Bible believers accept the Bible record as absolute truth in whatever it teaches, regardless of how things may appear to be. The Bible is always true. “Let God be found true, but every man a liar,” Romans 3:5. The Bible teaches us that God is absolute perfection and everything He has ever done has been perfect for His purpose. Deuteronomy 32:4 says,
“He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.”
Hebrews 11:3 says “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.” The word “framed” comes from katartidzo which means “to make perfect,” “to furnish completely.” We must conclude that the universe, as God created it, was perfect for what He intended, even to declaring his power and divinity, Romans 1:18-23. The testimony of inspiration is that God only had to “speak” what He wanted and it happened. It was framed “by the word of God.” Genesis one simply records that “God said” and it was so. Isaiah 48:3 sums that up by saying, Continue reading » Evidences of Faith: The Universe and the History of Man
Editor’s Note: This article is a response to Bill Robinson’s article which appears elsewhere in this issue. To read Bill Robinson’s article, click here.
As a teenager, Bill Robinson, Jr. was baptized during a gospel meeting I conducted in California. His father and I were good friends and I had no one on whom I could depend any more than Bill Robinson, Sr. I encouraged Bill, Jr. when he decided to preach and continued with help and encouragement long afterward. I was supposed to have performed his wedding ceremony when he got married but was too ill to travel at the time. I have felt a special warmth for him and his family through the years and have been a good friend to them. Because of this close association in the past, I am especially disappointed with his article. I took it as a personal insult, publicly proclaimed. He accuses me and the other signatories of the most heinous crime, that of being a party with premeditated intent on dividing the church as well as being a group of creed makers forcing our will on the church! Continue reading » Response to “The 29th Question and Beyond…” (Barnett)
Editor’s Note: When you have responses to responses to responses, it can get complicated. Brother Barnett does a fine job answering Tom Couchman’s article found elsewhere on this site. This article has been posted to the Gospel Anchor Web Site, and is reprinted here by permission.
There is nothing personal about this review. I had never heard of brother Couchman before this, much less have I met him. Seeing that I was one of those who signed the Open Letter under discussion, brother Couchman necessarily included me in his criticism of the Letter. That calls for this reply. I am not interested in any personal vindication. I have no pride that’s been bruised nor an injured reputation that needs salvaging. I am interested only in truth.I care not at all what “pillars” of the past or present have said on this subject. They do not determine what truth is. The Open Letter is being tagged as a creed by its opponents and their supporters. They say this because so many men signed the letter to show their agreement with it. That is supposed to make it a creed. However, the very ones who are saying this are making up a list of “pillars” in the church, past and present, of those who are supposed to agree with them. Brother Couchman does some of that. Now, why is it that the Open Letter is a creed because it has several who signed it, but the other side’s position is not a creed though they make up their list of men who agree with them? Watch your step, brethren, You’re condemning yourselves. My decision to sign the Open Letter was because I, on my own, agreed with what was said. There was no collusion between the signators. I would have signed it even if no other had done so. Brother Caldwell sent a letter to all the signers of the Open Letter. He had a seven point inclosure with it titled “The President’s Position On Teaching Divine Creation at Florida College.” How many signatures would it have taken to make that inclosure a creed? If one other person signed it would it have been a creed, or would it have needed sixty-seven signatures to make it so? Or, just how many in between? Continue reading » Maurice Barnett’s Response to Tom Couchman
People generally think of a covenant as an agreement where two parties contribute to the terms of the covenant on an equal basis; the covenant is then equally binding on both. Though that’s one meaning of the English word covenant, it is not the only one. This is especially true when viewing covenants God has made with mankind. In those covenants, there is no equality between the parties; they are covenants between unequals. We view one party to the covenant, God, who is superior to the other and is the only one who can set the terms of the covenant. The second party, either one man, selected men or mankind in general, has only the choice of abiding by the terms or rejecting them.
Two Types of Covenants
The Hebrew word, berith, is thought to come from the Akkadian biritu, which means “fetter” or “bond.” So, we may derive from that the meaning of something binding. However, the attempt to delve into etymology and derivations may be an interesting exercise but is little more than that and quite unnecessary. Whatever the roots, berith covers a full range of what covenant means in the Old Testament, primarily, an agreement that binds the parties involved. It might refer to two parties who both contribute to the terms of the agreement and then are equally obligated to meet those terms. This is called a parity covenant, one made with bilateral obligations on the part of both parties. Continue reading » Confusion on the Covenants: People of the Covenant