Truth Magazine

By Weldon E. Warnock

Recently, I heard a preacher tell the story of his visit to a hospital where a man with a terminal disease was saved through prayer. Many call this “the sinner’s prayer.” It might be prayed anywhere, such as the bedroom, corn field, driving along in a car, a church service, as well as a sick bed in a hospital. Friends in all candor, we do not read in the word of God about an alien sinner being saved by prayer. In fact, the expressions, “The sinner’s prayer,” is not found one time in the Bible. Such is the figment of a man’s imagination.

In the world-wide commission of Jesus, given after his resurrection, he never said anything about prayer. He said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16), and that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations” (Luke 24:47).

In all the cases of conversion recorded in the book of Acts, not one time was an alien sinner told to pray. On Pentecost, the inspired apostle Peter told the Jews, after they had asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” to “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Nothing about praying, here. When Philip preached Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch the first thing the eunuch asked was, “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” Philip, after hearing that he believed that Jesus is the Son of God, baptized him (Acts 8:35-38). No prayer, here. This harmonizes with what Jesus said in Mark 16:16. In the conversion of Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) and the Philippian jailor (Acts 16:30-33), we do not read of them being told to pray. However, they were baptized after faith and repentance. The Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized (Acts 18:8). All of them did what Jesus said to do in the great commission, and for the same purpose Peter stated in Acts 2:38 — for the remission of sins.

Saul of Tarsus, who was praying, was told by Ananias to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Here was an alien sinner who was told to quit praying, get up, be baptized, and wash away his sins. “Calling on the name of the Lord” is an expression that means “appealing to the name of the Lord,” or “appealing to the authority of the Lord.” This is what a person does, rather than just what he says. The word “call” is the same word translated “appeal” in Acts 25:11 where Paul said, “I appeal to Caesar.” In other words, Paul is saying, “I will call upon Caesar.” He has the power as emperor to exonerate me. To be saved, we need to appeal to Jesus, obeying him.

The blind man who had been healed by Jesus rightly said, “Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth” (John 9:31). This comports with Proverbs 28:9, “He that turneth his ear away from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be an abomination.” Yet, preachers say that an alien sinner can pray for the forgiveness of sins, and God will forgive, while at the same time he ignores water baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38) and the plain teaching set forth in the examples of conversions in the book of Acts.

87 Ormond Dr., Scottsville, Kentucky 42164

By Daniel H. King, Sr.

The Trouble With Long Days

The modern theory of evolution is not taught in the Scriptures. Whether scriptural language is taken literally or figuratively, it does not leave room for evolutionary development of either the material universe or the biological diversity of earth. Its assumptions are not the agendas which are put forward in the Word of God, nor do they at all motivate the writers of Holy Scripture. This is why evolutionary postulates seem so utterly alien to what we discover when we read Genesis 1-2 on its own terms. Although long “days” may appear more congenial to evolutionary concepts than 24 hour days, in fact they really only substitute new problems for old ones, this time imminently biblical rather than scientific. The “Bible believing scientist” who wishes to strike a compromise with the theories of modern science, merely trades scientific problems for biblical problems, as the following paragraphs show:

1. The Bible teaches that the earth was created before the sun and stars (Gen. 1:1, 16). The theory of evolution (in its full scientific context) teaches that the sun and stars existed in some cases for billions of years before the earth.

2. We are left, for example, with plants existing for millions of years before there is a sun, moon, day or night (cf. 1:11), a veritable botanical — not to mention scientific — absurdity. The theory of evolution, and any other theory that postulates long periods of time between the days of Genesis, cannot reconcile these facts. Plant life could not have survived without these light sources.

3. Then, if insects and birds were created millions of years after plants, pollination would have been quite impossible and many plants would have died out. Once more, this presents a scientific conundrum for such a Bible student. So, the Bible will somehow have to be “adjusted” to make this fit.

4. The Bible teaches that birds were created before insects (1:20, 24). The theory of evolution demands that the insects precede the birds. Of course, many birds survive primarily upon the insects which they ingest, so once again a problem of survival is created by this thesis.

5. The Bible teaches that land plants preceded marine life (1:11, 20). The theory of evolution demands that marine life appeared before dry land plants.

6. The Bible teaches that whales were created before reptiles (or any other land animals), Gen. 1:21, 24. But the theory of evolution not only alleges that reptiles came before whales, but that whales are in fact land animals that have returned to the water.

7. The Bible teaches that birds were created before reptiles (1:20, 24). Evolution, on the other hand, insists that birds were the direct descendants of reptiles.

8. The Bible teaches that man was created before rain fell on the earth (2:5-7). The theory of evolution demands that rain fell on the earth for millions of years before man. (The terms for the plants of 2:5 are apparently used in reference to cultivated plants such as were grown in the garden of Eden, and not to the general vegetation of 1:11).

9. The Bible teaches that death and suffering are the result of sin, and that sin entered the world with Adam and Eve (2:17). But the theory of evolution asserts that the process of life-and-death struggle had been going on for millions of years before man appeared on the earth, and that man’s most immediate ancestors were part of that struggle.

10. The Bible teaches that man was made first, and then the woman was made from his side (2:18-22). This is the crowning blow to any attempt to reconcile the theory of evolution with the Bible. Evolution demands that the sexes evolved together.
  
11. Finally, if day six (when Adam was created) was thousands or even millions of years long, Adam’s age at death would have numbered in the thousands or millions of years, instead of merely hundreds, as Genesis 5 clearly teaches.

Given these facts, the clearest and simplest approach to Genesis 1 is to render the days of the chapter as comparable to our own days, to allow that those days reflect the temporal order of creation events, and to appreciate the internal harmony among the various biblical passages dealing with creation. There is no reason to suggest that the events of Genesis 2 contradict those of chapter 1. Genesis 1 deals with creation in general, showing man’s place in the larger pattern of God’s genesis of the cosmos. Genesis 2 treats the creation of the human family in more detail; it represents an enlarging of what was summarily discussed in chapter 1.

It is also entirely possible and reasonable to translate certain verbs in Genesis 2 in the pluperfect tense, as does the New International Version: “Now the Lord had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air” (Gen. 2:19). All apparent contradictions disappear when this is done. Chapter one represents a summary of all six days of God’s creating, whereas chapter two focuses in upon day six, and in particular the beginning of the human race.
    
