Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Modern writers are stating that we live in a post-Christian world, thus indicating that the Christian view of life has been replaced by another moral standard, generally that of humanism. Many Americans who reject atheism are nevertheless accepting the atheist’s moral standards. Perhaps, we might be profited to remember why we believe in God.

Have Scientists Proved There Is No God?

Our young people may be tempted to think that scientists have proven that God does not exist. That is not true. Scientists cannot prove God does not exist. This is true because of several things. (1) If one wanted to prove something by the scientific method, he must follow the steps of the scientific method to reach his conclusion. That involves observation and experimentation. God cannot be subjected to the observation and experimentation of scientific test tubes. Hence, whether or not God exists cannot be proven by the scientific method. (2) If one were to affirm that God does not exist, he would have to know everything, for if there was one fact that he did not know, that fact might be that God exists. Only one with the attributes of deity could know that God does not exist. (3) If one were to affirm that God does not exist, he would have to be in all places at the same time, for if there was one place that he was not at any given moment in time, God might be there. Only one with the attributes of deity could not know God does not exist. The scientist who spouts that God does not exist is an arrogant man, indeed.

Science is unqualified to speak on whether or not there is a God, creation, whether or not miracles have ever occurred, and whether or not Jesus was raised from the dead. These things cannot be subjected to the scientific method. Rather, these are historical questions that must be tested by the normal means of ascertaining whether or not an historical fact occurred.

Science and God

We can be thankful that the Christian religion does not agree with late twentieth century science. Science is an ever-growing body of knowledge that is continually being adjusted to explain newly discovered pieces of knowledge. Had the Christian religion been in harmony with first century science, how

outdated that would be today. Similarly, twentieth century science will be replaced by twenty-first century science. We can be thankful that our Bibles do not totally agree with our contemporary sciences.

Design Indicates A Designer

One of the primary reasons for believing in God is the evidence of design. Design is all around us. Modern scientists explain the obvious design in our world as the product of billions of years of unguided evolution. Nevertheless, they admit that creatures are marvelously adjusted to their respective environment. We call this design.

Here are some evidences of design in the universe:

1. The eye. The wise man of old said, “The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them” (Prov 20:12). Each eye is fitted to its environment.

Consider the eye of the fish. “For instance; these laws (laws of the refraction of light passing through objects, MW) require in order to produce the same effect, that the rays of light, in passing from water into the eye, should be refracted by a more convex surface, than when it passes out of air into the eye. Accordingly we find that the eye of the fish, in that part of it called the crystalline lens, is much rounder than the eye of the terrestrial animals. What plainer manifestation of design can there be than this difference?” (The Works of William Paley 391).

“The fish has larger eyes proportionately because he is down there where light rays do not penetrate as well as through air” (Luther B1ackmon, God or Evolution).

Consider the eye of the eel. “In the eel, which has to work its head through sand and gravel, the roughest and hardest substances, there is placed before the eye, and at some distance from it, a transparent, horny, convex case or covering, which, without obstructing sight, defends the organ” (Paley 393).

Consider the eye of birds: “The eye of the eagle is one of the marvels of nature. He can see a field mouse in the grass a quarter of mile away. He also must be able to see at a very close range when he dives into the grass or water to seize his victim. The eyes of all birds must have this variation in distance of vision. They must be able to see at great distances, especially the meat eaters, as they fly over the landscape. Then they must be able to see at a few inches when they are eating. ‘Chance might produce a wart or a mole, but never an eye’” (Blackmon 15-16).

Have you considered the tear duct of the eye? “It is easily perceived that the eye must want moisture: but could the want of the eye generate the gland which produes the tear, or bore the hole by which it is discharged, — a hole through the bone?” (Paley 394).

2. The Skeletal System. “Between each two of the bones of the spine there is a soft cushion which is known as the invertebral disk. This serves like a ball bearing and a shock absorber. . . Its presence permits the bones of the spine to rotate more easily one on the other” (Illustrated Medical and Health Encyclopedia, Ed. by Morris Fishbein, M.D.,1932).

“Then, secondly, in order to afford a passage for the descent of the medullary substance, each of these bones is bored through the middle in such a manner, as that, when put together, the hole in one bone falls into line, and corresponds with the holes in the two bones continuous to it” (Paley 405).

