. Yet in these statements there can be no doubt that these men do not believe that one has to be immersed in water in order to receive the forgiveness of his sins.

Conclusion

As we have gone through an examination of this paper, the question comes to my mind of just how well received is Present Truth among the brethren. I do not know the answer to that question. Perhaps some of our readers can inform us as to what they are hearing from comments with other preachers. However, I do know that I have read three complimentary letters signed by gospel preachers among us in the pages of their “Letters to the Editor.” That, I admit, is not very many yet it should awaken us to the danger which is in this journal.

Seeing the dangers that are inherent in this revival of Calvinism, this Neo-Reformation movement, I would like to issue a call for brethren everyone to arm themselves for another fight against the evils of Calvinism. Get out your sermons on total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints and preach them. If you have not prepared any sermons on this subject during the time that you have been preaching, I would suggest that you need to study these subjects and prepare lessons on them. I found these books to be especially helpful to me: The Gospel Plan of Salvation by T.W. Brents and Kept By the Power of God by I. Howard Marshall. (Needless to say, these books are available through Truth Magazine Book Store.)

Truth Magazine XXI: 38, pp. 595-597
September 29, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Nigeria: “Will you reconcile Rom. 4:5 with Phil. 2:12?”

Reply:

Rom. 4:5 says, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Phil. 2:12 says, “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” These texts are in two different contexts. Essentially they do not need to be harmonized or reconciled for they are not contradictory.

“Worketh” Versus “Worketh Not”

In Rom. 4, Paul is reviewing what “the Scriptures saith.” Was Abraham justified by works; that is, was Abraham justified by perfect obedience to law? No, he was not (Rom. 4:3). Whom did David say would be blessed? Did David say the blessed are those who never sin? No, David described the blessed man as the forgiven man (Rom. 4:6-8). God makes one righteous by faith, not by works (Rom. 4:11). Justification is by the system of faith. It is not “through the law,” or by works of perfect obedience.

In Rom. 4:4, 5, Paul is not saying, “But to him that obeyeth not, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Rather, he is stating a fact. He is not making an argument. He is enunciating a simple truth. The one who sins, the one who depends upon God for forgiveness, that is the one that “worketh not.” If the one who has sinned believes on God, “his faith is counted for righteousness.” His works cannot avail, for he has sinned. If he had never sinned, his works would obtain the reward of justification. God would owe it to him to declare him righteous in His sight. Only to one who never sinned would God owe salvation. So, the one who “worketh” is the one who never has sinned. The one who “wvorketh not” is the transgressor who must rely on God for righteousness. If he is forgiven, it is a matter of grace, not debt. His faith is the means by which God declares him righteous.

Whatever terms or conditions God sets forth can never alter the fact that forgiveness is a matter of grace. Again, the man who “worketh” is the man who never sins. The man who “worketh not” is the sinner who cannot depend upon perfect obedience for righteousness.

In Phil. 2, Paul encourages those who have obtained “the righteousness which is of God by faith” to continue in their salvation which is maintained by obedient faith (cf. Phil. 1:6, 7; 2:12; 3:9). Paul does not say, “Work out your own means of being made righteous.” This would contradict Romans 4:4, 5. Consider Abraham. He was not justified by works. He was justified by faith. His faith was a working, obedient faith (Jas. 2:21-24; Rom. 4:12). Abraham did not keep a law perfectly. He sinned. When he did, his forgiveness became a matter of grace and faith, not of debt and works. His faith, which was counted unto him for righteousness, was a faith which was obedient (cf. Gen. 12:1-4; Heb. 11:8; Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:4, 5).

Note The Romans

The Romans illustrate this point. They were sinners. They were not justified by works. They were justified by grace, faith, and the blood of Christ (Rom. 3:24; 5:1; 5:9). Still, their response to God’s system of justification had to be an obedient one (Rom. 1:5; 6:17; 18; 16:26). Then, “your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world” (Rom. 1:8). “For your obedience is come abroad unto all men” (Rom. 16:19). The obedience of this passage is parallel to the works of Phil. 2:12. Under the system of justification by grace without works, one must be obedient, working out his own salvation with reverence and awe (Eph. 2:8-10; Phil. 2:12).

Truth Magazine XXI: 38, p. 594
September 29, 1977

By Luther Blackmon

In John 10:41 it is recorded that the people said, “John did no miracle,” and there is nothing in the scripture that indicated that this is not true. John the Baptist performed no miracles. And there was a reason as we shall show in the conclusion of this study. But here is food for thought, particularly for those who place so much emphasis on miracles today.

In the first place, John was one of the greatest preachers who ever lived. Jesus said of him, “among them that are born of woman there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist” (Mt. 11:11). Secondly, “he was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb” (Lk. 1:15). Thirdly, he was sent on his mission by the Lord: “There was a man sent from God whose name was John” (Jn. 1:6). He had all the qualifications that modern “miracle workers” claim. But he “did no miracle”. Why?

