Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Those who reject a universal flood make several arguments that one needs to be aware of, even if he cannot adequately answer them. Only two of the arguments against a universal flood that I have read are biblical arguments. These need to be addressed biblically. The other arguments are based on the present understanding of science. I emphasize the word “present,” because one has to accept the changing nature of scientific pronouncements. (How many things have you been told not to eat because they cause cancer and then later be told that you can eat them?) In some of these areas, we freely confess that our understanding is not adequate to explain the questions asked. In such cases, we may suggest possible answers, but where the text does not reveal the answer we can only state that they have not been revealed (Deut. 29:29).

Arguments Against A Universal Flood

Universal language is frequently used even when a universal event is not intended. There is truth in this statement. The Scripture sometimes does use universal language when less than universal events happen. Some examples of this are as follows:

Matthew 3:5 — “Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan.”
Acts 2:5 — “And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.”
1 Samuel 31:6 — “So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armour- bearer, and all his men, that same day together.”
Genesis 41:57 — “And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.”

In the various uses of such universal language as “all Judaea,” “all the region round about Jordan,” “every nation under heaven,” and “all his men,” one must allow the context to define its meaning. What is the context of Genesis 6-8? Is its context defined as a limited area? The flood was a moral judgment upon the wickedness of all men upon the earth. The evidences cited in article #2 are definitive in determining the sense of the universal language in Genesis 6-8. We remind you of those arguments:

• The judgment was universal. 
• The language describing the judgment is universal. 
• The language describing the flood of water demands a universal flood.
• The need for an ark demands a universal flood. 
• The size of the ark demands a universal flood. 
• The covenant of the rainbow demands a universal flood.

These contextual evidences demand that the universal language of the text bear its normal meaning and not be limited in the absence of any contextual reasons for doing so. The only reason for limiting the meaning of this universal language is the interpretation given to extra-biblical evidence.

The universal language of Genesis 6-9 is subjectively true. This is but a modification of the former argument. It is argued in detail by Taylor Lewis, the translator of John Peter Lange’s commentary on Genesis,  in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (314-322). Lewis says that the Genesis record “is a telling from the eye, and it speaks of the soul’s eye of the thoughtful reader, giving the impression of an actual spectacle. . . . it is water everywhere as far as eye can see. . . . This is what he saw, and this is all that the interpreter can get from his language. What he may have thought, we know not. He may have supposed the flood to be universal. Probably he did so; then his universality must have been a very different thing (in conception) from the notion that our modern knowledge would connect with the term” (316).

The response to this argument is this: There is not one word recorded in the Genesis narrative that is attributed to Noah. Not one word expresses what he thought the flood looked like or how extensive it was. The subjective element is not a part of the narrative. What is in the narrative is “God said. . . .” 

The strength of both of these two arguments is that they try to grapple with the plain meaning of the language of Scripture. Both arguments are made by those who believe the Bible and are struggling to understand what the text of Scripture means. The following arguments against a universal flood do not argue from what Scripture says.

The Genesis account is legend or myth. Hermann Gunkel expressed this view saying, “The ‘Apologetic’ perspective is wont to consider, pettily enough, only the question of whether the narrative is a ‘true story.’ This cannot be seriously discussed. Rather the narrative in J (and P) is clearly a legend” (Genesis 77). Skinner rejects the idea of the flood being historical and thinks that “the most natural explanation of the Babylonian narrative is after all that it is based on the vague reminiscence of some memorable or devastating flood in the Euphrates valley” (181). The aim of the biblical writer was to “bring the cosmopolitan (Babylonian) Flood-legend within the comprehension of a native of Palestine” (149). In The Interpreter’s Bible, Walter Russell Bowie states, “A universal flood such as J2 describes, to say nothing of P’s account, would of course be a physical impossibility” (I:537). All who take this position affirm that the clear meaning of the text of Genesis is that it describes a universal flood, but they just do not believe that is so. To believe that such could happen conflicts with their views of science, so they reject the Bible.  Another group of arguments are made attacking the universal flood view on the basis of what the writers conjecture to be impossibilities demanded by the universal flood interpretation.

The ark is not big enough to hold all of the animals in the world. Some argue that there are so many different kinds of animals in existence that it is unreasonable to believe that all of them were able to be placed on the ark. Huge numbers of animals are assumed to be required to be in the ark. If scientists can identify 210,000 different birds, then some assume that two of each had to be placed in the ark. In point of fact, the narrative states that two of every “kind” (min) of unclean animal and seven of every “kind” (min) of clean animal went into the ark. The animals were grouped according to their “families” (mispahah). This would not demand two of every species but two of each family (genus) of animals. 

