Truth Magazine

By Donald P. Ames

In our last article we discussed the misuse some make of Proverbs 23:13-14. We noted that God expects us to be fair; and to have love, mercy, and pity in dealing with our children. We further note that if we made more effort in instructive discipline, corrective discipline would not be as frequently required of us. Now, let us note some guidelines that can be helpful in applying discipline.

First of all, while spanking may be a scriptural method of discipline, it is not the only way to discipline (i.e.: it is not an exclusive method). Every child is different, and some may respond to a hard look or word of rebuke just as easily (just as we withdraw fellowship spiritually for church discipline – not just hit them over the head with a club). Some, having become used to constant discipline, do not pay any attention at all to it, but may respond quickly to a show of affection – or to the loss of TV for an evening or to “write 10 times. . . . ” Others can be motivated with special privileges (“Get his done for me, and you can go special this week end”), but one must beware that you do not get caught up in the trap of having to bribe to get anything done. Sometimes, a special hug and being told how much a good job done means does more than any other reward can do! God also motivates us with both the fear for not obeying and a response to the love He manifested to us too (Matt. 25:46; 1 Jn. 4:10-11).

When corrective discipline is required, where possible, it should be done immediately. This is important for several reasons: (1) To the child. If we merely threaten, then never do, a child soon assumes there will be no consequences (Eccl. 8: 11). Or, maybe they will conclude that they can talk their way out of the discipline if given enough time and get their own way regardless. Or they may decide that since they have it coming, why not get away with all they can in the meantime and make it “worthwhile.” (2) To the parent. This prevents you from allowing many little things to keep building up to the point you are pushed into over-reacting by compensating for “all those other things” when you finally do respond, and maybe punishing far more than the deed done deserves. It may also reduce the need for such when it is learned you mean what you say.

Punishment should be in proportion to the thing done. A lamp is a lamp is a lamp. But one broken because you tripped over a foot-stool or accidently bumped it while using the vacuum is not the same as one broken because you wouldn’t quit throwing the ball in the house. An egg broken is not parallel in punishment to a priceless vase. Make the punishment fair and in proportion to the problem at hand – not to all they have done in the last month. Also be sure the problem is that they are really bad and/or disobedient, and not that you are tired and/or have had a bad day at work.

Another point is that pre-planning our punishment can help us avoid “losing control.” Do not merely “react,” but properly weigh and evaluate what is a fair response. If we have pre-determined the punishment is “1 swat,” “3 swats,” or “6 swats,” and then anger begins building and we’d like to give another “39 swats,” quit where you decided in advance regardless. This will not only help you exercise self-control, but avoid getting “out of control.” It is also a good way to avoid over punishing. (“For not doing the dishes, you can’t go anywhere for a whole month.” Now, really?)

Do not make broad, unfair accusations that are not germane to the issue at hand (“You never do anything I tell you to do”). Nor should you, make unfair comparisons with other family members. (“Why can’t you show half the intelligence of your brother?”) Destroying one’s self respect and confidence – is another “no-no” (“You never could do anything right”). Not only is it usually untrue, unkind, and unfair; but it breeds resentment and rebellion – not the desired change. Treat them as you would like to be treated by your boss or companion (Matt. 7:12).

Do not go against your companion! Children quickly learn to play one parent against the other. Support your companion’s decision – and if there are differences, discuss them later in private. If a child learns he can play one parent against the other, the weaker one will become “fair game” for bargaining against the other and a constant effort to wear down to get what they want (and probably do not deserve, if being corrected).

Lastly, always let it be known you still love them, and why they have to be corrected. “It hurts me more than it does you” is often true, and is a statement only a parent can appreciate. But, if we fail to manifest that love, and show only anger and/or carry a grudge for a week, the child responds accordingly. A poor example has been set before him, and barriers erected instead of torn down. Be ready to forgive later when they come around – just as God forgives us (Psa. 130:3; Ezek. 33:11; 1 Jn. 1:9).

May these random thoughts help all of us be better parents in fulfilling the role God gave us. They have helped me in getting them together, and if they have profited you half as much, the effort has been indeed worthwhile.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 4, p. 116
February 19, 1987

By Robert F. Turner

Every conscientious gospel preacher with some years of experience has faced the troubling decision about very young people who ask to be baptized. We are happy to see them walk resolutely down the aisle; our hearts are warmed by their innocent confidence; we feel a tie to our own childhood as we put our arms around them and hear them express their desire to become a Christian. But as we consider their tender years we wonder if they are subject to and capable of understanding and making this momentous decision.

