Top Sites

The Fundamental Top 500

      

REPROOF OF GOOD MEN


REPROOF OF GOOD MEN

(Friday Church News Notes, December 7, 2012, www.wayoflife.org, fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) – Where did we get the idea that no warnings should be given in regard to good men and churches? That is one of the vain and unscriptural traditions that IFBaptists have inherited from their forefathers. All such reproof of good men is considered mean-spirited and divisive and wrong-headed, but Jesus reproved the good church at Ephesus for the very reason that He loved it and wanted to see it prosper and not be destroyed (Revelation 2:4-5).

Paul reproved the good preacher Peter because he loved Christ and the truth and didn’t want to see hypocrisy destroy the work of God (Galatians 2:11-14). The prophet Jehu reproved the good king Jehoshaphat for his compromise because God commanded him to do so and the prophet feared God more than man (2 Chron. 19:2). The Psalmist said, Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head… (Psa. 141:5).

The Danger of “Adapting” CCM – Garlock’s Warning


THE DANGER OF ADAPTING CCM – GARLOCK’S WARNING (Friday Church News Notes, April 15, 2011, www.wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) -

Many independent Baptist churches that still have any sort of conviction against CCM are adapting it by using the words while toning down the rhythm. They are trying to take the rock out of Christian rock. They think they can tame the beast and turn Charismatic praise music into fundamentalist praise music. This results in the gradual acceptance of and increasing use of CCM, the gradual allowance for sensual rhythms, a continual pushing of the boundaries.

Many discerning men have issued warnings about this slippery slope, including Frank Garlock. IF A CHURCH STARTS USING CCM IT WILL EVENTUALLY LOSE ALL OTHER STANDARDS. You need to draw a line concerning your music (Garlock, Bob Jones University chapel, March 12, 2001).

Dr. Garlock has been instructing churches about the danger of using the world’s music for many decades. He has a doctorate from BJU and has taken every graduate course in music offered by the celebrated Eastman School of Music in Rochester, New York, sitting under Howard Hanson.

Garloc’s first book was The Big Beat in 1971, which warned about the danger of rock & roll at a time when I was living the rock & roll lifestyle to the hilt. In 1973, Dr. Garlock published the Symphony of Life seminar on video, and it had a wide and godly influence. That was the year that God in His great mercy saved me and changed my taste both in lifestyle and music. I turned 24 that year, and a few months later I published the first of my own books warning of the dangers of rock. It was titled Mom and Dad Sleep While the Children Rock in Satan’s Cradle.

Notice in the previous quote that Dr. Garlock is dogmatic, saying that if a church starts using CCM it will eventually lose all other standards, and he doesn’t allow for any exceptions. He doesn’t say that there is a way to adapt CCM to avoid this slide.

My Crowd


MY CROWD (Friday Church News Notes, May 13 2011, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143)

As for fellowship and association, I want a crowd today that is willing to raise the flag against compromise and apostasy high without hesitation — publicly, clearly, being willing to name the names of those who are leading in the compromise –without speaking out of both sides of the mouth, without facing two ways. I want a crowd that doesn’t just give lip service to the fact of growing compromise among IB churches but that warns plainly of such compromise and distances themselves from it in real, practical ways.

I want a crowd that not only preaches against Christian rock but also doesn’t hold hands with those who use it. I want a crowd that really hates the quick prayerism that has given multitudes of unconverted hell-bound sinners assurance of salvation and wants to distance themselves from those who practice it, not making excuses for it and not giving mere lip service to the importance of repentance.

I want a crowd that knows that Jack Hyles built a man-centered cult and not a New Testament church, a crowd that plainly, unhesitatingly, publicly exposes Jerry Falwell for the dangerous compromiser that he was instead of speaking sympathetically of him and only haltingly, vaguely mentioning his errors. I want a crowd that wouldn’t dream of sending staff members to Saddleback conferences or youth groups to Dollywood.

I want a crowd that understands that the very essence of New Evangelicalism is trimming one’s message down to the essentials for the sake of any sort of broader unity or fellowship, even for evangelism and world missions.

I want a crowd where a serious teaching-warning ministry like Way of Life is welcome and appreciated. Yes, I want a crowd that doesn’t take cheap shots at warning ministries. And I thank the Lord that there is still a crowd like this among IBaptists, though it is definitely in the minority.

20/20′s Hit Piece Against Bible-Believing Baptists


April 18, 2011 David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org

The 20/20 report Victim’s Forced Confession pretends to be a fair and balanced report on abusive churches, but instead it was a hit piece against Bible-believing Baptists everywhere.

The report a mixture of truth, slander, hypocrisy, and hatred of God and His Word.

Let’s begin with the truth.

The report covers the Independent Fundamental Baptist Cult Survivors, a loose Facebook network of those who claim to have been abused by Independent Baptist churches. It focuses on a couple of particular cases of sexual abuse that were allegedly covered up by churches. These cases involved married men who were members of IB churches who had sexual relationships with underage girls.

I have no reason to disbelieve most of the allegations that are made in this context, because I have been warning for decades that some IB churches are cultish. A former IB church member is reported by 20/20 as saying, The whole culture is you don’t question the pastor. Another person says, A man who is essentially unaccountable to anyone else you have a recipe for abuse.

That is exactly right. I have written many reports about IB pastors such as Jack Hyles of First Baptist Church in Hammond, Indiana, and his predecessor Jack Schaap who require unquestioning loyalty and who treat all forms of criticism as an attack on their spiritual authority. Sadly, this problem extends to many IB churches. First Baptist is one of the largest IB churches and its school, Hyles-Anderson College, has trained many preachers since its inception in 1972.

As for the coverup of sexual abuse and immorality in general, there is no doubt that it has happened. Pastors have been reinstated at some other church after committing adultery and homosexuality. I think of Jack Hyles’ son, Dave, who after committing adultery with women at Hyles Anderson was recommended to a pastorate in Texas, where he committed adultery with multiple women. This type of thing brings great reproach upon the name of Christ, who requires high moral standards of pastors and deacons (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1). Every Christian is a mere sinner saved by grace, so it should not surprise us to learn that Christians sin, but God requires a lot of those who hold positions of spiritual authority. James said, My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation (James 3:1).

Now let’s consider the slander.

20/20′s accusation that Independent Baptists as a movement are a cult and are guilty of the type of abuse documented in the report is slanderous. They should have done a lot more research. The IB movement is very large and diverse. While First Baptist of Hammond and Hyles-Anderson College has a lot of influence, it is only one part of the IB movement. I have documented this in the report What Is Independent Baptist? Independent Baptist is not a denomination; it is simply a name that describes churches that are Baptist in doctrine and that are independent in polity.

There are differences among Independent Baptists in such matters as music, dress standards, the Bible version-text issue, Calvinism, Baptist briderism, the practice of communion, alien immersion, repentance and evangelistic practices, pastoral authority, church growth practices, relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention and evangelicals, and other matters touching on ecclesiastical separation.

