Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

The Lord give mercy onto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: But, when be was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well (2 Tim. 1:16-19).

The Bible records the meanness, hypocrisy and iniquity of Hymanaeus, Alexander, Philetus, Demas, Diotrephes and Alexander the coppersmith, but it also reveals the goodness, sincerity and righteousness of men like Onesiphorus. We can be grateful and thankful for him, Phebe, “Apelles approved in Christ. . . (and) the beloved Persis, which labored in the Lord” (Rom. 16).

Every age and generation has its counterparts to the characters above, both good and bad. Often it is necessary to dwell on the negative, but let us not forget the positive. You may know a Demas or a Diotrephes, but you also know a Dorcas and an Onesiphorus. Thank God for them; pray for them; encourage them; support them (Rom. 16:2). Do not allow a depraved Demas to blind you to a dear Dorcas. For every Philetus there are scores of Phebes. Yes, there was an Ahab, but there was also an Elijah. There was a Jezebel, but there was an Esther. There was a Mrs. Job, but there was a Ruth. Rejoice.

Around the great throne of that endless day, I want to meet Paul, Peter and John, but I also want to see Onesiphorus and Epaphroditus. I want to exult with them in the grace and mercy of God and learn the particulars of their humble courage and selfless sacrifice. Truly, “What joy ’twill be.”

“He Oft Refreshed Me”

Paul had a hard and difficult life. Occasionally, he “despaired even of life” (2 Cor. 1:8). But, then, there was Onesiphorus. “He oft refreshed me.” Like a servant who might wash and gently massage the feet of a weary traveler, Onesiphorus “oft refreshed me.” Note, he often did so. What a blessing are those who can soothe and ease the burdens of trouble and travail. Like a cool breeze at the close of a hot and hard day, Onesiphorus “refreshed” Paul.

Could it be that without the refreshing comfort of men like Onesiphorus that we would not have had men like Paul who finished their course? The following verses may lend Support to that conjecture. ,”Therefore we were comforted in your comfort: yea, and exceedingly the more joyed we for the joy of Titus, because his spirit was refreshed by you all” (2 Cor. 7:13). “I am glad for the coming of Stephanus and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied. For they have refreshed my spirit and yours: therefore acknowledge them that are such” (1 Cor. 16:17,18). “Strive together with me in your prayers to God for me. . . That I may come unto you with joy by the will of God, and may with you be refreshed” (Rom. 15:30-32).

“He . . . Was Not Ashamed”

Paul was an outcast. He was “reviled,” “defamed,” “persecuted,” and “made as the filth of the world” (1 Cor. 4:9-13). He was viewed as a weak, despised fool, even “a pestilent fellow” (Acts 24:5). it would be degrading to one’s standing in the community to be allied and identified with such a man, but Onesiphorus “was not ashamed of my chain.” It took great courage to stand with Paul who was “despised.” Onesiphorus had a family, a “household” (2 Tim. 4:19). What of them? If he had children in school, might they. not be ridiculed because their father assisted and associated with a “jail bird,” a prisoner? Might not his business suffer, or might he not lose his job? These are all real possibilities, but “he. . . was not ashamed of my chain.” Surely, it was such people that the Lord had in mind, when in describing the awesome scenes of Judgment, He said, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Matt. 25:40).

“Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God” (2 Tim. 1:8). “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ” (Rom. 1:16). The ignominious death of Christ was a source of shame. Imagine one who would claim that his spiritual Savior redeemed him by being executed by the state. What power is there in that? What wisdom is there in being put to death by civil authority? See 1 Corinthians 1:18-31. Paul’s chains were for that cause, but Onesiphorus “was not ashamed.”

“He Sought Me Out”

Onesiphorus’ efforts to find Paul were done “very diligently.” It was not an easy task to cut through all the “red tape” in order to visit Paul. It took persistence, but, at last, he found him. Good works and deeds of kindness often require tenacity and boldness. Onesiphorus could have made a lame attempt to see Paul, and at his first rebuff he could have said, “Oh, well, at least I tried.” But he did not; instead, “he sought me out very diligently and found me.”