We know the error of infant baptism. “Go teach all nations, baptizing them. . .,” i.e., the “taught” (Matt. 28:19). Baptism is not a ritual that, of itself, removes sins or puts one into Christ. It is an obedience of faith, deliberately chosen as a result of learning our lost condition, and submitting our will to the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. “Repent, and be baptized. . . ” is commanded of sinners (Acts 2:38). It calls upon them to regret and truly turn from their past ways, to embrace life as “new creatures.” I recall trying to talk to a very young girl who had requested baptism, and being repeatedly interrupted by the girl’s mother who had accompanied her to the front. When I asked the young child if she felt she had sins that needed to be forgiven, the mother was outraged. “Sins?” she blurted. “Why, she is much to young to have sins, and you should know that.” I suspected it, hence the questions. But neither of us believed in inherited sin, so, why should she be baptized?

We can not know the heart or the initial accountability of another. We do not “administer” baptism by some priestly authority, so there is no “official” decision to be made. It is probably the wiser course to assist all who come of their own will, requesting baptism; and this is my usual practice. But there are times when one can not help but wonder if we practice infant baptism. Those “brought up in the church” may learn by rote and example certain conducts, including baptism, which they do not understand and therefore can not “obey from the heart.” And many of us have seen peer pressure bring to the baptistry young children, who later will acknowledge they “did it because Jane, or Bob, did it.” All of us better understand the gospel as. we grow in grace and knowledge; but does this warrant “infant membership” with “confirmation” years later?

Make no hasty answer, for there is yet another side to the story. I have also seen the super cautious approach cause tender young hearts to despair. Their request may be an early indication of maturing, a beginning of the individuality and independence we wish to encourage. We must be careful lest we squelch the very spirit on which we must build full grown Christian character. Furthermore, the tender heart which is easily impressed with right and wrong, responds readily to ideals. That heart which is so very impressionable now, will one day be burdened by the crass materialism all about us. Do not expect the public schools, or the streets, to guide this plastic mind in God’s direction. The child we persuade to “wait,” will later approach the gospel with a more calloused heart, and may never come.

Amid the many unanswered problems of our subject are some clear lessons. There is room for improvement in our teaching, and for more careful application of the gospel to our hearers. Little children may learn “believe, repent, confess, be baptized” by rote, and not grasp the more basic concept of truth in the Lord, or the real meaning of obedience. But is not this also true of adults who have little or no religious background, and who are being introduced to Bible teaching? In our haste to “close the deal” may we not practice “infant” baptism on them also. Our film strip home studies, in the hands of inexperienced teachers, may stir emotions and push for baptism before the subject is truly penitent and the “old man” ready for burial (Rom. 6:6-11). We must somehow dig below the surface and produce genuine dedication to Christ as Lord.

We have no quarrel with “make it simple”; the big question is, make what simple? We must stress the real meaning of sin, of Christ as Savior, and of faith in Him. Catholicism gave the “church” the role of Savior; and denominations gave it the role of Social Club. Both these roles must be negated and our hearers made to understand that Christians are a, “called out” people, wholly given to the worship and service of their king in every aspect of their life. It will take straight intelligent preaching to make the gospel understood, and applicable to proper subjects of its message.

Nor do we advocate catechism or specific indoctrination courses prior to baptisms. As previously stated, all come to Christ as babes in some sense, and are expected to grow thereafter. Rather, we would emphasize that in this day “Christianity” and “church” have been so perverted in the public mind we may be deceiving ourselves when we report “converted to Christ.” We might give a more honest report by including a section in our Directory headed, “Infant Membership.”

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 5, p. 135
March 5, 1987

By Frank Jamerson

Recently I visited a brother who had decided that he could not worship with a congregation because preachers misunderstood the Bible and would not agree with his ideas. In fact, he had decided that it was wrong to have preachers at all! He asked me if I was a preacher “sent” by God like the ones mentioned in Romans 10. I told him that I was not, because that is talking about the original messengers who were moved by the Spirit to reveal God’s message. I do not know what he expected me to say, but he had already made up his mind that since we do not have Spirit-guided men today we should not have preachers.

I thought that it would be good to get him with brother Charles Holt and the other preachers who oppose elders being appointed in churches and maybe they could get rid of the preachers as well as the elders, and all our problems would be solved! It would be interesting to hear them preach that we should not preach! (The man I visited did most of the “preaching” while I was there!) This doctrine would fit well with the doctrine that says elders should not oversee treasuries, so we will establish a treasury to be overseen by preachers to teach that it is wrong to have treasuries!

