Truth Magazine

By Johnie Edwards

It seems that many churches of Christ are trying to be like the denominations around them. Like the Jews of old, they are saying, in principle, “Give us a king to judge us like all the nations” (1 Sam. 8:5). We seem to be having a language problem in some quarters. It reminds us of Israel as Nehemiah wrote: “In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jew’s language, but according to the language of each people” (Neh. 13:23-24). More and more we see expressions being used like the denominations around us:

1. I Am a Church of Christ. I am asking, how did you get to be “a church of Christ”? I read of the Lord’s people being “Christians” (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16), but never “a church of Christ.” The denominations use terms like this to identify them. For example a member of the Methodist Church says, “I am a Methodist. “ So some say, “I am a church of Christ.”

2. Conference. The denominations have their conferences which are “an assembly of church members, representing a church, from a particular district in Protestant churches.” When we use the term to identify our work, we may be leaving the wrong impression on those to whom we are trying to teach the truth. I do not recall reading anything about the church in the New Testament having a conference, do you? I do read about “Gospel Preaching” (Acts 14:7) Why can’t we be content to use terms which identify what we are doing, rather than terms used by the churches around about us? What could be put on a meeting announcement better than, “Gospel Preaching?”

3. The Individual is the Church. Did you ever read in the Bible where an individual Christian was a church? Paul penned, “For the body is not one member, but many” (1 Cor. 12:14). A lot of churches of Christ have had tons of problems by thinking an individual is a church and whatever an individual Christian does, the church is doing it or what an individual can do, the church can do. Somebody has not been reading 1 Timothy 5:16. This is denominational thinking and a language foreign to the Word of God!

4. Church of Christ Doctrine. Tell me, just what is “church of Christ doctrine”? And when you tell me, I will ask you, “Which church of Christ are you referring to?” Indiana has a broad spectrum of churches of Christ with all kind of teachings! Really, the church of Christ has no doctrine that is its own. True churches of Christ believe and teach, “the doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9) and “sound doctrine” (Tit. 2:1, 7-8) is their plea. Do you ever recall reading anything in the New Testament about “church of Christ doctrine”? It’s the language of “Ashdod”!

5. I’ll Take Christ, But Not The Church. Impossible! The plea of the denominations around us want Christ but not his church. You can’t have one without the other, for they go together. The men of God in the New Testament pleaded for “Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:32). When we understand that “the church is the body of Christ” (Col. 1:18) and that Christ is its head, we will quit talking like those around about us. To ask for Christ and not his church would be about like inviting me for dinner by saying, “Come for dinner, bring your head, but not your body.”

6. Tuesday Night Communion. Did you notice where the Highland Avenue Church of Christ, on Tuesday evening, October 5, 1999 viewed the video, “Walk to Emmaus,” which featured a full-fledged band on stage, an all-woman quartet entertaining the audience, and a Tuesday evening communion being served “Catholic style” as the bread was broken, then dipped into a large cup of the fruit of the vine as the soaked bread was eaten! Does this sound like we have been too long drinking from the well of sectarianism? Who would ever have thought that a church of Christ would be found doing this kind of doings? It looks a lot like we are being influenced more by those around about us than we are by the word of God. The Bible that I read teaches that the Lord’s supper consists of “the bread” and “the fruit of the vine” as two separate acts and is to be observed on “the first day of the week” (Matt. 26:26-28; Acts 20: 7). Does yours read that way?

4121 Woodyard Rd., Bloomington, Indiana 47404

Truth Magazine Vol. XLIV: 12  p13  June 15, 2000

By Daniel King

The Pattern of Creation — The “Kinds”

The word translated “kind” (min) in Genesis 1:11-12, 21, and 24‑25   apparently refers to the general reproducing groups of organisms. The term probably does not refer to the technical word species in most cases, but it may refer to what we today call genera, families, orders, or other taxonomic categories. The word may in fact have no exact   twentieth-century equivalent. And, while there may be some uncertainty as to what is precisely meant by “kind,” it is plain that the word does have a definite and fixed meaning. (It may be helpful to note that the word “species” is similarly difficult to define by scientists today.) One thing is certain about the use of min in Genesis. One “kind” could not transform itself into another “kind.” We may therefore infer that all the changes which take place (and we admit that some do take place), happen only within the boundaries set by the creative hand of God, because organisms reproduce “after their kind.”

