Truth Magazine

By Joe Polk

In brother Hoyt Houchen’s recent article answering a question regarding 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, I saw some things that bothered me. A reader wanted to know if it is wrong to take legal action against brethren who have defrauded them.

In his response, brother Houchen first looked at the original wording of the text. He noted that the expression “go to law” was translated from the Greek word krinesthai, a word that originates from krino, meaning “to judge.” This was supposed to support his premise that we are not sure that the text even refers to legal action.

That really is incidental to me. The jist of the matter is that the Corinthians should not let the unbelievers “judge” their disputes – court or no court!

Brother Houchen went on to supply another argument. He noted that our court system, being a product of our government, is a blessing of God (Rom. 13:1-7). The institution is not unrighteous; therefore, he goes on to say that the issue is “who” judges, not “what. ” In other words he is saying that courts are not under consideration.

Brother Houchen, back up and look carefully at what you said. You said that the judicial institution is not “unrighteous.” That is neither here, nor there. First of all, people are righteous and unrighteous, not institutions. That is evident to both of us. No one can affirm that just because the institution is under the domain of God that it is then made up of the righteous! It is safe to say that the vast majority of those who make up the legal system of this country are unrighteous in God’s eyes. Yea, how many Christians do we know who are judges? I’d guess that one hand will suffice that count.

It seems evident to me that when there are unbelievers doing the judging, we had better settle matters ourselves. Anyone who would affirm that because God set up our government then it is righteous and those within it cannot be considered in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 is stretching the Scriptures into more than God intended.

Another argument that brother Houchen brought up dealt with the duties of the church and judicial system. It was contended that the church wasn’t to meddle in judicial affairs and that the judicial system wasn’t designed to handle church affairs. Are you saying, brother Houchen, that brethren who defraud brethren are no longer under church jurisdiction because they violate the “law of the land”? I urge you to note that if brethren cheating brethren were not under consideration in chapter 6, then Paul didn’t know it. He mentions that they were involved in cheating!

I have respect for brother Houchen and feel that he is a knowledgeable man. I’m afraid that there is, however, a trend among preachers today. This trend is calling us to “read” between the lines” to find truth, because the Word of God alone isn’t clear.” I urge all brethren to look to the Scriptures and read them objectively. I have nothing against word studies, contextual studies, and the like; but I feel that they are to clarify the letter, not change it.

Paul knew that the Corinthians were defrauding one another. Regardless of whether they went to “court” or not is incidental. They went before unbelievers’ That was the wrong! Whether we go to court before unbelievers or next door, the point is the same. Paul is giving them instruction on where to settle their problems! Are we to come along and say, “I wonder where they went before unbelievers?” The point is that they should have stayed within themselves!

If they were to settle disputes regarding cheating and the like, why aren’t we? I’m afraid that brother Houchen has gone the wrong way with this passage. Paul exhorted them where they should’ve taken the matters. Is he not telling us the same?

I exhort brother Houchen to consider these things carefully. I’m certain that he wishes to mislead no one. I trust that he will consider objectively and make a change if convinced from Scripture that he should. Should his understanding convince him that he is right, we are still brothers. Neither he nor I would divide or slander on such a matter. I can still rejoice in his work of love in the love of Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, p. 367
June 16, 1988

By Aude McKee

Note: Every quotation from Catholic writers is made from a book bearing the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church.

Introduction:

I. Thus far in our study we have traced the origin and early growth of the Lord’s church. We have also given attention to the warnings about apostasy sounded by the Holy Spirit.

II. Last week we traced the rise of the Catholic System.

A. Departures came in teaching, worship, work, and religious practices.

B. The rise of Catholicism can most vividly be traced in the departures from God’s pattern in organization.

1. Organization of the New Testament church.

a. Christ – head of the church universal.

b. Each local congregation overseen by elders (bishops).

2. Three fundamental points were made regarding elders:

a. Each local church had a plurality.

b. Elders in each local church were equal in authority.

c. The elders had authority only in and over the local church that appointed them.

