Truth Magazine

By Tom Roberts

It is not unusual these days to hear a teenager say to his parents, “I’m so tired of all these rules and regulations that you lay down for me that I’ll be glad when I’m on my own and can do as I please!” Quite often the “rules and regulations” to which they refer are those which are for their own good, however vex-some. While it is possible that parents can sometimes be unfair and arbitrary in fixing rules, most often parents have the good of their children in mind when they supply the regulations for a family.

Children are often too impatient to attempt to see the wisdom behind rules. They are not looking at events from the mature standpoint that only years of experience can bring; they are viewing events through the impatience and immaturity of youth. Such immaturity seldom seeks to find the wisdom behind a rule, particularly if it interferes with the immediate gratification of a desire. The guiding light of youth is expressed in the sentiment “I want. . .” and “I want it now. . .” Consequently, when any restricting rule is enforced which inhibits or restricts, a young person who has no respect for experience or for the biblical injunction of obedience will rebel. Whether the rule is a curfew on dating nights, attendance at worship services, homework, housework or personal grooming guidelines, compliance is grudging, if at all.

Adding to this problem is the fact that young people are encouraged in rebellion by their peers at school, by a lawless generation and by lyrics of music which teach and propagate a rebellious spirit. Parents are portrayed as old-fashioned, over-the-hill, “out of it” and unfair. With a wave of the hand, all experience of a preceding generation of parents is dismissed if it interferes with “doing your thing.” And not too subtly, the mistakes of the older generation are used to show the irony of anyone “telling me what to do.” However, if, with all our experience and regulations we have made such a botch of things, what will a generation do that refuses to respect experience or be restricted? Already we are reaping the terrible results of this philosophy in broken homes, abortion, drug addiction, increased crime rates and a multitude of problems. Unlicenced restraint surely is not the answer!

But if our young people get their way, if they overthrow all restrictions, and if they get out on their own, they need to realize something. They really are on their own!

If I know the intentions of most parents, it has been their purpose to provide a kind of life that will prepare their children to be on their own and to prosper. Parents lay down rules and regulations so that when their children leave home, they will be prepared morally, spiritually and educationally to meet the challenges of life and be productive. These are the basic reasons for rules in the home. It is inevitable, given the normal course of events, that children leave home. The question is, “Will they be prepared when they leave home?” As parents, we fully agree with our children that, when they leave home, “you are on your own.” In fact, we realize it more fully than our children!

You are on your own spiritually. No longer will the parents be held accountable for the actions of the children. For a time when children are young, the Lord holds parents responsible for the teaching and training of their offspring. But a time comes when a child ceases to be the ward of another and becomes an adult in his own right. At that time, responsibility for actions ceases to be that of the parent and passes, irrevocably, to the child. Beyond this point you answer to God at the judgment for what you do. Truly you are on your own.

You are on your own morally. While you were at home, there were restraining teachings about fornication, drinking, companions, movies, books, magazines, etc. Now that you are “on your own,” there are no restraints. You will be able to do as you please, when you please and where you please. But you will also be accountable for these actions. As Solomon said, “But know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment ” (Eccl. 11: 10)

Yes, my friend, you will be on your own, to stand or fall, for good or bad. There will be no one to blame but yourself. Your mistakes will be yours and no guilt can be handed back to your parents any longer. And there is an additional thought worthy of consideration: when you have children, you will be faced with the same responsibilities your parents had. If you love your children, if you want their life to prosper, if you want them to grow up respecting others and being prepared to face life, you will have to set some rules. And the cycle will have come full circle! You will be the parent and your children will be saying, “Boy, when I leave home and get on my own, I’ll do what I want to do.” And when you hear these words (probably not before then), you will appreciate what your parents went through to raise you. The next time you want “out on your own,” think about it.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, pp. 515, 533
September 6, 1984

By Tom Roberts

Occasionally some good brother or sister will object to militant preaching or writing and suggest that we should have more “brotherly love, concern and gentleness” for one another than to be direct and critical in opposing others. I suggest, with all brotherly love, concern, and gentleness, that such good brethren have never experienced being on “the firing line” and do not realize what is involved in fighting for truth.

