EVOLUTION
Can a Christian believe in Evolution?

It is sad to think that anyone “naming the name of Christ” should forsake the clear testimony of God’s Word for the fable of “Evolution”— “Science falsely so-called.” The former declares that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:1; see also Hebrews 11:3)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 11:3). Later we read, “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light” (v. 3); “Let the waters bring forth abundantly” (v. 20); “Let the earth bring forth the living creature” (v. 24); “God created man in his own image” (v. 27); and in chap. 2. 7, we have the detailed account of this; “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.” Of course the most cursory reader of Gen. i, can see that God’s method in Creation was one of progression, from—the inorganic to the organic,— vegetation, fish, fowl, beasts, and lastly, man. We know, moreover, by experience of the things around us, that there is room within the species for the most wonderful variations (e.g., men, dogs, pigeons, etc.).

Ill-informed persons confuse this with “Evolution,” and they profess to be “evolutionists” because of such facts, which are undisputed. But “Evolution” properly so-called is supposed to account for the development of new species of plants or animals, either by mutation or by minute modification. Its teaching is that everything organic began with a cell (possibly more than one, but perhaps only one), and evolved by minute variations, into the myriads of “species” in the world, brought about by “natural selection,” securing “the survival of the fittest” during the course of “a struggle for existence.” Can anything be conceived more wildly improbable? It is only one more proof of “the Fall,” that otherwise sensible men can be found gullible enough to believe it. For such a process has never been proved to have taken place in nature.

Now, Science is something known, so that it is very unscientific to be an Evolutionist, seeing that evolu- tion is not something known; it has not even attained to the dignity of a theory, but is a mere hypothesis. The late Lord Kelvin, perhaps the greatest scientist since Newton, said in one of his last addresses, “I marvel at the undue haste with which teachers in our universities ‘ and preachers in our pulpits are restating truths in terms of Evolution, while Evolution itself remains an unproved hypothesis in the laboratories of Science” (my emphasis). Not only is Evolution a direct attack on the Creatorship of God, negativing the Scriptural account of the origin of things, but it denies the fall of man, and so inevitably the need of atonement and also, logically, the work of Christ. Shallow thinkers may profess to be able to believe the Scriptures and Evolution, but intelligent believers subject to the Word, and clear-headed agnostics, like Huxley, see clearly that the two are mutually incompatible. Evolutionists in the meanwhile continue to utter discordant cries hardly agreeing upon a single point, except that their pet hypothesis is true. Our choice simply lies between God as Creator and His Word for it, or everything its own creator and man’s word for it.

William Hoste

Other pages in this section

About this site

Should we use the name Jesus or Lord Jesus Christ?

Should we refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as "Jesus" in our gospel preaching?

As seen in the Gospels and Acts, the Spirit carefully associates "Jesus" with the Savior's humanity, rejection, and sacrifice. Tender references to "Jesus," the lowly Sufferer, are appropriate. Primarily, though, we preach "the Lord Jesus" (Acts 11:20; 19:10)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 11:20; 19:10). The object of sinners' faith is "the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 16:31; 20:21)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 16:31; 20:21). The Spirit is evidence (John 16:7-11)" TARGET="_blank">John 16:7-11) that "God hath made that same Jesus... both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:38);" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:38); therefore, Spirit-empowered preaching will honor the Lord. The informality of our times calls for greater emphasis on His authority as Lord.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Should we pray for the sick?

PRAYER FOR THE SICK
Would it be right to accede to the request of a sick brother, to send for the elders of the church to pray for his recovery?

I should think that the question ought rather to be, “Would it be right to refuse such a request?” Surely the Scripture is very plain, “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him” (James 5: 14, 15)." TARGET="_blank">James 5: 14, 15). We must not evade Scripture or twist it out of its simple meaning, as is sometimes done, because if taken as it stands, it may seem to favour some false notion. There is scarcely a heresy in the world which cannot quote some half-truth or twisted text in its favour.