Hence, no change is capable of causing an organism to move to a kind different from that of its ancestors. On the evidence of these texts, and given the fact that evolution’s advocates have not been able to produce examples of the very thing which they are most obligated to prove, there are many very substantial reasons to reject the evolutionary account of man’s origin:

1. Eve was formed from the body of Adam (Gen. 2:21, 22). Male and female did not ascend     together through the various develop- mental stages to the final stage,          notably homo sapiens.

2. Adam was molded by divine transmutation from some type of earth (Gen. 2:7). He did not develop from lower forms of animal life.

3. Descendants of the original man and woman (as well as other creatures) must have been subject to change in a limited sense by genetic and environmental diversification. This would account for such things as racial variations in human beings (cf. Gen. 10-11). It would also explain the existence of families of animals like, for example, wolves, jackals, foxes, and dogs in the family Canidae.

This clear teaching of Genesis 1 is accepted and confirmed in other parts of the Bible. For example, consider 1 Corinthians 15:38, 39: “. . . God giveth . . . to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.” Evolution, on the other hand, tells us that all life is probably ascended from a common ancestry.

“Create” and “Make”

As we have already pointed out in an earlier section, there are two types of creative activity recorded in the Genesis account. One type is that described by the word “create” (Hebrew bara). This is the word used in the only instances of ex nihilo creation, fiat creation, or “creation out of nothing.” Only three works of “creation” in this sense are found in Genesis 1: 

1. One is the creation of the basic elements of the physical cosmos — space, mass, and time (1:1).

2. The second is the creation of human consciousness, also associated with the breath of life (1:21).

3. The third is the creation of the image of God in man (1:27); this represents either the same thing that is alluded to in 1:21 or an enlargement of the notion.

The Genesis account does not have a clear reference to creatio ex nihilo, a creation out of nothing. It is assumed rather than explicitly taught, and it is the context which distinguishes these particular instances as such. Moreover, that this creation was not from pre-existing matter is made quite clear by the New Testament. In Romans 4:17, Paul speaks of God who “calls into existence the things that do not exist.” As well, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has this to say, “By faith we understand that the world was created by the Word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear” (11:3).

In the other instances in Genesis, other than 1:1, 21, and 27, God’s work was to “make” (asah) or to “form” (yatsar), i.e., out of pre‑existing matter the final product, as a potter would shape his vessel on the wheel out of clay. In terms of the material universe, according to the text itself, the only creatio ex nihilo is in Genesis 1:1. There God is said to have created the matter and energy out of which the universe was fashioned, and then took six days to organize it. So, the six days were dedicated to organizing the matter and energy he had called into being at the beginning. One thing is very clear about the process as described in the Genesis account, and wherein these three verbs are employed, it was never left to its own devices, i.e., to form and shape itself. God was the Former and the Fashioner. He did not leave the elements of his creation to fashion themselves over vast stretches of time. One looks in vain in Genesis 1 for these vast eons of time and the Ages which they represent in the geological time table as described in modern science text books. But one also looks in vain to find the physical processes acting on their own to produce the world we now see. 

One particular writer’s remarks about the word “make” are indicative of one who believes the physical elements were left to themselves over these vast expanses of time. According to his view they formed themselves into what became planet earth as we know it today: “Now once again God lets this environment he’s created do what he created it to do: make (Assam’) [sic] the surface of the Earth. The earth is going through a process of cooling as it stabilizes         . . . How long was this? How long did it take God to pronounce his will? Not long. A day is surely sufficient. How long did it take the Earth to comply with his decree? However long it takes . . . ” (Hill Roberts, A Harmonization of God’s Genesis Revelation and His Natural Revelation). In this writer’s humble opinion it is very difficult to avoid the term “evolutionist” to describe such people and their views, since it is apparent that they believe in a process of “evolution” (whether or not they would agree to the use of this word) of the inanimate world through natural processes and subject to natural law. If God used such processes over vast ages to bring the inanimate world to an advanced state, why would it be unthinkable for him to have used the same or similar processes to bring the animate world to an advanced state of development? Whether you have one or the other, or both together, it would seem to this writer that the result ought to be called “theistic evolution,” simply because that is what it is.