Gaps and Blanks in Genesis One and Two

Several views have been put forward in an effort to escape the obvious assertion made in the early chapters of Genesis that the world is of recent origin. Given the fact that this position is completely out of favor in the scientific community because evolution is currently the most popular of the theories of origins, several alternative views have been set before the reading public with the hope that both religion and science may happily coexist. None of these views has gained much currency among Christians or scientists. But for those who seem set upon the notion of “having it both ways,” so to speak, these are options which have become quite popular. The following are the main alternatives to the traditional way of viewing the Genesis account of creation:
 
1. The Long Chaos or “Gap” Theory. The modern gap theory appeared at the end of the 18th century. At that time, J.C. Rosenmuller and others were trying to make a synthesis between the creation story and the new geological hypothesis concerning the age of the earth. According to this view, there is a gap in time between the inaugural event reported in Genesis 1:1 and the creative forming of those elements which were fashioned in 1:2, which may consist of millions or even billions of years. During this period the original creation stood in total chaos. This hypothesis is sometimes described as the “Gap Theory.” Those who entertain this position say that the evidence of great age which is apparent from the geological record comes from this chaotic period. C.I. Schofield popularized this notion in his 1909 reference Bible. He also cited Isaiah 45:18 as proof that such a time existed in the history of the earth. In fact, there is nothing either in Genesis 1:1-2 or Isaiah 45:18 which remotely suggests such an extended period of chaos. 

Is there support for this idea in the distinction between the words for “create” (bara) and “make” (asah) which some writers say marks a very important difference in the writer’s revelation of the events of creation? One promoter of this theory has written, “The passage of Exodus (20:11) is a reference to the subjects of the creation week of Genesis — that which God made (asah), not that which God created (bara — Gen. 1:1)” (“Flat Earth Bible Study Techniques,” by John N. Clayton in Does God Exist?, Vol. 3, No. 10 [Oct. 1976] 5-6). According to this idea “create” is used to describe only the calling of things out of nothingness (creatio ex nihilo), which only happened once at the origin of the universe, whereas the term “made” is used of the shaping and forming process relative to things which already exist. 

In fact, in a sense the two words are used interchangeably in the Old Testament, and are so used throughout the creation narrative in the first two chapters of Genesis. Nowhere is this more striking than in 1:26, 27 “And God said, Let us make man in our image . . . So God created man in his own image . . . ” In Psalm 148:1-5, the writer spoke of the creation of  the angels. Yet when Nehemiah spoke of the creation of the angels, he employed the word asah to describe it. The word is thus employed because the basic definition of bara is to “shape, create” (BDB 135); the root from which it derives (br’) means “to build” or “to bring forth, give birth to” (TDOT, Vol. II, 245). In the Bible this word is always used of God’s work of creating and shaping of things. It does not, however, necessitate “creation out of nothing,” even though it is used so in Genesis 1:1 (compare Heb. 11:3). In Exodus 20:11, Moses uses “made” to describe the entirety of the creative activity during the creation week, even the original creation ex nihilo. It is clear from this that asah may at times mean “create” as well as “make” (cf. also Pss. 33:6; 96:5; 100:3; Isa. 66:22; Jer. 32:17; etc.). In Psalm 104:30 the word “create” is used to describe the regular and continual bringing of new life into the world (creatio continua), while in Ezekiel 28:13, 15 “the day that you were created” seems to mean the day of the birth of the prince of Tyre, so it appears to take on the same meaning as “make” in some instances. This leads us to believe gap theorists are making much more of the verbs of “creating” and “making” than is actually found there! 

Further, there is no evidence whatever for the gap theory in Genesis’ words for “was” (hayetah) or “without form and void” (tohu wabohu) in 1:2a. The verb hayah is commonly used to describe states of being (“to be, to exist”). Many gap theorists take it to mean “became” in this passage, i.e., “the earth became formless and void.” Now, hayah may have the connotation “to become” at times, but it is the context which determines this, and nothing in this particular context points the reader toward that meaning. That is the reason translators do not render it so. They would be inclined to translate it that way if there were some indication in the biblical text that there was an original creation which somehow became disordered and chaotic. As Bernard Ramm has written, “The effort to make was mean became is just as abortive. The Hebrews did not have a word for became but the word to be did service for to be and become. The form of the verb was in Genesis 1:2 is the Qal, perfect, third person singular, feminine. A Hebrew concordance will give all the occurrences of that form of the verb. A check in the concordance with reference to the usage of this form of the verb in Genesis reveals that in almost every case the meaning of the verb is simply was. Granted in a case or two was means became, but if in the preponderance of instances the word is translated was, any effort to make one instance mean became, especially if that instance is highly debatable, is very insecure exegesis” (The Christian View of Science and Scripture 139).

The words which describe the chaos before God brought order to the material universe (tohu wabohu), under certain circumstances could be taken to mean something that is brought to ruin, but once again, the context dictates that it rather describes something which is empty and unshapen because it had not yet been configured for use. Jeremiah uses the phrase metaphorically to describe Judah after a devastating invasion from her northern enemy: “I looked on the earth, and lo, it was waste and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light” (Jer. 4:23). In Jeremiah, however, the context clearly shows that the land of Judah was to become “waste and void” because of the impending disaster. But Genesis 1:2 does not suggest any such circumstance. It does not say that the world was disorganized, but that it was unorganized. Keil and Delitzsch explain that although the etymology of the two words has been lost, the meaning here is “waste and empty” or “barren.” They do not imply a “laying waste” or a “desolating” (Biblical Commentary on the O.T., Vol. 1, 48). They rather describe the coming earth and tell us it was a desolate, formless, lifeless mass. Surely if the author had intended us to believe there was a world which came to nought before the one which he describes as coming into being during his creative week, he would have given us more than words which may so easily be taken to mean something else entirely! If such a world existed, why did he not just come out and say it? Why did its discovery await the era when evolutionary science caused the biblical account to fall into disrepute in the minds of so many?

The truth is, this “gap” must be read between the lines of Scripture, for it is most assuredly missing from Scripture itself. Good biblical scholarship has always been against this speculative theory, as the following words written by Oswald T. Allis show: “The first objection to this gap theory is that it throws the account of Creation almost completely out of balance. To regard the words of Genesis 1:1 as a brief statement (or heading) which is amplified in the rest of the chapter, makes the entire chapter deal with the original creation. But when verse one is regarded as stating or announcing — it does not describe in any way — an original creation which was reduced to desolation (v. 2) and restored in six days (vv. 3-31), the character of the chapter is radically changed. It becomes almost wholly an account not of the creation, but of the re-creating or repairing of that original creation. This is the most obvious objection to this interpretation. It seems highly improbable that an original creation, which according to this theory brought into existence a world of wondrous beauty, would be dismissed with a single sentence and so many verses be devoted to what would be in a sense merely a restoration of it” (God Spake by Moses 153). 