3. These fundamental principles were ignored. Elders extended their authority until finally in 606 A.D., Boniface III, Patriarch of Rome, declared himself the Universal Bishop. It took hundreds of years for the church to go into apostasy, but eventually the process was completed.

III. Today we study some of the basic things that make Catholicism what it is.

Discussion:

I. Attitude Toward the Bible.

A. The Catholic Church makes the claim that the Bible is a Catholic Book.

1. Following are quotations from an advertisement placed in the newspaper by the Supreme Council of Knights of Columbus Religious Information Bureau, St. Louis, MO.:

a. “Yes, the Bible is truly a Catholic book. They were members of the Catholic Church who, under God’s inspiration, wrote the New Testament in its entirety.”

b. “It was the Catholic Church which treasured it and gave it to the world in its original and unaltered form.”

2. In the light of this claim, the following questions need to be answered: (If the Bible is a Catholic book, then . . . . )

a. Why is it not accepted as their authority in religion?

b. Why does the name “Catholic” or “Catholic Church” not appear therein?

c. Why is there no mention made in the Bible of the “Pope,” or of his exalted position in the church?

d. Why is there no reference to Peter as the Vicar of Christ on earth or of his being the head of the church?

e. Why does the Bible say that Peter was a married man (1 Cor. 9:5)?

f. Why is praying to Mary not mentioned in the Bible?

g. Why is the Bible so silent about the doctrines of “Purgatory,” “Limbo,” “The Rosary, ” “The Mass,” “Auricular Confession,” or “Indulgences”?

h. Why does the Bible expressly forbid the making or bowing down to images (Ex. 20:4-5), and the calling of a “priest” by the name of “Father” (Matt. 23:5-12)?

3. The fact of the matter is, the Bible was written between 1500 B.C. and 96 A.D., hundreds of years before the Catholic Church was born. The Catholic Church is too young to be the mother of the Bible – a mother must be older than her offspring! The Bible is not a Catholic book!

B. The Scriptures are not inspired and are not infallible.

1 . “Is the Bible the Infallible Word of God? . . . The Catholic’s answer is a decisive ‘No!’ Indeed, it is only by the divine authority of the Catholic Church that Christians know that the Scripture is the Word of God and what books certainly belong to the Bible. The Bible is not its own witness. It is like a will without a signature or probate. It is infallible only because of and to the extent of the Church’s infallible witness. Deny the Church’s infallible witness, and the Bible is at once reduced to the level of mere Oriental literature and utterly devoid of divine inspiration. The Catholic Church alone guarantees infallibly the authenticity of the Latin Vulgate, the contents of the Canon, and the inspiration of all the 72 books of Holy Writ. As St. Augustine could rightly say in the 5th century, ‘I would not believe the Gospel unless moved thereto by the authority of the Church.’ The Bible, therefore, is the infallible Word of God only inasmuch as the interpretation of the infallible Church makes it so” (The Catholic’s Question Box [Herbst), p. 653).

2. See 1 Cor. 2:1-13; Eph. 3:1-7; 1 Thess. 2:13.

C. The Scriptures are not sufficient.

1. “The New Testament does not bear the marks of having been drawn up to serve as a code of Christian belief. Neither does it anywhere direct us to take Scripture as our sole Rule of Faith, or free us from the obligation of believing more than is clearly taught in its pages. Therefore, to assume that the Bible is the sole and adequate rule of Christian Faith may perhaps be the only alternative left after rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church; but neither Scripture nor history seems to afford any warrant for such an assumption” (E.R. Hull, What the Catholic Church is and What She Teaches, p. 2).

2. See 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3.

D. Traditions are authority.

1. “The unwritten traditions which we receive from the mouth of Christ himself by the apostles or from the apostles themselves, have come down to us as if delivered from hand to hand on an equality with the books of the Old and New Testament” (Council of Trent, 16th century).

2. “It would be well to remember that the Bible was never intended to take the place of the living, infallible teacher, the Church, but was written to explain or insist upon a teaching, already preached. . . . The Catholic Church a divine, living, infallible voice, guarantees to every one not merely the written word, but also the unwritten teaching of divine tradition” (Catholic Box, pp. 653-654).