3. The Universe: “The earth makes an annual trip around the Sun of more than 292 million miles, traveling at the speed of about 70,000 miles an hour. Did you ever look up the word ‘year’ in the dictionary? Webster says, ‘the length of time it takes the earth to make one complete revolution around the sun: 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 45.51 seconds.’ Leap year takes care of the time above 365 days. That is why we have leap year. For all these thousands of years the earth has made this annual trip and is never off time one second. There was never a WATCH made to operate with such precision. Then some little ‘popgun’ sticks his claws behind his galluses and says ‘that an eternal, self-existent God designed and created all this is not to be thought of’” (Blackmon 11-12).

4. The Woodpecker: “The woodpecker has feet specially designed for holding to the upright body of a tree. His tail feathers are designed for a brace to help hold his body in proper position while he works on the tree. His bill is like a chisel, tough and sharp for digging into the tree. There is a cushion behind that tough beak to protect his head from the beating it would get from his banging his bill against the tree. Then this bird has a tongue with a barb on the end which enables him to reach into the hole he digs in the tree and get the worm or ant which he somehow knew was there before he started all this work.

“But, not only must the various organs of his body conform in this manner, but his surroundings must also conform. The bird’s barbed tongue, unique bill, strong tail feathers, cushion in the head and unusual feet would serve no purpose unless there were worms and bugs in the tree. Now if you want to be with the ‘in’ crowd you must believe that all these characteristics were developed over a period of many millions of years, while Mr. Woodpecker was adapting to his environment. This all comes easy to the twentieth century woodpecker. He has been this way all his life. But how about the woodpecker before he developed all the wonderful accessories? The old timers must have really had it tough. Many of them doubtless starved before their bills got hard enough to bore into a tree; others wound up punch drunk from banging their heads against trees before the cushion developed in their heads. I can- not help wondering also why the worms and bugs did not develop some escape mechanism while the woodpecker was developing all this. The worm does not seem to have much going for him, but he is still with us in abundance” (Blackmon 17-18).

5. Instinct is defined as “an inborn tendency to behave in a way characteristic of a species; natural, unacquired mode of response to stimuli.” One cannot explain instinct without God.

The Water Spider. “Like other spiders the water spider is an air-breathing animal. But it lives under water. . . When we examine this spider we find his body covered with hairs that keep it from becoming wet when in the water. In order to live under water and raise its young there, it must weave a waterproof cell or balloon, capable of holding enough air for breathing purposes — remember this critter breathes air — not water. To have the balloon it had to have the instinct and material to make it. It spins under water an egg-shaped balloon, open at the bottom for entrance and egress. Then it attaches the balloon to a rock or something to hold it under water. Now it has to fill this balloon with air. To accomplish this its hind legs are covered with hair and are so constructed that they can take hold of a large bubble of air and take it down under the water and into the balloon. When it has made several trips with this light cargo the balloon is full of air and the water has been forced out by the air. Here the eggs are laid in the upper part of the house and the family is in business” (Blackmon 23-24).

The Salmon fish: “The salmon fish live in a cycle of four years, no more, and always return to the waters of their nativity to die. They are hatched in rivers of the northwest, and shortly thereafter go out to sea where they stay until time for them to spawn and die. When they return to their native waters they always find the same river or creek in which they were spawned. If they start up some other stream they immediately recognize their mistake, go back and continue up the coast until they find the right stream. Here they spawn and die. How are they able to identify their birthplace after years in the sea? The word is instinct. But try defining the word without getting back to a wisdom that did not and could not evolve from a lump of dead matter” (Blackmon 24).

The Eel: “Both the American and the European eels are spawned in the waters off the coast of Bermuda. Then after a while they go to their native land. There has never been found an European eel in American waters nor an American eel in European waters. How does the eel find his way ‘home’ when he has never been home? Not only this, but the mating time for the European eel is months later than the American eel so that they will have time to get to the spawning waters, the distance being much greater to Europe” (Blackmon 25).

Where Did the Design in the Universe Originate?

Is it possible to explain these evidences of design on the basis of unguided evolution, the survival of the fittest, or mere chance? The probability of this much design coming from unguided chance is nil. If you were to put 10 pennies in your pocket numbered l-10 and then attempt to take out number 1, put it back, take out number 2, put it back, take out number 3. . . 10, the chance of this occurring is l in 10 BILLION!