Our minds drift to the lost sheep, alone in the wilderness. The shepherd will not be thwarted by thorns and thistles. Onward he lunges and plunges until he hears feint and weak bleats and pleas of fear. With renewed spirit, he forges on, issuing words of reassurance with every step. Finally, he rescues his wandering one and embraces its shivering, quivering frame against his comforting breast. Can we not see Paul, stranded and abandoned, as he first views the brave Onesiphorus? With chains and shackles he rises to greet his beloved benefactor. His body is bound but his spirit is now free and unfettered by the blessed appearance of Onesiphorus. For, a moment, the painful memories of Phygellus and Hermogenes who forsook him are forgotten. Oh, blissful moment! Oh, glad reunion!

“How Many Things He Ministered”

We can only surmise the “many things,” the many ways, that Onesiphorus ministered unto Paul. Perhaps, again around the throne of heaven, we can ask Timothy, for he knew these things “very well.” Onesiphorus probably would not tell us.

There is a message in this for all of us. Such service will not go unnoticed by Him who sees the sparrow fall. “For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love, which ye have showed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints and do minister” (Heb. 6:10). “Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:26-28). If the Lord of us all ministered unto all, what should we, who are Lord of no one, do?

“The Lord Give Mercy”

Assuredly, Paul’s prayer that, “The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day,” will be granted. We speak confidently in this regard, for our Lord Himself hath promised, “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy” (Matt. 5:7).

All of us need prayers for mercy. Is there not someone you have neglected to pray for? Good and godly souls are frequently neglected in our prayers. We assume that their grace and piety need nothing from us. But if a man of Onesiphorus’ stature was the object and subject of the great apostle’s prayers, should we not also pray for those whom we esteem and admire in the work of the Lord? Yes, but why should we? “For they have refreshed my spirit and yours: therefore acknowledge them that are such” (1 Cor. 16:18). Begin now.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 10, pp. 302-303
May 15, 1986

By Luther Bolenbarker

Call it a craving for independence or whatever you want – but there is something within each of us that dislikes authority: children resist the authority of parents, pupils the authority of teachers, employees the authority of management, citizens the authority of government, etc. It’s an inherent human tendency (which is changed by our learning the meaning and purpose of authority): we don’t like being told what to do.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the importance of authority. Therefore, let’s take a careful look at what God says about it and what He says our response to it should be.

God authorizes civil authority because He knows it’s absolutely essential for society’s survival. A chaotic world indeed would exist if everyone could do as he pleased in his own eyes. Suppose for instance, every child did as he pleased (some do), every employee, driver, policeman, thief, rapist, all did as they pleased. Sometimes when we are rushing to an appointment we may wish there were no speed limits, but we know very well that the laws which govern traffic are essential to our safety. Total freedom which would allow each one to drive as he pleased would be a disaster for all. Laws, government, and authority are essential to our well-being.

That’s why in Romans 13:1ff God tells us to be subject to the higher powers. He has ordained them for our good. For us to resist these powers is to resist the ordinances of God.

Children are to obey their parents, parents their rulers, employees their employers, teachers their principals, citizens their government, etc. It’s true, sometimes people in authority aren’t worthy of our obedience or of the position they hold. If so, we should replace these as quickly as possible with others who are, but we must never dispense with authority. The only other alternative is anarchy – the law of the jungle survival of the fittest – dog eat dog, etc.

There are certain limits, of course, to which we are responsible to civil authority. When rulers order us to do what God forbids, our allegiance to God must be supreme. Peter and John faced this problem. Before His ascension into heaven, Jesus commanded the disciples to preach the gospel to all men. The rulers didn’t like it that the disciples were teaching the people that Jesus was the Son of God and the Savior of the world, so they ordered them to quit. At this point God’s authority and man’s came into conflict. Peter’s reply was, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

In this case it was right to defy civil authority because its command was in direct conflict with the commandments of God. And God’s authority supercedes man’s. This does not excuse lawlessness when the authority of man is not in conflict with God’s. Indeed, we are responsible to obey man’s authority when no conflict exists.