2. Creation-Ruination-Recreation Theory. This view also assumes the gap and long chaos of the previous theory but adds to this the supposition that there may have been many worlds before our own and that these are what produced the geologic column and its supposed evidence for an exceedingly ancient world. Those who hold to this position believe that God may have created and then destroyed each of them (Gen. 6-8) in its own turn. 

According to one popular form of this view, it is the creation of the world intended for the angels that is reported in Genesis 1:1. Some time after this angelic world had been created, the evil angels, led by Satan himself, fell into sin. As a punishment for this sin the world was destroyed and the evil angels cast into hell. It is this condition of the earth which is reported in Genesis 1:2: “and the earth was without form and void.” Proponents of this theory believe it would account for the passage of considerable time and explain many of the fossils found in the geologic column. These, they believe, are evidence of animals annihilated when the angelic world was destroyed.

But one of the problems which this theory confronts is the geologic column itself. There are in fact no such “blanks” as would be expected to appear in the fossil record on a worldwide basis prior to a subsequent creation. Science is against the view. 
Another rather formidable problem exists as well. First, no passage of Scripture clearly teaches the idea, and the Bible is definitely against it, especially the Genesis account. A simple and straightforward examination of the early verses of Genesis chapter one shows that verses 1-5, which are said to contain the period of chaos and ruination, are inextricably connected with their context and offer no mention of either. Furthermore, there is no pause or other indicator of this supposed additional era of earth history; instead, the words which connect the sentences indicate a progression which is continuous, excluding any break in thought for a gap of millions or billions of years. Second, the theory contradicts Exodus 20:11, which says, “in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day          . . . ” and connects the creative week with the ordinary work week of the Hebrew people. Moses summarizes the creation within a single calendar week and leaves no room at all for a long period of chaos or recreation. The remainder of the Bible is also completely silent about it. So, Scripture is also against the view.

3. The Day-Age Theory. This is one of the more popular of the “alternative theories” of understanding the Genesis account. According to this theory, each creation day is supposedly answerable to a Geologic Age represented in the various layers of the crust of the earth. A major obstacle to the acceptance of this position is the fact that the modern scientific theorist’s reconstruction of the development of life upon the earth cannot be made to correspond with Genesis 1 and its picture of the creation of living organisms. This view also is tormented by the problems associated with all “long day” systems (cf. the section above titled, “Problems With Long Days”). The writer’s use of the terms “evening” and “morning” in Genesis also contradicts any approach which does not take seriously this rather obvious and simple terminology, which in all other cases would be taken at face value and not subjected to further interpretation. As Dr. Davis Young, a committed Day-Age theorist has acknowledged, the literal-day interpretation of Genesis is not only a “legitimate” approach to the text (44), but is “the obvious view” (Creation and the Flood 48). It is certainly fitting to challenge the promoters of the Day-Age theory to produce even a single instance as a parallel in Scripture where the word “day” (yom) means an age comprised of millions or billions of years. This is what they avow the word means in Genesis one, so it is appropriate to ask for proof.

An interesting footnote to this view is set forward in Dr. Young’s book Creation and the Flood. Young’s main biblical basis for viewing the creation days as ages is his contention that the seventh day is still going on, since according to his view God is still resting from his work of creation. Shane Scott uses this same argument, “To prove that the days are ages, consider the seventh day. All the other days of creation ended with, ‘and there was evening and there was morning, the ___ day.’ I understand that phrase to mean that each of those days had a distinct conclusion. However, there is no such statement for the seventh day, which must mean that it has not ended. In other words, on the seventh day God ceased creating new life forms, and that day has continued until now because He still ‘rests’ from creating new life” (Sentry Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 1 [March 31, 1995]. Shane Scott, Young, and others who hold to this view ignore the tense of the verb “rested” in the phrase “and He rested on the seventh day . . . ” (Gen. 2:2, 3). The writer does not tell us that God “is resting” as they assert, but that “He rested.” Moreover, in Exodus 31:17 the Bible goes on to explain that God “rested, and was refreshed.” And, even though God’s rest from the original creation may be said to be continuing, that would not prove that the seventh day of Genesis 2:2, 3 was continuing, much less that it continues to the present. After all, Jesus said, “My father has been working until now, and I have been working” (John 5:17). And that was on a Sabbath! The Lord viewed the Sabbath of the creation week as over. God only rested from his original creation, for the Bible gives ample evidence of his continued work of creating (cf. Pss. 51:10; 104:2; Isa. 43:15; 65:17, 18). In addition, Hebrews 4:9 does not provide any consolation for this mistaken view, since verse 11 makes it evident that the author has in mind the heavenly rest, i.e., heaven itself, and not the original Sabbath or any subsequent one. The author is not really discussing Sabbath days at all, but the ultimate Sabbath rest in heaven.

4. The Literal Day-Long Gap Theory. This alternative way of looking at Genesis 1 is actually a combination of two theories, the Day-Age and the Gap Theory, although it does not present itself as either. Really, it is just another way of espousing what has been called by some “progressive creation” or “religious evolution.” 

The best-known advocate of this view is Dr. Bernard Ramm. He makes his case for it in his influential book The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954); it is also advanced by the several writers of Evolution and Christian Thought Today (1959). The idea in the progressive creation approach is to suppose that, while life was developing over the vast span of geologic time the way evolutionists have imagined it, God intervened at various occasions to create something new, which the evolutionary process could not have accomplished unaided. “Saltatory evolution,” “macro evolution,” “quantum evolution,” and “punctuated equilibrium” are all terms and ideas used by Drs. Richard B. Goldschmidt and Stephen J. Gould to describe their own particular brand of evolutionary theory. Their writings have given impetus to religious evolutionists (or should I say rather, “progressive creationists”) among the so-called evangelicals; the theories seem to give support to their claims. The following is a characterization of these writers and their position, given in the words of Dr. Henry M. Morris in his excellent book Scientific Creationism (220-221): “Details vary considerably in the exposition of the progressive creation concept by various writers, with greater or lesser numbers of creative acts interspersed in the evolutionary process according to the taste of the writer. All, however, accept the basic framework of the evolutionary geologic ages and visualize progressive creation as taking place more than five billion years instead of six days. It is difficult to see any Biblical or theological advantage which the progressive creation idea has over a straightforward system of theistic evolution.” Bert Thompson is just as emphatic on this point, “Is progressive creationism theistic evolution? Both call in God to start creation. Both accept evolution (in varying amounts). Both accept the validity of the geologic age system. Both postulate an old Earth. Where is the difference, except that progressive creationism allows God ‘a little more to do in the system’? Both systems put God (theos) and evolution together. By any other standard that’s theistic evolution” (Creation Compromises 193).