The bottom line is that Independent Baptists are truly independent. I don’t doubt that there are good old boys networks that operate in some IB circles, but there are also large numbers of IB churches that are outside of the influence of these networks. Independent Baptists are not yoked together in any organizational sense with other Independent Baptists who might hold a different doctrine or practice. Some of the larger IB schools, such as Hyles-Anderson, West Coast, and Crown, wield influence, but only in their own circles. None of them have a reach that extends to a majority of IB churches. Large numbers of IB preachers are trained either in their own churches or in the countless medium to smaller IB schools that are not under the influence of the larger institutions. IB preachers are a very independent-minded group of men. Large numbers of IB preachers refuse to bow down toward any man-made institution and refuse to kow-tow to the big boys.

To lump all IB churches together into one pot of cultic abuse is slanderous.

I have personally preached in hundreds of IB churches whose pastors do not demand unquestioning loyalty, whose pastors are humble men who know that they are under discipline just like anyone else in the church, whose deacons and teachers are godly, compassionate men and women and are nothing like those exposed in the 20/20 report.

20/20 interviewed and gave total credence to the criticisms of some people who were allegedly the subjects of abuse in IB churches, but they could have interviewed thousands of people who grew up in IB homes and churches and would testify that they were treated with Christian compassion and grace.

This brings us to the hypocrisy of the 20/20 report.

20/20 found some abuse and possibly some coverup of sexual abuse. We wonder why that should be so shocking in the wicked society in which we live.

20/20′s ABC television network is culpable in creating the climate of moral relativism and the tearing down of divine authority that has produced rampant immorality, including the abuse of women and children. If man is merely an evolved worm, why should he not act out his impulses? If there is no supreme law-giving God, what is the basis for absolute morality? What moral culpability does a termite have when it eats the pillar of a house so that it collapses and injures people? If the Bible is a myth-filled book and Jesus was merely a good man and there are no moral absolutes, why would it be wrong for a man to abuse a child? What about homosexuals and their rights? If a homosexual acts out his love for boys, who is to say that is wrong? In fact, there are organizations of homosexuals that don’t believe that it is wrong. Will ABC expose them? Will it interview the boys who are the objects of homosexual advances? Will it treat them as victims the same way that it has treated the girls who were allegedly abused by IB church members?

Will 20/20 create a report about sexual abuse and coverup within the homosexual community?

Will 20/20 create a report about sexual abuse and coverup within the Muslim community?

No, because they are hypocrites with an agenda to discredit the God of the Bible, and they are not even handed or balanced in their reporting when it comes to such things.

This brings us to the final point, which is 20/20′s hatred of God and His Word.

Much of the report was devoted to their outrage at the fact that some people still take the Bible seriously.

The sexual abuse was indiscriminately lumped together with the alleged mental abuse created by fundamentalist preaching.

20/20 would have its viewers think that it is abusive to take the Bible seriously and to interpret it literally.

20/20 would have its viewers think that it is abusive to believe what the Bible says about corporal punishment. While we reject the foolish statements that were quoted by 20/20, such as spanking two-week-old infants or laying 100 stripes upon children (I have no idea where they dug up that nonsense), we do not reject the Bible’s wise teaching on corporal punishment. It wasn’t that long ago that corporal punishment was used in public schools in America. When I was in junior high school in Florida, our principle had a fearful paddle made from the end of a water ski with holes drilled in it! Most people then didn’t consider that abusive. Corporal punishment can be exercised properly without moving into the realm of abuse, and the vast majority of IB churches believe in a wise, compassionate use of the rod and are opposed to any sort of abuse.

20/20 would have its viewers think that it is abusive to believe that the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church. But the Bible’s teaching on this has been believed by most Christians for 2,000 years, and it was believed by the Jews for thousands of years before Christ came. It is 20/20′s feministic views that are the new kids on the block of human society. The Bible exalts women. Nowhere does it teach them to follow their husbands blindly. Husbands are under divine authority just like women are. Husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church, which is a very high standard of love. Any husband that abuses his wife and who treats her with anything other than compassion and respect is disobeying the Bible. Women played a large role in Christ’s earthly life and in the early churches. It was women who were the first to visit the empty tomb and the first to believe in Christ’s resurrection. The church at Philippi started with a woman’s prayer meeting. Phebe was one of the apostle Paul’s helpers (Romans 16:1-2). Priscilla is always mentioned in the context of Aquila’s church planting efforts (Acts 18:26; Romans 16:3; 1 Corinthians 16:19).

20/20 would have its viewers think that it is abusive to preach that there is only one narrow way of salvation through the blood of Christ and that those who reject God’s way will not be saved. But to think that this is abusive is to assume that the Bible is not true, because the Bible plainly teaches this doctrine and if it is true then it could not possibly be abusive to preach it and to warn men and women to be saved in the right way before it is too late. And it could not possibly be abusive to think that those who are not saved in the Bible way are lost. 20/20 painted those who believe this as self-righteous, and doubtless some are, but most Baptists who believe that there is only one way of salvation aren’t self-righteous. They know that they are sinners just like everybody else and they know that they don’t deserve salvation and could not possibly earn salvation through their good works. In fact, they know that their good works are filthy rags in the sigh of a holy God (Isaiah 64:6).

20/20 would have its viewers think that it is abusive to preach the Bible’s commands to live in a way that is separated from the wickedness of this present world system. They mock churches that encourage women to dress modestly in a society that flaunts immodesty. They mock churches that seek to maintain music that is spiritual in quality and to avoid music that is conformed to the pop culture. But the Bible says that the grace of God teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world (Titus 2:11-12). God’s people are taught not to love the world (1 John 2:15-17), not to be conformed to the world (Romans 12:2), and are warned that to love the wicked world system is to commit spiritual adultery (James 4:4).

The 20/20 report Victim’s Forced Confession pretends to be a fair and balanced report on abusive churches, but instead it was a hit piece against Bible-believing Baptists everywhere.

____________________________

WAY OF LIFE LITERATURE SHARING POLICY: Much of our material is available for free, such as the hundreds of articles at the Way of Life web site. Other items we sell to help fund our very expensive literature, video, and foreign church planting ministry. Way of Life’s content falls into two categories: sharable and non-sharable. Things that we encourage you to share include the audio sermons, video presentations, O Timothy magazine, and FBIS articles. You are free to make copies of these at your own expense and share them with friends and family. You are also welcome to use excerpts from the articles. All we ask is that you give proper credit. Things we do not want copied and distributed freely are items like the Fundamental Baptist Digital Library, print edition of our books, PDFs of the books, etc. These items have taken years to produce at enormous expense in time and money, and we need the income from the sale of these to help fund the ministry. We trust that your Christian honesty will preserve the integrity of this policy.

No Scientifically-Proven Evidence for Evolution


January 25, 2011 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article)
Charles Darwin did not offer any scientifically-proven evidence for his theory. The book On the Origin of Species did not prove that species arise from the process of natural selection. It only proved that species adapt through various processes. A century and a half has passed since Darwin published his thesis, and the scientific proof remains elusive. In fact, remove the evolutionary assumptions, and the evidence disappears.

