Truth Magazine

By Robert Wayne La Coste

Contention and strife have been existent for decades now over the matter of caring for orphan children. Churches have been divided, preachers fired, and bitterness created over the matter. Scripture has been debated, both orally and in written discussion. One brother believes this on the passages and another brother believes the contrary. One thing is or certain! Both might be wrong, but one is definitely wrong, for two different positions have been advocated, namely: institutional care or individual care (in one’s own home). The honest Bible student can plainly see the difference between the individual and the church and the responsibilities relative to each; yet the war rages on and brethren everywhere continue to insist: “This is the best way to do it.” Is it really? Some are so foolish as to even comment, “This is the only way to do it.”

When I began studying these matters years ago, I was determined to find out what God had said and stick to that, and from those principles find out just which was the better way, both scripturally and otherwise. I was not simply going to preach against institutional care because “dear ole dad” did and simply because he had said, “There is no Scripture warranting the church support of such.” Although I believed he was and is preaching the truth on these matters, I wanted to know for myself!

The Scriptures were plain! James 1:27 and Galatians 6:10 were never a problem. Anyone who can read English and who knows the difference between personal pronouns and collective terms can see the teaching there! But the question in my mind was: Which would be better? That answer wasn’t long in coming either. No brother or sister anywhere who supports these things from the treasury of the church can honestly say that institutional care will ever surpass the divinely established family! If any of them is so naive as to believe that orphan homes are better than families and the love and care derived from having such, they have deceived themselves!

God instructed in particular fathers, “. . . Provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Question: Who did God think was better qualified to rear children in His truth, an institution or a father in a family? To ask such a question is to answer it!

Speaking of “dear ole dad,” he was reared in an orphan’s home for many a year. The Catholic home certainly provided all of the clothing, food and ‘ shelter necessary. A certain love and fondness was aroused between those over him and himself, but does one think this replaced the love of the mother he had lost in early childhood? Would one equate or think this care was better than his earthly parents could have offered? Proper love, discipline, and teaching is to be directed from the parents of children and absolutely nothing man can devise can or will take the place of God’s order!

Though all of this be true, certainly this does not mean that such institutions do not have a right to exist. They do have a right. I have yet to read about one existing during ‘the first century when God’s people served Him in His church; but notwithstanding, they, along with many other human organizations, do have a right to exist, as long as they do not seek to impeach the wisdom of God! When they start advocating, “We can do it better” or “We need the church to support us” or “This is the only way to do it,” they have overstepped their bounds, for none of these statements are valid! They have no basis, biblically or otherwise; they are just not so!

Many have asked me, “What will we do with all of these children if we don’t care for them in institutional homes?” I wonder what they did, in century number one when the apostles lived? Do you suppose they carted them off to a human institution? How could an inspired man write what he did about fathers in Ephesians 6, not to mention what he wrote to Timothy about widows in I Timothy 5, and do that? There was and is a better way! I tell you this: If these money begging institutions would open up their doors and cry throughout the land, “Come and get the children,” there would not be one left yet to be adopted within a week I How do I know this? Remember the Vietnam children and the baby lift after the conflict? Thousands of parents wanted them, but there just weren’t enough children to go around.

This is not going to happen however! To close down the orphan homes according to some of these people would be “terrible and tragic.” I pray God will hasten the day! May He hasten the day when children can awaken to a mommy and a daddy to talk with, to pray with, to cry with, instead of some appointed “parent” from some committee. Can a human institution which has so divided the church and kept children from mothers and fat-hers, as God intended, be smiled upon and blessed by God? We think not! These homes will not let them go I If they let them go, they would cease to exist and they know it. Again, I say, may God hasten the day!

“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord . . . have we not done many wonderful works in thy name and then will I Profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:22-23).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 7, p. 207
April 4, 1985

By Mike Willis

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God (Matt. 5.9).

“God is the God of peace; the Messiah is the Prince of peace, his birth was welcomed with the angel’s hymn, ‘Peace on earth.’ He is the great Peacemaker. He made peace through the blood of his cross. They that are his must follow his example” (A. Lukyn Williams, The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. XV, p. 174).