But, what about preachers? Does it follow that since the word is used to refer to those who revealed the message that we should not have preachers today? When Jesus commissioned the apostles to go into all the world, He said, “teach,” “baptize,” and “teach them” to do likewise (Matt. 28:18-20). After the church was established, and persecution arose, those who were scattered “went everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4). All these disciples did not have to be endowed with miraculous gifts to “teach” what they knew. Paul wrote the Corinthians that “through the foolishness of the message preached” (1 Cor. 1:21), those who believed could be saved. Does one have to be “moved by the Spirit” in order to preach this message? If so, then miraculous gifts must continue, or else the preaching of the gospel must cease!

Every Christian has a responsibility to teach, as he has ability and opportunity. Those who spend their time in doing this may scripturally be supported to do this work. “Even so did the Lord ordain that they that proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:14). Paul “made tents” on occasions (Acts 18:1-3), and on other occasions received “wages” from churches (2 Cor. 11:8).

But, why did “no preachers” remind me of “no elders”? Simply because it involves the same kind of perverting the Scripture. It is true that we do not have the same kind of “preachers” that Romans 10 discusses, but that does not prove that it is wrong for men to preach and even be supported for doing so. Likewise, it is true that the word “elder” sometimes refers to age and may refer to women as well as men. When Paul said, “Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father; the younger men as brothers, the older women as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity” (1 Tim. 5:1,2 NASV), he was speaking of age. Does this prove that there is no such thing in the Bible as men who meet certain qualifications being appointed as overseers in churches? Certainly not!

Back in 1970, I asked brother Holt if women could be bishops in the church, and he answered “yes.” His contention was, and still is, that there is no such thing as a special work of “elders” who meet God-given qualifications. To him, and others who have accepted this view, “elder” simply refers to age and includes women as well as men who “grow into” the leadership by spiritual maturity. The qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are completely irrelevant. How could a woman be the “husband of one wife”? Why say that a bishop must not be a “novice” (new convert), if he is simply an older Christian who has grown into leadership? How could he be both a “novice” and seasoned by age at the same time? The Bible teaches that men who meet the qualifications of the Spirit are to be appointed in “every church” (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5). A man or woman may be “elderly” without being appointed as a bishop in the church, just as a person may be a preacher of the word without being the kind mentioned in Romans 10.

It seems that when preachers do not like the decisions of elders or find some who are unqualified and dictatorial, they decide that the abuse justifies rejection of the system. Maybe elders should get together and start a paper “examining” preachers. They could contend that modern-day preachers do not fit the description of Romans 10, and could probably come up with a few dictatorial and unreasonable men who use their “office” (work) to get their way. They might even find a few who are hypocrites. Surely this would be grounds to reject the whole system! But, on second thought, if these elders began preaching that we cannot have preachers, some would no doubt see the inconsistency of it!

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 4, p. 105
February 19, 1987

By Mike Willis

And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thystim, which worshiped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us (Acts 16:14-15).

In these two short verses, the conversion of Lydia is recorded. She joins the few women mentioned in the Bible. Like most of the rest who are mentioned, she was a significant person. Among the women of the Bible are Deborah who led Israel in battle against Sisera, captain of the Canaanites, Esther who saved her nation from extinction under wicked Haman, Rahab who declared her faith in Jehovah’s ability to conquer Canaan by hiding the two spies, Mary who gave birth to Jesus, Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist, and many others – all of whom are significant and important people.

Lydia’s Moral Character

Lydia was a princess in character, although not in station. She is described as a “seller of purple,” referring either to purple fabric or purple dye used to color the fabric. In either case, she was a business woman dealing with the upper class in her society; hence, she was a woman of some means. Like the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31, she sold her goods in the market place.

She is described as a “worshiper of God.” The significance of that might not impress us at first glance. She was not a native of Philippi where Paul met her; rather, she was from Thyatira, a city in the province of Asia listed among the seven churches of Asia later in the book of Revelation. Thyatira was approximately 300 miles from Philippi. Unlike many who claim to be Christians, Lydia took her worshiping habit with her when she traveled. Some Christians who worship God regularly while at home seem to leave their religion at home when they travel. They go away to some far city and neglect the worship of God. They are too caught up in their business or recreation to find time to worship God. Lydia was not of that character.

Lydia worshiped on the Sabbath day. Sometimes we forget that the Sabbath day was not universally set aside as a day of worship in New Testament times. The day was set aside for worship in Galilee, Judea, and Samaria. We have no reason or evidence for believing it was observed by the general populace in pagan cities during the first century. Hence, when Lydia closed her shop to “remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy,” she acted differently than was the common practice around her. Her business competitors sold on the Sabbath day. Yet, she did not let her desire for money cause her to forsake her obligations to God on the Sabbath day. Her job was not more important than the service of God. Some Christians excuse themselves from worshiping God on the Lord’s day by saying their obligations to their job take precedence over their obligations to Jehovah. Lydia was not of that character.

