Truth Magazine

By Donnie V. Rader

The execution of Robert Cole, the first in Tennessee in several years, has resurrected the debate about capital punishment in our state. The opponents of the death penalty (usually those on the left, “liberals,” religiously and politically) cry that we must respect human life. Ironically, respect for human life argues for capital punishment and not against it.

Sadly, there are those who are “Bible believers” who oppose the death penalty. Some would argue that being Christians, we ought to forgive the offender.

What should the Christian’s view be? Does the Bible say anything to approve of execution? If so, how can “killing” a person be right?

God’s Covenant With Noah

Following the flood, God made a covenant with Noah (Gen. 9:1-17). Included in that covenant, God said:

Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man (vv. 5-6).

From this text we learn that those who murder should die by the hand of fellow man. The reason: man is made in the image of God.

The Law Of Moses

Under the law that God gave through Moses the sentence of death was carried out for certain sins.

• The murderer was to be put death. Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty. Morever you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death (Num. 35:30-31).
• The one who offered his descendants to Molech was to be put to death (Lev. 20:1-5). This idolater was to be stoned to death. Furthermore, any who would “hide their eyes” from the offender so that “they do not kill him” he too was to be “cut off from his people” (die).
• The one who consulted mediums and familiar spirits was to be put to death (Lev. 20:6-8, 27).
• The one who cursed father and mother was to be stoned to death (Lev. 20:9).
• The one who committed adultery was to be put to death (Lev. 20:10). In fact, both the adulterer and the adulteress were to die.
• The one guilty of incest was to die (Lev. 20:11-12, 17, 19, 20, 27).
• Homosexuals were to be put to death (Lev. 20:13).
• The polygamist was to be put to death (Lev. 20:14).
• The one guilty of bestiality was to be put to death (Lev. 20:15-16).
• If a man laid with a woman during her impurity he was to be killed (Lev. 20:18).

This did not violate the command to not kill. For the same law that forbade killing (Exod. 20) also pronounced the death penalty.

Capital Punishment In Action

As Joshua led God’s people into the promised land they were defeated at Ai because Achan had taken from the accursed things when Jericho fell (Joshua 6:17-19; 7:1). When Achan was identified and confessed, Joshua and the people stoned him and his family and then burned them (Joshua 7:22-26).

In The New Testament

1. When the apostle Paul was before Festus he stated that he was willing to die if he had done anything worthy of death:

For if I am an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I do not object to dying . . . (Acts 25:11).
Paul acknowledges two things: (1) There are crimes that are worthy of death. (2) He did not object to dying. These indicate that the apostle Paul approved of capital punishment.

2. Civil government is to punish the evildoer. Peter said that the government was for the “punishment of evildoers” (1 Pet. 2:13-17). Paul stated that civil authority is a “minister of God” for “good” and it does not “bear the sword” in vain (Rom. 13:4). If it doesn’t bear the sword in vain, the sword is to be used.

Conclusion

Biblical evidence shows God not only approves, but wants capital punishment to be enforced. Does it do good? Without a doubt! The guilty doesn’t commit the crime again. It is a deterrent to others. If the sentence would be carried out quickly, rather than twenty years later, it would be even more effective.

Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil (Ecc. 8:11).

408 Dow Dr., Shelbyville, Tennessee 37160-2208 drader@cafes.net

By Ron Halbrook

One of Satan’s most deceptive tools is the idea that we cannot really know the truth. Sin is justified by the excuse that we cannot understand the difference between right and wrong, truth and error. God gave us the capacity to know the truth and designed his Word to match our capacity to understand.

Satan replaces God’s exclamation points with question marks. God warned Adam and Eve not to eat of a certain tree, with this emphatic penalty: “For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:17). When Satan seduced Eve to eat, he started by planting a subtle doubt with the question, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” Then, he denied the certainty of the penalty and presented sin as a great advantage withheld by God’s Word (3:4-5).