According to the form of this view to which we recently have been introduced in the churches of Christ, each of the days of creation were 24-hour periods, but they were separated by millions or billions of years between them. What this view attempts to do is to avoid one of the very obvious and troublesome problems of the Day-Age theory, namely the fact that it places the interpreter into the unenviable position of forcing the word “day” (yom) into a strait-jacket which it never wore when it was used in classical biblical Hebrew. The word never described long eons of time in any instance in the Old Testament, and the cases where it is claimed to have meant this (in Genesis 1) are bounded by very conspicuous contextual limitations (“evening and morning,” “day one,” “day two,” etc.).

So some promoters of the view think they avoid this difficulty by saying that the days of Genesis 1 are literal 24-hour periods which are separated by long ages of time. It is clear that they make the identical assumption that all Day-Age theorists do, however, namely, that the creation week must somehow be expanded to incorporate all of earth’s history from its primeval beginning up to and including man’s arrival. Hence, the “days” of Genesis 1 must correspond more or less to the geological “ages” as set forth in modern science text books. This theory ignores the evidence offered by scientists for a relatively young earth, some of which is provided later in this presentation, and the difficulties created by the assumption that the creative week was more than six 24 hour periods immediately following one another. See the section titled, “The Trouble With Long Days” above. Each of these difficulties is precisely the same, whether the days are longer than the 24 hour periods they claim to be, or the week is longer than the 144 hours it claims to be. And make no mistake about it, the creative week is just as critical to the biblical chronology as are the days (cf. Exod. 20:11; 31:17).

5. The Pictorial Day Theory. The thrust of this approach to the first two chapters of Genesis is that the “six days” are merely devices to picture what went on at the beginning. It is not at all literal, nor was it ever meant to be. The writer’s presentation is topical and logical, but not chronological in any fashion. Here the “days” are merely taken as literary devices and not serious descriptions of what happened or in what time-frame they occurred. All it seems to say according to its proponents, is, “God did it.”

A view such as this cannot be taken seriously by those who say they “believe” what the Bible says about other things. If this straightforward narrative which is given at the beginning of Scripture may be turned into mere symbolism, purely on the ground that it is considered “pre scientific,” or even on the ground that it is considered to be inaccurate because it does not correlate with contemporary scientific theory, then any other narrative found anywhere else in the Bible may be considered symbolic and treated in the same fashion on this or some other pretext. Moreover, if narratives are subject to such prejudging on these kinds of a priori considerations, then ipso facto, any and every other type of literature in Scripture will fall under a similar spell. Before you know it, no part of the Bible will be taken literally. Such a situation would lead to interpretive chaos. In fact, all who approach the Bible without preconceived opinions about such matters will have to admit the proposition that “every passage is to be taken literally except those which cannot by virtue of the context.” In this instance there is nothing in the context which suggests that the days should be looked upon as long ages or as pictorial representations of anything else besides ordinary days of the week. 

6. Theistic Evolution. Theistic evolution is a form of reaction against mechanistic or atheistic evolution. This view suggests that God’s methods of “creation” might really have been what modern scientists designate “evolution.” As John Clayton has written, “ . . . we can find that evolution and the Bible show amazing agreement on almost all issues and that one is not mutually exclusive of the other” (The Source 130). Religious evolution makes an earnest effort to get God involved in the process of the evolution of the cosmos and of the living world. There are two types of such evolutionists. First, there are those who consider it a continuous process with God always present and working out the program constructively through natural laws. Then there are those who believe in what has been called “God at the beginning only.” In this approach the processes are left to themselves after an original creation. This view in all of its manifestations, of course, assumes from the outset that evolution actually did happen, and that scientists have proven it so conclusively that some vestige of the biblical tradition must be salvaged from the catastrophic effects of this torrent of new and damaging information. 

In reality, neither of these assumptions is correct. Evolutionary theory is flawed at every turn, but is relentlessly held to in spite of the fact that it cannot be observed or proven in the laboratory. It contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, a physical principle which states that there is a continual tendency toward greater randomness, positing that in the biological sphere there is a tendency toward a higher degree of organization. The mathematical improbability of the thousands of “miracles” the theory demands is an inexplicable mystery for evolutionists. Evolution can give no answer to the question of how matter came to exist in the first place. It cannot account for the gap between inorganic matter and living organisms. It cannot explain the Cambrian explosion of life in the fossil record. It cannot explain the mysterious appearance of single cells, invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, rodents, sea mammals, insects, flight in winged creatures, primates, or plants. The typical absence of transitional or intermediate forms in the fossil record is a constant source of frustration to evolutionary scientists. Theistic evolutionists see themselves as filling the “gaps” of the theory of evolution by putting God into the gaps. At the same time they see themselves as saving religion from the attacks of atheistic evolutionists by attempting to make religion conform to evolutionary theory. In reality, religion does not need saving from this fragile hypothesis.

The idea of an extremely ancient earth is deemed essential to evolutionary science. Given sufficient time, it is surmised, virtually anything might happen. A primordial pool might give rise to life. An amoeba might evolve into man. Time is the key. According to Dr. George Wald of Harvard, “However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. . . . Time is in fact the hero of the plot. . . . Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles” (The Physics and Chemistry of Life 12). 

So the contention for a very old earth is the one absolutely necessary ingredient to evolutionary science. Interestingly, it is the one factor which theistic evolutionists are most eager to grant. At the same time, the evidence which is proposed for a recent creation is usually ignored, and sometimes assailed. The evidence is much more favorable toward the idea of a young earth and a recent creation than most modern scientists will allow and even than some theistic evolutionists will admit. Theistic evolution is, in point of fact, in all of its various manifestations, a compromise with and surrender to that part of the scientific community which arrogantly proclaims that “evolution is a fact and modern science has proven it.”

2521 Oak Forest Dr., Antioch, Tennessee 37013

By Richard J. Boone

Sodom and Gomorrah — just the mention of these ancient cities shudders anyone familiar with Bible history. Their inhabitants’ horrific wickedness and God’s utter destruction of them for their wickedness stand as a testimony for all generations (2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7). For ten righteous people they would have been spared (Gen. 18:32).