Consider the following testimonies from Ph.D. scientists, most of whom once believed in evolution:

Despite all the millions of pages of evolutionist publications–from journal articles to textbooks to popular magazine stories–which assume and imply that material processes are entirely adequate to accomplish macroevolutionary miracles, there is in reality no rational basis for such belief (John Baumgardner, Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA, In Six Days, p. 230).

I reviewed many books on Darwinism and from them outlined the chief evidence for evolution, which included vestigial organs, homology, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, beneficial mutations, evidence of poor design, the fossil record, atavisms, nascent organs, the argument from imperfect, natural selection, microevolution versus macroevolution, shared genetic errors, the backward retina, junk DNA, and other topics. … Slowly, but surely, I was able to eliminate all of the main arguments used to support evolutionism by researching secular literature only. At some point I crossed the line, realizing the case against evolutionism was overwhelming and conversely, so was the case in favor of the alternative, creationism (Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. in human biology from columbia Pacific University and Ph.D. in measurement and evolution from Wayne State University, Persuaded by the Evidence, chapter 4).

there is not one single instance whereby all the tests essential to the establishment of the scientific validity of evolution have been satisfied. There are hypotheses, grandiose models, suppositions, and inferences, all of which are formulated and reinforced within the collective and self-serving collaborations of the evolutionist gurus. However, none of this amounts to true scientific evidence for evolution. It was in the 1970s that, to my great surprise, bewilderment, and disgust, I became enlightened to this (Edward Boudreaux, Ph.D. in chemistry from Tulane University, In Six Days, p. 205).

Over a period of a couple of years, it became apparent to me that the theory of evolution has no legitimate factual evidence (John Cimbala, Ph.D. in aeronautics from the California Institute of Technology, In Six Days, p. 201).

As I looked at the evidence–trying to be a dispassionate scientist–I could not find the evidence for the multitudes of intermediate forms which should exist if evolution was true (Raymond Jones, Ph.D. in biology, Standing Firm, The Genesis Files, edited by Carl Wieland, p. 28).

It is my conviction that if any professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully the assumptions upon which the macro-evolutionary doctrine rests, and the observational and laboratory evidence that bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubting the truth of this doctrine (Dean Kenyon, Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University, The Creationist View of Biological Origins, NEX4 Journal, Spring 1984, p. 33).

I have never seen any evidence for evolution. All that I see around me in nature points to a divine designer (Angela Meyer, Ph.D. in horticultural science from the University of Sydney, In Six Days, p. 143).

How secure is the idea that there is an uninterrupted creative sequence from the big bang through the formation of the solar system, the solidification of the earth, the spontaneous generation of life, and the evolution of plants, animals, and humans to end in the world around us today? Is this scheme impregnable? By no means. It has fatal gaps and inconsistencies (Colin Mitchell, Ph.D. in desert terrain geography from Cambridge University).

I no longer believed there was any validity to Darwinism, having become convinced of this as much by the evolutionist literature I had read as by the creationist books. The standards of evidence supporting evolution seemed trivial compared to the evidence on which engineers have to base their work (Henry Morris, Ph.D. in hydraulics and hydrology from the University of Minnesota, Persuaded by the Evidence, p. 222).

I have studied a lot of arguments from evolutionists; I have had seven formal debates with evolutionary professors at universities, and I have never read or heard any scientific fact that contradicts what the Bible says. There are evolutionist’s interpretations of the facts, but the facts themselves are not contrary to Scripture (Terry Mortenson, Ph.D. in the History of Geology from Coventry University, interview with David Cloud at the Creation Museum, June 23, 2009).

For three years, I used all the evolutionary arguments I knew so well [to debate chemistry professor Dr. Charles Signorino]. For three years, I lost every scientific argument. In dismay, I watched the myth of evolution evaporate under the light of scientific scrutiny, while the scientific case for Creation-Corruption-Catastrophe-Christ just got better and better. It’s no wonder that the ACLU (actually the anti-Christian lawyers union) fights by any means to censor any scientific challenge to evolution! (Gary Parker, Ph.D. in biology/geology from Ball State University, Persuaded by the Evidence, p. 254).

After all the research to date, we are still unable to explain the origin of galaxies as inhomogeneities in the universe from the perspective of evolution. We seem, in fact, to be further away from a satisfactory explanation of evolutionary galactic origins than we were when we started to study the subject, using modern physical theory. As in one field of science, so in all others, we are unable to explain the origin of the beautiful and complex realities of this world from an evolutionist approach (John Rankin, Ph.D. in mathematical physics from the University of Adelaide, In Six Days, p. 122).

Progressing in my studies, I slowly realized that evolution survives as a paradigm only as long as the evidence is picked and chosen and the great poll of data that is accumulating on life is ignored. As the depth and breadth of human knowledge increases, it washes over us a flood of evidence deep and wide, all pointing to the conclusion that life is the result of design (Timothy Standish, Ph.D. in biology and public policy from George Mason University, In Six Days, p. 117).

If the evolution or creationism discussion were decided by sensible appeals to reason, evolution would long ago have joined the great philosophical foolishnesses of the past, with issues such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or the flat-earth concept. … evolution is not adhered to on scientific grounds at all. Rather, it is clung to though flying in the face of reason, with an incredible, fanatical, and irrational religious fervor. It loudly claims scientific support when, in fact, it has none worthy of the name (Ker Thomson, D.Sc. in geophysics from the Colorado School of Mines, former director of the U.S. Air Force Terrestrial Sciences Laboratory, In Six Days, p. 217).

The principles and observations of true science do not contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, but in fact offer support for the creation of all things in six days! (Jeremy Walter, Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, Pennsylvania State University, In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, edited by John Ashton, pp. 21, 22).

I am firmly convinced that there is far more scientific evidence supporting a recent, six-day creation and global flood than there is an old earth and evolution (Keith Wanser, Ph.D. in condensed matter physics from the University of California, Irvine, In Six Days, pp. 103, 104).

I became convinced that people believe in evolution because they choose to do so. It has nothing at all to do with evidence. Evolution is not a fact, as so many bigots maintain. There is not a shred of evidence for the evolution of life on earth (A.J. Monty White, Ph.D. in gas kinetics from the University College of Wales, In Six Days, pp. 257, 259, 260, 263).

In 1969 Dr. John Grebe, speaking to the Texas State School Board, offered a $1,000 reward to anyone who could provide any first example of physically verifiable evidence (or even a basic mathematical model) sufficient to elevate the then hypothesis of macroevolution up to the status of scientific theory. The challenge was offered to the top evolutionary scientists of that day. Grebe was the director of nuclear and basic research at Dow Chemical, Midland, Michigan. One man who tried to collect was atheist David Bradbury. He had been a brash defender of evolution for 20 years since his university days. Not only was he not able to find the evidence to defend evolution. Bradbury eventually became a Bible-believing Christian and he re-offered Grebe’s challenge. On January 28, 2002, he wrote,

This $1,000 challenge remains open (and uncollected). Until someone (teacher, board member or professor) can cite even a single example of empirically confirmable evidence that random shifts in gene frequency acted upon by natural selection can (or does) cumulatively collect to produce macro-evolutionary change, it would appear only reasonable to responsibly refrain from introducing such conjecture as proper scientific theory to students and to the public (Report on Comments on Proposed Modifications to Draft of Ohio Science Academic Content Standards, http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/ohioreport020402.htm, viewed April 5, 2010).