No doubt James 5:14" TARGET="_blank">James 5:14 has been used as a basis for the many erroneous systems of bodily healing abroad to-day, and so some have fallen into the erroneous idea that it must be evaded. “For instance,” says one, “James does not give us ‘church truth.’ “ That is no doubt in a sense the case, but he seems to speak here of a church custom, for we cannot admit that “church” in its local and technical sense, means one thing in the Acts and another in the Epistles, and we accept without hesitation for ourselves to-day other exhortations of the Epistle. Another evasion, as it seems to me, is to ask, “Where in the scattered condition of the church are the elders?” The answer is that in nearly every scripturally-ordered assembly there are some who are known and act as such, and who bear the character of elders in a greater or lesser measure. Others point out that the epistle is addressed to the twelve tribes. Yes, but to them as actual or potential believers in Christ. See, for example, James 2:10" TARGET="_blank">James 2:10 “My brethren have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . with (or along with) respect of persons.”

The Roman Catholic Church, of course, bases on this passage the “Sacrament of Extreme Unction.” But for this they have to read—”Is any among you dying?” because they only administer the rite to those in extremis. For anyone to recover after the reception of Extreme Unction is quite unlooked for and out of order, whereas the anointing in “James” is in view of recovery—”The prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him.” This last promise seems to give character to the whole passage. It is as though it were a case where the sufferer* suspected that the Lord was dealing with him on account of some sin, and sent for the doctors of the soul, rather than of the body. I do not know any faith-healing systems which teach the sick to send for the “elders of the church.” It is generally rather some leader, who professes to be a “Healer,” who sends for the sick; or else it is a faith-healing home, often under female control, where the sick are taken in as boarders, awaiting their turn to be healed at some public service, which savours rather of an advertisement for man than as a testimony for God.

One is, of course, not questioning the earnestness of many of these people, but is comparing their methods with our passage. Here it is the sick one who desires the fellowship in prayer of his brethren. These make no claim to be “faith-healers,” but they pray in simple fashion for the sick one, in submission to the will of God, anointing him with oil in the Name of the Lord. They cannot command the prayer of faith. It may not be the Lord’s intention to raise up the sick brother, but the prayer of faith (if they are able to offer it) shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him. Nothing is said as to other means being unlawful, and the word for “anoint with oil” is not the sacred word—used, for instance, in Hebrews 1:9" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:9 (the “Christ” word). It is noticeable that the most outstanding example in the Bible of healing, granted to the prayer of faith—that of Hezekiah—was in no way incompatible with the use of means—a fig poultice. The faith-healing systems would entirely rule out this as a lack of faith. The case that follows in James 5" TARGET="_blank">James 5 is still more simple. Here there seems no doubt as to the cause of the illness, and there is no question either of physician or elders. “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another.” Any godly person will do, for “the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man” (though he be not an elder) “availeth much.” There ought surely to be more exercise among us as to the why and the wherefore of our sicknesses. They may not all be sent in chastisement, they may be part of our salutary and daily discipline, but there can be no loss in enquiring of the Lord, “Why am I thus laid aside?” We cannot leave the subject without a note of warning. Many erroneous teachings prevail to-day in the “faith-healing” world, e.g., that disease does not exist (how then cure what does not exist?); that disease in a Christian is a sin (!); that bodily healing is included in the Atonement (then why does any believer die?): and healing pilgrimages—little “Lourdes—are being encouraged to-day within the fold of the Protestant State-Church. The fact that cases of miraculous healing are claimed for all these systems, even if genuine, is not conclusive, for miraculous powers are not limited to the Spirit of God. We must test teachings, methods and results by the Word of God. What strikes the student of the faith-healing systems around us is the distant resemblance they bear, if any, to apostolic healings.

W.H.
* In order to have a full view of this whole subject we must not limit ourselves to this passage, but must Join with it such passages as 2 Corinthians 12: 7-9;" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 12: 7-9; Philippians 2:25-27;" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 2:25-27; 2 Timothy 4:20;" TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 4:20; 1 Timothy 5:23," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:23, etc., in which there is neither mention of any miraculous intervention nor of sending for the elders. No scripture contradicts any other nor can it dispense with any other.

* The word is “weak”—the first condition noted in those under the chastening of the Father: “for this cause many are weak and sickly, and many sleep” 1 Corinthians 11:30)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:30).

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is Israel or the Church the theme of Psalm 45?

What is the application of Psalm 45" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 45? Is the Bride mentioned in the Psalm Israel or the Church? How are we to understand the expressions, “unto the king” and “unto thee” in Psalm 45:14" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 45:14?