1. We can know about God. God filled the universe with the evidence of his reality. “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). Though God is invisible, his existence can be “clearly seen” and “understood” by reflecting on the creation. All life’s blessings bear clear testimony to God’s love and care for us (Acts 14:17). Such evidence makes the doubt and denial of atheists and agnostics utterly “without excuse.”

2. We can understand God’s offer of salvation in Christ. “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). Jesus made the truth accessible by both his teaching and example. He is so much the perfect embodiment and      revelation of all truth that he is called “the Word” (John 1:1, 18). His miracles confirmed his claim to be God’s Son, but some men hardened their hearts, closed their eyes, and doubted (John 3:2, 16; 10:24-25). As Jesus taught men about salvation from sin, he said, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32). Yes, we can “know the truth”!

3. We can know about baptism. We are saved from our sins when we believe in Christ, repent of sin, confess his name, and are immersed in water by his authority. Jesus said that “all the world,” “every creature,” and “all nations” can understand the necessity of faith, repentance, and baptism as conditions of pardon (Mark 16:16; Luke 24:47). We can understand that immersion involves a burial in water, not mere sprinkling or pouring of water (Col. 2:12). The sinner comes to Christ in order to be “baptized into one body,” the body or church of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). The “one baptism” puts us into the “one body” — not some human denomination, but the church whose name, doctrine, and practice are found in the Bible (Eph. 4:4-6).

4. We can know about singing vs. instrumental music. God has always given his people a pattern for acceptable worship which is clear and understandable. His Word is an unalterable pattern of truth (Exod. 25:9; 2 Tim. 1:13). Singing is clearly authorized in New Testament worship (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Instrumental music is added by human doctrine, will worship, and departure from the faith (Matt. 15:8-9; Col. 2:23; 1 Tim. 4:1). 

Sin and error thrive on doubting God’s revealed truth. Some men are “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” because they look for ways around the truth rather than looking for the truth (2 Tim. 3:7). Doubt and denial are spread by smug questions like, “Do you claim to know all there is to know?” or, “Do you think you can never make a mistake?” We do not have to know everything or be above mistake to know God exists, salvation is only in Christ, baptism is a condition of pardon, and the New Testament church sang but used no instrumental music. We know these things by reading God’s Word and refusing to replace his exclamation points with Satan’s question marks.    

3505 Horse Run Ct., Shepherdsville, Kentucky 40165-6954

By C.G. “Colly” Caldwell

The editor has been considerate in providing me an advance copy of brother Adams’ article which mentions Florida College and one of our teachers, Shane Scott.

Brother Adams quotes William D. Burgess, former   biology professor at Florida College, who took the position that the “days” of creation were “days of ordinary length.” All of our present science faculty would concur with brother Burgess’ conclusion.

Brother Adams also refers to Hill Roberts. To my knowledge, no one at Florida College holds the position brother Roberts does on the age of the earth. Brother Roberts was invited to conduct a series of special classes during our 1999 lecture series on the use of technology in teaching the truth on the subject of evolution and related topics to a skeptical world. Having learned of his position on the age of the earth shortly before lectures, we talked with him and agreed that because the age of the earth was not part of his topic we would go forward with providing the benefit of his special knowledge and skill in the assigned area to those who wished to take advantage of it. We did not feel that his presence would injure anyone’s faith or promote his position.

Brother Adams mentions our publication of materials combating evolution. I would encourage every reader to examine for himself what we have said. I will be glad to supply a copy of the articles to anyone who asks. They may quickly be found on the Internet at http://www.flcoll.edu/pdfs/colly.pdf and http://www.flcoll.edu/pdfs/dnorth.pdf.  Books containing our lecture manuscripts and tapes of both the oral lectures and the special classes are available through our bookstore. I would especially encourage interested readers to get copies of the lecture tapes of Ferrell Jenkins (Florida College Bible Chairman) and Steve Wolfgang (Truth Magazine board member and staff writer) to see how our brethren have handled these issues in the past. A transcript of brother Jenkins’ class lecture on this topic is available on the web at http://bibleworld.com. Brother Wolfgang recently completed a doctoral dissertation entitled “Science and Religion Issues Among 20th Century Restorationist Religious Groups.” A brief summary of this material which contains footnote references to some of the quotations referred to in brother Wolfgang’s classes may be found in A Tribute to Melvin D. Curry, Jr. (published by Florida College, 1997, 222-40) which is also available from the Florida College Bookstore or from Truth Bookstore.

