DIVIDE
AND CONQUER By Al Diestelkamp (continued
from THINK page 1)
Please do not interpret what I am saying to mean that we should
compromise truth in order to maintain unity. The "divide
and conquer" technique is not Satan's only device. He will
happily abandon that approach if he sees that we are vulnerable
to his "peace at any price" appeal. We must be watchful
that men do not creep in with teachings and practices that involve
us in error. Also, I need to make it clear that I am not suggesting
that when brethren disagree that both are right, and for that
reason, discussion and study on the issue(s) should not be avoided.
However, not every disagreement
among brethren requires total agreement in order to maintain
unity. Knowledge and understanding of God's word is a growth
process, and we are not all at the same level. Who among us has
not changed his convictions on some subjects over a period of
years of study? If there be any who have never changed, I would
suspect that somewhere along the way they stopped open-minded
study of the Bible.
The same inspired apostle who
pleaded with brethren to "all speak the same thing"
and to, "be perfectly joined together in the same mind and
in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10), in another letter acknowledged
differing levels of faith over "doubtful things" (Rom.
14:1). These commands are not contradictory. In the one, Paul
is pleading for Christians to maintain unity by going to the
same source of authority, and in the other, he is commanding
forbearance in the application of that authority.
However, my brethren and I
have difficulty determining which "issues" to place
in the "doubtful things" category. Certainly, no strongly-held
beliefs that I have belong there! But maybe they do. When brethren
who have the same respect for the authority of the scriptures
arrive at differing applications, it might fit into the category
of "doubtful things."
Some suggest that only "matters
of opinion," and not "convictions," belong in
the "doubtful things" category. This may be a matter
of semantics, but I make a distinction between opinion and conviction,
and I don't take too kindly when anyone relegates my conviction
down to the level of an opinion. However, I am not so dogmatic
in some of my convictions that I refuse to consider my brother's
differing conviction.
So, can brethren with different
convictions work together? The answer depends on whether the
differences result in causing one or the other to sin. There
are some exceptions, but most of the issues wherein brethren
disagree, do not require a breaking of fellowship. History will
confirm that most of the issues which have produced widespread
division in congregations, if brethren had been considerate,
could have been resolved in a way in which no one's conscience
was violated.
Of course, there are a few
issues in which divergent views may necessitate a break in fellowship
within a local congregation. Some of the views regarding remarriage
after divorce result in some insisting on accepting into fellowship
persons that I believe to be adulterers. Since we are told "not
to keep company with anyone named a brother who is sexually immoral"
(1 Cor. 5:11), this would be a situation which I could not continue
in without violating my conscience. Fortunately, most controversies
among brethren do not place us in that kind of situation.
In our battle against Satan's
devices, let's not give him an advantage by needlessly splintering
the body of Christ. None of us, in an effort to maintain unity,
should claim that "Your convictions must conform to my convictions,"
but each of us should be sensitive to the convictions of others
and diligently seeking a way to work together without any of
us having to make the choice between violating one's conscience
or breaking fellowship.
AL DIESTELKAMP
P.O. Box 891, Cortland, Illinois 60112
e-mail: al@thinkonthesethings.com
Return to THINK Home Page.
EVOLUTION
VS. DESIGN By Andy Diestelkamp (continued
from THINK page 1)
There are essentially only two possibilities for the origin of
life: accident or design. The spontaneous generation of something
from nothing has never been observed, and repeated testing does
not support it, inferring that spontaneous generation is not
good science. Yet, that leaves only the alternative of a creative
act of a designer. Atheistic scientists, however, presume there
is no designer and are, therefore, forced to the unscientific
and untenable conclusion that life spontaneously arose and evolved
by accident. Therefore, by their own narrow definition of science,
atheistic scientists should logically conclude that any discussion
of origins and/or the historical mechanism used to bring about
life are beyond science.
Nevertheless, many insist that
efforts to explain origins without design are scientific but
that attempts to explain origins as the result of design are
unscientific. The Academy tells us: "Biological evolution
is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range
of observations about the living world." Yet, no biological
species has ever been observed to evolve into another species.
This fact does not keep evolutionists from making huge presumptive
leaps in their own faith.
Observe how a hypothesis evolves
into a fact according to the Academy: "Scientists most often
use the word 'fact' to describe an observation. But scientists
also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed
so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to
keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution
in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether
descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting
the idea is so strong." Atheists have observed evolution
within a species so often that they confidently declare evolution
from one species to another a scientific "fact" without
any observation or testing. This, we are told, is sound science.
Yet, to observe the design of the human body from the blueprint
of its DNA and suggest that it had a designer is somehow unscientific.
Every house is built by someone,
but He who built all things is God" (Heb. 3:4). That is
a factual observation, with a plausible deduction violating no
science. It is no wonder that the purveyors of the doctrine of
evolution do not want design taught in a science classroom as
a possible cause. For they would then have to explain why believing
something came from nothing is a more "scientific"
and sensible inference than acknowledging that design demands
a designer.
Those who believe in God should
have no difficulty believing that with Him all things are possible
(Matt. 19:26). This faith frustrates the atheist who thinks that
such a view quenches zeal for scientific inquiry (and sometimes
it has). However, the atheist believes that with time all things
are possible. Time is the god of atheists. Observe what Nobel
prize winner, George Wald wrote: "Time is in fact the hero
of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order
of 2 billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis
of human experience is meaningless here. 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 Origin of Life,"
Scientific American, August, 1954). If Wald could theorize
things of history happening which are "impossible on the
basis of human experience" and call it science, then it
would seem that one could also theorize a designer and call it
science.