Strangely enough, those who see that the ark is not big enough to house all of the animals in the world, have all of the animals in the world evolving from a one-celled amoeba that resulted from some chance collision of molecules. If they can get all of the animal creation in an amoeba in a swamp, they shouldn’t have trouble accepting that all of the animal creation necessary for the production for animal life could be housed in an ark.

Noah could not have collected all of the animals. Some argue that Noah could never have collected all of the animals on the ark. Such writers usually refer to some particular animal in an isolated part of the globe with a specialized habitat which Noah certainly could not have collected. What the text of the Scriptures says is that God caused the animals to come to Noah. “Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive” (6:20). “And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life” (7:15). Noah was not responsible for capturing the beasts, for God brought them to him. How they came to Noah is not revealed.

Arguments are made on the basis of suppositions not even believed by modern geologists to make this an impossible task. The present appearance of the land masses is assumed, despite the belief of modern geologists that continental rifts have occurred at sometime in the past. Modern temperatures and climate conditions are assumed, even though geologists postulate an ice age that covered many parts of the world. Although these scientists do not believe the world that now is looked like it presently does in the past, nevertheless they demand that those who believe in the Genesis flood explain how the ark was filled based on a model that they themselves reject and is not necessary to the correct understanding of Genesis.

How could the animals return to their natural habitat? This argument asks how, for example, animals exclusively native to Australia got back to Australia after the flood. This is the reverse of the previous argument. The argument is just as valid to the evolutionist as it is to the one who believes in the flood. How did that original spark of life produce animals? How did the descendants of those animals who somehow survived the ice age get to Australia? There are thousands of questions that no one knows the answer to, whether one begins with the premises of the biblical flood or the late twentieth century version of evolution. 

Noah could not have gathered the food necessary to sustain the animals. The feeding of the animals on the ark was indeed a problem for Noah. He was responsible for supplying food for the animals. “And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them” (6:21). Scientists pose questions about feeding carnivorous animals, keeping them separated from the other animals on the ark, providing specialized diets for animals, and similar problems. Such questions presuppose that every known species of animal was present on the ark, every animal known to ever have existed have its present specialized diet, every animal ate such a ration of food as it would eat in an active environment (versus hibernation, for example), and such like things. The Bible simply does not supply the answers to these questions for us and any answer one might give would be mere speculation.

The clouds do not contain enough water for a deluge of the proportions of Genesis 6-8. (For this argument, see Ramm, The Christian View of Science 165ff.) The sources of water for the flood were the “fountains of the deep” and the “windows of heaven” (7:11). This argument strikes at the heart of inspiration. The same Bible that describes the flood as covering the whole world also describes the world at creation as being totally under water. On the third day of creation, God created the dry land (1:9). Before then, the entire world was under water. If there was enough water to cover the earth in Genesis 1, there was enough to cover it in Genesis 6. Those who disbelieve in one account are likely to disbelieve the other. 

The argument also presupposes that the present geological condition of the earth is the same as existed in Noah’s time. Mt. Everest is presently over 29,000 feet above sea level. Such arguments assume that was the case when the flood occurred. However, these same geologists tell us that mountains were created by continental plates placing such pressure that they thrust the ground upward to create a mountain. If that could happen in the geology based on evolution, why couldn’t that happen after the flood? How does one know how high was the highest mountain before the flood? How does one know the position of the continents before the flood and after the flood? What effect did the flood have on geology? No one has the answers to these questions, although many hypotheses are presented. Yet arguments based on unprovable presuppositions are used to deny the testimony of Scripture.

Conclusion

I have tried to avoid speculation about things not revealed in answer to the objections to a universal flood. The reader will have to judge how successful I have been. There are questions related to the flood that God chose  not to reveal to mankind. I am content not to speculate on what I do not know. Let one also acknowledge that there are greater problems for those who reject the biblical narrative. The one who rejects creation and the biblical narrative of the flood has his own problems. He also must explain how animals came into existence in the various parts of the world, isolated and remote as some of those areas are. He must explain how such animals survived a continental ice-age. He must explain continental drift, the mountains, inconsistencies in the fossil record, and such like questions. But must of all, he must explain how life came into existence in the first place. He must explain the “big bang”! The problems that one who believes in the universal flood has pale in comparison to such major problems of the unbeliever!

