Truth Magazine

By Wayne S. Walker

The Old Testament is filled with examples for our learning. Some of these examples illustrate positive precepts that God expects us to imitate. Others contain negative admonitions of behavior that God wants us to avoid. The experience of Cain falls into the latter category. The story of Cain and Abel, the first two sons of Adam and Eve, is found in Genesis 4:3-8. Cain became a tiller of the ground and Abel became a keeper of sheep. Evidently, God commanded them to bring an offering. Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock, while Cain brought of toe fruit of the ground. It is here that the trouble begins.

I We may learn about obedience. “And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering.” Why? To answer this, we need to see the importance of faith to obedience. Abel offered by faith (Heb. 11:4). We know that faith comes only by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10: 17). Thus, the Lord must have specified what kind of offering he desired. Abel followed the Lord’s instructions, acting by faith, and was blessed. Cain acted out of rejection of and rebellion to God’s wishes. 1 John 3:12 tells us that Cain’s works were evil while his brother’s were righteous.

The lesson for us is that we also must “walk by faith” (2 Cor. 5:7). This, of course, applies to everything that we do, but it should be applied especially to the realm of religion. To do so, we must strive to please God, not ourselves or. other men (Gal. 1:10). Furthermore, we must accept God’s word as final authority and do nothing outside what is revealed. (2 Jn. 9). The same kinds of arguments that are made to justify instrumental music in worship today could have been used by Cain to justify his vegetable offering. So far as we know, God did not say “not to.” But he did ‘specify what he wanted. Therefore, he rejected Cain’s substitute.

II. We can learn about anger. When Cain did wrong and displeased God, he became upset. Actually, it was God who had the tight to be angry with Cain’s disobedience. But we are told, “And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. So the LORD said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?'” Cain directed his anger towards righteous Abel. It has always been quite common for those who have turned away from God to be angry with those who are following God. Paul asked those among the Galatians who had .been bewitched by a different gospel, “Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16). Cain’s anger turned i4to jealousy and envy which then became hatred and malice.

What we need to learn is to be careful of anger. Yes, there are times when righteous anger is in order. However, even in these situations we must understand that we should “be angry, and do not sin: do not let the sun go down on your wrath” (Eph. 4:26). Rather, we must work to control our anger, “For the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (Jas. 1:19-20). Moreover, we must not allow our anger to become envying, which is a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:21). Nor should we ever allow anger to linger until it turns to malice harbored in our hearts (Eph. 4:31). Cain could have used his anger constructively to motivate him to do better. Rather, he let it lead him down the wrong path.

III. We may learn about sin. God described sin to Cain as not doing well. “And if you do not do well. . . .” It is a transgression of God’s law (1 Jn. 3:4), an act of unrighteousness (1 Jn. 5:17). In addition, sin is enslaving, H.C. Leupold translated v. 7, “And if thou dost not do right, then at the door there is sin, a crouching beast, striving to get at thee, but thou shouldst rule over it.” This statement reminds us that the author of sin, Satan, goes about as a roaring lion, seeking victims to devour (1 Pet. 5:8). Therefore, when we yield ourselves to Satan’s temptations, we become servants of sin (Rom. 6:12-18).

However, this account teaches us that we can “rule over it,” that we can overcome sin by faith (1 Jn. 5:4). In order to do this, we must come to control the lust within us that permits us to be tempted (2 Tim. 2:22; Tit. 2:12; 1 Pet. 2:11). We must also strive to avoid opportunities where we will be tempted to sin (Jas. 1:13-16). And we must also learn, when we are faced with temptations, to resist the devil by saying, “No” (Jas. 4:7). In addition, we must look to God’s word for strength (Psa. 119:11). This is what Jesus did when he was tempted (Matt. 4). We do not have to sin in the manner that Cain did. Rather, we can follow the example of our Savior and conquer Satan.