I believe America has more than ten righteous people in her midst (1 Kings 19:18; Rom. 11:4-5). I firmly believe that God is in full control of the universe (Isa. 40:10-31). I also believe, based on what I learn from the Bible, that God allows individuals and nations to make moral choices (Prov. 14:34). I am concerned that unless some of our national moral choices change, we are racing toward catastrophe — and for the same sins as Sodom and Gomorrah.

“Sodomy” — a modern term and practice whose origin is in the ancient city destroyed by God. Why do I suggest that we are heading in their direction? If so, what can we do about it? These and other questions I will pursue here. Please stay with me — you need to read this; it is that important for our country’s future!
 
Prevalence Of Homosexuals

How common is sodomy (homosexual conduct — men having sex with men, women having sex with women)? While it is not possible to document every encounter, it is estimated that of the general population, 2-3% of Americans are homosexual (LaGard Smith, Sodom’s Second Coming, 41-52). (This is a significant downscale from the admittedly flawed Kinsey surveys of 1948 and 1953 which estimated 1 in 10 were homosexual.) Based on the 1990 U.S. census (250 million), this tallies to between 5 and 7.5 million people. By comparison, the last estimated populations for Atlanta and New York City I recall were 4.5 million and 8 million. Perhaps this helps us to better realize the magnitude of the situation.

Progressive Exposure To Homosexuals

Though we could begin much earlier, I will document the push of the homosexual movement to the front burner only from the 1990s. Each year brought an increased exposure to this lifestyle.

The March 12, 1990 issue of News- week reported more than 50 openly homosexual elected officials; by 1993, it would be more than 75 in local, state and congressional positions (Smith, 7). A 1991 episode of Roseanne drew fire from viewers as the result of unashamed bisexual Sandra Barnhart’s and actress Morgan Fairchild’s “near kiss.” The May 11, 1992 issue of The Tennessean carried “Gay TV Comes Of Age” (3-D) listing shows with homosexual characters from ABC (Civil Wars, Life Goes On), NBC (L.A. Law, Quantum Leap, Seinfeld), and CBS (Northern Exposure, Murphy Brown). A January 15, 1996 article in the Chattanooga Free Press was titled “TV Makes Room For Gay Characters, But Not Sexuality.” 1997 was a banner year for homosexuals — Ellen Degeneres announced her gayness on Ellen (April 30, 1997). She appeared on an April cover of TIME Magazine (“Yep, I’m Gay”) and was interviewed on ABC’s 20/20 by Diane Sawyer (April 25, 1997). (Ironically, her show was canceled in 1998. Entertainment Weekly titled the story, “Yep, I’m Too Gay.”)

Public education in America is  shamelessly used as the humanist pulpit (James P. Needham, Humanism: Devotion to Man [1985 Florida College Lectures] 13-14). Elementary school children have been targeted for indoctrination by homosexuals with such books as Heather Has Two Mommies, Daddy’s Roommate, Gloria Has Gay Pride, and How Would You Feel If Your Dad Was Gay? As recently as November 1999, U.S. public school superintendents were mailed a 12-page booklet “informing them that there is ‘no support among health and mental health professional organizations’ for the idea that homosexuality is abnormal or mentally unhealthy” (The Indianapolis Star [November 23, 1999], A1; via Truth Magazine [44:2.59], “Quips and Quotes,” January 20, 2000). This booklet is a lie!

Denominations have not escaped untouched. Several fully accept homosexuals (individuals and couples), ordaining them and performing “union” ceremonies. In November 1999, the Georgia Baptist Convention “withdrew fellowship” from two Atlanta-area churches — Oakhurst and Virginia-Highlands — which violated an explicit 1998 GBC constitutional amendment forbidding homosexual ordination and union ceremonies (John D. Pierce, “Georgia Baptists dismiss two churches for affirming homosexuality,” The Christian Index, November 1999, 1-2, via materials from the Georgia Baptist Convention [Atlanta, GA] and The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention [Nashville, TN]; January 21, 2000). A January 18, 2000 article by AP Religion Writer Richard N. Ostling entitled “Clergy Endorse Sexual Declaration” stated, “Dramatizing the most divisive issue in American religion, 850 mostly liberal members of the clergy and other religious figures issued a declaration Tuesday urging all faiths to bless same-sex couples and allow openly gay ministers” (http://www.infobeat.com/stories).

Churches of Christ are affected, too. Don’t doubt it! I have a brochure advertising “A Cappella Chorus: Gay and Lesbian Members of the Churches of Christ,” a group formed in the Houston, TX area in 1979. It states, “In 1979, gay and lesbian members of the Houston area Churches of Christ formed a fellowship to provide educational and spiritual support to each other and the Church as a whole. . . . Gay Christians seek the opportunity to worship the one God in peace and love supported by the Church as we are supported by God. We seek no more, and no less, than acceptance, as does everyone who believes, in the fellowship of those who are striving to do God’s will.”

Moreover, I conducted an informal survey among preachers in June 1999, asking this question: “Without stating the names or localities of the persons involved, how many cases of homosexual conduct have you encountered among Christians?” From 16 responses received, there were more than 60 cases covering a wide spectrum — teenagers, young adults, middle-aged couples, and elders, deacons, preachers and their wives. Some situations were corrected and restored, other relationships ended in divorce. In September 1999, I learned about a brother whom I have long known whose wife was lured into lesbian relationships with multiple women through an Internet chat room! Brothers and sisters, we cannot ignore the reality — homosexual conduct is a problem we must face and address, not only in society but even among our own number!

The Homosexual Agenda

There are numerous homosexuals who militantly push their agenda through groups like Act Up, Queer Nation, etc. Far beyond “don’t ask, don’t tell,” their quest is for legitimacy and equality (sometimes more) in every respect to the “tradi- tional family” – father (male), mother (female), child(ren).

Philosophically, the goal is to make all ethics situational — no moral absolutes. If there are no moral absolutes, then complete freedom exists to express one’s sexuality. Any vestige of divine authority (God) or unchangeable moral codes (the Bible) must be removed. A careful reading of Humanist Manifestos I and II (Prometheus Books) will show how pervasively our society has been infected. This philosophy, though, has been pushed through a covert war.