Lydia worshiped even though there was no synagogue. As Paul arrived in Philippi, he found no synagogue in which to preach. “And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted ‘ thither” (Acts 16:13). These women worshiped by the river bank because they had no synagogue in Philippi,at which to worship. How many of us would have excused ourselves from our obligations to worship God we’re our business to take us to some far away city where there were no brethren worshiping? Some Christians move into an area where the church is meeting in a store front or old building on the wrong side of town (or even in a nice building at the corner of First and Main) but never worship God. Lydia was not of that character.

Lydia was a hospitable woman. This is shown by her inviting Silas, Timothy, Luke and Paul to stay in her house during their preaching stay in Philippi. How many of our readers are that hospitable? I have visited some congregations which have trouble getting enough members to sign the list to feed the preacher during a meeting. Some congregations with large memberships put the visiting preacher in a motel. There is -nothing sinful with this practice and some preachers prefer to stay in a motel. However, I hope this is not done because there is no one willing to open his home to a visiting preacher. Certainly Lydia was not of that character.

Sometimes we call attention to the moral character of Cornelius prior to his conversion (Acts 10:1-2). He was a devout man who feared God, gave much alms to the people and prayed to God always. Yet, he was a lost man. Friends, Lydia was not one whit behind Cornelius! She was a wonderful person – yet lost in her sins.

“Whose Heart The Lord Opened”

The Scriptures teach that the Lord opened Lydia’s heart (Acts 16:14). This implies that her heart was previously closed in some sense. Some imagine that Lydia’s heart was closed because of original sin – that she was totally depraved. The denominational doctrine of inherited depravity teaches that, as a result of original sin, man is “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil.” Obviously, this is not the sense in which Lydia’s heart was closed. Her offering prayer and assembling with women on the Sabbath day to offer worship to God, demonstrates that she was not “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil.” Whatever the explanation of this text may be, total inherited depravity will not explain the facts.

In what sense was Lydia’s heart closed? Her heart was closed in the same sense as every other Jewish person’s heart was closed toward Christ. Assembling to worship on the Sabbath day is evidence that Lydia was a Jew. As a Jew, she lived in expectation of the coming of the Messiah and, no doubt, shared the typical expectations that the Messiah would be a great military ruler over an earthly kingdom who would overthrow the Roman government and inaugurate the kingdom of Israel with political headquarters in Jerusalem. To such people, the preaching of Christ crucified was a stumbling block (1 Cor. 1:23).

How was Lydia’s heart opened? Lydia’s heart was opened the same way that every other Jew’s heart was opened – through the preaching of the gospel. Notice that Lydia heard Paul preaching before her heart was opened. Hence, Paul preached to Lydia, explaining how Jesus died on Calvary for the sins of mankind. He preached the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to Lydia, even as he preached it to every other person. He preached the message of the, gospel, demonstrating that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies; he showed that Jesus was the Christ. The heart of Lydia which was closed through the mistaken concept of the Messiah was opened through the preaching of Paul which showed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ of prophecy.

If the Lord saves anyone without the preaching of the word of God, Lydia would have been a prime candidate. There is no evidence that there was a single preacher working on the entire continent of Europe. She was good, honest, and sincere in her devotion to God. She desired salvation. She prayed to God. God did not operate directly upon the heart of Lydia to save her from sin. In answer to her prayers, God sent Paul who told her how to be saved. God does not save anyone separate and apart from the word of God.

The Lord Opened Lydia’s Heart

Some teach that the Lord operates directly upon the hearts of men to make them willing and able to receive and obey the gospel. They find comfort in Acts 16:14, supposing that the Lord directly operated on the heart of Lydia to enable her to obey the gospel.

To understand why Luke would record, “whose heart the Lord opened,” we need to carefully consider the context. In Acts 15:40, Paul and Silas began their second missionary journey from Antioch of Syria. When they came to Derbe and Lystra, Timothy joined them (Acts 16:1). After going throughout Phrygia and Galatia, they wanted to go to Asia, but the Holy Spirit forbade them (Acts 16:6). They traveled to Mysia, intending to preach in Bithynia “but the Spirit suffered them not” (Acts 16.7). From thence, they came to Troas where Luke joined them and Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia crying, “Come over into Macedonia, and help us” (Acts 16:9). Concluding that the Lord wanted them to preach in Macedonia (the first recorded instance of preaching in Europe), they sought a ship to travel to Macedonia. They found one which left for Macedonia that very day. They sailed a straight course to Macedonia. The reference to a “straight” course indicates that the ship did not have to “tack” (take a zigzag course); they had a favorable wind which enabled them to cross the Aegean Sea in two days (a return trip in Acts 20:6 took five days).