Old Testament Miracles

The Old Testament records about fifty miracles besides the Genesis account of creation. God did most of these, either for the punishment of wicked men or nations, or in behalf of His people in times of stress or danger. Healing the sick was not among them. In fact, I can think of no instance of healing an individual except the arm or Jereboam (1 Kg. 13) and this was a case of undoing one miracle with another. The healing in connection with the brazen serpent was also of this nature. Numbers of people were killed by God’s power, others were stricken in various ways, and some raised from the dead; but healings were scarce.

The Miracles of Jesus

The Bible says that the recorded miracles of Jesus were “written that we might believe that he was the Christ. . . and that believing we might have life through him” (Jn. 20:30, 31). Here we might just ask this question: “If miracles were to continue through the ages, why was it necessary that the miracles of Jesus be written?” If the Lord were going to give His people power to continue performing miracles, then every generation would have the same miraculous testimony that people had in the time of Christ’s ministry. Hence, there would have been no need to have the miracles of Jesus recorded.

Disciples Given Power of Miracles

When Jesus sent the apostles out under the limited commission (only to the Jews), He said, “as you go, preach, saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils. . . ” (Mt. 10:7, 8). You have no doubt heard many people say they were miraculously “healed”. How many have you seen or heard who were raised from the dead?

In the same verse in which the Lord said to “heal the sick”, He also said to “raise the dead”. But ask a “miracle worker” to let you see him raise one from the dead and he will indignantly inform you that you are asking him to “tempt the Lord”. But he does not mind our seeking him to work a healing “miracle”. In fact, he invites us to come down on certain nights with the promise that this will be “healing night”. Why does it “tempt the Lord” to work a “miracle” on a dead man but it does not “tempt the Lord” to work a “miracle” on a sick man? Jesus raised many from the dead; Peter raised Dorcas (Acts 9); Paul raised Eutychus (Acts 20). What is wrong with raising the dead? When we question their claims that God heals miraculously today by human agency, they accuse us of trying to “limit God’s power”. It is they who limit God’s power. I believe that God can heal a man with an artificial limb as easily as He can heal a backache. But how many people do you know who went to a “healing service” with an artificial limb and were made whole? These “miracles workers” will not take such a person before their audience and try to heal him. They screen these out before their “healing begins”.

Why John Did No Miracle

John the Baptist did no miracle because his mission was of such nature that it did not require miraculous confirmation. Jesus performed miracles that He might confirm His deity: ” . . . these are written that ye might believe and that believing ye might have life through his name” (Jn. 20:30, 31). The apostles also were given power to work miracles, both before and after Jesus’ death and resurrection. The reason they could work miracles after He had risen and ascended to heaven is clearly set forth in . . .

Mk.16:15-20

“And he said unto them, go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the work with signs following. Amen.”

This was a new message. It was different from the law of Moses. So the preachers of this message needed miracles to prove to the people that this new message was of God. The miracles (signs) that they were able to work confirmed the word that they preached. When the people saw these real miracles in connection with the preaching, they knew that these men were sent from God.

But what about those miracles the apostles did before Jesus’ death and during His personal ministry (Mt. 10:5-8)? It should be noted that this was during the same period when John was preaching and baptizing. Why, then, could Jesus’ disciples heal the sick, raise the dead, etc., while John could not?

John was sent to the Jews only-a people already in covenant relationship with God. Neither John’s preaching nor his baptism changed this relationship. His work did not alter the law of Moses. John preached “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” but John did not preach the “gospel of the kingdom”. John introduced Christ but Christ and His disciples preached the gospel of the kingdom. John’s work was to renew the Jews to their zeal and loyalty to Jehovah and to prepare them to receive Christ. His work is clearly set forth in Lk. 1:16, 17: “And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” John’s preaching was limited to Israel and designed only to turn them from their sins in repentance and get them ready to receive the Christ who was to come. This did not require miraculous demonstrations. It was not to be a new system of religion. Very soon these people John taught and baptized would be given opportunity to obey the gospel and, along with the Gentiles, be heirs of the blessings of that “kingdom which would never end”. Jesus was to replace Moses’ law. And it would require more than a Galilean peasant and a group of fishermen and tax collectors to convince the Jews that this message came from the same God that gave the law from Sinai, and to turn the Gentiles from their idols. So, the word they preached was attended by and confirmed by miracles. But the word has been confirmed and God is no more going to perform them again than He is going to send Christ to die again. This is why miracles are not performed by human agency.

“. . . them that believe”

Mk. 16:17 is much misunderstood and misapplied. “These sings shall follow them that believe.” This does not teach that every believer would be able to work miracles. It simply says that those who performed miracles (signs) would have to be believers. Back in verse 14 He had upbraided the eleven (Judas was dead) because some of them had not believed those who had brought them word when Jesus rose from the dead. 1 Cor. 12:20, 29 shows that not all who had spiritual gifts could work miracles. But even among the apostles, those who worked miracles had to believe in Christ.

Truth Magazine XXI:37, pp. 589-590
September 22, 1977

By Paul A. Jones

With the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, the question of man’s origin has been settled once and for all-man descended from the monkeys just as Darwin said, right? And in this enlightened age no intelligent person-certainly no scientist-questions the fact of evolution, right? Wrong!