It is only the atheist who
needs vast amounts of time to explain how something came from
nothing and eventually evolved into intelligent life. By the
way, Wald's 2 billion years has since been increased to 5 billion
years. Why not? Do I hear 10 billion? Will anyone give me 10?
My concern is not with scientists
who actually employ the scientific method in their research.
It is with those who make inferences about the past using data
gathered from the present while insisting that an atheistic interpretation
is the only thing that can be called science. If God is not allowed
to be a viable option, and unlimited time has unlimited potential,
then of course the data must be interpreted to allow enough time
for the otherwise impossible to happen. No wonder atheistic scientists
glibly postulate millions and billions of years. To them time
is as unlimited and flexible as it needs to be to allow for their
impossible theories.
Brethren, I become concerned
when, in an attempt to be scientifically open minded, we follow
in the paths of atheistic pied pipers and accept their historical
inferences and timetables that are clearly based on the need
to uphold theories which demand an unimaginable amount of time
to accomplish the impossible.
Dr. Patterson, the Senior Principal
Scientific Officer of Paleontology at the British Museum of Natural
History, gave the keynote address to the American Museum of Natural
History in New York City on November 5, 1981. In that speech
he repeated a question that he had recently asked his peers in
science: "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution,
any one thing that is true?" He went on to say, "I
tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum
of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I
tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar
in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists,
and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually
one person said, 'I do know one thing. It [evolution] ought not
be taught in high school.'"
If design should not be taught
in public school science classes because it does not qualify
as science, then neither should the general theory of evolution
be taught because it does not qualify as science either. We're
on solid ground, brethren. Stand there!
ANDY DIESTELKAMP
323 E. Indiana Ave., Pontiac, Illinois 61764
Email: adiestel@bwsys.net
'OF
SUCH IS THE KINGOM OF HEAVEN' By Frank Vondracek (continued from THINK
page 1)
In Matthew 18:3-4, it seems to be the humility of little children
that attracted the attention of Jesus. Little ones may be bullies
towards their peers, but for lack of sheer strength against bigger
foes, they submit to power. They seem to realize their helplessness
against that which is obviously more powerful than themselves.
So it is with those who would be citizens in heaven's kingdom.
Humble submission to the power, but even more so, to the will
and authority of God are requirements for entrance into the kingdom
of God's dear Son. Jesus said one's conversion will come as he
submits to God. "Of such is the kingdom of God."
In Matthew 19:13-14, the apostles
apparently tried to prohibit what they perceived as a bother
to their busy Master when they rebuked those who brought children
to Jesus for a blessing. But the Lord returned the rebuke to
His disciples for intruding into the effort of others to come
to Him. Consider why it is that people come to Jesus (Matt. 11:28-30):
Spiritual needs; love for God and truth; forgiveness of sins;
because Jesus loves us and died to save us; comfort in the heartaches
of life. Who is there that recognizes a loving, kind, generous,
caring, person more quickly than a child? To whom does a child
gladly go back time and again but to one who he believes is trustworthy,
and who cares about him and his every need? "Of such is
the kingdom of heaven."
Brethren, even though we realize
that Jesus Christ, our King, requires and expects His people
to grow and develop spiritually, let us understand that the direction
of our growth and developments must be in the direction
of becoming more childlike in humility, submission and dependence
on Jesus Christ in our lives. After all, the Lord said it best:
"Of such is the kingdom of heaven."
FRANK VONDRACEK
1822 Center Point Rd.,
Thompkinsville, KY 42167
Email: frankv832@alltel.net
WHO
IS SERVING WHOM? By Rick Liggin (continued
from THINK page 1)
"Worship services"
are not designed to serve us, nor are they designed to provide
us with some kind of "service." Sure, we will be edified
if we worship God according to His design and instructions. But
this primarily is a by-product of our "worship services."
We need to understand that worship is not something that happens
to us! It's something that happens to Godsomething we do to
Him! We serve Him in our "worship services"--not
the other way around! And yet, this seems to be the idea circulating
in the minds of some.
Too many seem to be satisfied
to come to "worship services" just to sit there and
"let it happen"! They see worship as a kind of "spectator
sport," which is supposed to do something for them. If you
don't think this is so, just listen to how many folks complain
about "not getting anything out of it."
Don't you dare look at the
worship period as a time when you come to be "serviced"
or served in some way. Worship to God is not a "spectator
sport"! It's not something that happens to us! It's something
we do to God! We must never forget just who is serving whom
when it comes to worship. In our "worship services,"
we serve God! And that, folks, takes energy and activity and
zealous participation on the part of all those who claim to be
worshipping.
Make no mistake about it: God
is looking for true worshipper--spiritual people who will worship
Him "in spirit and in truth" (Jn. 4:23-24). If you're
looking for a church where the worship services somehow serve
you, then you'll need to go find another church. Why? Because
in the church of our Lord, the " worship services"
are for serving God, not ourselves!
RICK LIGGIN
315 E. Almond Dive, Washington, IL 61571
Email: rcliggin@gmail.com