3. See 1 Cor. 4:5; John 20:30-31; Eph. 3:3-4; Rev. 22:18-19; Deut. 4:1-2; 2 John 9-11; Jude 3.

E. The Common Man is Unable to Interpret the Scriptures.

1. “That in matters of faith and morals, and whatever relates to the maintenance of Christian doctrine, no one confiding in his own judgment shall dare to wrest the sacred Scriptures contrary to that which has been held and still is held by the Holy Mother Church, whose right it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of the sacred writ; or contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers; even though such interpretations should never be published” (Council of Trent, 16th century).

2. See Luke 10:21; Isa. 35:8; 2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Pet. 4:11.

II. Papal Infallibility.

A. “We the sacred council approving, teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed; that the Roman Pontiff, when speaking ex cathedra, that is, when discharging the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal church, he by the divine assistance promised to him in the Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed the church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that, therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the church. But if any one – which may God avert – presume to contradict our definition, let him be anathema” (Declaration of Papal Infallibility made by Pope Pius IX, and adopted by the Vatican Council of 1870).

B. There have been numerous contradictions between popes

1. In 1088, Pope Paschall II (and in 1145 Pope Eugenius III) authorized duelling. In 1509, Julius II (and in 1560, Pius IV) forbade it.

2. In 867, Pope Hadrian declared civil marriages to be valid. In 1800, Pius VII condemned them.

3. In 1585, Pope Sixtus V published an edition of the Bible and by a bull recommended it to be read. Pius

VII condemned the reading of it.

4. In 1520, Pope Urban Vill excommunicated the famous Italian Galileo and put him in jail because he taught that the earth was round and revolves around the sun. Popes today state that Urban was wrong in condemning the teachings of Galileo.

C. For about 40 years in the 14th century, three men claimed the papacy.

D. Prior to 1870, Catholics denied Papal Infallibility. After 1870, they had to believe it or be guilty of heresy.

E. There have been many wicked popes. Archbishop Purcell, who debated Alexander Campbell, said: “Without doubt some popes are in hell.”

III. Primacy of Peter.

A. “Sitting in that chair in which Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, sat to the close of life, the Catholic Church recognizes in his person the most exalted degree of dignity, and the full jurisdiction not based on constitutions, but emanating from no less authority than from God Himself. As the Successor of St. Peter and the true and legitimate Vicar of Jesus Christ, he therefore, presides over the Universal Church, the Father and Governor of all the faithful, of Bishops, also, and of all other prelates, be their station, rank, or power, what they may be” (Council of Trent, 16th Cent.).

B. Catholic position can be summed up in three points.

1. Peter was appointed by Christ to be his chief representative and successor and head of the church.

2. Peter went to Rome and established the “diocese.”

3. Peter’s successors (popes) succeeded to his authority.

C. Papal claim based in part on Matthew 16.18-19.

1. “Thou art Peter (petros) and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church.”

a. Petros is masculine gender – Peter’s name. b. Petra is feminine gender and means “a rock, ledge, cliff.”

2. Jesus had just asked, “Whom do men say I . . . am?” Then he asked, “Whom do you say I am?” Peter replied, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then the Lord said, “Upon this rock, I will build my church.”

3. The church was built on Jesus Christ.

a. Isa. 28:16.

b. Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 3:11.

D. There is no such office as “pope” in the New Testament (1 Cor. 12:29-31; Eph. 4:11-12).

E. Peter never claimed or assumed authority and superiority (Luke 22:24-27; Gal. 2:11; Acts 10:25-26; 1 Pet. 5:1).

1. All the apostles were given the same authority Peter had (Matt. 18:18).

2. Ability to remit and retain sins (by being allowed to reveal the gospel terms of pardon) was given to all the apostles (John 20:23).

3. Paul was not behind the chiefest apostles (2 Cor. 11:5; 12:11).

F. Peter was a married man (Matt. 8:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

G. It cannot be proved that Peter was ever in the city of Rome.

1. Paul wrote the letter to the Roman Christians. In it he saluted 27 people but not Peter. In the Roman letter he did not mention the pope.