How wonderful it would be if every person on earth had a tender conscience! All that would be required to convert them to Christ would be a simple explanation of the gospel. But the fact remains that not every one has a tender conscience and not everyone is interested in following the Lord. It is a rather naive view that sees every person as willing and ready to obey, eager to follow the Bible. It is absolutely essential to understand that there are false teachers (both in and out of the church), hardened consciences, overbearing personalities, perverters of truth, and people with no scruples who are willing and able to lead the unwary astray. Jesus Christ met such people in His day, the apostles had to deal with them, and so will we. If you think strong preaching is unChrist-like, read Matthew 23. If you think it is wrong to be specific against false teachers, read 2 Timothy 1:20, et al. Paul did not refer to some of his companion preachers as “fellow-soldiers” for nothing. They were on the firing line, engaged in a battle for truth and souls, and they were ready for the battle.

What would you think of a city council or mayor that told all the policemen to empty their guns, lay down their weapons and patrol the crime-ridden sections of the city with “brotherly love, concern and gentleness”? How far do you think a policeman would get by approaching a drug-crazed thug with a smile and “positive thoughts”? How long will a robber sit still while a law enforcement officer discusses the Beatitudes? Even the all-merciful Father recognized the need to meet criminals with force and ordained the government to bear not the sword in vain (Rom. 13). But, someone says, “It is different in religious matters.” Is it? If you think so, you have missed a vital point.

Just as there is a criminal element in our society that is beyond the reach of social rehabilitation, there are religious frauds, false teachers, determined errorists who are set on getting their way and who will not be stopped short of open confrontation. If you think otherwise, it is your lack of experience talking. True, there are still some who are honestly in error who can be reached and we must always arrange our approach to people according to their needs. if we fail to do this, we will drive honest seekers away from the truth. But when we allow false teachers to operate freely without opposition because we feel compelled to deal with them gently, we give them a deadly advantage.

A soldier on the firing line must know the enemy. He must deal effectively with such when they appeal. People living back in the countryside away from the firing lines live tranquil and quiet lives because of the diligence of that soldier on the firing line. They have little room to criticize his militant behavior; their safety depends on it. Even so, members of the church who enjoy the fellowship of a faithful church and unity of the local brethren should not criticize those who face the firing line and defend the cause of truth against the dedicated false teacher. Nor should we forget that there are times when “wolves” invade the local church and would “devour the flock” (Acts 20:28ff). When this happens, there must be men willing to stand and face the enemy or the local church will be destroyed. Sweetness and smiles have little effectiveness in such situations; rather they call for the “sword of the spirit” and the “whole armor of God. ” There are times to fight as well as quiet times for worship.

When people object to strong teaching, I wonder what would have happened if they had lived in the days of Paul. Paul had his enemies, you know. They accused this wonderful soldier of the cross of being overbearing, of taking too much authority upon himself, of being caustic in his writings. What would you have said to these people? “Yes, I think Paul should be sweeter. I wish he would not say such harsh things.” Would that be your attitude? I remind you that Paul spoke because God put the words in his mouth. “I think God should be sweeter. I wish God would not say such harsh things.” Does this put a different light on it? If the Lord could love all men equally well and yet stand against false teachers, we should not be otherwise.

Standing on the firing line is dangerous enough, with the enemy in front of you. But it becomes doubly dangerous when brethren standing safely behind the lines take pot-shots at you because they think you too militant. One enemy at a time is enough, thank you. Brethren, we need men and women of courage. We must remember that there are “many false prophets gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). When they appear they must be met and overcome. If you are not willing to face the enemy, don’t tie the hands of those who are willing to do so. Support them. Encourage them. And remember – if men on the firing line lose their battle it will be on your doorstep next. Who’ll fight the wolves then?

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 16, pp. 481, 499
August 16, 1984

By Ramon A. Madrigal

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I will be with you always, to the very end of the age (Matt. 28:18b-20 NIV).

These words of Jesus, commonly referred to as the “Great Commission,” have throughout the ages been a source of motivation to disciplined (i.e. disciple) Christians everywhere to zealously perform the task of evangelism. Yet while many brethren fully realize the implications of this passage to those who would carry their cross daily, others often point to the preacher to do their Divine decree. These apathetic (or should I say “pathetic”?) Christians try to defend their continual. neglect by claiming that they are not equipped (as is the preacher) to teach anybody, much less than “all nations.” While it is true that some have been blessed with teaching talents, personal charm, and the “gift of gab,” we often overlook something of striking importance in this passage. Jesus not only commands, but promises! He says, “I will be with you always.”

While many obstacles confront the Christian in his quest for souls, Christ provides constant companionship in our efforts to seek and save the lost. Yes, we are sometimes less than perfect teachers of the Word; sometimes we are sloppy in our “cottage” presentations, often weak in our social prowess, fumbling through our feeble vocabulary for the right words; but we are not alone. Jesus promises to be with us. Perhaps it would be helpful to look at some heroes of the Old Testament era and notice how God accomplished His great purposes through weak and sometimes reluctant men.