Someone has compared a universe created by chance, by unguided evolution, to Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary being produced by an explosion at a print shop or to the

1998 Cadillac being produced by an explosion at the junk yard! How many explosions would have to occur before either was produced? Yet the evidences of design in the dictionary and car are much less remarkable than what exists in one human body, much less in all of the animals of this creation!

There is not enough time in any evolutionist’s view of the age of the world to explain the many adaptations of nature on the basis of unguided, chance development. A universe 4.5 billion years old is much too young for what we see to have developed by undirected chance evolution. Indeed, a universe 45 billions old would still be too young!

The only other alternative is to believe in a designer. That Designer, the Christian calls God.

By Berry Kercheville

I was 15. The classroom was filled with kids from their Freshmen to Senior year. This was a meeting of all the agriculture students to see who would be interested in joining the FFA (Future Farmers of America). I sat timidly as the teacher wrote down the names of students who volunteered. Then all eyes turned to me.

“Are you joining, Kerch?”

“I’d like to join,” I stammered, “but I can’t come to the meetings be- cause I go to church on Wednesday nights.”

From the back of the room someone hollered, “You can’t join if you don’t come to the meetings!”

Then one of the Juniors looked across the aisle and shouted, “What’s the matter with you Kercheville? You want to go to heaven or something?” The room roared with laughter.

A year later, after making straight A’s in my Ag classes, the rule for Wednesday night attendance to the FFA meetings was waived and I was allowed to join. At the end of my Junior year, having never attended a meeting, some members of the club greeted me at school on Thursday morning with the news that I had been voted president of the FFA for the following year. I said, “That’s great! My first order of business is to change the meeting to Thursday nights.”

My parents never told me that I couldn’t attend the FFA meetings. Even years before, when I had Little League games that conflicted with worship, they never made the rule that I had to miss the game. But I did. When it came time for school dances, my parents never forbade me to go. But I didn’t go. It wasn’t that I was an extra good kid. I got more “whippin’s” than any of my siblings. You see, God was first around our house. Spiritual things were a daily topic of conversation. God and his Word were spoken of when we rose up, when we lay down, when we walked by the way (rode in the car), and when we sat in the house (Deut. 6:6-7). We were never specifically “told” to read our Bible. We were encouraged to because Mom and Dad were always reading and teaching us what they read. The message we got was loud and clear: nothing came before God and doing his will.

That doesn’t seem to be the standard in many families any more. In each of the six gospel meetings I have preached this past year, I have had at least one person come up to me and say something like, “These lessons have been so good I sure hate to miss tomorrow night, but we have (fill in the blank: soccer, back to school night, Girl Scouts, etc.).” One person told me he wouldn’t be back for Sunday evening worship because of a “soccer-fest.” When I replied in amazement, “You are missing worship for soccer?” He said, “Oh, I’ll get the tape!” Unfortunately, he had missed the point. However, my biggest surprise is not that many Christians are putting the world’s things before the Lord, but that they are so open about it. They act like no one in their right mind would deny a child their special activity just to go to worship. In fact, it isn’t the child that is feeling deprived, it is the parent.

Revelation 12:11 states, “And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.” We as parents need to be practicing and teaching this kind of fierce, unwavering commitment to the Lord. Even the threat of death will not quiet the word of our testimony. Children recognize priorities in their simplest form. We cannot say, “It is only Wednesday evening worship or only Sunday evening worship.” It is what we do “instead of” something else that expresses what is important. It is whether we take time every week to tell our children about Abraham, Joseph, Daniel, and all the others, that makes a difference when they must make similar decisions. It is what we get most excited about and make sacrifices to do, that tells others, especially our children, where our heart is. “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt. 6:21).

Churches Bar Straight Marriages in Ban Protest

“Nashville (AP) — Suzanne Prince married Hunter Allen at a friend’s home. That wasn’t the plan, but the couple had no choice because their church — Edgehill United Methodist doesn’t allow marriage ceremonies.

“The Edgehill congregation decided that until the United Methodist Church allows gay marriages, no marriage cer- emonies of any kind will be performed in their chapel.

“‘If the United Methodist Church wasn’t going to allow gay people to get married in the church, I agree that straight people shouldn’t either,’ said Prince, who’s been married nine months.

“. . . The National Council of Churches has no information on how many individual churches perform gay marriage ceremonies, or refuse to allow traditional marriages to protest bans on gay marriages.