2. Paul wrote four books from Rome but never mentioned Peter or the papacy.

3. Peter wrote two books of the New Testament. He did not mention Rome or the pope.

4. No other writer of the New Testament ever mentions Peter and Rome together.

Conclusion:

1. As we close this lesson, we need to be reminded of these basic principles:

a. John 8:32.

b. John 17:17.

c. 2 John 9-11.

d. John 12:48.

2. There is not a commodity more precious than truth. May we search for it, believe it, and obey it.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, pp. 360-362
June 16, 1988

By James W. Adams

In my first full time local work in Vivian, Louisiana during 1935-37, Gertrude and I, being romantic newlyweds, listened with great appreciation to a beautiful, popular love song which was sung constantly over the radio. It was popularized by a Bing Crosby recording, but we heard it sung mostly by a woman singer by the name of Lee, and she gave to it a haunting beauty that lingers yet in our minds after all these years. It was called, “Red Sails in the Sunset.”

A few days ago, I ran across a statement from the pen of a nineteenth century, English preacher by the name of Alexander Foote which brought “our song” back to memory. He said, “Of all the passions that possess mankind, the love of novelty rules most the mind; in search of this from realm to realm we roam, our fleets come fraught with every folly home. ” His figurative description of the results of an inordinate love for novelty suggested “Red Sails in the Sunset” as an appropriate title for this article.

Red is a symbol of danger. Couple this with Foote’s observation that the “fleets” of the love of novelty roam the world in search of the new and different and come home “fraught with ever folly,” and you have the thrust of this article. Among conservative Christians today (encouraged by preachers) ~there is a growing affinity for the new and different and a commensurate lack of enthusiasm for just plain old Jerusalem gospel. We are caught up in the backwash of the “Social Gospel,” but perish the thought that we should acknowledge it. When I observe that large crowds will gather to hear a discussion of current social problems ninety percent of which is psychology, sociology, and human opinion supported by generous citations of secular authorities in these fields and ten percent Scripture to give it doctrinal respectability, and embarrassingly small crowds gather to hear a Bible discussion of the great fundamentals of God’s eternal scheme for the redemption of sinners, the correctness of the observation made above (i.e., “we are caught up in the backwash of the Social Gospel”) is incontrovertible.

That we are to be governed by the Bible in social relationships is not denied, consequently, the fact that it is our duty to teach every Bible principle relating to them I accept without argument. However, there is a vast difference between preaching what the Scriptures teach on these matters, and discussing them and seeking solutions of problems in this realm from the standpoint of human philosophy, psychology, and sociology. For example, it is the duty of the “older women to teach the younger women to be keepers at home” (Tit. 2:4,5). No one denies that this is a work in which a church as such may engage. Yet, this does not justify a church as such arranging, advertising, and conducting a course in “home economics.” A church must teach people to “maintain good works for necessary uses” (Tit. 3:14) and “to labor, working with their hands the thing which is good, that they may have to give to them that have need” (Eph. 4:28), but this does not authorize a church to arrange, advertise, and conduct courses in carpentry, plumbing, and secretarial science. It would seem that conservative brethren, of all people, should recognize this, but it appears they do not!

I commonly hear such expressions as: “Church of Christ doctrine; Church of Christ tradition; we need to project a new image of the church or change the image of the church; continuous cleansing; all of us are brethren in error, hence we should broaden our acceptance and participation in religion to include the pious among the denominations; a church is not an organic functional entity; any act peculiar to being a Christian may be performed by both the individual or a church.” These are but a few of the novel concepts vocalized foreign to the Scriptures. There are many more that space forbids mentioning, all of which, in my judgment, constitute “red sails” of Novelty’s “fleet” bringing home from the far reaches of the ocean of religious confusion about us cargoes of “folly” that may well presage the “sunset” of our efforts to maintain simple, uncorrupted, New Testament Christianity in faith and practice.

On one of the pages of a book in my library, “The New Dictionary of Thoughts,” I wrote some years ago, “Somewhere between the chains of mere human tradition and the charms of novelty lies the certainty of truth.” This is not true because I wrote it, but I wrote it because it is true. Things are not right because they are old and traditional, neither are they wrong. It is just as true that things are not wrong because they are new, but neither are they right. Things are right or wrong in religion to the extent that they are in harmony or out of harmony with revealed truth contained in the Scriptures.