This whole business of authority and our responsibility toward it begins in the home. Children who aren’t taught obedience in the home usually have a hard time submitting to authority of any kind – that of teacher, boss, policeman, or even God. Submission to authority is learned more easily while young than at any other time. (Someone has rightly said, “The high-chair is the place to learn authority and not the electric-chair! “) Parents who don’t insist on it aren’t doing their children any favors, nor are they preparing them well for what they are sure to face in later years.

Learning obedience isn’t easy, but it is absolutely necessary for the welfare of our homes, schools and nation. There is no such thing as absolute freedom, with each one doing as he pleases period, with no strings attached! We’d have to live on a remote, isolated island to do this, completely cut off from all others because all we do affects someone else either directly or indirectly.

The key to our acceptance of authority is our attitude. If our attitude is right toward authority, we will realize that authority is approved of God and, as His children, we are to respect it. A bad attitude, toward authority will sabotage one’s whole future and opportunity to please God and our fellow man. A bad attitude if not changed, will no doubt cause one to be miserable in this life and lost in the next one.

It’s high time we Americans, parents, Christians and children take a hard look at this whole business of authority and how it affects the welfare of our homes, schools, churches, the nation and our individual lives as well.

In Matthew 28:18, Jesus says, “All authority hath been given unto Me in heaven and on earth.” Herein ties the secret to authority: if we will all submit ourselves first to the authority of Jesus then the matter of our submitting to the authority of others will be taken care of because we will want to please Jesus. In Luke 6:46, Jesus says, “Why call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I command you?” Romans 13; Ephesians 6:1; 1 Peter 3, 5 also apply and need to be considered.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 10, p. 295
May 15, 1986

By Anthony Wayne Goforth

(Editor’s Note: The following article is written by brother Anthony Wayne Goforth. Brother Goforth has recently made a decision to forsake liberalism and take a stand against church-sponsored recreation, church support of human institutions, and the sponsoring church arrangement. Brother Mike Scott of Middletown, Indiana and brother L.A. Stauffer of Kirkwood, Missouri have studied with brother Goforth. Brother Goforth is aware that the publication of this article will identify him with those of us who are condemned as “anti’s. ” Nevertheless, he wants me to print it. There will be repercussions come to him with the publication of this article. We pray that he will have the courage of his convictions to stand against the wiles of the Devil and against the attacks of liberal brethren. I am sure that you can help by dropping him a card encouraging him to stand.)

I have preached eight years for the mainline churches of Christ. I graduated from the conservatively liberal Memphis School of Preaching and then on to Freed-Hardeman, where I graduated in 1984. 1 classed myself for years with the “conservative” Contending For The Faith crowd, but in 1986 my wife and I realized we had become more conservative than my “conservative” liberal brethren, and sought to be identified with the conservative, noninstitutional brethren.

All of the problems in the mainline church are but symptoms of a much larger problem, that being a lack of respect for the authority of the Scripture, the all sufficiency of the church, and proper understanding of the silence of the Scripture. Brethren, we must have a “Thus saith the Lord” (1 Pet. 4:11; Rev. 22:18-19).

Reasons For Leaving

A. Because of the “overseeing” method of mission work.

This is one of the best kept secrets of the institutionals, for most members and even contributing churches do not know what is going on.

My wife and I worked with an “overseeing” church for seven long months. We were going to be sent to a 25 year old, non-self-supporting work in Arizona. The “overseeing” church was only 15 years old, yet the elders would tell us, “When you get there, change this and do that,” without even taking the feelings of the members in Arizona in mind. It was clear that the autonomy, the ability of self-governing, of that congregation was taken away. The conservative institutionals condemn the Boston church for their practice of one eldership over a number of churches, while they condone and practice it in missions.