____________________________

Distributed by Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/wayoflife/subscribe.html. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 27th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://www.wayoflife.org/publications/index.html. Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but only from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/wayoflife/makeanoffering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org

WAY OF LIFE LITERATURE SHARING POLICY: Much of our material is available for free, such as the hundreds of articles at the Way of Life web site. Other items we sell to help fund our very expensive literature, video, and foreign church planting ministry. Way of Life’s content falls into two categories: sharable and non-sharable. Things that we encourage you to share include the audio sermons, video presentations, O Timothy magazine, and FBIS articles. You are free to make copies of these at your own expense and share them with friends and family. You are also welcome to use excerpts from the articles. All we ask is that you give proper credit. Things we do not want copied and distributed freely are items like the Fundamental Baptist Digital Library, print edition of our books, PDFs of the books, etc. These items have taken years to produce at enormous expense in time and money, and we need the income from the sale of these to help fund the ministry. We trust that your Christian honesty will preserve the integrity of this policy.

Christian “Cussing”


Christian Cussing

Author Unknown

The Third Commandment. Exodus 20:7 “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” What does it mean to take the Name of GOD in vain? Is it just swearing and cussing? Or is there something more to it than that, and if there is, what? Swearing and cussing are definitely involved here, but this commandment goes further than just that; it not only deals with our outward words but our inward thoughts [~Matthew 12:34].

Many of us, Christians…Prayer Warriors, would never give sanction to the idea of swearing ourselves when we, for instance hit our fingers instead of the nailhead when using a hammer; but how many would exclaim “Oh, G…., Oh G…!” Or “J…!” Or “J…. C…!” when something horrific happens? This, too, is taking GOD’s Name in vain. Or how many ‘Christians’ tell someone a ‘little’ lie? Or get angry at another because they did something wrong? Yet JESUS has told us to: “But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. ~Luke 6:27,28].

Being a Christian is more than just wearing the name of CHRIST. 1 John 2: 6 says: “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.. When a person wears the name Christian but doesn’t act or speak like CHRIST, they are breaking the third commandment by taking GOD’s Name in vain as well. Another meaning for this verse includes what is called “slang cussing” [~Colossians 3:8], but unfortunately many professing Christians come in this bracket.

The following ‘words’ are euphemisms, or substitutions, that are less direct or expressive than the real words or terms, according to Webster’s New World dictionary:

*Gee…a slang term for JESUS’ name.

*Geez…a slang term for JESUS’ name.

*Golly…a slang term for GOD.

*Gosh…a slang term for GOD.

*Go-darn…a slang curse about GOD doing something nasty.

*Holy Toledo…a slang term about holiness.

*Darn…a slang term for damn, a curse word. This word, in effect is calling GOD to take ones own side and condemning another.

Whenever a ‘professing’ Christian uses “dag-nabit” or “gosh-darn” or even “dar-nation,” each of these is a slang swear word.

*Holy cow…this is making light of GOD’s character – holiness is an attribute of GOD.

To use any of these substitutions for our heavenly Father’s or JESUS’ Name and/or character is the same as using it outright [~Colossians 4:6]. Beware of also telling jokes that use the person of GOD as a character within the joke. While it may not directly attack or mock Him, it is using Him in a light manner [~Ephesians 5:4].

Additional notes by Angela Trenholm

The tongue is definitely an area we all need help on! I’m very thankful for whoever the author of this devotional is.

To answer some questions and comments, the “Oh my goodness” is really a slang on the “Oh my G…”, but also, the whole term is unscriptural. What is good about us? The Bible clearly says there is nothing good about us, so why proclaim our own goodness?

This verse comes to mind:

Proverbs 20:6 Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness: but a faithful man who can find?

I know I have used this term in the past and try very hard not too.

The term “Good night” is one I’ve used quite a bit, but I have never used it with the intent of a cuss word or heard others do so. It might be different for others. To me it has always been an exclamation equivalent to saying or an expression of confusion on a particular event.

When teaching our children about cussing, I have tried to explain to them that it is not necessarily the word that makes it a cuss word, but rather the intent behind it. Perfect examples are the words “hell” or “damn”. Neither are cuss words in themselves. It is the improper use of each word that turns them into cuss words at that time.

The point? Any word can be a cuss word if it is substituted in the place where a cuss word would normally be used.

So, when teaching our girls I basically tell them that if your intent is not proper, don’t say anything. The old adage “If you haven’t got anything good to say, then don’t say anything” sums it up very well.

Angela Trenholm

Christian Cussing?
Cussing, Swearing, & Profanity; A Matter of Opinion?

Timothy S. Morton

Words Mean Things

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
[Matt. 12:37]

Needless to say, the Bible says a lot about words. It was with words God spoke creation into existence [Gen. 1:3], with words God revealed His will to man [Ex. 20:1], and with words Christ revealed the truths of eternal life making salvation available to mankind [John 6:63, John 6:68]. Words are the primary means of communication between men and to men. So much so that the Lord Jesus Christ is referred to as the “Word” [John 1:1]. He was God’s means of communicating to man. It is with words man can communicate back to God with prayer. However, man often uses words for a much less noble cause. The Bible refers to them as “vain words” [Eph. 5:6], “lying words” [Jer. 29:23], “corrupt words” [Dan. 2:9], “enticing words” [1Cor. 2:4], etc. But whether noble or vain, “words mean things.”

It does not take much imagination for one to believe that society in the 21st century is one of the vilest, vulgarest, and most profane in history. With the ease of communication today by radio, television, telephone, and Internet, vulgarity and profanity seems to multiply and abound. The mentality of most Americans and others is so warped and jaded that they believe they must be vulgar and profane to communicate the simplest idea.

Who among you that works in the world, shops in the world, or merely deals with people of the world does not hear obscene and profane words an a regular basis? One cannot go to a supposedly benign place such as mall, shopping center, or grocery store without being exposed to vulgarities from young “cursed children” [2Pet. 2:14] to crusty, vile seniors. If one ventures to a more worldly gathering such as a ballgame [especially high-school or college], most “music” concerts, or Nascar [or any other] race, then he exposes himself to such an onslaught of profane, obscene, vain, and vulgar words and behavior that a dozen Catholic “cardinals” with “holy water” couldn’t clean him up in a week. However, what should one expect from the world? Should we expect them to behave other than their nature requires them?

Christians, though, have a new nature that desires to speak “sound words” [2Tim. 1:13] “wholesome words” [1Tim. 6:3], comforting words [1Thes. 4:18]. Although this nature may also use words to “reprove, ” “rebuke, ” [2Tim. 4:2] or correct, it never uses truly profane or obscene words and never speaks about the Lord in vain. However, all believers some of the time and most believers most of the time do not allow their new nature to control them in their speech. They often get caught up in vain, meaningless talk and many, more than will admit, regularly cuss and swear.