The focus of brother Adams’ article is Shane Scott. It is true that brother Scott wrote an article in 1995 presenting the view that the word “day” (yom) in Genesis 1 is used in a figurative sense. The article was written at the request of Ken Chumbley who was editing a small section on “Evidences” in Floyd Chappelear’s paper, Sentry. The plan, as stated by brother Chumbley to brother Scott, was to provide a series of point/counterpoint discussions as a tool to bring both sides of certain issues before brethren. Brother Scott suggested that brother Chumbley invite Greg Gwin to respond. Brother Scott would not have written his article independently where there was no response. Such is an indicator of his long-time thinking about teaching on this topic.

While it is understandable that without some of this background one would see brother Scott as dogmatic about this topic, he is not. Although he does wrestle with correlating Genesis 1 and some statements in Genesis 2 with the literal day position, he has never questioned instantaneous creation by God of all that God created. He believes that God also created the processes of nature and that some things may have been created first in immature forms which grew to maturity. (He would cite the growth of vegetation referred to specifically in Genesis 2.) He does not argue from science. His conclusion in the article was based on the implications of textual statements in which the Holy Spirit reveals what took place in the midst of and following the creative acts of God. The question with him has never been what God created or what God could have done. God is omniscient and omnipotent. He was not trying to fit what scientists think with Scripture. He is seeking to understand the meaning of what God says in Genesis 2 in light of what he said in Genesis 1. All of God’s Word is sacred, infallible, and true in brother Scott’s mind.

Furthermore, he does not advocate a figurative interpretation in his classes at Florida College. As all our Bible teachers have done for many years in studying Genesis 1, he feels that the responsibility in the college classroom is to inform students of the several positions identifying strengths and weaknesses of each position. Because of that, the bibliography in his course syllabus contains references to the writings of men on all sides of these issues; as would the bibliographies in other college courses on other subjects. This particular discussion is done as a part of only one lecture on one day in one course. It is preceded by an entire lecture in which brother Scott unquestionably sets forth the case against theistic evolution. Not only is he not dogmatic about setting an age for the earth, his position has changed from 1995 as he has studied and meditated on implications of various aspects of the issues involved. Because he admits to being unsure about parts of this study, he does not present a conclusion in class and does not discuss it publicly (other than in the one article mentioned and in a context of explaining the various views and allowing students to decide for themselves). For these reasons he has refused to engage in public debates on this topic.

While I do not concur with all his reasoning and/or personal conclusions, this teacher has a humble spirit, a tender heart, and a sincere desire to know and teach only the truth of God. Shane has great potential for good in the kingdom of God. He has a commitment to the Word that cherishes both the content and spirit of Truth. He has not, to my knowledge, taught error in the classroom of Florida College. He has, from the first discussion with me, indicated a willingness to study this subject and a desire to seek the truth on every biblical teaching wherever that leads. I think that is the kind of teacher our brethren want for their children.

Brother Adams, too, is seeking to teach and defend the Truth. He has had my admiration over the years for his exegesis of the Bible text. I do not hesitate to say that we recognize the awesome responsibility we have in teaching young Christians. I have always gladly accepted constructive criticisms which will help us do our job in a way that will please God. In this case, brother Adams freely admits that he does not even know Shane Scott, and yet he has determined that employing him is inexcusable. I do know Shane Scott. I know what he teaches here. I could be wrong, of course, but I think I know the kind of person he is.