“Edgehill’s policy was drafted when a pastor in Atlanta was disciplined for blessing a homosexual couple’s wedding, said Kathryn Mitchem, who chaired Edgehill’s Administra- tive Council that adopted the policy.

“‘We didn’t feel we were taking something away, more that we were making a public witness to the denomination,’ she said.

“. . . ‘By every standard we know, marriage is a union of a male and a female, made valid in the sight of God by bless- ing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,’ said the Rev. Riley Case, pastor of St. Luke’s United Methodist Church in Kokomo, Ind.

“Case is a member of the United Methodist Church Good

News, a group that supports traditional scriptural views. 

“‘If your primary loyalty is to the gay and lesbian agenda and not to the scripture or the care of persons who want marriage . . . I would question if they should call themselves Christians,’ he said” (The Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle [No- vember 11, 1997], B4). 

Real Adults Don’t Commit Adultery, Psychiatrist Says

“The Orlando Sentinel — If you’re a married person con- templating a dalliance, don’t tell Dr. Frank Pittman.

“The Atlanta psychiatrist and author of several books — including Private Lies: Infidelity and the Betrayal of Intimacy — has had it up to here with adultery in particular and with Americans’ notions of romantic love in general.

“Pittman enjoys dispelling what he calls the ‘myths of adultery.’

“Among them: ‘The idea that adultery is normal, expect- able behavior, that everybody does it, and that affairs can revive a dull marriage.’

“. . . given his own statistics — that one-half of married men and one-third of married women commit adultery — is there any way to forestall all this dallying?

“‘We’d do well to choose a better class of celebrities as role models,’ Pitmann says. The folks in People magazine, as well as ‘politicians, TV evangelists and other kinds of people who need to be celebrities are just not normal,’ he says.

“In addition, ‘It would be very nice if we saw movies about marriage that were not ridiculing it, or making it seem boring and silly,’ he says. Oh, and ‘stop justifying adultery with romance.’ Stop rationalizing irresponsible, destructive behavior with the idea that ‘if you’re in love, then it’s OK.’

“. . . ‘Children need to see courageous adults holding marriages together whether they’re in love or not” (The Indianapolis Star [November 20, 1997], A1).

Woodward Trial Sparks Criticism of Absentee Child-Rearing 

“Mark Patinkin, Providence Journal Bulletin — The real issue in the Louise Woodward au pair case, says Richard Gelles, isn’t whether the verdict and sentence were justified.

“‘It’s about how American parents raise children. Most,’ he says, ‘don’t: More than ever, adults delegate their most important job.’

“‘A generation,’ he says, ‘is being parented by parents who are not there, and cared for by caretakers who are often children themselves.’

“Gelles, a University of Rhode Island professor often called as an expert in child-abuse trials, has written 21 books on children’s welfare and directs a research program on family violence.

“Part of him, says Gelles, hesitates to question two-career couples who struggle nobly to balance work and family. But as a social scientist, he can’t ignore what his research tells him. 

“‘Having one parent there, present, that’s nature’s plan. That’s what kids need.’ 

“‘I think we’re playing with fire in a society that provides as little parental supervision for children as we do.’ 

“. . . ‘The one thing we know in the child development litera- ture,’ he says, ‘is that kids do best with a primary caretaker who’s truly there for them in every way.’ 

“. . . ‘The people I admire are those who make tough sacrifices for their kids, who say, “I could be a star, but I have something more important to take care of”’”(The Indianapolis Star [November 14, 1997], E1). 

Where The Ethical Line Is Drawn 

“Cal Thomas — The birth of the McCaughey septuplets produced joy and thanksgiving for the couple and their families. It has also produced a debate among medical ethicists, some of whom argue that Bobbi McCaughey should have aborted (euphemistically a ‘fetal reduction’) in order to limit the risk to the babies and reduce the cost to the taxpayers of giving birth to so many children.

“First, a definition. ‘Ethics’ is ‘the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.’ This implies a standard by which an ethic may be measured. The McCaugheys accepted such a standard when they said that God had a plan for their children, and they never considered killing one or more of them.

“Medical ethicists abandoned such a standard when they endorsed abortion ‘choice.’ That Bobbi McCaughey made a choice favoring life over death isn’t enough for them. They have other concerns.