Any type of cussing, swearing, “off-color” speech, or profanity brings harm to the cause of Christ. The world sometimes knows how a Christian is to behave more than some Christians. I don’t believe your author has ever encountered a lost worldling who thought it was proper for a Christian to cuss. As soon as a believer does and a lost person knows it, unless the believer sincerely and openly asks apologizes, he will not have a chance winning that lost person to Christ. The lost person will simply write the believer off as another hypocrite.

Over 20 years ago your author worked at a sawmill here in the hills, and as one can imagine some of the characters who worked there were pretty rough and “uncouth.” The “lifestyle” of some of them was vile and destructive and along with that there was little restraint in their “speech.” The day I started to work my boss was telling me about some of the people who worked there and mentioned one fellow they called “preacher.” I had only been saved for a year or so and relished at the thought of another believer working there. However, my boss continued, “…but he is not much of a preacher because he cusses all the time.” I soon learned that this “preacher, ” who had “Rev.” written on his hardhat, was a joke to the others. They mocked him as a hypocrite. Once the equipment he ran fouled while I was near and I heard first hand one of his cussing fits. If this fellow was a true believer [there is plenty of room for doubt] he was a disgrace to the cause of Christ. He had absolutely no respect from anyone.

This day and age society is so jaded and perverse that if a person doesn’t cuss or swear he is looked on as an oddity. But the plus side is he is often also respected. Your author has made it a point ever since he has been a Christian not to use any type of profanity or cussing, and the Lord has enabled him to do that for around 25 years. Not one person he has worked with can truthfully say they have heard him cuss. This is not to say the Devil has not on many occasions placed profane words in his thoughts, only that they have not come out of his mouth [Matt. 15:11].

You author has also found that once others realize he doesn’t join with them in their profanity, many of them restrain themselves in using it around him. Some even ask him, “Does my cussin’ offend you” and then promise to stop using it around him when he tells them he would rather not hear it. Where he works now he even overheard two fellow workers who didn’t know he was around “discussing” a broken piece of equipment that took considerable effort to repair, “This is enough to make Tim cuss” one said to the other. It wasn’t, and I didn’t, but I took it as a complement. Believer, what you say and don’t say more than anything else affect how others think of you and treat you.

What Are The Terms?


Before we go further lets look at some terms. What does it mean to “cuss, ” “swear, ” and be “profane.” The definitions below are from Websters 1828 dictionary except where noted. First look at “swear, “

SWEAR, v.i. pret. swore. [Eng. veer; L. assevero.] 1. To affirm or utter a solemn declaration, with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed.
4. To be profane; to practice profaneness.

An “oath” is much the same,

OATH, n. A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury.

To be “profane” means,

PROFA’NE, a. [L. profanus; pro and fanum, a temple.] 1. Irreverent to any thing sacred; applied to persons. A man is profane when he takes the name of God in vain, or treats sacred things with abuse and irreverence.
2. Irreverent; proceeding from a contempt of sacred things, or implying it; as profane words or language; profane swearing.

“Curse” or the modern “cuss” means,

CURSE, v.t. pret. and pp. cursed or curst. 1. To utter a wish of evil against one; to imprecate evil upon; to call for mischief or injury to fall upon; to execrate. CURSE, n. 1. Malediction; the expression of a wish of evil to another.
2. Imprecation of evil.

And “vulgar” is defined as,

VULGAR , a. 1. Pertaining to the common unlettered people; as vulgar life.
2. Used or practiced by common people; as vulgar sports.
6. Mean; rustic; rude; low; unrefined; as vulgar ninds; vulgar manners.

Thus there are different types of “cussing.” One can be profane and take the name of the Lord in vain, he can swear or make a foolish oath in anger or sport, or he can use vulgar and base terms and expressions. Nevertheless, they all are works of the “old man” [Eph. 4:22].

Some ignorant believers often use expressions such as “My God, ” “God almighty, ” and even “Christ’s sakes” when speaking, but in nearly all cases this is taking the Lord’s name in vain. To profane God’s name or take it in vain it to merely use His name lightly or inappropriately. These people are not praying to God or using His name in an honorable way, but only using it as a “by-word.” They could just as easily say “My word” or “My soul” to express the same sentiment, but neither is this scriptural. One is not to swear by his word, soul, person or anything else [Matt. 5:36].

Minced Oaths


Although most Christians will refrain from using the obvious “cuss words, ” very many will lightly and carelessly use “minced oaths” from time to time. According to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia minced oaths are,

“corrupted forms of (usually religion-related) swear words that originally arose in English culture sometime before the Victorian Age, as part of the cultural impact of Puritanism after the Protestant Reformation.”

In other words these “oaths” are a veiled form of cussing, swearing, and profanity. During the Puritan era in England open cursing was largely shunned so, true to their nature, people invented other ways to “express themselves.” No wonder the Bible says of man,

Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:” [Rom 3:13-14]

The dog will return to its vomit every time [2Pet. 2:22]

So some of you won’t remain ignorant concerning what you say, below is a list of some oaths that are of a religious nature adapted from the list found on Wikipedia. Although both “God” and “damn” are Bible words, the use of these words together is offensive and thus some of the letters are blanked out in the definitions.

  • Begorrah = By God
  • Bejabbers = By Jesus
  • Bleeding heck = Bloody Hell
  • Blimey = Blind me
  • Blinking heck = Bloody Hell
  • Bloody = By Our Lady
  • By George = By God
  • By golly = By God’s body
  • By gosh = By God
  • By gum = By God
  • By Jove = By God
  • Cheese n’ Rice = Jesus Christ
  • Chrissakes = For Christ’s sake
  • Christmas = Christ
  • Cor blimey = God blind me
  • Crikey = Christ
  • Criminy = Christ
  • Cripes = Christ
  • Crivvens = Christ defend us
  • Dad gum = God d–n
  • Dagnammit = Damnation, God d–n it
  • Dagnabbit = Damnation, God d–n it
  • Dang = Damn
  • Dangnabbit = Damnation, God d–n it
  • Dangnation = Damnation
  • Darn = Damn
  • Darnation = Damnation
  • Doggone = God d–n or Dog on it
  • Drat = God rot it
  • Egad = A God
  • For crying out loud = For Christ’s sake
  • Gadzooks = God’s hooks (referring to the nails in Jesus on the cross)
  • Gat Dangit = God d–n it
  • G.D. (pronounced “jee dee”) = God d–n
  • Gee = Jesus or Jerusalem
  • Gee whizz = Jesus
  • Gee willikers = Jesus or Jerusalem
  • Gorblimey = God blind me
  • Good grief = Good God
  • Goodness gracious = Good God
  • Gosh = God
  • Gosh darned = God d–ned
  • Heck = Hell
  • Jason Crisp = Jesus Christ
  • Jebus = Jesus
  • Jeepers Creepers = Jesus Christ
  • Jeez = Jesus
  • Jeezy Creezy = Jesus Christ
  • Jehoshaphat = Jesus
  • Jesus wept = Jesus Christ
  • Jiminy Christmas = Jesus Christ
  • Jiminy Cricket = Jesus Christ
  • Judas Priest = Jesus Christ
  • Jumping Jehoshaphat = Jumping Jesus
  • My goodness = My God
  • Sacré bleu = “sacred blue” = Sang de Dieu (“God’s blood”)
  • Sam Hill = Hell
  • Suffering succotash = Suffering Saviour
  • Tarnation = Damnation
  • Yumping Yiminy = Jumping Jesus
  • Zounds or ‘Swounds = God’s wounds

“Shinola, ” “Shoot, ” “Shucks, ” “Sugar, ” etc., all refer to the modern and vulgar barnyard reference to dung. “Freaking, ” “Frickin, ” “Fudging, ” “Feck, ” “Fig, ” and other “F-words” obviously refer to the highly obscene and insulting “F-word” that is so commonly used by the ignorant, vulgar and profane. As often as it is used by some one would think it was the speaker’s middle name.