On a more general note, I and my colleagues here at Florida College have dedicated our lives to encouraging young men and women to serve the Lord in whatever capacity they are able. Sometimes they, like us, reach wrong conclusions. Sometimes they say things that are not right. Sometimes they say things in an inexperienced way that evidences they have not yet done all the study they will do on that topic or that they are naive about the implications of a position they are taking. That does not excuse the teaching of error at any time or age. It does not excuse any damage that might be done. I am, however, deeply thankful to the gracious God of heaven that my dad, Jim Cope, Clinton Hamilton, and others helped me through my youth.

We all struggle with how best to serve the kingdom of God in these kinds of matters and do what is right. I have chosen in most cases to first try to help a brother see his way. If I do not know him, I have looked to the people I know who do know him; and unless he continues to press his position in an unbefitting way, I have trusted them to work with him. I have reflected (almost as much as on how many souls will be lost through what one says with which I disagree) on how many souls may be lost because of my impatience and persistence in discrediting a brother who is sincere and honest, who is leading many to greater knowledge and service, and who is studying diligently to know and teach the Truth. While I must not excuse the teaching of error or compromise the Truth, it seems to me to be an exercise in Truth “to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:1-3).

119 Glen Arven Ave., Temple Terrace, Florida 33617  E-mail: caldwelc@flcoll.edu

By Shane Scott

In the July 6 issue of Truth Magazine, Connie Adams charged that I am a threat to the students of Florida College. I want to respond to his allegations.

It is true that I wrote an article in Sentry Magazine in which I argued that the best biblical interpretation of the days of Genesis 1 was that they were ages. However, brother Adams failed to mention the following pertinent facts about the article:

    1. It was written over five years ago.
2. It was written at the request of Ken Chumbley, who was editing a  small section on evidences.
3. It was written as part of a point-counterpoint exchange in which I was asked to give my opinion.
4. A counterpoint article was written and printed on the page beside my article.
5. The counterpoint article was written by Greg Gwin, whom I suggested brother Chumbley should contact.

It is also true that in my article I said the “days cannot be literal” and that they “must be ages.” What I meant by this is that these conclusions are the logical consequence of the factors I raised in the article. Those statements should not be interpreted to mean that I think I have all the answers about this topic, or that I think my position is flawless, or that I believe anyone who disagrees with me is a heretic. Indeed, at the end of my article I allowed that the literal day view may be correct, though in my opinion it is not the best interpretation.

I am very sensitive to the responsibility I have in a setting such as the classroom to present various interpretations and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each. That is how I deal with Genesis 1 in the single lecture I deliver at Florida College on this topic (out of approximately 265 total lectures I present).

I would not have written the article in Sentry unless I knew a “counterpoint” article would have been presented as well. Though I expressed strong personal beliefs in the article, I am always open to other ways of looking at this matter. I have never “bombarded” others with my views, whether in the classroom, pulpit, or personal conversation.

My article in Sentry was based on the time-honored principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture. Further, as Truth staff writer and Board of Directors member Steve Wolfgang has recently noted in his doctoral dissertation on creationism in churches of Christ, the viewpoint I expressed has been held by very conservative brethren throughout the history of the restoration.

I have no quarrel with anyone who questions what I teach. On more than one occasion I have shown inquirers my lecture notes and exams in which this topic is addressed. I was glad to do so and would have been happy to offer such to brother Adams, if he had asked. Though he knows who I am and where I work, he has never contacted me about this matter.

I have been blessed to teach at Florida College the past two years, and to speak in a good number of churches in the last several years. These opportunities have afforded me the chance to build a track record of responsible preaching and teaching, a record which stands in sharp relief to brother Adams’ assertions, and one I am happy to stand behind. (I would encourage the reader to read both my article and Greg Gwin’s at my website: http://web.tampabay.rr.com/sscott02/genesis_1_introduction.htm