Conclusion

Let us remember that sin Is progressive. Cain began with a seemingly innocent act of disobedience. This led to anger, jealousy, and hatred, which eventually culminated in the sin of murder. While sin in our lives may not result in so drastic an act, each of us is faced with two choices. Either he can go the way of Cain, living a life of disobedience and sin. Or he may follow the example of Abel in his faith and obedience. It is the little decisions that we make along the way start us on one road or the other. Therefore, we need to be careful of even these “little things.” And when we do sin, we need to be grateful that God has made it possible for us to have forgiveness and to avail ourselves of that privilege before we become hardened in our sin. If we do this, we will benefit from the experience of Cain.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 4, p. 106
February 18, 1988

By Lewis Willis

Educators have subjected the youth of America to a ghastly experiment. About 1960, 5.3 percent of the births in this country were illegitimate. Armed with this statistic, sociologists, doctors and educators sought to address the problem. The “door of opportunity” which opened to them was the introduction into the curriculum of the public schools of courses in “Sex Education.” This development was fought courageously by parents and religious leaders, but their opposition was ignored. Off the schools went to solve this great problem of illegitimacy.

The rationale used to defend the practice of teaching “Sex Education” was that parents are not teaching their children “the facts of life.” Chrissy France, of Planned Parenthood of Akron, recently said, “Parents often hesitate to talk to their kids because they feel that will encourage them to have sex” (Akron Beacon Journal, 10-15-87). Surveys show that only 10 to 20 percent of parents talk with their children about sex. “The facts of life” are picked up, they reasoned, from friends in the street, television, books and magazines, rather than from parents. Their solution was to begin sex training in the schools. According to the article referred to, in Akron, all students get their first dose of sex education in the fifth grade. And, guess what, the parents were right after all. More exposure to sex has encouraged children to have sex. In fact, the article states that “national studies have shown that about 50 percent of high school students are sexually active. I jus is true in spite of the scare of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

We now have had about 25 years in which to gather data on this experiment. It is evident that it has failed miserably! The figures which are now available should send shock waves through every American’s mind. An Associated Press article out of New York, written by George W. Cornell, reports the latest figures on what sex education has done for us (Akron Beacon Journal, 10-10-87). In 1940, 3.5 percent of births were to unwed women. In 1960, the proportion of such births was only 5.3 percent. We then began to see the influence of sex education and the attendant moral decline in our nation. By 1980, unwed births had climbed to 18.4 percent of the total. By 1985, which is the latest count available, 22 percent of the total births in the U.S. were to unwed mothers. “The unwed births, coupled with the current 1.5 million abortions annually, mostly for the unmarried, raises the porportion of unwed pregnancies to about half of the total” of births in the U.S. Jesus said, ” . . . by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:20). Nationally, we are drowning in the ungodly fruits of our educators’ experiment! One wonders if it is possible to raise a loud enough opposition to the practice to enable us to go back to “the good ole days” of the 40s and 50s.

In case you are wondering what the response of “organized religion” has been to this tragedy, I am afraid I have bad news to share with you. Generally speaking, the response of religion, according to Mr. Cornell, is to attempt to take the “stigma” out of this sad situation. The reasoning given is that “there are now so many such children” that we need to use a form of reference to the situation that removes the embarrassment that formerly was associated with this sin. In the Scriptures, and in early literature, “bastards” was the term used to refer to children born out of wedlock (Heb. 12:8). However, “itching ears” sought teachers who would tone down their “rehetoric,” even if it resulted in being “turned bad as it used to unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:3-4). These children began to be referred to as “illegitimate.” This still was not good enough. The Associated Press informs us that the “church community” now refers to the child a “child of a single parent.” Mother and child are known as a “singleparent family.” As the statistics indicate, man’s modified terminology has come as illegitimate births have soared. Man’s nice, sweet language has not only gotten better than the Lord’s, it has left the impression with many that fornication is not as be considered.