These words and similar can regularly be heard in Christian homes, work places, and even in churches. Some of you may claim you didn’t realize these seeming benign terms were “oaths.” Fair enough, but now you know [1Thes. 5:22].

Your author has been guilty of using some of them when he was younger, and even today catches himself using variations of them he heard as a child growing up in “Appalachia.” Just the other day he heard himself say “I declare” which is a form of “I swear” [Matt. 5:34-36; James 5:12]. He still uses old terms like “I reckon” for “I suppose” or “over yonder” for “over there, ” but “I declare, ” “I swan” or “I hope my die” are not acceptable. [Some of you are lost on these terms, but they are still common here in the hills.]

Bible Cuss Words?


If the reader has been reading his Bible long he has encountered what some call “Bible cuss words.” Some will ignorantly claim that cuss words can be found in the Bible and insist it as a justification for them to cuss, but this is just diabolical self-serving reasoning. Although there are places in the Bible where a person curses or berates another [1Sam. 17:43, 1Sam. 20:30], there are no cuss words in it per se. Even if there were that would not be a justification for anyone to use them as such.

The most notable word people mention is “piss” or “pisseth” found in eight places [2Kings 9:8, 2Kings 18:27, etc.], but this is not a cuss word. It is merely a word that describes a bodily function. That the world has taken it and others such as “hell, ” “damn, ” “dung, “ and a couple others and tried to make them into foul words is not the Bible’s fault. “Piss” and “pisseth against the wall” is the literal translation of the Hebrew. Most of the weakling new Bibles are afraid to translate these terms literally.

Cuss Words That Arent


The warped and jaded society today fulfills the words of Isaiah 5:20 where the Lord says,

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! ”

A prime example of this Satan inspired reversal of truth is today it is “politically” and “socially acceptable” for the “hero” of a movie or television show to routinely cuss, swear, and even take the Lord’s name in vain, while it is never correct for a hero to use a “racial epithet, ” “ethnic slur, ” or “sexual orientation” remark. Only the “bad guy” can stoop to such a low level. The lesson is in today’s society it is acceptable to swear with vulgar oaths and blaspheme the God of heaven, but it is never acceptable to use any word towards “your fellow man, ” no matter how factual, that anyone may deem a “slur” or “demeaning.” This is not only true for celebrities but for politicians and business as well. A politician may be overheard saying “God d–n” or “Jesus Christ” during an election campaign and it will be laughed off, but if one slipped and said “nigger, ” “spic, “ or “dyke” in any context then he would be severely ostracized and likely cast aside.

This is not to say one should use offensive terms without cause [Christ regurarly offended many with the truth (Matt. 13:57, Matt. 15:12)], but this fact proves that society and human nature is just like the Bible says it is— “evil.” It loves the creature and ignores the creator [Rom. 1:25].

The Scriptures, however, are not as “sensitive” as many today. It reveals that the use of racial and ethnic remarks are sometimes warranted. The Lord referred to a woman who came to Him for help as a [Gentile] “dog” [Matt. 15:26] and referred to all Gentiles as such [Matt. 7:6]. Paul quoted a Cretian writer that said, “the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies” and assured Titus this was a true statement. Imagine a prominent person making such a blanket, ethnic statement today? He would be considered a prejudiced bigot. Paul was simply telling a truth he knew from experience. Certain ethnic and cultural groups do have prevailing characteristics. It is by no means wrong to state obvious facts.

Being born and raised in West Virginia has exposed your author to various ethnic slurs about those who live among the Appalachian Mountains. Unlike the highly tender ears of members of the NAACP and other groups, he is not offended or insulted by this type of remarks. The Pharisees regularly tried to insult Christ with remarks about his home town [John 7:52], birth, and mother [John 8:41]. They didn’t faze Him. Neither does it bother your author to be called a “hillbilly, ” “hick, ” “yokel, ” “white trash, ” “inbred, ” etc., who lives in the “armpit” [to put it nicely] of the country and speaks with an illiterate accent. When times get hard in this country, and they definitely will, these sophisticated “city-slickers” will be asking us undignified and unlearned hillbillies how to survive. As the Scriptures say, “But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant” [1Cor. 14:38].

The Greatest Hate SpeechOf All


There are three words that can be spoken that are the most hated and despised words as far as the world is concerned that can be uttered by any man. They diametrically oppose everything the world stands for and strives for. They are such great words of intolerance that highly trained “doctors” deem those who repeat them [and worst of all believe them] as mentally unstable and severe non-conformists in need of “therapy.” These three words, with their variations, if spoken publically will cause a person to die a violent death in many countries of the world. The same hated words will cause him to be imprisoned in others. Yet the Lord sends His people out to speak these words, in fact, to shout them from housetops. He sends them as sheep among wolves to proclaim the eternal truths encompassed in these words so others can join them in partaking in the precious promises belief in them provides.

What are these words you ask? What are the three words that the world and the Devil hates more than any other?

Jesus Christ Alone!

“Jesus Christ alone, ” “Jesus Christ only, ” “only by Christ, ” etc., they all declare that salvation is not in Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, and all the other religious quacks this world has produced, but only in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through His shed blood on the cross. The world will tolerate Christ being “a way” to God because this allows there to be other ways, but it will never tolerate one who insists Christ is the ONLY way to God. To it this is bigoted, narrow-minded hate speech of the highest order.

Among the “religious” one will hear references to “God” regularly. They will say “God this” and “God that.”

They will “pray to God, ” invoke God’s blessing, thank “God” for various things, tell people the “need God” in their life, and on and on. The problem is one doesn’t know who or what they are talking about. Who is this god of the media, sports stars, and politicians? This generic god can be anything from nature, self, even Satan.

To Louis Farakan, Osama Bin Ladan, and the other billion or so Moslems, “God” is some “moon god” named “Allah.” To Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the “Osmonds, ” “God” is some creature that used to be a man. To Shirley McClain, Dione Warwick, and other “new agers, ” “God” is some kind of pantheistic force that encompasses the whole universe. Again, when somebody speaks of “God, ” you don’t know what they are talking about. Anyone who assumes they are referring to the God of the Bible and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is gullible indeed.