Practically, the “Trojan Horse” has been used — disarm opposition from within the ranks. The following summary reveals how successful they’ve been: “1. Boldly claim freedom from social restraint and demand independence from the moral order. 2. Associate homosexuals with others in order to achieve legitimacy. 3. Depict decent folks with traditional family values to be the bad guys. 4. Promote the proven lie that gays constitute 10 percent of the population, so that there is legitimacy through sheer numbers. 5. Confuse the terminology so that no one realizes the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. 6. Enlist science and medicine in a bogus search for some genetic cause for homosexual behavior. 7. Don’t let anyone know what it is that gays actually do sexually. 8. Find creative ways to sidestep what the Bible teaches about homosexual conduct.  9. Open the door to the church and get its blessing for homosexual expression. 10. Break down legal restrictions against sodomy and instead establish legal restrictions against discrimination. 11. Dismantle the American family and make it possible for gays to marry and adopt children. 12. Perpetuate myths about heterosexual AIDS so that the disease becomes a political asset for the gay movement” (Smith, 18).

The Bible – The Insurmountable Wall For Homosexuals

The homosexual agenda will only be propagated, by necessity, through civil legislation, political activism and, increasingly, sheer intimidation. Endorsement from the religious community is sought and frequently received. No matter how much endorsement from men is received, though, one barrier eternally and unalterably stands against homosexual practices – the Bible.

Lest we underestimate homosexuals’ disdain for the Bible, listen to homosexual theologian and advocate, Robert Williams: “The point is not really whether or not some passage in the Bible condemns homosexual acts; the point is that you cannot allow your moral and ethical decisions to be determined by the literature of a people whose culture and history are so far removed from your own. You must dare to be iconoclastic enough to say, ‘So what if the Bible does say it? Who cares?’” (Just As I Am — A Practical Guide to Being Out, Proud, and Christian, 42; via Smith, 117, 128, 249; italics mine-rjb). In other words, the Bible is irrelevant to our day; what it says can be disregarded. This is blatant blasphemy!

More subtle efforts to undermine the authority and force of Scripture continue. One method is to reinterpret (explain away) any passage opposing homosexual conduct; another is to suggest several homosexual relationships in Scripture (i.e., Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathon, Jesus and John, Paul and Timothy, etc.). While we are shocked to hear such arguments, we really shouldn’t be. The Devil and his disciples have always used this approach — when you cannot answer truth, attack the credibility of the Bible and/or teachers of truth (Gen. 3:1-5; John 8:44; 2 Cor. 11:3; 2 Pet. 2:10-11; Jude 4, 8, 10, etc.).

What The Bible Says About Homosexual Conduct
Due to space limitations, I will not discuss every pertinent passage. There are several (Gen. 19:4-11; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Judg. 19:22-25; Rom. 1:24-28; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:8-10; 2 Pet. 2:6-10; Jude 7). My focus is on three key passages — Genesis 2:18-25, Genesis 19:4-11, and Romans 1:24-32.

Genesis 2:18-25: At Creation, God ordained the marriage relationship (Gen. 2:18-25). Companionship was a key factor (v. 18), but not the only one. Another factor is vital — God created a female for the male! The male-female relationship was upheld by Jesus Christ (Matt. 19:3-6; Mark 10:2-9). A scripturally-eligible man and woman who marry have chosen the relationship God ordained for our good (Deut. 6:24; Prov. 18:22; Heb. 13:4; 1 Cor. 7:3-5, 32-34; 1 Tim. 5:14; etc.). When God’s arrangements are maintained, he blesses that relationship! When that relationship is violated by fornication (pre-marital or extra-marital sex, bestiality, homosexuality, etc.), sin is committed and problems develop. No matter how much homosexuals try to blunt the force of this passage, they cannot!

Genesis 19:4-11: Before learning of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction, we were told of their great wickedness (Gen. 13:13; 18:20). This assessment is powerfully confirmed in Genesis 19. Homosexuals have tried to reinterpret the sin of this event to be inhospitality. This explanation will not harmonize with this text or related ones.

The men of the city — young and old — called for the messengers in Lot’s house so they could “know them carnally” (Gen. 19:5; NKJV). To “know” one is a common euphemism for sexual relations in the Old Testament (Gen. 4:1, 17, 25; 19:5, 8; 24:16; Num. 31:17, 18, 35; Judg. 11:39; 19:22, 25; 1 Sam. 1:19; Jack Lewis, “The Old Testament and Homosexual Acts,” Counseling Homosexuals [Bill Flatt, et. al.], 3-7). It does not mean, in these passages, a lack of acquaintance or hospitality! Lot understood the nature of their request — it was for wickedness (Gen. 19:7). Furthermore, theirs was an act of choice — not genetic predisposition — as they refused Lot’s two virgin daughters (Gen. 19:8).

The “filthy conduct” and “lawless deeds” of those in Sodom and Gomorrah, according to 2 Peter 2:6-8, “oppressed” and “tormented” righteous Lot. Was this mere inhospitality? Jude 7 is another divine commentary. Sodom and Gomorrah had “given themselves over to sexual immorality” and went after “strange flesh.” Is this a lack of friendliness or hospitality? Such explanations do not correspond with the stated biblical reasons. Male-male sexual relations do!

(Note: In conjunction with Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, I highly recommend Sodom’s Revival USA by Terry Benton of Trussville, AL, a recent and excellent review of What The Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by homosexual advocate Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D., 1994.)

Romans 1:24-32: “This is a particularly painful passage for gays. And especially so for lesbians, since it is the only passage making direct reference to female homosexuals” (Smith, 129). Before stating their homosexual actions (vv. 26-27), Paul unfolds the step-by-step departure from God the Gentiles took (vv. 21-25). Included are significant statements about motive and mind set.

The Gentiles “exchanged the truth of God for the lie” (v. 25). They abandoned moral absolutes. They “worshiped and served the creature (themselves-?) rather than the Creator.” Their aim was to please only themselves. When a person, group, community, or society abandons moral absolutes and decides to live as they please, then anything goes (at least to them). For the Gentiles, anything went (vv. 28-32). When they were determined to so live, “God gave them up” to uncleanness, the lusts of their hearts, dishonor and vile passions (vv. 24, 26).

Some harsh realities about homosexual behavior are revealed in verses 26-27. First, it is a matter of choice — they “exchanged” and “left” the natural (male-female) for the unnatural (male-male; female-female). Second, their choice was “against nature.” Third, such behavior is “shameful.” (To understand how homosexual behavior is truly “against nature” and “shameful,” I defer to the descriptions by Smith [64-65, 101-115] and Tim LaHaye [What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality, 21-59].) Fourth, there were consequences to their actions — “receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” We shouldn’t be surprised, then, when others are rightfully repulsed at such behavior and when depression, sickness, and disease riddle the mind and body. Finally, God, in his righteous judgment, deems this conduct — for those who practice and approve it — as worthy of death (v. 32). While “gay” it may be called, it is no laughing matter!