I was just thinkin, if we keep going the direction we are going as a nation, within a few generations we will convince ourselves that we have thought and taught sin out of existence. We, in the Lord’s church, must not get too smug about this situation. Across the nation there are few churches that have not had one or more young Christian boys and girls fall victim to the temptation to commit fornication. For the young mother and her child, there is no adequate solution to the problem. Brethren, we must continue and intensify our teaching and preaching on the sin of fornication, filling the hearts of our youth with the fear of God while warning that those who “do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21). Forgiveness is possible, but it does not remove the scars and consequences that fornication brings. Parents have every right to expect the church to help them fight the battle against fornication! Let us not disappoint them.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 4, p. 102
February 18, 1988

By Aude McKee

You get a telephone call – one of the members of the church is seriously ill. Perhaps the first thing that comes to your mind is, “What would we do without him/her?” And then you begin to think about all those dedicated and faithful Christians who are not ill. Which of those would you be willing to give up?

My mother was born in 1882 and back in her school days the theory was widely held that a good education put stress on building character. This meant that the school books were filled with stories and poems designed to make boys and girls better, Up almost to the day of her death (at age 95), she often would recite poems or tell stories that she had learned in school more than eighty years before. One of the stories that always impressed me was the one about a mother of eight or ten children who lost her husband. She lacked the Ability to feed and clothe that many children adequately, and since there were people in the community who were willing to take some of the children, she had to decide which ones to give up. She began with John, the oldest, but how could she do without him? He cut the wood and mowed the yard. Then there was Sally, the next to oldest. But she couldn’t spare Sally – Sally was the best dishwasher to be found anywhere. As she labored over her decision she found a good reason why she couldn’t part with any of the boys and girls until she finally came to little Billy. He was only two and about as mean as a two-year-old could get. She thought about Billy for a long time and then she finally said, “I can’t let Billy go. Nobody but a mother could love Billy.”

I’m not sure how well that story fits what we are trying to say in this article, but every member of the body is necessary to its proper functioning. All of us are different. We have different personalities and widely varying capabilities but that doesn’t make any of us less necessary to the health of the local church. Occasionally you may come across someone who has an inflated estimate of his/her importance to the church, but more often it is the other way round. Too many times a faithful child of God feels unimportant, unnecessary, in the way. Perhaps he/she can’t do what was possible in the past because of age or health problems, but as the old song says, “There is room in the kingdom of God for you my brother, for the small things that you can do. Just a small kindly deed that may cheer another, is the work God has planned for you. Just a cup of cold water in His name given, may the hope in some heart renew. Do not wait to be told nor by sorrow driven, to the work God has planned for you.” Then the chorus ends with the words, “There is work that we all can do. “

The Holy Spirit said it so beautifully in 1 Corinthians 12: “The eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble are necessary” (vv. 21-22).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 4, p. 101
February 18, 1988

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Is it scriptural for a church to set aside part of its treasury for investments such as mutual funds, stocks, bonds, etc.?

Reply: The matter of a church having a bank account, and whether or not the account draws interest, is incidental. This has been discussed.

The question as to whether or not it is scriptural for the church to seek out investments that will make money for the church is an entirely different matter. When a church undertakes to invest in real estate, mutual funds, stocks, bonds, etc. to increase the treasury, it assumes a work which God has not authorized. The primary work of the church is to preach the gospel that souls will be saved.

The New Testament teaches that the local church is to preach the gospel (1 Tim. 3:14, 15), provide for the benevolent needs of the saints for whom it is responsible (Rom. 15:25,26; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8,9, etc.) and to edify the saints by Bible teaching. Money to do this threefold work is to be raised by the individual members contributing their money upon the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 9:7). This is God’s plan for raising the necessary funds for the church to do its work. The church is not to raise its money by promotional schemes such as pie suppers and quilt sales. Neither is the church to raise its money by seeking out investments. These do not fit into the Lord’s plan.

The church is not in the entertainment business; nor does God authorize his church to provide recreational facilities such as ping pong tables, basketball and volleyball courts, youth camps, etc. These things do not constitute the work of the church. Neither does seeking out investments to enlarge its treasury constitute the work of the church.

Investments such as those named above may be made by individuals, but not by the Lord’s church. Again, it is a matter of recognizing the difference between what the individual may scripturally do and what the church may scripturally do (how it may spend its money). If this distinction is made and properly applied, confusion about the church and its work will be removed.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 4, p. 101
February 18, 1988