God Used Men

In Genesis 12, the Lord Yahweh calls Abram and commands him to leave his country, his people, and his father’s household and to go to the land that God would show him. We might imagine ourselves hesitating at such prospects, but Abram quickly did as he was told. Whatever Abram might have thought about the matter, he demonstrated his loyalty and faithfulness to Yahweh by his actions (see James 2). What we need to notice, however, is that along with the command came a promise: “I will make you a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you will I curse; and all people on earth will be blessed through you” (vv. 2-1).

The story of Joseph in Genesis 37-50 beautifully demonstrates the providence of God. Sold into slavery at the tender age of seventeen, Joseph rose to a prominent position in his master’s house, only to be cast into prison at the hands of a scheming woman. When most people would have given up all hope to despair, the faithful Joseph patiently waited for God to act. He soon became ruler over all Egypt, second only to Pharaoh himself. This history should comfort all Christians today in their efforts to serve Him even in times of trouble (see Rom. 8:28). God has promised the “crown of life” to all those who are “faithful unto death” (Rev. 2: 10).

While Abram and Joseph readily accepted their assigned duties, the great Lawgiver himself, Moses, was rather reluctant at his responsibility. Upon being commissioned by God to “bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt” (Ex. 3:11), Moses replied, “Who am I that I should go unto Pharaoh . . . ?” He later complained (as many do today) of being uneloquent in speech, with a slow tongue. Yet Moses was forgetting the Lord’s promise of strength and support. In verse 12, Yahweh assured His servant that “I certainly will be with you. . . . ” This is a continual covenant God makes with His messengers. His steadfast promise gives us strength, comfort, and courage as we shine our lights in a darkened and dismal world. We need to remember, as did Moses, that although the task before us is awesome in scope and eternal in consequence, God has not left us alone. He continued with Joshua as He did with Moses, and that promise was reissued to Israel’s new leader (cf. Deut. 31:23 and Josh. 1:59). This is a profound principle. God does not leave us to our own devices to struggle without His presence, but He blesses us with Himself.

When God sent Gideon to save Israel from the Midianites, Gideon was perplexed at his unlikely qualifications as a savior. The least in position in his father’s poor household, Gideon exclaimed: “How can I save Israel?” Notice God’s promise: “Surely I will be with you, and you shall smite the Midianites as one man” (Judg. 6:15-16). This blessing seems contagious once we look at it from a biblical perspective. Upon a thorough examination of the Scriptures, one quickly recognizes the fact that God’s promises are steadfast and sure, and that our feeble excuses (from evangelism) do not free us from responsibility but exhibit weakened faith. While it is true that it is often difficult to preach Christ to ungodly colleagues and profane neighbors, it is equally true that Christ gives us the necessary strength and energy to accomplish all things (Phil. 4:13). Jesus’ words in Matthew 28 need not haunt us for neglected duty but excite us to spiritual opportunity. Inherent in the Great Commission is a Great Promise! That no matter what may happen in our evangelistic efforts, we are not alone – for God is with us! Indeed, He is with us always!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 15, p. 468
August 2, 1984

By Anonymous

“If I quit going on week end trips with my husband in order to attend services regularly, he will leave me.” Such fear may exist in the heart of many a Christian married to a non-Christian, but it rarely, if ever, has been expressed more forthrightly. In the mind of the dear sister this was an extremely serious problem. She definitely did not want to lose her husband. How could I possibly encourage her to attend Sunday services regularly?

It was necessary to respond in some way, but how could I impress her with her duty and at the same time avoid putting down her husband? It is always appropriate to appeal to the Scriptures. We read Ephesians 5:22: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord.”

After that reading, I emphasized that she definitely had an obligation to be submissive to her husband. Then I said, “This passage requires your submission to your husband to be ‘as (your submission) unto the Lord.”‘ Having obtained her agreement, I pointed out that if submission to her husband was “as unto the Lord,” then her submission “unto the Lord” necessarily must come first.

Next we read 1 Corinthians 7:13-15: “And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean: but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases. but God hath called us to peace.”

With that reading concluded, I again emphasized that her first obligation must be to the Lord and that submission to her husband must take second place. I also pointed out that in case her faithfulness unto the Lord did cause her husband to leave her, she was instructed by this passage to let him go.

Realizing that she faced a heart-rending choice, I decided to take a calculated risk. I said, “I have never met your husband and therefore do not know him at all, but if you decide to begin attending services regularly, he will not leave you. If I am wrong about that, if he does leave you, he is not nearly as smart as I believe he is. I think that he is smart enough to know that he has a good wife and that if he was to leave you, he would not be able to find a better woman than you. I think he is smart enough to want to keep you.”