The Logic and Symmetry of the Creation Narrative in Genesis

1. Purposeful progress. Each stage of the creative process in the Genesis account was an appropriate preparation for the succeeding phase and all of them for the ultimate purpose of providing a suitable home for man. But on the whole the stages in Genesis cannot be made to fit the sequences of evolutionary theorists and their way of reading the geologic column. This fact has been a constant source of frustration for theistic evolutionists. They could wish that Moses had been more aware of these later hypothetical reconstructions of the development of life on earth, so that he could have configured his creation narrative more in line with them! 

2. Appearance of Age. The creation was mature from its inception. It did not have to grow or develop from simple beginnings. Adam and Eve are presented as fully formed adults; stars and sun gave light immediately, though the spaces between the stars were many light years and would normally require eons to cross that space, etc. The earth and the elements that composed it (along with the rest  of the universe for that matter) may have possessed some of the appearances of age as well. It was so because God willed it to be so and spoke it into existence. The fact that under “ordinary circumstances” it would not be so has absolutely nothing to do with the creation as it is described in Genesis. Even though some operate on the assumption that such a miraculous intervention would be an aberration in a “uniformitarian” world, the Bible says it was so: “And God said, Let there be . . . and there was . . . ” 

3. It Was Different From Our World. “The world that then was” (2 Pet. 3:6) was vastly different from the one we know. The Firmament (raqia) about which Genesis speaks may have been a vast blanket of water vapor, or vapor canopy, which produced a greenhouse effect, maintained mild temperatures, prevented rainfall (2:5), and may even have prolonged life and decreased the aging process.

4. A Worldwide Flood Made a Significant Impression Upon Earth Geology. This is one factor which is generally ignored or even denied by many from among the ranks of theistic evolutionists. Of course, most from the contemporary scientific community give it no credence whatsoever. But those who take seriously the biblical account of creation and the flood (Gen. 6-9) also wish to come to terms with the geologic facts provided by the earth’s crust. All of the geologic strata and formations, the great coal and oil deposits, the volcanic and glacial beds, the mountain ranges and geosynclines, and all the multitudinous phenomena of historical geology require some adequate explanation for their very existence. As Dr. Henry Morris has said, “The only possible explanation for the geologic column and fossil record, consistent with Scripture, must therefore be sought in terms of the Noachian Deluge. This tremendous worldwide cataclysm does provide a satisfactory framework within which to reinterpret these data. If the Flood was really of the magnitude and intensity the Bible indicates, then the entire case for evolution collapses. Evolution depends entirely on the fossil record interpreted in terms of vast geologic ages. If these did not take place, evolution is impossible” (Scientific Creationism 251). 

The position held by theistic evolutionists which states that the biblical flood was merely a local phenomenon and the geologic column and fossil record are to be explained by vast eons of prehistoric time instead, holds the Bible in contempt, for it reduces the statements made in Scripture about the height and duration of the Flood to fiction (cf. Gen. 7:19, 20; 8:5). Mount Ararat, where the Ark came to rest is 17,000 feet high. The Bible says the waters covered these peaks for more than nine months. Such a “local flood” is impossible on many different grounds. Again, in their search for compliance with the theory of evolution, these “Bible students” are willing to surrender the literal and obvious meaning of certain passages from the Word of God.

5. The Genealogies of Genesis Provide No Benefit to Theistic Evolutionists. It is often argued that because the Hebrew expression “to beget” (yalad) does not necessitate a direct father/son relationship but often only means “to be a descendant,” that there is plenty of room in the genealogies of Genesis for considerable additional time than the traditional way of viewing them would permit. It is also noted that there is ample evidence of the fact that genealogies in general are not to be viewed as chronologies would be, that is, straight-line and all-inclusive generational depictions. Rather, they are often punctuated by abbreviations which may skip several generations. This much is not a matter of controversy. And this clearly renders the 4004 B.C. date of Bishop Usher for the creation obsolete. His dates may prove to be hundreds or even thousands of years off. Most careful Bible students today do not attempt to offer a precise date for the creation because of this. However, the question whether this fact provides any serious encouragement to the notion that millions or even billions of years may have intervened is utterly preposterous. The age of Abraham has been dated at approximately 2000 B.C. on a solid historical basis, so it is only the 2000 years from Adam to Abraham recorded in the genealogies of Genesis 10-11 which provide any room at all for flexibility in reckoning the duration of Old Testament history. Even the most generous approach to generation-skipping finds it hard to make this 2000 years correlate with evolution’s 100,000 to 250,000 years of human evolution. Moreover, this does not even consider the other 4.5 billion years which must be made to fit into the six days of creation! The genealogies of Genesis cannot be made to provide the theistic evolutionist what he is looking for, i.e., vast eons of time. If those expansive periods of time actually transpired, then the Bible is wrong. It is that simple. But if they did not, then evolution is wrong. It is that simple.