“Where the ethical line is drawn with indelible or disappear- ing ink, is relevant to what the medical profession will be allowed to do to the rest of us in the future. As medicine costs more, it will be necessary to consider whether life’s value can depreciate, like a car.

“. . . Some ethicists and commentators question the ‘right’ of women to have multiple births, suggesting the government may wish to regulate the practice. This sounds disturbingly like China’s policy of limiting couples to one child, with forced abortion for those who attempt to violate the law. Do we want to go there?

“. . . One category of life cannot be declassified without endangering others. If the unborn can be aborted, individually or ‘selectively,’ then why not kill the newly born and the elderly if they become ‘inconvenient’? If there is no God to govern in the affairs of men, then why shouldn’t government or medical ethicists or public opinion be our god?

“On the eve of the 25th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, we are quickly regressing to a raw, purely arbitrary utilitarian- ism increasingly hostile to the notion that life is sacred and unique among living things” (The Indianapolis Star [November 30, 1997], D2).

By Lewis Willis

No doctrine of the Bible is more ignored or misun- derstood than God’s law of pardon. Too many people are totally indifferent to the subject — they could care less. To those who are concerned, the truth must be known. That is the mission of this article.

What Does Pardon Mean?

The word translated “pardon” is from a Hebrew word, selichah, which means “a passing over, forgiveness” (Young’s 730). Job asked, “And why dost thou not pardon my transgression, and take away mine iniquity?” (Job

7:21). His inquiry was to God. Why? Because it is God who does the pardoning: “. . . but thou art a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, . . .” (Neh. 9:17). Also, Micah wrote: “Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? He retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy” (Mic. 7:18). The good news is that God is willing to pardon; that there is a law of pardon. When the Hebrew writer spoke of the new covenant God would make with man, one of its greatest effects would be, “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more” (Heb. 8:12; 10:17).

Pardon From What?

What do we need God to pardon? Job said we need pardon from transgression or iniquity. “Iniquity” is from a Greek word, anomia, which means lawlessness, wicked- ness, or unrighteousness (Vine 260). In a word, iniquity is “sin.” Isaiah said, “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear” (Isa. 59:2). Consider these verses also: “Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.

. .” (Ps. 6:8); “. . .destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity” (Prov. 21:15); “Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds!” (Mic. 2:1).

Who Needs Pardon? 

Obviously, all need pardon who are guilty of iniquity or sin. What this says is that we all need pardon, because we all have sinned. Paul wrote that, “. . . we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

. . . As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

. . . They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one . . . For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:9, 10, 12, 23). There is not, therefore, an accountable adult who does not need pardon. The question today is the same as it has always been: What must I do to be saved?

Who Has God Authorized To Answer?

I know that men are ready to give their answers about the requirements for salvation. However, would we not be wise, since God is the one who pardons, to inquire of him who he has authorized to answer? After promising to build his church, Jesus gave binding and loosing authority to the apostles (Matt. 16:18-19; 18:18). Just before Jesus went away, he told them: “Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained” (John 20:23). The Apostle Paul affirmed that God made them ambassadors (official representatives) to announce his terms of pardon: “And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:18-20).

What Did God Authorize Them To Say?

He told them to go teach, or preach the gospel to all nations. Those who believed were to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:47). Men today do not seem to understand or respect this, but that is exactly what these passages authorized them to say.

What Did They Answer?

On the Day of Pentecost, in the city of Jerusalem, when the gospel was first preached by the apostles, thousands of Jews finally believed in Jesus. They were cut to their hearts with the knowledge that they had murdered the Son of God and they asked the apostles, “What shall we do?” They needed pardon and the apostles were the ones appointed by God to tell them how to receive it. When Peter answered the question, he told them what God had authorized them to say. He said, “. . . Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). These people heard the gospel, believed it, repented of their sins, and were baptized. They met all of God’s requirements for pardon. One has to wonder how modern preachers can tell people to do something different than the apostles required. Does modern man know better? Were the apostles wrong? Did God change his mind?

Have You Complied With God’s Law Of Pardon?

Remember now: All of us have sinned; God is willing to pardon; he told the apostles to tell us what to do to be pardoned; they told us to hear the gospel, to believe, to re- pent and to be baptized for the remission of our sins. Have you done what God requires you to do for the forgiveness of your sins? If not, do so today! We are ready to assist you in your obedience.