The Prince of Peace came during a time of peace (during the Pax Romana) to preach a gospel of peace. Through obedience to His gospel, one obtains peace with God (Rom. 5:1) and learns to live at peace with his fellow man (Rom. 12:18). Truly those who teach the gospel of Christ are the world’s greatest peacemakers. They will bring more peace to this world than any who participate in SALT talks or other disarmament discussions.

The Need For Pence

There is a great need for peace in this world. There are many who have no inner peace; the inner turmoil inside of them sometimes leads to total collapse or breakdown. Others cannot get along with their fellow man. Neighbors have fought each other and even killed one another over the placement of a fence between them. Family conflict is one of the most frequent causes of homicide.

Most of these people will not be reached by an article such as this, partially because they will not be exposed to it. This article will largely circulate among brethren. In the circle of Christians, there is still much need for peace and peacemakers.

Churches in many parts of this country have split, not over doctrinal issues, but over “personality conflicts.” If I understand, what brethren mean by “personality conflicts,” they mean that several strong-willed brethren clashed to such an extent that they decided to divide rather than to work through their disagreements. I know that these differences are different from those of the Paul-Barnabas type (Acts 15) because these brethren, who believe in the same Lord and teach the same gospel, will not announce each other’s gospel meetings (although they might on different occasions use the same preacher), recognize one another as faithful brethren, call on each other for prayer, and such like things. Paul and Barnabas did not act this way toward one another.

Some churches isolate themselves from other brethren by having nothing to do with one another. There is no feeling of cooperation and support for each other’s work; instead, one feels jealousy and envy at the other’s successes while the other feels contempt and manifests arrogance. The result is that the various churches have little if anything to do with one another.

These symptoms are not isolated to one section of the country. They manifest themselves in various cities. Surely, there is a need for modem peacemakers.

Some With Whom There Can Be No Peace

Whatever program of peace is accepted is also a program for division from those who refuse to acknowledge and accept it. Hence, the gospel will prohibit a man being at peace with every man. Here are some men with whom one cannot be at peace:

1. The World. James said “. . .know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?” (4:4). Those who are at peace with the world have God as their enemy. Hence, the godly cannot be at peace with the world.

2. False Teachers. Jesus said, “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! For so did their fathers to the false prophets” (Lk. 6:26). Those who are at peace with the false teachers of our age – the Leroy Garretts, the Carl Ketchersides, the Guy N. Woods, and other false teachers – are false teachers themselves. They have compromised the gospel in order to be at peace. Godly men cannot be at peace with false teachers.

3. Those With Sinful Dispositions. Sometimes one cannot live at peace with his fellow Christian because his fellow Christian will not let him! When one brother approaches his brother in Christ, seeking to bring about peace, and the brother continues to undermine his influence, destroy his reputation, hold him at arm’s length or otherwise isolates himself from him, there is no way to make peace. Those who have sinful attitudes make it impossible to live at peace with them.

Things Which Disrupt Peace

Men sometimes do not understand what disrupts peace. Some charge others with disrupting the peace when, in reality, they are peacemakers. There are times when brethren are divided over an issue. Secretly the brethren knife each other in the back, talk about each other maliciously, and otherwise seek to destroy one another’s reputation. A brother comes along who addresses a discussion of the issues and identifies those whom he believes are teaching something wrong in an effort to work through the problem. Many times the brother who openly discusses the issue is charged with disrupting peace. The truth is that the peace was already disrupted and this man was simply trying to restore it. The open discussion of deep-seated problems is not a sinful disruption of peace. If brethren are at peace in error, they need disrupting!

The kinds of things which disrupt peace are: gossip, whispering, self-willed attitudes, selfishness, envy, jealousy, and such like things. False doctrine will also disrupt the peace of the church.

Attributes Of the Peacemaker

The peacemaker must have certain attributes. (1) He must love peace. The man who does not love peace will not be able to live at peace himself, much less to help others obtain peace (2) He tries to live peaceably with all men (Rom. 12:18). (3) He has subdued the works of the flesh in his own life which interfere with peace. (4) He is longsuffering, willing to bear patiently with offences of others in the interests of peace. (5) He is sacrificial. He is willing to suffer mistreatment in the interests of bringing peace. He will sacrifice himself – anything but the truth and righteousness – in the interests of peace.