In the final section of our study, we shall examine the scientific evidence which has been set forward by scientists with a creationist orientation to argue for a young earth and recent creation. Without question this is the only scenario which may permit the Bible to be accepted at face value. (This series will be concluded in the next issue of Truth Magazine.)

2521 Oak Forest Dr., Antioch, Tennessee 37013

Truth Magazine Vol. XLIV: 12  p6  June 15, 2000

By David Dann

In Ephesians 5 the apostle Paul writes, “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25-27).

It clearly follows then, that each local church is to be “holy and without blemish.” In other words, each congregation must be kept pure from the polluting and corrupting influence of sin, while at the same time retaining the strength necessary to stand as the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). However, it is true that “your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8). And, that “Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works” (2 Cor. 11:15). These evil influences seek to attack and undermine the purity and strength of every local church. Therefore, it is important for us to identify and guard against that which threatens the purity and strength of the church. Some of these threats include:

1. Worldliness among the members of the church. The term “worldliness” describes the lifestyle of those who are outside the body of Christ and living in sin with the rest of the world. Because of the tendency of Christians to adopt the sinful lifestyles of the world, Paul says, “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Rom. 12:2). Similarly, James writes of the effort that must be put forth in order for a Christian to “keep himself unspotted from the world” (Jas. 1:27). Unfortunately, many Christians do not heed these admonitions and instead engage in the sins that are so common among those of the world. Members of the church engage in social drinking, ungodly forms of entertainment, dancing, the use of foul language, and the wearing of immodest clothing. Sadly, the purity of the church is compromised as the body is overrun by the blemishes and stains of sin. In order to preserve the purity of the church, Paul urges us to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11).

2. Lack of proper church discipline. Concerning the discipline of members of the local church who are involved in sin and unwilling to repent, Paul says, “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat” (1 Cor. 5:11). The apostle similarly encourages us to “withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” (2 Thess. 3:6). We must guard against the tendency to overlook sin in the lives of the members of the church. Paul says that there is a two-fold purpose to discipline: “That his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus,” and “a little leaven leavens the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:5-6). We must exercise church discipline in order to bring the erring brother back to Christ, and to preserve the church from the corrupting influence of sin. By failing to do the Lord’s will in this matter we destroy the purity and strength of the local church.

3. Weak preaching and teaching. The New Testament instructs preachers to, “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). There is a balance that must be present in our preaching and teaching. Gospel preaching involves exhortation as well as rebuke. It involves approval of that which is good, as well as disapproval of that which is sinful. It includes preaching about the promise of heaven to those who are faithful, as well as the promise of hell to those who are unfaithful. When we fail to make specific application in our preaching and teaching, we fail to preach the gospel of Christ. When we  neglect our responsibility to declare the whole counsel of God we undermine the strength of the church and fail to rid ourselves of its impurities. 

4. A lack of qualified elders. God’s plan is that there should be “elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). The elders are instructed to “Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers” (1 Pet. 5:2). Unfortunately, it is often the case that there are not men qualified to serve as elders according to the qualifications given in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Without elders, the church lacks the oversight and guidance these men are to provide. As a result, the local church is weakened and becomes susceptible to corruption and the sinful influence of those “who come to you in sheep’s clothing; but inwardly they are ravenous wolves” (Matt. 7:15). 

Conclusion

We must realize that each local church is a “church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). Are you working to preserve the purity and strength of the church?

41 Foch Ave. Unit #2, Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada M8W 3X3

By Eric Keiper

In approximately 536 B.C., Cyrus the king of Persia issued a proclamation. The house of the Lord was to be built again in Jerusalem. What excitement must have filled the hearts of the Jews as they longed to return to their land. They had been deported from Judah to Babylon for resisting Nebuchadnezzar’s rule and remained in captivity when Persian rule began. The Jews had remained in captivity for approximately 80 years in Babylon. How they must have longed to return home. Let alone, how excited they must have been to rebuild the temple which Nebuchadnezzar had burned with fire! 