And there also are problems for the compromising person who accepts “progressive creation” and a “local flood.” His problems come because he is trying to hold to two models at the same time. His most serious problems come because he rejects the plain meaning of Scripture, making his exegesis of Scripture look forced and artificial, like the premillennialist who can transform hailstone, fire and sulphur into atomic bombs (Ezek. 38). Such a person believes that “though newer interpretations of the biblical narrative did not seem to be ‘the most natural meaning,’ yet if geological facts ‘unequivocally require such an interpretation to harmonize the Bible with nature,’ then ‘science must be allowed to modify our exegesis of Scripture’” (Davis A. Young, The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church’s Response to Extrabiblical Evidence 146). The compromiser is neither a Bible believer nor accepted by scientists. His naturalist scientific model is destroyed by his injection of the supernatural, whether by a little or a lot. 

Let us accept the authority of Scripture knowing that “the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (Ps. 19:7).

6567 Kings Ct., Avon, IN 46123, mikewillis1@compuserve

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice (Phil. 1:18).

Proper attitudes are so important in our dealings with other folks. Right motives are essential to our pleasing God. Brethren have been justly criticized at times for their attitudes and motives — including myself. A few speakers (and writers) among us have seemed to be more interested in making points with brethren by skinning the opposition alive than by trying to reach them with truth — as though being confident of the truth gives one the license to be rude, crude, and down right obnoxious. This by no means is intended to indict all those great men of the past (or present) who obviously have preached and defended the truth in love.

As is so often the case, we tend to swing from one extreme to the other. I am beginning to detect a dangerous preoccupation with attitudes and motives — especially among some younger brethren. Whereas, at times, it seemed that it mattered little how or why one preached, just so what he preached was the truth — it seems that many are more concerned now with how and why one presents a lesson than what is taught and practiced. I even heard one preacher state in a prayer that love is more important than being right!

It is not uncommon for such brethren to scathingly criticize and even turn away from brethren, admitting that what they teach and practice is the truth but they don’t like their attitudes. And at the same time lavishly praising and even embracing others, who admittedly teach questionable doctrines, because they think these have a better attitude than the others. So, when controversy arises (as it inevitably will) these attitude watchers will base where they will stand upon who has the best attitude and disposition — rather than the merit of the positions taken by the disputants. We need to remember that no side on any religious question has a monopoly on any attitude — good or bad! You will find hate, envy, strife, and general ugliness among the advocates of every position known. You will find kindness, love, peacefulness, and general sweetness among all. You will find all of these in all churches and among those of every religious persuasion known to man. Am I defending the improper attitudes among those who agree with me on doctrinal matters? No, a thousand times no! If we “preach Christ from selfish ambition, nor sincerely” or “from envy and strife” without love — we will have to answer to God for such ungodly attitudes and motives!

Yet, if one hears and obeys the truth taught in an improper spirit and from an improper motive — it will save him. The teacher may be lost for his attitude – but the hearer will be saved if he obeys that truth from the heart. If one hears and obeys a lie taught in a proper spirit and from a sincere motive — it will condemn him just as much as it would if it had been preached to him by one with an ungodly attitude. A preacher may have the best “way about him” in the world, but if he keeps from me some vital truth that I need to know his “way about him” will not save me — but the truth that was withheld would have!

If one works and worships in a congregation that practices the truth (i.e., what is done is scriptural), thus joining in that work and worship, he can be right even if some of the others do it from an improper spirit and motive. However, if one works and worships in a congregation that, as a congregation, practices error — thus joining in that unscriptural worship and work — he is still worshiping and working in vain even if every member there is sincere, concerned, and loving in his attitudes.

If our attitudes are wrong let’s correct them. If we detect wrong attitudes in others try to help them correct them. But, let us not get so obsessed with looking at the attitudes and motives of brethren that we decide the merits of what they advocate based upon these factors. It is a dangerous obsession. It can cause us to miss some vital truth because we didn’t like the way it was said or we didn’t like the personality of the one presenting it. It can cause us to believe a lie because it was presented in such a splendid manner by a personality that you could not help but admire. It can cause one to think that a man’s message cannot be right because  his attitude is bad or that a man’s message must be right because his attitude is good. In fact, the most dangerous person in the world in an advocate of error who lovingly presents his error from an obviously sincere heart — like, Absalom, he steals the hearts of the people blinding them to the true nature what he teaches.