He did want to keep her. She quit going with him on weekend trips and began attending Sunday services regularly. Her husband did not leave her and she was happier in her marriage than ever before.

In one church where I worked, the oldest member was a man who had been raised in a rural area where the churches only met on Sunday. He had obeyed the gospel late in life, but when he did, it was with a whole heart. However, he had never been able to see any need to attend mid-week services. Time and again we discussed his attitude and studied the Scriptures. In time he began attending the Wednesday evening services. Then I had to be away one Wednesday and the brethren became involved in a warm, if not heated, discussion. I was never able to learn exactly what took place, but it destroyed all that I had been able to accomplish with one dear brother. I have no knowledge of him ever again attending a mid-week service the rest of his life.

In one church with which I was associated, the brethren were in the habit of saying: “By faith this is the body of Christ” and “By faith this is the blood of Christ” when they offered thanks at the Lord’s table. At that time, I was not acquainted with metaphors; thus, I was unable to explain that Jesus used them when He instituted the Lord’s supper. (Yes, I had a college degree, but education is no guarantee that a fellow knows everything. Every preacher should take warnings.) I could only say that the bread and fruit of the vine are the body and blood of Christ in no way other than the way which Christ meant. Of course, that was no answer at all. However, I had some questions which I wanted those brethren to answer.

I asked, “Do you believe the bread and fruit of the vine become the literal flesh and blood of Jesus?” They did not. I asked, “Does the bread and fruit of the vine become the spiritual body of Christ?” They were not certain and would neither answer yes nor no. I pointed out that if the bread and fruit of the vine actually becomes the flesh and blood of Christ at all, it has to become that either literally or spiritually. They had denied the literal and, therefore, must either say that it becomes the spiritual body and blood of Christ or else actually does not become the body and blood of Christ.

Then I pointed out that we were all agreed that the church is the spiritual body of Christ (Eph. 1: 19-23). Therefore, the bread did not become the spiritual body of Christ. Thus the bread and fruit of the vine actually must not become the body and blood of Christ in any way. However, that was not the end of the matter. As is often the case, that only took care of a symptom, not the real problem. The problem was that they objected to using the word “represents.” After a time, I preached a sermon on the Lord’s supper and showed that the idea of memory – the bringing of something to mind – inheres in the word “remembrance.”

I pointed out that any object used to cause something else to be brought to mind may properly be said to represent the thing it brings to mind. Then I appealed to those brethren to cease objecting to the use of the word “represents,” in the offering of thanks at the Lord’s table.

There was a knock at my door; when I answered, a preacher and a member of the church where he was preaching were wanting to talk to me. I was well acquainted with both of them. It had not been long since the preacher had printed an uncomplimentary article in the church bulletin about a couple who had quit attending there and had started attending where I preached. I had responded in our bulletin pointing out that the couple had not identified with us; that we had not been contacted by brethren of the other church about the matter and suggesting that the author of the article should get the facts straight, before printing such erroneous charges.

Now these two brethren had come to explain to me that due to the circumstances under which the couple departed from them, the church where I was preaching must not use the man in any public way (neither church had elders, at that time). After some discussion, I asked, “Has the church there withdrawn from them?” It had not. I asked, “Does it intend to withdraw from them?” It did not. Then I said, “If the church there is not going to discipline them, by what right are you demanding that we discipline them? As I see it, the way things stand, you are trying to meddle in the internal affairs of another church.” It was one thing to tell me their side of the matter, but it was something else altogether, when they began telling another church how to deal with the situation.

A young couple were natives of the city where I was preaching, but they had learned the truth and obeyed it while away. Returning to the area, they identified with us.

Before their conversion, they had led very worldly lives and were still babes in Christ. She was highly emotional and from time to time would call me on the telephone to discuss some biblical subject about which she was very disturbed.

When I answered the telephone and heard her voice, I was not surprised. We were in the midst of a gospel meeting. The previous night two of her husband’s aunts had been persuaded to attend the service. During the sermon that night, the preacher dealt with the sin of drunkenness and the sister wanted to know: “Why did the preacher have to preach on that subject, that night, of all nights, when my husband’s aunts were present for the first time and probably will never come back, because they are two of the biggest lushes in the world?”

I pointed out that the preacher had no way to know that; he had preached on a biblical subject and there was nothing they needed more.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 16, pp. 487-488
August 16, 1984