Eternal condemnation: If one is guilty of homosexual behavior and does not meet God’s terms of forgiveness (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:22, 24; 1 John 1:7, 9), then that soul is eternally condemned (Jude 7; Rev. 21:8). God desires all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9), but his justice demands that sin be punished (Rom. 11:22).

What Shall We Do?

On Pentecost a multitude asked this vital question regarding their salvation (Acts 2:37). Our subject is different, but the question is equally vital — “what shall we do” regarding the increased practice and acceptance of homosexuals and their conduct?

We must know the truth about homosexual conduct from Scripture. As Jesus did when facing the devil, we must equip ourselves with truth (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). The importance of truth is supreme (John 8:32; 17:17; Eph. 4:15; 6:14; Jas. 1:21; 1 Pet. 1:22; etc.).

We must “buy the truth and sell it not” (Prov. 23:23). We cannot compromise for any reason, no matter what the cost. This means teaching the truth to our families, in our Bible classes, from the pulpits and in any other teaching medium. It also means upholding each other as we do so (2 Tim. 1:8, 12-18).

We must inform ourselves about the progress and plans of the homosexual movement in our society. Jesus did not ignore the motives and methods of the devil (Matt. 4:1-11). Although it would be easier and more pleasant, we cannot bury our heads in the sand and ignore the realities before us!

We must suffer persecution for righteousness’ sake if necessary (1 Pet. 4:14-19). It means being ridiculed now for “bigotry,” but in the future opposition to homosexuals may rise to the criminal level — one could be charged with a crime for standing against homosexual behavior (study the Hate Crimes Prevention Act currently before Congress). It may mean that property and facilities will be lost in lawsuits. If the homosexual agenda continues in its current direction, it may even mean bodily harm or death. Don’t think it can’t happen — read Revelation. In all this, “we must obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29), no matter what!

We must remember that Jesus died for all sinners — including homosexuals (John 3:16; Tit. 2:11-14; Heb. 2:9; etc.).

We must not classify sin — God doesn’t (Gal. 5:19-21). It is right (and easy) to oppose homosexual behavior, but we must stand against all types of sin, regardless of their nature and source “Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good” (Rom. 12:9).

We must teach the gospel to homosexuals (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Paul did in Corinth and some of them changed. The same powerful gospel that changed them then is the same powerful gospel that can change them now (Rom. 1:16)! Though we may not observe the gospel’s effects, it will accomplish God’s purpose (Mark 4:26-29; Isa. 55:10-11).

Conclusion

Merciful Jehovah would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah for ten righteous souls, but they could not be found. Their doom was sealed because of their wickedness and impenitent hearts. Sodomy remains their legacy. As a nation, the United States is increasingly acceptant of homosexuals. We need to know about their growth and goals, but more importantly, we must stand for truth and righteousness, regardless of the costs, offering salvation through Christ to them. This “we” includes you and me — as individual disciples of the Lord, as families and as local churches. As long as we continue to proclaim and live the truth, we can “commit [our] souls to [God] in doing good, as to a faithful Creator” (1 Pet. 4:19). May we never consider any other option!

3020 Hampton Valley Dr., Loganville, Georgia 30052 paladin1965@juno.com

By Harry Osborne

Over the past few years, numerous brethren have redefined the term “false teacher.” We have been told that a false teacher is not known by the fact that he teaches falsely. Rather, we are told that we must see evidence of a despicable character before we may view the individual as a false teacher. Those suggesting this new definition of a “false teacher” appeal to 2 Peter 2 where the term is used and say that the characteristics noted of such men must be present before they can be called a “false teacher.”

Recently, this concept has been taken another step. Some are now saying that, since such evil characteristics as those listed in 2 Peter 2 are not apparent in teachers of error today, we have no false teachers among us. While admitting with some hesitance that there may be a few in the denominational world, we are assured that none exists among us as warned in 2 Peter 2:1.

If that assessment is correct, think what that means. We have had about 50 years since the division with the institutional folks and we are still free from any false teachers. Not a one! Yet, with the apostles of Christ present in the first century, there were already multiple false teachers present so much so that Peter had to warn of them within 35 years of the beginning of the church. If the teachers of false doctrine named by Paul and John are to be viewed as false teachers, there is evidence of yet more. Is it reasonable to say that this generation has done a better job in keeping false teachers from arising than was done in New Testament times?

Examining the Context

Look at the context which immediately precedes and follows 2 Peter 2. The emphasis is upon the need to heed the message of truth. In introducing the fact that we can have confidence in that truth, Peter says, “Wherefore I shall be ready always to put you in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and are established in the truth which is with you” (1:12). He then calls upon all to remember the testimony of Christ as given by the apostles (1:13-15). Why? The message delivered did not consist of “cunningly devised fables,” but was the product of “eyewitnesses” who “spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit” (1:16-21).

Immediately following chapter 2, Peter calls them back to remembrance of the “words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles” (3:1-2). He then calls upon the readers to remember that they will be judged by that word of God as delivered (3:3-13). After again warning that “the ignorant and unstedfast wrest” the Scripture to their destruction, the readers are urged to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (3:14-18). What is the focus? Clearly, Peter’s focus is upon the need for us to hold firmly to the truth!

In the midst of these exhortations, Peter warns against whom? False teachers. Why? Because of the threat of their character? No, but because they called people away from the message of truth into doctrines which resulted in the condemnation of souls. Men who teach doctrines which result in sin and condemnation of souls when put into practice will produce evil characteristics as a rule. However, they do not begin to pose a threat to God’s people which must be exposed at the point of manifesting an evil character. That threat must be exposed beginning at the point when, though previously undetected, they “bring in destructive heresies” (2:1).

“False Teachers” Were Not Recognized Initially

Remember that Peter warns brethren to be watchful for these “false teachers” who would be “among” them as though they had slipped in unawares and unrecognized. Brethren, could you tell me how one would have all of the characteristics described before he could be called a “false teacher” and yet slip in unawares and unrecognized? Wouldn’t most brethren notice a fellow who was presumptuous, self-willed, evil speaking, having eyes full of adultery and speaking great swelling words of vanity?