How To Make Peace

1. Communicate. Peace can never be attained unless brethren start talking to each other. That is why Jesus said, “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault” (Matt. 18:15). Communication with each other is necessary for peace to be obtained. Though there are times when breaking contact is necessary, generally he who shuts off contact with his brother builds walls and fences, destroying any opportunities for peace.

2. Pray. Pray about the problem. He who prays for peace with his brother will be ready to work with his brother to solve their differences. Jesus commanded us to pray for our enemies (Matt. 5:43-48); surely we can pray for our brethren with whom we have disagreement.

3. Repent of sins. Those who have committed sins against another must be willing to repent of their sins in order for there to be peace. Jesus said, “. . . if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican” (Matt. 18:15-17). The wicked man’s refusal to repent of his sin makes peace with him impossible.

4. Leave room for exercise of judgment. Many brethren cannot get along with each other because they have no tolerance of each other’s differences. Paul and Barnabas disagreed on judgment; nevertheless both of them were faithful Christians. That should cause me to expect that some people who do not agree with my judgment might be faithful Christians.

Because some brethren might think that some problem was handled differently than they would have handled it is no reason for one congregation to withdraw from another. Give each other room to exercise his best judgment. Surely the problem is not solved by cutting off communication from one another, building fences, and isolating ourselves.

Conclusion

Surely the time has come for all God-fearing brethren to call a halt to alienating ourselves from one another. We must quit building fences and start building bridges. Those who are afraid of the bridge building probably have reason to prefer the division to reconciliation with their brethren.

The autonomy of the local church is not violated by preachers visiting with each other or elders discussing mutual concerns and problems together. Brethren have nearly quit visiting each other’s meetings; some hardly attend their own meeting so we should not expect that they would attend someone else’s meeting. Instead of feeling like we are all working on the same team to accomplish the same good, in some areas brethren seem to think that they and on rival teams. Each teach competes with the other for new members, views each other’s disciplinary actions with suspicion, and belittles the other in private conversation. Suspicion replaces respect when brethren quit communicating with one another.

Surely brethren have had enough of this are ready for warm, personal relationships with each other. Are there no peacemakers among us who can help in solving these problems?

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 7, pp. 198, 216-217
April 4, 1985

By Raymond E. Harris

When we hear that a loved one or friend has an illness that has been diagnosed as “terminal,” we invariably react with feelings of surprise and sadness. We humans seem to have a built-in blindness to the reality of death. However, from birth, we are all “Terminal”!

Despite this inane idea that somehow it will always be the other person who dies, one day it will be your turn. In Hebrews 9:27, it is written, “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”

Despite all the advances in medical techono1gy, the words of the Psalmist still ring true: “As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years, or if due to strength, eighty years, yet their pride is but labor and sorrow; for soon it is gone and we fly away” (Psa. 90:10, NASV). Truly, unless the Lord comes you will not get out of this world alive. And those whose strong constitution extends their lives find that the so-called “Golden Years” bring an added burden of illness, pain

and loneliness. Despite all of the efforts to diet, exercise and stay fit, aging and physical death are still out there! Job sized the matter up by writing, “Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. He corneth forth like a flower, and is cut down: He fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.”

So, physically we are all terminal. The fleshly body was not engineered to stay here very long!

However, we need to remember that all the foregoing applies to the flesh and does not address itself to the spiritual side of man. The Scriptures teach that man is more than flesh and breath. Rather, inspired, holy men of God, in both Old and New Testaments, teach us that man has an eternal soul.

The Scriptures teach that Jesus lived and died to make salvation possible. Truly, we must die, “But after this the judgment.” Now is the time to prepare for death, judgment and eternity.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 6, p. 179
March 21, 1985

By Tom Roberts

“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. . .” (Isa. 64:6).

Among some brethren today who have become enamored with (and tainted by) aspects of Calvinism, the above passage is being used as a proof-text that man is passive in the plan of salvation due to his depraved character. While there are some who are not consistent on this subject and will not adopt the entire Tulip theology of Calvinism which includes “total hereditary depravity,” others are preaching that man is indeed depraved to the extent that he cannot “do” anything to be saved – God must do it all. Quotations can be given from brethren who are insisting that any attempt to have man “doing” anything with regard to salvation is equal to salvation by works or trusting in ourselves and not God. Such brethren are proceeding ever further into the quicksand of denominational theology and are already “over their heads” without realizing it.