The Jews knew the reason for their captivity. As a nation, they had forgotten God. They even had desecrated the Temple of the Lord with pagan worship. Their captivity was essentially discipline from God, directing them again to faithfulness. 

As the Jews began to move back to Jerusalem, they must have been filled with joy. However, I am certain that their joy was tempered with caution and fear. After having been disciplined by God for their unfaithfulness, perhaps they were uncertain what they ought to do. Some, though aged, were still present who remembered the former temple in her glory, and perhaps they too remembered the teachings of the priests and prophets in the former order. What confusion must have filled their minds as they recalled that the religious leaders were corrupt. Those who they had trusted for teaching and direction had mislead the people. The faithful prophets of the Lord had cried out, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isa. 5:20). And again, “For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed” (9:16). 

These peo- ple had been fooled, and then disciplined for their foolishness. A sense of carefulness and caution surely prevailed as they returned to Judah to rebuild the Temple. One central question must have prevailed in their minds: “How do we know what is right?” They’d been fooled by their leaders before, so how would they know how to build the temple? Who could they trust? How would they know how to worship? How would they know how to organize the Priesthood and her work? How would they know how to live pleasing to the Lord? 

While these issues may sound complex, convoluted, and even frustrating, the answer is simple. The answer comes in the plain narrative about a man who sought the very answer to these questions. “For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments” (Ezra 7:10). Ezra lays out a three part plan that makes a whole lot of sense. 

The first thing Ezra did was “prepare his heart to seek the law of the Lord.” This is the very foundation upon which all inquiry rests. One who has determined to seek diligently will prize what he finds much higher than the casual observer. Remember the parable of the “Pearl of Great Price” “. . . the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it” (Matt. 13:45-46). Did you notice the response of the sincere seeker? He traded everything that he had that he could gain his great pearl. The same is true with word of God. When one is seeking the truth of God’s word, he will without hesitation lay down the “darkness that has been put for light” and the “bitter that has been put for sweet.” This process of “preparing the heart to seek” is determining to sort out falsehood and clinging to the truth. The measure we use is God’s word. 

The process that Ezra went through was much more than just learning the principles. Seeking and sorting was just the foundation. The purpose which he gives for his search is two fold: “to do it, and to teach.” Ezra sorted out all these things so he would know what was right so he could do it himself. He would then know the answers to: “How do we build the temple? How do we worship? How do we organize the priesthood and her work? How do we live?” The second part of his purpose was to teach others. Not only did Ezra benefit from his search, but others could benefit from his search. Others could then know what to do. Furthermore, I believe that the order of seek, do, and teach is important. How can one who has sought and not “done” effectively teach? The one who has “done” can teach in practical terms how the principle applies. 

As we consider this example of virtue, let’s make direct application today. The apostle Paul links Old Testament examples to New Testament application when he says, “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). Ezra’s example gives us hope. Sometimes when we try to search for what is right, as Ezra did, we can lose hope. It can become discouraging to sort through what is false. It can be discouraging to try to sort through all of the issues challenging the church today. How do we know which way to go? How do we know what is right and wrong? How do we know what is pleasing to God? How do we know what is acceptable as worship to God? How do we know what to do in the work of the church? How do we know how to organize the church?  

All of these questions can find an answer in the scriptures. Just as Ezra sought to restore the Jewish nation to faithfulness, we can be restored to faithfulness today. Have we forgotten this plea of restoration? Do we perceive that the church has already been completely restored and there is no more work to do? Will there be no more issues which will cause us to delve again into the pages of Holy Writ to learn which way to go? Will there be nothing more to test our mettle? The Apostle Paul said, “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Cor. 11:19). Sounds like issues will continue! 

Where will you stand? Are you approved? If you’re certain of your answer, how do you know for sure? I read a bumper sticker recently that read, “Question everything!” Does that make you uncomfortable? Sometimes it’s hard to question what we believe and what we do. It impugns our own judgment if we have believed what is false. But if we seek like the man did for his pearl, we will make diligent inquiry and exchange everything we have for the truth. 

900 Pump Rd., Apt. 77, Richmond, Virginia 23233-5516