In order to fully understand Psalm 45," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 45, it will have to be accepted that its principal application, so far as the Bride is concerned, is not to the Church but to Israel. The expressions, “King’s daughters,” “the daughter of Tyne,” and “the rich among the people,” etc., are more easily explained when we think of Israel in her future exaltation above the other nations, and acknowledged as Bride by the Lord, in keeping with His promises of Isaiah 54:5; 62:5;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 54:5; 62:5; Hosea 2:19, 20," TARGET="_blank">Hosea 2:19, 20, etc., than when we think of the Church. Yet there are, no doubt, one or two expressions, such as, “Forget also thine own people” and “raiment of needlework” (as compared with Revelation 19:8," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 19:8, R.V.), which appear to suit the Church better, although they can perhaps be understood of Israel also.
Of course, some take it for granted that if the Church is the Bride, Israel cannot be; and if Israel is the Bride, the Church cannot be; but this is to lose sight of the fact that the term is figurative, and there is no reason why the figure should not be used of Israel in the Old Testament and of the Church in the New Testament. This is the case with other figures, e.g., Israel is the Vine of the Old Testament (Psalm 8" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 8o:8, etc.), while the Church in union with Christ is the Vine in the New Testament; Israel is the House in the Old Testament, while the Church is the House in the New Testament (Numbers 12:7;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 12:7; Hebrews 3: 6)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 3: 6). Even the term, “Body,” which we usually look upon as the exclusive property of the Church, had been used of Israel in Isaiah 26:19" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 26:19 (where the italics should be omitted). Moreover, it may be that these early pictures, like the early prophecies of the Messiah’s coming, in which events separated (as we now know) by many years, are joined together as if one—are so worded by the Holy Ghost as to include applications both to Israel and the Church, some details being more suited to the one application, and some to the other. This would be helpful in studying the Song of Songs, of which Psalm 45" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 45 seems to be the germ.
I consider this to be a better way of looking at the matter, than to accept the view suggested in Newberry’s Bible, where he distinguishes two women, the “Queen” (Israel), to whom he applies vv. 9-12, and the “King’s daughter” (the Church) to whom he applies vv. 13-15. I could agree that the Israel aspect of the picture is prominent in the former verses, and the Church aspect in the latter; but I cannot see two separate Brides in the Psalm definitely distinguished from one another.
With regard to v. i, I think that the “unto the King” at the begin- fling of the verse, and the “unto thee” at the end of it, refer to the same person. It is only an example of what is very common in the Psalms, in Isaiah 53," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53, and elsewhere, that is, an abrupt change from speaking about the Lord, to speaking to Him. And this speaking to Him is continued into verse 16, which, as well as verse 17, is addressed to the King, not to the Bride, although in our A.V. it looks as if it were.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

If overseers entrust deacon work to a person who is not "blameless," what can other believers do?

If a believer knows of something that disqualifies an individual from doing a work entrusted to him, tell the elders courteously. They may not be aware of what others have observed.

Elders are fallible humans, as is the individual who thinks they are mistaken. If that individual knows facts of which the elders are not aware, he should graciously inform them. He must also recognize that self-seeking may cloud his perception.

Otherwise, the examples of Saul and David help us. Samuel anointed Saul, an unprofitable leader. Saul reflected the condition of a people who wanted to imitate other nations and valued stature and strength above spirituality. Saul’s leadership was detrimental to Israel and to David personally. Psalm 12" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 12 expresses David’s sorrow due to such unrighteous rule. The response therefore of godly believers to perceived mistakes in recognizing elders is two-fold: self-searching (recognizing that everyone in an assembly shares some responsibility for its faulty spiritual condition)and supplication (God is their only recourse).

Every person who assumes leadership will answer to God for that responsibility. David did not rebel against Saul nor did he count it proper to harm or embarrass Saul. God will deal with the wrong man in leadership. Meanwhile, David trusted the Lord his God (1 Samuel 30: 6)" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 30: 6) when the path of God’s purpose for him seemed hopelessly delayed (27:1). David was not the king until God united His people to make him king (2 Samuel 2:4)." TARGET="_blank">2 Samuel 2:4). Until that time, God was at work in David.

The biblical response in these circumstances is waiting on God and submitting to Him and to the individuals God holds accountable for leadership (Hebrews 13:17)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:17).