Try to understand, if you are unfamiliar with this error, just what is being taught by the use of this passage. Calvinism teaches that all of mankind has become depraved in body and soul due to the inheriting of sin from our fathers (from Adam until now). Because of this depravity, no man is able to think good thoughts, understand the Bible, perform any good works, etc. If man (any man) is to be saved, this salvation must come wholly, totally and exclusively from God because, in this view, man’s depravity has made him incapable of doing anything good. Standard arguments among denominations reject baptism on the grounds that it is a “work” and that man is depraved and cannot “do” anything to save himself. This is the basis for the doctrine of “salvation by faith alone.” Adherents teach that salvation is wholly of grace and that the “faith of Ephesians 2:8, 9 is a gift of God (rather than salvation itself being a gift). Thus God brings about salvation by His own power and grace without any action on the part of the man.

Faithful brethren have always rejected this error. There is nothing in the obedience of faith that nullifies the grace of God. Such passages as John 6:29; 8:39; Acts 10:34, 35, etc., show that man is required to “work out your own salvation” (Phil. 2:12) by obeying the conditions of God’s grace. Yes, man can freely choose to do right, understand the truth and obey it (Rom. 6:16-18). He can do the works which God has appointed him to show faithful obedience just as Abraham did for his own justification. This “doing” is not the “worketh” that is condemned in Romans 4:4ff. The Jews were condemned for trusting in works for salvation and not trusting in God. But they were never condemned for faithful obedience.

When anyone takes the passage in Isaiah 64:6 and uses it to teach the depravity of man and an inability to obey God because of that depravity, they have committed at least two evils. First of all, they have violated the context. Secondly, they have arrayed one Scripture against all the other Scriptures which show the free morality of man.

Context. Isaiah was a prophet sent to a people who had rebelled against God, were hypocritical, and yet who still claimed to be faithful servants of God. A quick reading of Isaiah will show this to be the case: 1:2-9, 10-17 is but one example. Under these circumstances, every act that Israel did was an abomination to God. The very things required by the law (observance of sabbaths, sacrifices, etc.) became acts of hypocrisy because of the rebellious attitude of the Jews. It is for this reason that Isaiah could truthfully say that ” We are all as an unclean thing” (64:6). It is for this reason that he could charge that all the “righteousness” (their lawful deeds) were as “filthy rags.” Friends, it was not that the Jews were depraved due to inheriting Adam’s sin that caused this charge against them. It was because they had willfully rebelled against God and God would not receive their hypocritical worship. For those of you who think otherwise, let me pose this question to you: Was there ever a time when worship of man was anything other than “filthy rags”? If so, what made it so? Was Isaiah condemning the Jews because they were depraved by birth or because they were hypocritical? I suggest a careful reading of Isaiah to see the truth.

Arraying Scripture Against Scripture. No greater sin can we commit than to suggest that one Scripture teaches something that other Scriptures condemn. To do so is to charge God with something less than honesty and to accept that the Bible is not consistent with itself. Yet those who would use Isaiah 64:6 to state that man is depraved and unclean from his birth are guilty of this very thing. There are too many Scriptures that show the innocence of a child at birth, the ability of man to choose good from evil, the reflection of man of his Creator (made in His image), and his free morality than to take this one Scripture out of its context and use it deceitfully.

In the light of the truth, it makes me not a little angry for some person, let alone a brother in Christ, to suggest that man is totally passive in the plan of salvation and that whatever he does (faith, repentance, baptism, etc.) are as “filthy rags.” Think, brethren! The very obedience that God has asked us to do which is patterned after the faithful obedience of Christ (Heb. 5:8, 9) is filthy rags? Never in a million years! In the words of Peter, “in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:35). Can a sinner work? Yes. Are sinners’ works acceptable to God? Yes, when they show the trust of the sinner toward God. Does the sinner have something to do in his own justification? Yes, as he righteously works those things which God has assigned as conditions of grace. This is the proper relation of “salvation by grace through faith” (Eph. 2:8, 9).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 6, pp. 178, 182
March 21, 1985