The institutionals have thus established a hierarchy. The elders would tell us, “Now don’t tell the contributing churches about this and that; that is our business.” Where is the equality of churches spoken of by Paul in 2 Corinthians 8:14? They have developed a ladder with “overseeing church” on the top, “contributing church” second, and poor little ol’ not-able-to-make-their-own-decision “mission church” at the bottom of the list.

We understand from examining Philippians 4:14-18 and 2 Corinthians 11:8-10 that the funds were sent directly to Paul without anything called an “overseeing” church. (See chart.) They will argue, “Yes this is one way in which it was done, but we are not to assume the only way.” Wow! Who says the denominationals cannot teach us anything? This is the same reasoning the Christian Church folk argue in saying, “Yes, Colossians 3:16 does say sing, but we are not to assume that it always was without instruments. ” Now you see it, now you don’t! Remember God’s law of exclusion. When He has specified one way, it excludes all else.

The cry is made, “Don’t you trust elders?” The answer is a resounding “yes.” But it is the elders of each local congregation that must keep the tabs on where their money is going. To illustrate what I am saying, let us create a not so hypothetical, hypothetical situation: From the chart, congregations A, B, and C send money to “overseeing” congregation D, so that they might send it to missionary E. The “overseeing church D” does not like what the supported preacher is doing, so they tell him to come home, they have cut off his support (all of this has happened repeatedly). One stroke of the elder’s pen at D, and the support of four churches is cut off. However, in the direct method used in the New Testament, if D pulled out, it would at least be their own decision, and not one made for them b the “overseeing church.” “But it is just a method” the will say, perhaps, but it is not the one used in the New Testament! Missionary societies are just methods too, was the argument of the digressives at the turn of the century! If God had desired that the money be sent directly to the preacher rather than through an “overseeing” body, what language would God have used than what was used in the Scriptures already mentioned?

Also, the common liberal practice of a “missions committee” was employed. They were to review our work and make suggestions to pass on to the elders. In Philippians 1:1, we read of saints, elders and deacons but I don’t find any committee on the list. “How readest thou the scriptures?” Elders have the grave responsibility of overseeing their own work, and no one else (1 Tim. 3:5; Acts 20:28). And to think they say we don’t trust elders!

B. Because of the practice of religion by proxy.

The theme of the entire book of James is to show that if one does not show forth his faith by works it is dead faith. James 1:27 shows that one way of showing that faith is by taking care of the needy. Yet liberals think when the elders write a monthly check to an orphan home that it fulfills their duty. They preach, “No one may obey the gospel for you,” yet they let someone do their deeds for them. It is argued, “The money going to the orphan home comes from the collection which has some of my money in it; therefore I take care of orphans.” This makes as much sense as saying we can hire a choir with money from the collection and they have thus sung for me, fulfilling Ephesians 5:19. “Come now, let us reason together. . . ” (Isa. 1:18). We have already noted that this verse is a command to individuals and not the church, so where is the authority for churches establishing and maintaining such like? I am not against orphan homes as such, but it is not the duty of the church any more than it would be the duty of the church to open a clothing outlet since Matthew 25:36 says Christians are to clothe the naked.

In the same way, Christians might go together and establish a business, but this does not give the church a right to do so.

The church has a spiritual purpose, and works such as homes divert the purpose, money and manpower of a church away from its true work (1 Tim. 3:15-16; Col. 1:25-28).

These orphan homes are money-making institutions. I heard of a church operated home in Alabama that had nine children and thirty on staff. Don’t tell me that they could not find homes for nine children, since there are more people looking to adopt than there are children. The fact is, these homes will not allow you to adopt for then they would be out of business. Some liberal brethren have gone as far as to carry this thing to its logical end and have established church run hospitals, soup lines, “medical missions,” ad nauseum. I asked a well-known “medical missionary” where his authority was, and he replied, “Paul healed people on his trips.” These are the things we condemned in the denominations years ago. Now that the denominations have thrown these into the dumpster, we fished it out!