The young woman of the song to which reference has been made prayed earnestly that “red sails in the sunset might bring her lover home safe.” We should, conversely speaking, watch and pray lest the “red sails” of Novelty’s ships load us down with the self-destructive “folly” of the wild fanaticism, rampant emotionalism, and open fellowship of socially evolving, modern Christendom and derail us from the safe tracts of a “Thus saith the Lord.”

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 13, pp. 385, 407
July 7, 1988

By Wayne S. Walker

One of the unconscious phrases that tells so much about the condition of our society is the response that one receives from many when talking about a young couple a few years after their marriage. “Oh, are they still together?” The prevalence of divorce is one of our great national tragedies. However, this problem is not limited to those “in the world.” We hear with increasing frequency of those in the church, even gospel preachers, becoming involved in a divorce situation. The immorality so rampant in the world usually finds it way among members of the church. Why is this so? The answer is temptation. The apostle Paul said that the Old Testament was written for our learning. In this article let us look at an example of one who met and overcame temptation.

Turn to Genesis 39:1-23 so that we may study about Joseph and temptation. Most of us, I am sure, are familiar with the story of Joseph. He was the eleventh of twelve sons in the family of Jacob. Because he was the older son of Jacob’s beloved Rachel, his father showed him favoritism which provoked jealousy on the part of his older brothers. Eventually, Joseph’s brothers sold him to a band of Ishmaelites or Midianites, who in turn took him to Egypt and sold him to Potiphar, the captain of Pharaoh’s guard. Though but a slave, he proved so trustworthy that his master made him the overseer of his house. But Potiphar’s wife cast lustful eyes on Joseph and presented him with temptation. There are three characters in this story who need to be considered.

I Potiphar’s wife was a temptress. We have other examples of seductive women in the Bible. Tamar tempted her father-in-law Judah to commit fornication (Gen. 39). Delilah apparently seduced Samson to enter into an illicit relationship with her which ultimately resulted in his downfall (Judg. 16). Bathsheba lured David to engage in adultery (2 Sam. 11). Of course, David’s actions constituted sin, but one of the unanswered questions of God’s word is, what was Bathsheba doing bathing herself in a place that was in full view of the king’s rooftop where he very likely was often to be found? Nothing said here is intended to diminish the sinfulness of the behavior of any of the men mentioned but, as one of my history teachers said, it takes two to tango!

To me, Potiphar’s wife is an excellent example of the kind of woman that Solomon described and warned against in Proverbs 7:10-14 (and with seven-hundred wives and three-hundred concubines, Solomon ought to know): “And there a woman met him, With the attire of a harlot, and a crafty heart. She was loud and rebellious, Her feet would not stay at home. At times she was outside, at times in the open square, Lurking at every comer. So she caught him and kissed him; With an impudent face she said to him: ‘I have peace offerings with me; Today I have paid my vows.”‘ I hate to sound “down on women” too much, but I fear that there are far too many ladies in the church today who, unconsciously I hope, are leaving the impression with men that they are “easy” or like harlots by the way they dress, act, and speak. The feminism and freedom for women that characterizes today’s society has had far too great an impact on those who are to be godly women. For example, I am appalled just at what some young women wear to church services, let alone what they probably wear in other places.

The New Testament ad dresses this subject. Certain ly, men are to guard their hearts that they do not look at a woman to lust after her and thus commit adultery with her in their heart (Matt. 5:28). But women should help the men in this area by adorning themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation (1 Tim. 2:9). Godly women will not seek to make themselves attractive to others solely on the basis of their outward appearance, whether it be by gaudy dress or by skimpy attire, but rather on the basis of “the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God” (1 Pet. 3:34). While it is unfortunate, it is also true that young men may desire a certain kind of girl to date but another kind of girl to marry. Young ladies who are Christians will strive to be the kind of girl that they want to marry.