Much the same can be said about the term “Christian.” The word “Christian” today usually has little to do with Christ or the Bible. To the majority of the people of the world when they hear the word they think of the pope and the Roman Catholic Church. They think that kook in Rome is the epitome of a “Christian.” Why anyone would think a clown who wears a Halloween costume year ’round, never led a person to Christ, and lives a life of abundance and ease is a Christian is beyond me, but most do.

Type the word “Christian” in a search engine [Google] and what comes up first? The “Christian Science Monitor.” As another has said, “Christian Science is neither Christian or science.” “Christian Science teaches that reality is an interpretation of Divine Mind, that Jesus was not the Christ, that His sacrifice did not clean from sin, that sickness and evil are illusions, and that the Bible can only be understood correctly through its teachings.” In other words they are a Christ and Bible denying cult.

Another group who uses the term Christian is the, Southern Christian Leadership Conference” which is nothing more than a political [some say communist] organization designed to “achieve social, economic, and political justice.” It was founded by the “Reverend” Dr. Martain Luther King Jr. and the “Reverend” Jesse L. Jackson was a member. Jackson, the year after he was “ordained” a Baptist minister [1968], told Life magizine, that when he worked as a waiter in a Greenville, South Carolina restaurant, he would spit into the soups and salads of white customers. He said, “[Spitting into the food] gave me a psychological gratification.” He also said, “The Bible is nothing but a succession of civil rights struggles by the Jewish people, against their oppressors.” Clearly, the term “Christian” doesn’t mean much of anything today and neither does the term “Reverend.”

That Holy Name

There is only one name in the universe that gets the attention of heaven. There is only one name that sinners can believe on and get their sins redeemed, their is only one name that will compel every person who ever lived to bow the knee and confess this name as Lord [Phil. 2:10]. That name is, of course, the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. When a person says this holy name, then one can take notice because this is the name of a specific person who lived and still lives. There is little doubt to who he is referring, but this name is rarely heard in the world except in vain. It is the hated name. Hated on earth, but loved in heaven.

Christian, if you feel you need to “cuss, ” a little now and then why don’t you use speech that this present evil world deems as cussing instead of words that bring a reproach to your Lord? The next time you feel the urge to “let one rip” go out and tell someone how Jesus Christ alone can save them from a Devil’s Hell. You will offend a lot of people, but you will make your Father in heaven delight and the angels rejoice. Choose this day whom you mouth will serve [Josh. 24:15].

When Separation is First Rejected


WHEN SEPARATION IS FIRST REJECTED (Friday Church News Notes, July 9, 2010, www.wayoflife.org, fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143)

The rejection of separation begins softly and quietly. It is something that is difficult to put one’s finger on, something not easy to identify. And those who are at the outset of rejecting separatism are offended when someone challenges them that this might be happening. The rejection of separation begins with a mere change in mood toward a more positive emphasis, a greater tolerance of error. It is a gradual loss of militant zeal in the defense of the faith. The first step in the rejection of separation can be identified not so much by what a preacher or a church or a Bible College does or says as by what it fails to do and neglects to say.

The following questions can help identify whether or not an institution is giving up on separation:

Does it ever host a conference on separation?

Does it invite strong separatist preachers to blow the trumpet against compromise in a plain way?

Does it publicly and clearly identify itself with separatists?

Does it recommend literature on separation to its members? Or is separation something that was once preached, talked about, and practiced but now, for the most part, is left out of the agenda?

Is the institution affiliating with those who use Contemporary Christian Music and contemporary Southern Gospel (which is no different in character from CCM) and perhaps moving toward adopting this music itself? If so, this is a loud warning, because CCM is not just music; it is a philosophy of Christianity that is diametrically opposed to separatism and CCM and a separatist stance cannot and will not live in harmony for long.

Evolution Losing Ground


EVOLUTION LOSING GROUND (Friday Church News Notes, June 25, 2010, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) -

A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe humans evolved through natural processes alone. Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement. The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of intelligent design over evolution. …

The prestigious science journal Science reported the following in 2006 concerning the United States: ˜The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from seven per cent in 1985 to 21 percent last year.

In January 2006, the BBC reported concerning Britain: Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll. Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons (Evolution, Conservapedia).

Dr. John Grebe’s Challenge to Evolution


DR. JOHN GREBE’S CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTION

May 19, 2010 (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The following is excerpted from David Bradbury, A Reluctant Convert from Evolutionism, Persuaded by the Evidence (Master Books, 2008), edited by Doug Sharp and Jerry Bergman chapter 2:

In 1949, I graduated from the University of Michigan with a science degree and a firm belief that biological evolution was the proper scientific explanation for life as observed on earth today. … I was a firm believer in and outspoken defender of chance evolution for the next three decades. Even today I still well recall (now with some embarrassment) the warm glow of intellectual superiority I felt as I confidently assured less well-educated others about how ˜molecules to man’ evolution was well and scientifically established. …

Interestingly the circumstance prompting my first, admittedly belated, effort to examine this evidence came only upon a surprise encounter with what I perceived to be a totally reckless and unfounded challenge made before the Texas State Board of Education in November 1969. This was in the form of a $1,000 (more than $10,000 in today’s value) offer by a Mr. John Grebe to anyone (board member, scientist, college professor, or other) able to provide any first example of physically verifiable evidence (or even a basic  mathematical model) sufficient to elevate the then hypothesis of macrvolution up to the status of scientific theory as then being proposed for inclusion in new textbooks under consideration.

Once I discovered that this challenge was still open, I seriously set out to collect this easy money. Sure, the dollars involved provided immediate incentive, but my greater desire at the time was to publicly embarrass this Mr. Grebe and put an end, once and for all, to such irresponsible attacks by so-called ˜creationists’ on what I then accepted as well-established scientific determinations.

I started by leafing through multiple textbooks to select representative claims. Then it was off to the science archives in local and university libraries (these were pre-Internet days) to locate and copy the original source data from the supporting experiments that would compel Mr. Grebe to part with his money and eat humble pie. At the time, I expected to quickly select from any number of verifiable confirmations that the progressive steps involved in macrvolution had indeed been checked and double-checked by responsible scientific experiments. However, to my disappointment and near disbelief, I could find no such objective confirming evidence anywhere then–nor after following years of continuing search is there any to be found, even today.

Indeed, this continuing absence only further confirmed that none of the claims purporting to qualify macrvolution as scientific are supported by the physical verification criteria required in the universally taught empirical (or Baconian) scientific method. … All I could find in general-use texts then, and still in most texts today, were unsupported claims, statements, and assertions reflecting the consensus acceptance (˜beliefs’) of the prevailing evolutionary community.