Still, the emotional ploy is made, “You anti’s would let a hungry orphan die on your church steps.” I know of no Christian, nor do you, that would not grab up that child, take it home and feed him, and call the proper authorities. This is the same type of argument made by the Baptists when they say, “What if a man wanted to be a Christian but he was in the desert, how could he be baptized?” That is, they are hypothetical, and neither you nor I have ever heard of such a case.

If you were ever to ask any of the institutional teachers for the authority for such, you will be told, I am sure, “No one ever was against these things until 1955.” Odd since the founder of Abilene Christian stood against them in his lecture to the school in 1930. Guy N. Woods did also in his 1946 Annual Lesson Commentary.

Aside from orphan homes, the Bible gives no authority for homes for the aged, such as the Mid-South Christian Nursing Home. 1 Timothy 5:3-16 tells us that individuals are to take care of the widows, “that the church be not burdened. . . ” (5:16). The Bible does allow for widows to be given church aid providing they meet the list of qualifications of 1 Timothy 5:9-10. Among other things, she must be over sixty years of age, having been married, raised children, and a Christian. She must be a “widow indeed,” having no family left. How many in nursing homes run by the church fit this list? Notice they must be Christians. The government rules have made it so that if there is a member of the church and a nonmember on the list to enter these homes, they must take the non-Christian or else they are showing “religious discrimination. ” Even if the Bible gave the church authority to build homes, which it does not, the government would not let you meet the scriptural qualifications for a widow indeed.

C. Because of the practice of unlimited benevolence.

This is similar to the last point in that Christians are to help everyone as they have the ability and chance to do so (Gal. 6: 10; Jas. 1:27). In fact, Christians were even told to work and save money that they might give it to the needy (Eph. 4:28). Individuals may do this, as well as contribute to worthy causes such as the Jerry Lewis Telethon, but this does not give the church the right to do it, although I once preached for a church that did send money from the church treasury to the said telethon!

The word translated “contribute” comes from the same Greek word as the word “fellowship.” Fellowship is defined as “the special relationship shared with Christians.” Thus, for the church to aid a non-Christian is to fellowship him, which the church is commanded not to do (2 Cor. 6:14ff).

We have seen the argument for years, “Stack up every verse on singing and you will not find one mention of instruments. ” In the same light, stack up every verse on church benevolence, and you will see that it was always to a Christian:

Verse	Saint	Orphan	Alien Sinner
Acts 2:44-46
Acts 4:32-35
Acts 6:1-6
Acts 11:27-30
Rom. 15:25-31
1 Cor. 16:1-3
2 Cor. 8:1-4, 13-14
2 Cor. 9:1, 13-14
1 Tim. 5:16

We must not let the church to be burdened down with our own responsibilities. Let the church be the church and perform her spiritual duty.

Conclusion

Don’t be fooled by liberal preachers who whistle in the dark saying, “All the anti’s have either died out or are withering away.” If dead neither the corpse nor the mourners know it! Even Bill Jackson has warned his liberal brethren, “There is new life among the anti’s.” There are over 100,000 conservative members in the United States. Three out of four churches in the Philippines are conservative. In many cities such as Tampa, Birmingham, and Louisville, the conservative out number the liberals all put together.

Seek out the conservative churches of Christ near you. We are not the one-cuppers, or the no Bible literature groups, even though the liberals rake us together as “anti.” Anti simply means against; are you not against something?

It is said that we “anti’s” are guilty of “binding what God has not bound.” They thus claim that all of these are just methods, yet they will turn around and disfellowship you if you do not agree with what is just a “method.” Will the real “Anti” please stand up!

Brethren, please examine these things, I would not want to be known as something that sounds as bad as “anti” or “orphan hater” if I were not sure.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 10, pp. 296-297, 310-311
May 15, 1986

By Irven Lee

This article is in answer to several letters that came as a reaction to my recent articles on this subject. Those who wrote had a right to write, and I am better for their having written. The number and content of the letters clearly indicate that there are several families that are very much interested in their children’s spiritual welfare. This is as it should be. Parents have a fearful responsibility.