For years it has been assumed (repeat, assumed) that Darwin proved the theory of evolution and, having proved it, disproved the book of Genesis in the process. But, I suggest that to draw this conclusion is to misstate the facts. For, as any reader of The Origin will learn, Darwin was not at all convinced of the finality of his thesis. In the sixth chapter of his book (Modern Library edition) he writes, “Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered” (Darwin, Op. cit., p. 124). Burroughs informs us, “Darwin was as far from being as sure of the truth of Darwinism as many of his disciples were, and still are. He said in 1860, in a letter to one of his American correspondents, ‘I have never for a moment doubted that . . . much of my book will be proved erroneous.’ Again he said, 1862, ‘I look at it as absolutely certain that very much in the Origin will be proved rubbish'” (“A Critical Glance Into Darwin,” Atlantic Monthly, Aug. 20, 1920, p. 238).

At this point, one may be thinking: But what about the fossils? And what about those experiments with the fruit flies, the gill-slits, mutations, and so on-don’t they prove evolution? Let’s look at these “proofs” one by one and see what they prove. As for the fossil record, Dr. Merson Davies, who holds two doctorates for research in geology, believes that the fossils support creation, not evolution (see L. Merson Davies, The Bible and Modern Science (1953), p. 6). Douglas Dewar, V. Z. S., a converted evolutionist, writes, “The creation. theories explain the fossil record far better than do those of evolution, and, as the latter involve impossible transformation, they ought to be abandoned” (Dewar, Transactions of the Victoria Institute (1944), p. 75). We agree.

Often cited as proof of evolution is the fruit fly (drosophila melanogaster). But; .breeding experiments with the fruit fly, far from proving evolution, have proved the very reverse (see Douglas Dewar, The Transformist Illusion (1957), p. 150). H. J. Muller. states that “most mutations are bad, . . . In fact, good ones are so rare that we can consider them as’ all bad” (Time, Nov. 11, 1946). Muller is a geneticist at Indiana University.

What about the :recapitulation theory and the argument from embryology on “gill-slits”? The recapitulation theory (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) is an unfortunate “proof” of evolution, as it. does not agree with the facts. As Dewar pointed out, we know, from mammalian history that teeth were developed before tongues, but in the embryo the reverse is the case (Dewar, The Transformist Illusion (1957), p. 208). Darwin’s old geology professor, Adam Sedgwick, said: “After fifty years of research and close examination, the recapitulation theory is still without satisfactory proof” (Sedgwick, Darwin & Modern Science, p. 176). The argument on gill-slits, so-called, is no better than the others. Dr. A. R. Short, M.D., F.R.C.S., is authority for the statement that “the ‘gill-slits’ are not slits at all in mammals; they are grooves between the arches that support the blood vessels necessary to supply blood to the forepart of the body, including the developing brain. In fish, these grooves become perforated, and gills are formed; in the mammalian embryo they are not perforated, and there are no gills” (A. R. Short, Modern Discovery and The Bible (1955), pp. 64, 106).

The theory of evolution simply bristles with difficulties. For one thing, evolutionists cannot account for the migratory instinct in birds on the basis of evolution. For another, the absence of transitional forms between the major groups of animals; for another, evolution cannot account for the origin of chlorophyl. And there are many other serious difficulties evolutionists cannot explain.

If the arguments for evolution are so weak, one might ask, why are scientists so overwhelmingly in favor of it? The truth is, there are a large number of scientists who do not believe in evolution. The Creation Research Society of Ann Arbor, Michigan, numbers among its member over 400 men who hold advanced degrees in various scientific disciplines. All of these men oppose the theory of evolution for scientific reasons. Dr. Frank Marsh, Ph. D., biologist says that “if evolutionists had not wasted a generation of hard work in trying to pick up a trail which never existed, biology would be at least a generation further along in the discovery of the laws and processes which do exist” (Marsh, Evolution, Creation and Science (1947),. p. 285).

That man was created, not evolved, is the testimony of Moses (Gen. 1:27; 2:7, 21-22), Job (Job 10:8, 11). Paul (Acts 17:29; Rom. 5:13), Solomon (Eccl. 7:29; 12:1), Christ (Matt. 19:4), and of God Himself (Gen. 1:26; 3:19). In his fine book The King of The Earth (1962), Erich Sauer writes: “Thomas Carlyle was once at a meeting of learned men in which the problem of man’s descent was being discussed, and was asked to give his opinion. ‘Gentlemen,’ he said, ‘you place man a little higher than the tadpole. I hold with the ancient singer: ‘Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels’ (Psalm 8:6).” Ruth Benedict, in Race: Science and Politics (1943), points out that “the Bible story of Adam and Eve, father and mother of the whole human race, told centuries ago the same truth that science has shown today: that all the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin” (Benedict, Op. cit., 1943, p. 171).

It is unfortunate, but true, that many who embrace evolution do so because of a bias against the supernatural. Thus, D.M.S. Watson, British biologist writes, “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved . . . to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” Another evolutionist, Sir Arthur Keith, confessed that while “evolution is unproved and unprovable” he believed it because creation was “unthinkable.” Have you been brainwashed by evolution? The case for creation is more convincing.

Truth Magazine XXI: 37, p. 588
September 22, 1977