II. Joseph was the one faced with the temptation. We, too, are faced with all sorts of temptation today. We need to understand the nature of temptation and the consequences of yielding to it. “But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death” (Jas. 1:14-15). Temptation is made possible because of the lusts within us. That is why John tells us not to love the world with its lust of the flesh, Just of the eyes, and pride of life (1 Jn. 2:15-17). And the end result of giving in to temptation is death – not just physical death, although that is sometimes the case, but spiritual, eternal death (Rom. 6:23; Rev. 21:8).

Like many do today, Joseph could have offered excuses to justify his going ahead with Potiphar’s wife. He might have reasoned, “I’m young and have a right to sow a few wild oats.” In fact, Joseph was sold into Egyptian slavery at the tender age of seventeen. But he understood the principle stated by Paul in 1 Timothy 4:12: “Let no one despise your youth, but be an example of the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” He might have thought, “I’m far away from home and no one else will ever know.” Unfortunately, other people usually do learn of our sins. “And be sure your sin will find you out” (Num. 32:23). And even if no one else on earth will ever know, God will know (Psa. 139:7-12). Or he might have said, “It’s my own life and I’ll do with it whatever I want to.” But that is not true, especially for the child of God. “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

Rather than throwing in the towel, Joseph overcame this temptation by saying, “No!”, by exercising self-control. Whenever we are faced with a temptation like Joseph, whether it be to commit fornication, drink alcoholic beverages, abuse drugs, watch pornographic movies, read filthy literature, tell dirty jokes, lie, cheat, steal, disobey the laws of the land, or whatever, may we have the courage of our convictions that characterized Joseph to stand by the principles of righteousness that we know to be true from God’s word. “And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. Therefore . . . I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified” (1 Cor. 9:25-27).

III. The third character in this story that needs our consideration is God. Joseph recognized that to lie with Potiphar’s wife would in fact be a sin against God. Yes, it would be a great wickedness against Potiphar’s wife, against Potiphar himself, against Joseph’s own body, and against Joseph’s family who brought him up to do better, as well. But all sin is primarily against God. When David sinned with Bathsheba he acknowledged in his prayer to the Lord, “Against You, You only, have I sinned, And done this evil in Your sight” (Psa. 51:4). Whenever we think about doing something that is a sin, we need to consider that it will be a violation of the very will of God himself (1 Jn. 3:4). That might help us stop and think twice before doing it.

Yes, God knows when we sin. And God hates the sin that we commit. But God also wants to help us overcome sin. Jehovah is not some mean, nasty taskmaster who is just waiting for us to sin so that he can gleefully mark it down in his little black book and then look forward with joy to casting us into hell because of it forever and ever. He has promised us assistance. “No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it” (1 Cor. 10:13). However, it is up to us to find that way of escape that we might take advantage of the Lord’s aid. “Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:16).

How does God provide this help, this way of escape? One way is through his word that he has revealed to us. David wrote, “Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You” (Psa. 119:11). In this written word we have an account of the life of Jesus who left “us an example, that you should follow His steps: Who committed no sin, Nor was guile found in His mouth” (1 Pet. 2:21-22). Jesus was tempted in all points like we are, so he understands what we have to endure; yet, he did so without sin (Heb. 4:15). When Jesus faced those temptations, he resisted Satan by relying upon God’s word. “It is written. . . . It is written again. . . . For it is written” (Matt. 4:1-11). If we develop this same dependence upon the Scriptures and use them as Jesus did, we can “resist the devil and he will flee from” us (Jas. 4:7).

Conclusion

I cannot think of a finer example, apart from our Lord, of how to meet and overcome temptation than Joseph, unless it be Daniel and his three friends. I would hope that, as we seek to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, their main heroes will not be war generals, television actors, movie stars, or rock singers, but the great men and women of faith found in God’s word. These stories are recorded to thrill our hearts, raise our hopes, and strengthen our resolve to keep ourselves unspotted from the world. May we turn to them often for comfort and encouragement in our struggles against temptation and sin. And may they draw us closer to the Lord that we might be more like him who died to save us from our sins.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, pp. 364-365
June 16, 1988