Sure, I had rather a man tell me the truth in a way that impresses me with his concern for my feelings as well as the salvation of my soul. I had rather that he didn’t come across in a harsh and abrasive way. But, if I must chose between him and one that has a smile that would qualify him for a Pepsodent commercial and shows me all the understanding, love, and concern that anyone could possibly show, but keeps the truth from me — I will take the one who tells me the truth every time.

Let us learn to receive the word with all readiness of mind and search the Scriptures to see if it is so (cf. Acts 17:11) and take our stand based upon that, rather than based upon the attitude, either good or bad, of those who teach us. Let us be concerned about attitudes among us but let us not become so preoccupied with them that we make them blind us to either truth or error. Nor let them be the primary factor in deciding where we will attend services regularly. Let us learn to rejoice when the truth is preached — even when attitudes need improvement. If Paul could rejoice that “Christ is preached,” even in pretense, why can’t we?

(Author’s note: This article first appeared in The Reflector in July 1983. What I said then still needs to be said today. If anything the problem has worsened.)

223 First St., Russellville, Alabama 35653

By Lewis Willis

One of the elders asked me to address the question that titles this article. Many people think there is nothing wrong with being in the Masonic Lodge. They think it is nothing more than a fraternal organization which offers pleasant friendships and some opportunities to do good deeds.

When the subject was mentioned to me, I was reminded that approximately 40 years ago there was a significant controversy in the churches of Akron over this question. Many brethren in those days were Masons, and several of them were members here at Brown Street. My brother, Cecil, was preaching here at the time and I have his 13-page sermon outline before me as I write this article. Thankfully, all of the brethren (so far as I know) who were in the Lodge in those days came out and renounced involvement in Masonry. However, as I recall, there were some heated discussions on the subject at the time.

The Fatal Flaw In Masonry

There is a very basic and fundamental error in Masonry that prevents a Christian from being a member of a Lodge. That flaw is: Masonry is a religion! Masonry is as much a religion as is denominationalism. One could as reasonably be a member of the Lord’s Church and the Methodist Church at the same time, as he could be a Christian and a Mason at the same time.

A.G. Mackey (1807-1881) is the author whose works I wish to cite on this point so let me tell you who he is. He was the Mason’s Past General High Priest and Secretary of the Supreme Council, for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States. One would suspect he knew what he was talking about, Right? “Albert G. Mackey is universally recognized as one of the greatest Masonic historians that our fraternity has ever produced” (Lawrence R. Taylor, Editor of The Indiana Freemason). The Masonic Textbook says Mackey was a Masonic authority and scholar. He was called “one of the greatest students and most widely followed authorities the Masonic world has known” (Introduction to Freemasonry [Massachusetts] 15). “Mackey is a recognized scholar” (Letter to Cecil Willis, from Andrew J. White, Jr., Grand Secretary of Ohio, 7-14-60).

What Does Mackey Say About The Lodge?

Here is Mackey’s testimony that the Lodge is a religion! He said, “. . . I contend, without any sort of hesitation, that Masonry is, in every sense of the word, . . . an eminently religious institution — that it is indebted solely to the religious element which it contains for its origin and for its continued existence, and that without this religious element it would scarcely be worthy of cultivation by the wise and good” (Encyclopedia of Freemasonry [1927] 727). Mackey continued, “Masonry may rightfully claim to be called a religious institution” (ibid. 728). And if that were not sufficient to establish this authority’s view about the Lodge, he added, “Masonry, then, is, indeed a religious institution; and on this ground mainly, if not alone, should the religious Mason defend it” (ibid. 729). Does the testimony of this Masonic leader prove the point at issue?

Another quotation that states the religious nature of Masonry is worthy of inclusion in this article. “As set forth and defined in the Preamble of the Constitution and Regulations of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, the purposes of Freemasonry are charitable, benevolent, educational and Religious” (Introduction to Freemasonry for Massachusetts 8).

Note this Masonic prayer: “Vouchsafe Thine aid, Almighty Father of the Universe, to this our present convention. Grant that this candidate for Freemasonry may dedicate and devote his life to Thy service, and become a true and faithful Brother among us. Endue him with a competency of Thy Divine Wisdom, that by the influence of the pure principles of our order he may be better enabled to display the beauties of Brotherly Love . . . to the honor of Thy Holy Name. Amen” (First degree Lecture, Ohio Monitor, 9). If the Lodge is not a religion, why does it use prayers?