Having fulfilled his responsibility regarding the overseers’ decision, the dissenting believer should further fulfill his responsibility to submit to his guides (Hebrews 13:8)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:8).

D. Olive

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the significance of the two head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11?

What is the significance of the two head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11?

Paul develops only two of the three spheres of headship he introduces in verse three. By engaging in activity within the assembly with a covered head, a man dishonors Christ, his head (v. 4). That is the first sphere of headship. By engaging in activity within the assembly with an uncovered head, the woman dishonors the man, her head (v. 5). That is the second sphere of headship. At that point, Paul adds, "For that is even all one as if she were shaven." He is clearly teaching two head coverings for the woman: her natural covering, long hair; her temporary or cultural covering (whatever form of woman’s head covering is acceptable or normal in her culture), otherwise an uncovered head (v. 5a) and a shaved head (v. 5b) are exactly the same thing and the last part of the verse is a meaningless repetition (impossible!). In what way, then, are the uncovered head and the shaven head "even all one"? One possible answer is that dishonor (v. 5) or shame (v. 6) are the result of both. A difficulty, though, arises from noting that the one dishonors Christ and the other dishonors the woman. Further, the woman has chosen to uncover her head in the first case, but "shaven" is passive, indicating that someone else has chosen to shame her by making her shaved or shorn.

A second, more tenable view is that an uncovered head and a shaved head are equivalent in violating the same truth, the truth of headship as established by God. A woman’s long hair expresses a headship God manifested at creation: the man is the head of the woman. The cultural covering is part of a double symbol; it requires the uncovered head of the man and the covered head of the woman. Together these symbols display a headship that results from Christ’s incarnation and redemption. He is head of the man and the assembly honors that headship by the uncovered head of the man - honoring his head, Christ - and the covered head of the woman - further giving Christ honor by covering her head, the man.

The two coverings relate to the two spheres of headship Paul develops in this passage. A woman’s long hair expresses that not she, but the man has headship. This is a personal and permanent covering. Her cultural covering must be paired with the man’s uncovered head to display that Christ, not man, has headship over the man. This is a cultural and congregational (because it requires others to present this paired symbolism) covering. Further, in the context (vv 2, 17), Paul connects his remarks about headship with his teaching about the Breaking of Bread, "when ye come together in the church." Third, the cultural covering is a "church" matter because the assembly is designed by God as a "pillar . . . of the truth" (1Ti 3:15)," TARGET="_blank">1Ti 3:15), in this case, the incarnation and redemption truth of Christ’s headship over the man.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What did the Lord mean by, "He that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he [John]?

What did the Lord mean by, "He that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he [John the Baptist]"?

Some take this to refer to the Lord Jesus. In the same chapter, He describes Himself as lowly (v 29). To consider that the most lowly of all is the greatest of all bows our hearts in worship! How wonderful and how wonderfully true! One difficulty with this interpretation is that we would normally think of the Lord Jesus as being the King over the kingdom, rather than in it. A stronger objection is the context. This is a contrast introduced by "nevertheless." The first part of the contrast deals with John’s official privilege and honor. In this interpretation, the Lord would be speaking about His person, not His office. To paraphrase, the Lord would be saying "no human has been given a higher privilege in service that John, but I am a greater person than others." That doesn’t seem balanced.

The first "sampling" is from the human family, "them that are born of women"; the second is from the kingdom of heaven. Could the Lord be contrasting greatness in terms of privilege? In the human family, no one has been more privileged than John in the work entrusted to him. In the kingdom of heaven, even one considered to be the least (in his service?) is more privileged through the grace bestowed on him than John was through the honored work he did. Greater than all we are privileged to do for God is the grace we have been privileged to receive from God.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What becomes the role of those God has used in planting an assembly?

What becomes the role of those God has used in planting an assembly?

The assemblies in Crete were apparently exposed to the attacks of those who contradicted sound doctrine (Titus 1:9)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:9). Paul was concerned that the men who led the flock would be able to stand against such men and thus preserve the assembly for which they were responsible. Titus had a part to play in this by his teaching (2:1), but the goal was that each assembly would have men within it who possessed this capability. The role of those who plant and nurture a young assembly is to so strengthen that assembly that it will be able to function and flourish without him (or them). In speaking to the Ephesian elders, Paul makes it clear that this is also the Spirit’s goal (Acts 20: 28-32)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20: 28-32). Remarkably, God is able to accomplish this despite the native characteristics, even of Cretans (Titus 1:12)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:12).