Concern is important, but it takes more than a mental awareness of danger to train children. Skill and effort are also necessary. I admit that I do not know many of those who are training their children at home, but my very limited association in this regard has let me know that some who kept their children out of school seemed to be doing a very poor job of training them. It may be that the vast majority of the home trained children are well trained. Let those who are failing to do the job awaken to their responsibility.

It has been called to my attention that tutors are sometimes used to train children in special fields in which the parents recognize their need for help. This can evidently help in many cases. It was also pointed out to me that training in special fields of endeavor might be done in school on the college and graduate level. A few mentioned that home trained children usually make better on ACT and SAT tests than those from public schools. I congratulate the parents of such children as well as the children who show up well on the tests.

Each of my two children had the first grade at home with their mother as their teacher. The primary reason for this was that they had birthdays in the fall so they would have been approximately a year behind their classmates except for the home training. It is certainly true that they entered second grade ahead of those who had been in school for their first grade. My wife took her work seriously, and she was trained and experienced as a teacher. She and the girls enjoyed their study together. They read more little books than most school children did, and they also went ahead in their number work. The “hen with one chick” can take special interest in her little class. That we admit.

If children are home trained there would apparently be a big advantage in starting at the first. To take a junior high pupil, for example, out of his class and away from his games, might bring on the temptation for rebellion. Even if something better is offered it would still require time for a big adjustment.

The letters sent in response to my articles listed many great Americans who were home trained. One who was mentioned has a Ph.D. from the University of Iowa. I do not know how far he went in his home training. Tens of thousands have been home trained. It can be done.

We hear of “self-made” men. I have known a few learned men who went to school none or very little, but they were not home trained. I am thinking of one who obtained the old “blue back speller” and McGuffey readers and learned to read on his own after he had passed the age at which children usually learn to read. He had three months in school in his whole life, I think. We had learned much in the “university of hard knocks,” in the hard work which his generation knew. Only a very small percent of such people had sufficient hunger for knowledge to educate themselves. After learning to read they could by will power train themselves in many fields. Most who were not trained by others remained illiterate until the day of death.

Studies have been made to reveal that very many capable adults in America today cannot read or write. A few of these men and women are learning these skills now and are very happy with the doors they have opened by their efforts. There are adult education classes available over our nation. One can certainly learn to read at home. A great preacher that I have heard many times was taught to read by his wife after he married. She did much for her husband and indirectly for the thousands who heard him preach. Why is there not more done for these good people who cannot read? Some have decided that they are “dumb” when they are obviously capable people showing special skills in their work. Swallowing their pride, calling on their patience’ and leaning on some loved ones to help them could enrich their lives very much.

Skill in reading and the use of this skill in Bible study could do much for the church. Many who could read just watch television to use up their time after work. “Give attendance to reading” is an inspired suggestion (1 Tim. 4:13). In fact, various passages that speak of study and of the need for knowledge point out the need for reading (2 Tim. 2:15; Heb. 5:12-14; Rom. 10:1-3; etc.). Some who could be pillars in the church do not read in this day when atheists do so much teaching by television. Shame on these who bury their own talents and open their minds to the atheists.

I taught twenty years in private schools. My daughters had almost all their training in private schools. This grew out of my realization that there were great blessings to be gained in having Christians for teachers and in having well taught children for classmates. I think that my children obtained what some are seeking when they home train theirs. Few have the opportunity that we had because there are not many such schools available. Parents everywhere are to protect, guide, train, and whatever else is included in bringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4).

Every son and daughter needs to obtain faith and knowledge of the word so that he or she can stand against the wiles of the devil. At first parents stand by their side, but gradually they grow up and stand on their own convictions. If there is a lack of conviction, courage, faith, and knowledge their training was not what it should have been. Some who have not been taught reading, writing, and arithmetic at home do have on the Christian armor (Eph.6:10-20).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 10, pp. 300, 311
May 15, 1986