Even with this troubling realization, my school-instilled trust in science as the best, if not only, method to compellingly establish physical truths was so deeply embedded, I continued to wrestle with this problem for a number of additional years before finally conceding that perhaps Dr. Grebe’s $1,000 challenge was not in as much danger as I had initially presumed. This change was also further influenced by my learning that the man issuing this challenge was actually Dr. John J. Grebe, the excellently credentialed director of basic research for the Dow Chemical Company, and not the irresponsible know-nothing I initially presumed. Also, that his offer was directed toward the leading evolutionists of the day (Simpson, Dobzhansky, Ayala, Grant, etc.) then championing the elevation of evolution from its long-accepted status of hypothesis to far higher status of theory in the next generation of undergraduate science textbooks. …

Gradually, throughout the course of this now 50-year, sometimes wavering, and often sputtering venture, many unexpected good things have come my way. I started out as a happy, trusting, but scientifically misinformed atheist thinking I knew a lot more about evolution than I really did, whereas today, thanks to a loving Christian wife, much fascinating research (all without the range of those seeking to separate wheat from chaff), thoughtful advice from patient evolutionists and non-evolutionist advisors, and a resultant deeper understanding of the intricate processes involved in macrvolution, I’ve come full circle. Once the artificial ˜intellectual’ (scientific) barrier against religion posed by evolution was exposed, and serious consideration again given to spiritual matters, my return to Christianity has been personally most rewarding. For a while I was led to accept Richard Dawkins’s view that ˜Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist,’ but having once been blind, it makes the truth and light available to all mankind in Scripture all the more appreciated.

CONCLUSION

David Bradbury eventually became a Bible-believing Christian, and he re-offered Grebe’s challenge. On January 28, 2002, he wrote,

This $1,000 challenge remains open (and uncollected). Until someone (teacher, board member or professor) can cite even a single example of empirically confirmable evidence that random shifts in gene frequency acted upon by natural selection can (or ds) cumulatively collect to produce macro-evolutionary change, it would appear only reasonable to responsibly refrain from introducing such conjecture as proper scientific theory to students and to the public (Report on Comments on Proposed Modifications to Draft of Ohio Science Academic Content Standards, http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/ohioreport020402.htm, viewed April 5, 2010).

From Atheism to Christ: A Doctor’s Testimony


The following is by our friend Shem Dharampaul of Alberta, Canada,  MD (University of Alberta), FRCPC (Fellow of the College of Physicians of Canada), and trained in Nuclear Medicine. He is published in the Journal of Parasitology, Journal of Rehabilitation, Clinical & Experimental Immunology, Virchow’s Archives, and the Journal of Medical Entomology.
____________________________

I want to share with you the account of a day that began as the worst day in my life and ended as the best day in my life. I will tell you first how I got to that day, and then I will tell you what happened on that day.

I was born in a small country in South America, although my grandparents were from somewhere in the Indian Subcontinent.  I often attended a Lutheran Church with my mother when I was a child.  My parents divorced when I was eleven years old, and my mother, two brothers, and I, immigrated to Canada when I was fourteen years old.

I did not go to Church for years after we moved to Canada.  By the time I finished High School, I was questioning the existence of God.  I went to University, and by the time I finished my four year degree in Science, I was very much a secular humanist/atheist.  That’s a person who does not believe that there is a God and believes that humans are the ultimate and best product of evolution.

In University, I became more and more involved in a sinful way of life.  During my four years of study in Science, I met a Christian in my class.  I would ridicule her beliefs and try to show her the contradictions in her life and philosophy.  She invited me to a meeting once where they showed a movie about Jesus, but I did not believe it then.  At the end of our third year in the Science Program, this classmate went to another part of the country to study Medicine.  I finished the fourth year in Science and enrolled in Medical School at the University that I was already attending.

At about this time, my brother became a Christian.  I think he used to be worse than me at sinning, but he started to show a change in his life after he became a Christian.  However, he would still do or say bad things sometimes, and then I would mock him.  He also told me about Jesus, but I didn’t believe, and I hated my brother for telling me that I was a sinner on my way to Hell.

In Medical School, two things started to happen to me.  First, I started hating myself for sinning, but I still kept on sinning.  Then, I started to question my disbelief in God.  I think that I was starting to realize that there was more to life than evolution.  I was looking at what I learned in Medical School about how complex the human body was and thinking that this couldn’t happen by chance.  Then I realized that if humans were the ultimate in evolution, and were the only ones that could fix all the problems in the world, then there was no hope.  Why?  Because I was a human and was such a terrible person that I couldn’t help myself, much less the world.

These thoughts became more and more consuming in my mind.  I started having doubts about a lot of things.  I would try talking to God, saying in my mind, that if you’re there, then do something to let me know.  I would look at the sky in the night, and say, OK God, I am looking right at that star, make it go super nova, then I will know that there is a God.

Of course, nothing like that happened, but with time, I became more and more convinced that there was a God.  I talked to many people in University of different religions, and was most impressed with Christians for their love for those that hated them.  I felt that if there was a God, it must be the God of the Bible.  However, I did not want to submit to God.  I would say as if speaking to God, that God, when I die, I don’t want to go to heaven, or hell.  I just want to die and disappear into nothingness.

At this time, I was in my second year of Medical School, and more steeped in sin than ever.  I took a summer job setting up appointments for a savings plan representative.  During that summer, things got worse, and I hated my sins so much, that I felt that I could live with them no longer.  One day, I was alone in my bedroom, and no one else was at home.  I could no longer bear the weight of my sins, and decided to take my life.   I was about to, when I remembered one of the clients that I had met that week on the job seemed like a nice person.  For some reason, I decided to phone her, and I did.  She started telling me about how God had worked in her life to overcome some difficulties.  While on that phone, for about five or ten minutes, I decided to bring my burdens to God.  So, after I hung up the phone, I knelt down beside my bed and prayed to God.  I said I now fully believe in Him and all that I had heard about how Jesus died for me.  I remembered a verse in the Bible that my Christian friend from the Science Program wrote to me a while before, Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  And when I finished praying, I was no longer crying, and I felt a peace in my my heart that I had never felt before.  The burden of my sins had been lifted!  My sins were forgiven.  I was washed clean by the pure, sinless blood of Jesus Christ, by placing my faith and trust in Him.  I went to the window and raised the blind and the sun came into my bedroom, and I heard a bird singing.  And I said aloud, that from that time forth, I wanted to live for the things of God, and not the things of man, because all that man touched was spoilt.

Later that week, I faced many temptations to  sin again, and the Lord my God and Savior delivered me from them.  I also tried to find that client that I had phoned, but never saw her again.  There was no one at the townhouse where I had met her.  I tracked down the Christian classmate from the Science Program and phoned her to tell her that I had gotten saved.  She replied that of all the people she ever knew, she thought that I would be the last to get saved!  Well, she was wrong, because there have been countless others saved after me, a few whom I shared the gospel with.  Indeed, God’s mercy is great, and He is still saving people from their sins today.

It is now fourteen years later.  I am practicing Medicine.  God has blessed me with a faithful Christian wife and two children.  We serve God in our local Church.  I want all who hear my testimony to know that I serve the living God who created heaven and earth and all that is in them.  It is this same God, who took on the form of man as Jesus Christ so that He can experience life as a man in order to take on Himself the penalty of man’s sins, yet He Himself was without sin.  And it is this same God, who in the form of Jesus Christ, died on the cross and shed His sinless blood to atone for the sins of this world.  And all sinners can find salvation in Him, by repenting of their sins and placing their faith in Him to save them from their sins.  Won’t you please do that today?