I can imagine the conversation of the four preachers, Luke, Silas, Timothy, and Paul, as they sailed the Aegean. “We surely were lucky to rind a ship sailing for Macedonia in port at Troas. Who can believe that it just happened to be sailing today and that they had room for us on board? And now, just look at this favorable wind which is blowing! ” Luck and fate had nothing to do with it. The hand of God was working providentially to bring them to Philippi in answer to the prayers of these godly women. When Luke looked back on the circumstances which led to the conversion of Lydia, he wrote, “whose heart the Lord opened.”

Lydia’s Obedience To The Gospel

The Scriptures report that Lydia “attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized. . . ” (Acts 16:14-15). The preaching of the gospel leaves. man with things to attend; the preaching which produces faith (Rom. 10:17) directs man to the obedience of faith (Rom. 1:5; 16:26).

Why was Lydia baptized? The most obvious answer is that Paul’s preaching demanded baptism. Jesus said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15-16). When Lydia heard Paul preaching, she attended to her need for baptism. Lydia is not like that group of men who make excuses for not being baptized. She did not put off to the indefinite tomorrow her obligations to God which should be met today. When she heard the conditions for salvation, she attended to them, being baptized. Her faith led her to obey the gospel.

A Case Of Infant Baptism?

Luke said, “And when she was baptized, and her household. . . ” (Acts 16:15). Some think they see in the household conversions an evidence for infant baptism. The Presbyterian, Albert Barnes wrote,

No mention is made of their having believed, and the case is one that affords a strong presumptive proof that this was an instance of household or infant baptism. . . . It is just such an account as would now be given of the household or family that were baptized on the faith of the parent (Notes on the New Testament: Acts, p. 241).

John Albert Bengel said, “Who can believe that in so many families there was no infant? And that the Jews, who were wont to circumcise, and the Gentiles, who purified them by washings, did not also present them for baptism? (New Testament Word Studies, Vol. 1, p. 860).

The other “household conversions” do not offer as strong evidence for infant baptism as does the household of Lydia. At Cornelius’ household, those who were baptized believed and spoke in tongues (Acts 10:44-48). The household of the Philippian jailor believed and rejoiced in the Lord (Acts 16:34). The household of Stephanus (1 Cor. 1:16) was addicted to the ministry of the word (1 Cor. 16:15). None of these things can infants do. Hence, the records of these household conversions contain statements which exclude infants from the conversion.

Lydia’s household does not constitute evidence that infants were baptized in New Testament times. The word “household” (oikos) means “the inmates of a house, all the persons forming one family, a household.” It would include Lydia and those who worked with her in her trade, including her servants, In order for Acts 16:15 to be evidence for infant baptism, notice the assumptions which must be made:

1. One must assume that Lydia was married. Some business women are unmarried.

2. One must assume that Lydia had children. Some married people do not have children.

3. One must assume that these children were infants. Many children of married people are well past the age of accountability and fully able to make a decision to obey the gospel. If Lydia was married and had children, her children might have been old enough to become Christians.

4. One must assume that Lydia had her children with her in Philippi. She was from Thyatira. Many traveling business people leave their children at home when they make a business trip. Assuming that Lydia was married, she had children, and her children were infants, we still have to assume that she had her children with her.

5. Having granted all of these assumptions, we still have to assume that these infants were baptized. There is nothing in the text that says they were.

Nevertheless, this is the strongest evidence that is available to support infant baptism. Seeing the insufficiency of the evidence, we conclude that infant baptism was not authorized in the New Testament. The truth of the matter is that infant baptism was devised by man because he concluded that infants inherited the sin of Adam and were in need of salvation at birth. Recognizing that man had to be baptized in order to be saved, they concluded that infants also needed to be baptized. Hence, the practice of infant baptism was devised to answer the needs of the unscriptural doctrine of inherited total depravity.

Conclusion

There are many lessons to be learned from Lydia. May her example inspire each of us to attend to the things which God would have us to do. What reason can you offer, which God will accept, for not obeying the gospel? Do not be deceived by Satan into postponing till the future what you know you need to do today!

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 4, pp. 98, 118-119
February 19, 1987