It is clear even by the immediate context that Peter is noting the end of these false teachers who in the end would be fully corrupted as a result of their error. (The growing corruption of error is elsewhere attested as in 2 Tim. 3:13.) But what was the first sign? The destructive heresies!

Key Word: “Destructive”

Notice also that in the first three verses of chapter 2, a form of the word “destructive” is used three times.

First, the message taught is characterized as “destructive heresies.” Not all teaching which is incorrect is necessarily destructive in that it leads to sin and condemnation if practiced. An example can be noted in McGarvey’s Sermons where he noted the possibility that the young prophet going to Bethel could have believed a lie which would not have led to his death:

Shall we think, then, that every man who believes a lie in regard to God’s will shall perish? I think not. If a blind man is guided by another blind man along a smooth road, where there is no ditch, I don’t think either of them will fall into a ditch. It is only when there is a ditch in the way that they will fall into it. So, if this young prophet had been told to do almost any thing else than what he was told to do, we have no reason to think it would have been fatal. If, for example, the old prophet had said, An angel sent me to tell you to get from under this tree and run for your life, and not to stop until you get home, the young man would have been scared, and would have run himself out of breath; but the lion would not have killed him. In like manner, I can imagine a man believing some lies in religion, which, though they may injure him some, and I suppose there are very few that would not, might yet fall short of proving fatal to him (J.W. McGarvey, McGarvey’s Sermons, Gospel Light, 1975, 333-4).

Other examples of being incorrect about the interpretation of a given passage not necessarily leading to sin if put into practice could be given (early date or late date of the book of Revelation, whether Ephesians 4:12 specifies the three areas of legitimate work of the church in one verse, the exact meaning of the “gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 2:38, etc.) A doctrine is destructive if it will cause one to commit sin if put into practice, thus causing the soul to be in jeopardy of hell.

Second, as a result of bringing in the “destructive heresies” the false teachers bring “upon themselves swift destruction.” Before any evil character is said to be present with these false teachers, Peter declares their fitness for destruction based upon the heresies they introduced among the people of God.

Third, the false teachers’ decline into benefitting themselves through their “feigned words” showed the fact that “their destruction slumbereth not.” As noted above, they would indeed wax worse and worse. From that point, the chapter continues to denote that decline.

All Characteristics or Limited Number?

If it is true that false teachers must have the corrupt characteristics noted in 2 Peter 2 before they can be called “false teachers,” would not consistency demand that they have every single one of them before they could be called “false teachers”? If not, how many of them must they have? One? Two? Six? If not, how many?

If our redefining brethren answer that false teachers must first possess every characteristic named, they would be hard pressed to find one among the very vilest of men, much less in the midst of God’s people. If they answer that false teachers may have less than all of the characteristics named, please tell me why we cannot use the same logic to conclude they may be recognized by the first one listed: “bring in destructive (damnable) heresies.”

False Teachers and False Prophets

Also of interest is the parallel of “false prophets” to “false teachers” in this context. The fact that the exact phrase “false prophet” is not found in the Old Testament does not keep us from identifying them. Every time you find a prophet speaking falsely while claiming it is the truth of God, you find a “false prophet.”

In the case of the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18, it is clear that they are very sincere in their actions. But we would still rightly recognize them as false prophets because they prophesied falsely. Hence, there is no exclusive pattern suggesting that all false prophets had to have despicable character.

If that is so regarding false prophets and they are parallel with false teachers by Peter, what is the necessary conclusion? No exclusive pattern exists suggesting that all false teachers must first have despicable characters before being called “false teachers.”

Efforts to say that a false teacher in this context is one who first possessed the evil character misses the point of both the immediate and extended context. The false teachers were first known because of their teaching. Hence the term, “false teachers,” not “false characters” or “false hearts.” Failure to detect their false teaching would lead brethren to forget the truth which Peter continually urges the readers to remember.

False Teaching of New Testament Times

Please think for a moment about the errors refuted most in the New Testament and the view the inspired writers had of those advocating such. The Judaizing heresy and Gnosticism probably receive more attention than any others. Could we agree that those condemned for advancing these views could rightly be called false teachers? Yet, many of them would have been exemplary in their character.

For example, the Gnostics who took the ascetic view would have been anything but people with despicable characters. Would that preclude them from being described as false teachers? Yet, Paul clearly refers to the advocate of that type in Colossians 2 and warns faithful brethren that the effect of the teaching was to make “spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8). There are other ways for advocates of error to make spoil of the hearers other than physically enriching themselves at the expense of those hearers. They could make spoil of them in the spiritual sense as well. Would such make the advocate of error any less a false teacher?

Are Other Terms Acceptable?

The objection to the use of this one description of those teaching error puzzles me. If we say those teaching error are causing divisions and occasions of stumbling contrary to the doctrine of Christ and should be avoided, would that be more acceptable? That is the way Paul expressed it in Romans 16:17. If such men were named and it was said that their word ate like a cancer, would that be more acceptable? That is what was said of Hymenaeus and Philetus in 2 Timothy 2:17. If we were to say that the teachers of error contrary to the doctrine of Christ were “anti-christ,” would that be acceptable? Yet, that is how John described the Gnostics of his day in his epistles.

It is obvious that the same brethren objecting to the use of the term “false teacher” would also object to those biblical terms. The fact is that some brethren are becoming very hesitant to rebuke error and the advocates thereof with the same rebukes stated in Scripture. There is no essential difference in such efforts today and that of the identical argument made on the same subject by Leroy Garrett as follows:

A false teacher is a liar, and he knows he’s a liar; or he is so corrupt of mind and heart that he no longer distinguishes between right and wrong. . . . It is unthinkable that such characterization as this should be laid upon any sincere, well-meaning, God-loving person, however misled he may be on some ideas. One may even be caught up in the clutches of an insidious system and still not be a pseudo-didaskalos. The nun that marches her girls in front of you as you wait at the light does not necessarily deserve the epithet of false, whatever judgment you make of Romanism (Leroy Garrett, Restoration Review [1976], 264).

We should remember where this principle was taken by those in the “Grace/Unity Movement.” It is troubling to hear the same argumentation from brethren today. How far are we willing to take this idea? Today, we are to believe there are no false teachers among us. Could the day be coming when there are none in the denominational world either? Brethren, let us take the sum of God’s word on this matter and speak as the oracles of God. Let us never obscure the clear terms of inspiration with the uncertain sounds of compromise and tolerance with evil.

2302 Windsor Oaks Ave., Lutz, Florida 33549