Note this funeral prayer used by the Lodge: “. . . and may we gain entrance into the celestial Lodge above, and in Thy Glorious Presence, amidst ineffable mysteries, enjoy a reunion with the souls of our departed friends, perfect as are the joys of Heaven and durable as Eternity. Amen. So mote it be” (Ohio Monitor, 54). Their belief is being a good Mason will get one into Heaven. The Bible states, however, that being a good Christian is the only thing which will accomplish this glorious result.

An Absurdity

The first degree for the Mason is the Entered Apprentice Degree. The Mason solemnly swears that he will live by the rules of the order, saying, “All this I most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear . . . binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by its roots and buried in the rough sands of the sea at low water mark, . . . should I ever knowingly violate this my solemn obligation of an Entered Apprentice Mason. So help me God, and keep me in the due performance of same” (Handbook of Freemasonry, by Edmond Ronayne, 70). In the next degree, the Fellow Craft Degree, the Mason swears to keep the secrets of the Lodge: “. . . binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my breast torn open; my heart plucked out and given as a prey to the wild beasts of the field, and the fowls of the air” if he should ever reveal Masonic secrets (ibid. 123). If one of your kids came home and told you he had swore such a barbaric oath to join a club, you would be livid! How could an adult swear something so absurd as this?

Yes, Masonry is a religion which claims its precepts will get its members into Heaven. It engages in worship, as a religion, and requires its members to agree to ridiculous oaths. This is not just an innocent fraternal organization. Can a Christian be a Mason? No! Masonry is a false religion that will cause a Christian to lose his soul (Matt. 15:9). One can no more be a Christian and a Mason than he can be a Christian and a Jew, Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, etc. Brethren, don’t be deceived!

By Don Wright

“But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Heb. 11:6). These are the famous words of the Hebrew writer that reveal the importance of faith. Without faith there is no pleasing God. As Paul said in Romans 1:17, “The just shall live by faith.” But it must be realized that there are certain degrees of faith, and not all degrees of faith save. James tells us that even the devils believe and tremble, but who would think that they are saved. The faith that saves is an active faith that causes one to obey God. Now, because not all faith saves, we should all strive to be sure that we have the proper kind of faith. In this article we want to observe a few things that will put our faith to the test.

Difficult Demands

Not all of the commands of God are difficult, but some certainly are. For example, when God commanded Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice, that was a hard command. By faith Abraham passed the test. He had the kind of faith that pleases God, i.e., an obedient faith. Now while we have not, as far as I can see, received any commands as difficult as that, there are some hard commands that we must keep. Consider two such commands.

1. Loving our enemies. We are commanded to love our husbands, our wives, our children, etc., but that is not very difficult. Loving those who love us back is natural. But to love our enemies is much more difficult. The concept is not hard to grasp, the hardness is in the application. You see we must love, not only in word, but in deed (Matt. 5:43, 44). A good definition of love is that love always acts in the best interest of whatever it is that is loved. Do you always act in the best interest of your enemies? This is a true test of faith, and whether or not we pass this test is an indicator of whether or not we have truly been converted.

2. Forgiving those who sin against us. The greater the sin, the harder this command becomes. Yet we are everywhere told that we must forgive one another regardless of the extent of our pain. But when we instead hold grudges and refuse to forgive, we fail the test of our faith.

Severe Trials

Just because we are God’s children does not mean that we will not be touched by trials and tribulations. They will come! How we handle them is another test of our faith (Job 1:6-22). If we give up because of persecution, it is because we have not the proper kind of faith (Rev. 2:10).

What We Are Willing To Do

What we are willing to do is a result of how much faith we have. If we have saving faith, we will be willing to go the extra mile in our service unto God. It is sad to me to hear Christians who say things like, “I do not attend Bible class because it is not commanded.” Personally, I think Bible class, whether on Sunday morning, or sometime during the week, must be attended. I believe that Hebrews 10:25 covers those assemblies as well as Sunday morning worship service. But for the sake of argument, let us say that they are not commanded. Should we not assemble with the saints whenever possible? A person who says, “I am not going to Bible class because it is not commanded,” is a person who is trying to do as little as possible in serving God, and that says something about that person’s faith. Our attitude should not be let us see how little we can do for God, but rather let us see how much we can do for God.

Let us put our faith to the test, our salvation is at stake.    
  
640 Thayer St., Akron, Ohio 44301