The instruments the Spirit is using in this work need sensitivity so they neither rush ahead of the Spirit’s working nor lag behind it. Circumstances differ and the rate at which this good work progresses differs from case to case. Those who are not familiar with a particular work may not be fitted to understand the timing of the Spirit’s work. Nonetheless, the goal remains the same.

Paul speaks of himself as having a role like a mother (1Th 2:7)" TARGET="_blank">1Th 2:7) and a father (v 11) in the development of the Thessalonian assembly. Parents work toward the day when their child will be able to function on his own and make choices consistent with the truth they have taught him. Some parents can so control a child that they limit his maturing. Sometimes parents step in too quickly when they see some unsteadiness in their mature child. Eventually, parents must trust the power of the principles they have instilled in their child and commit him to God in prayer. They trust God’s power and wisdom to continue the training required. Epaphras certainly practiced this (Col 4:12, 13)." TARGET="_blank">Col 4:12, 13).

David Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

To whom can believers go if the elders seem unapproachable?

To whom can believers go if the elders seem unapproachable?

This perception may not be true. Try to approach them! Otherwise, we are responsible to notice the log in our own eye before noticing the speck in our brother’s eye (Matthew 7:1," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 7:1, ESV). In interpersonal problems, first check your own "eye." Is it possible that you have contributed to this alienation? If so, confess the fault (James 5:16)" TARGET="_blank">James 5:16) - even the slightest contribution - and seek to remedy the situation.

But, supposing that the log is in overseers’ eyes, two possibilities exist. The first is a primary resource and the second is a possible resource. The primary resource is prayer, whether or not the overseers are unapproachable. This is not a resource of last resort! The possible resource is some other Christian brother or sister who has earned your respect and the respect of other (and perhaps older) godly believers. In seeking their help, refrain from speaking evil of your overseeing brothers (James 4:11;" TARGET="_blank">James 4:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13)," TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13), and do not allow this to produce factions in the assembly.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What name should I call God when I pray?

Does an understanding of the Biblical significance of divine names guide us in prayer?

A sense of both forcefulness and heavenly reasoning characterizes Biblical prayers. Their requests result from what God has revealed Himself to be. The first man in the Bible whose prayers are recorded stood as an intercessor between the Lord and Sodom. Through the Flood, God revealed that He is the Judge of all the earth. Abraham based his intercession on behalf of Sodom on this, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 18:25). How mightily he interceded!

Moses prayed mightily to the Lord when He spoke of consuming His people because they worshiped the golden calf: "Lord, why doth Thy wrath wax hot against Thy people?" (Exodus 32:11)." TARGET="_blank">Exodus 32:11). He addresses him as Jehovah, the faithful One Who had promised to bring Abraham’s seed into Canaan (Genesis 13:14, 15; 15:16);" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 13:14, 15; 15:16); Moses speaks of those promises (Exodus 32:13)." TARGET="_blank">Exodus 32:13). Jehovah, Who is always the same, could not fail to keep His word. Moses, therefore, beseeches God to act consistent with His name. "And the Lord (Jehovah) repented of the evil He thought to do unto His people." This principle in prayer continues through the Scriptures.

In one other example, Daniel employs the names of God deliberately and cogently in his noteworthy prayer of confession and intercession (Daniel 9:4-19)." TARGET="_blank">Daniel 9:4-19). Here is the climax of his prayer: "O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for Thine own sake, O my God: for Thy city and Thy people are called by Thy name" (v 19). The name "Lord" (Adonay), used here indicates reverence, submission, and recognition of the sovereign control of God. Its first mention (Genesis 15:2)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:2) is "Lord (Adonay) God, what wilt Thou give me?" Here, Abram contrasts the Lord with the king of Sodom, from whom he refused to take anything. The sovereign Lord Who controls all events and people was Abram’s only resource. Thus, Daniel acknowledges God’s right in judging His people, His control of nations and seasons and His strength to carry out His sovereign will (Deuteronomy 3:24," TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 3:24, "Lord"). As frequently as he addresses God in this prayer, Daniel is not repeating God’s name aimlessly. An increased understanding of the names by which God has revealed Himself to us would enable us to pray more deliberately, mightily, Biblically, and reverently - whether in private or public.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu