Truth Magazine

By Wayne S. Walker

0n Tuesday night, April 10, 1984, at the building of the Brown Street church of Christ in Akron, Ohio, brother Lewis Willis, preacher for the Brown Street church, and “Elder” Vernon Cayton of the Truth Tabernacle in Niles, Ohio, met to discuss the existence of miracles today. This exchange was brought about as a result of Brown Street’s “Bible Talk” call-in radio program on Sunday mornings. Someone, apparently a member of Truth Tabernacle, called to claim that Mr. Cayton had the power to perform a miracle and urged Lewis to contact him. After several attempts, brother Willis was able to talk with Mr. Cayton and made the arrangements for the discussion.

After an opening prayer, brother George Lemasters, an elder for the Lord’s church in Barberton, Ohio, began the service and announced the mutually-agreed-upon ground rules. Each disputant was to have a 50-minute speech with brother Willis to go first. There were to be no audible or physical demonstrations from the audience. The proposition to be discussed had been dictated to brother Willis by Mr. Cayton over the phone. Mr. Cayton had told brother Willis, “God through Vernon Cayton is going to perform that miracle if Mr. Willis or any of his followers will hear the apostles’ doctrine.” An audience of 585 people were assembled to hear and see this question discussed.

Brother Willis began by defining the proposition and its terms. He said that Cayton needed to perform “a notable miracle that cannot be denied to establish with infallible proof that he can do as he has claimed.” Then he identified the character of New Testament miracles as opposed to modern claims. In dealing with the part of the proposition which read “will hear the apostles’ doctrine,” Lewis predicted that Mr. Cayton would use this as his door of escape, demanding that his idea of “the apostles’ doctrine” be accepted. Of course, those of us in the audience would have been ready to believe Mr. Cayton’s preaching if he were to perform just one true miracle to confirm it.

The next topic brother Willis introduced was Mr. Cayton’s view of one person in the Godhead. After pointing out from Ephesians 3:3-5 that the Bible is written in clear, understandable, definable language, he asked Mr. Cayton to define the meaning of Jesus’ words, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” and end up with just one person. He also cited John 17:20-21 to show that the oneness of God and Jesus is equivalent to the oneness of believers, that there can be oneness yet separate personalities.

Following this, brother Willis told us several things that Mr. Cayton might do to dodge the issue. He might assert Lewis was blaspheming God. He might appeal to audience or human testimony, as does Ernest Angley, Rex Humbard, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, and Jim Baker. He might resort to ridicule such as calling Lewis a liar or saying how dumb Willis is. He might assert that he, Cayton, is a miracle. He might question the faith of the Brown Street church. Or he might try to prove that Lewis is tempting God.

In fact, brother Willis said that Mr. Cayton had several options. He could totally refuse to honor his promise. He could try to “hide in the woods.” He could blame the audience for his failure. He could admit he was a false teacher. Or he could perform a notable miracle. In closing, brother Willis challenged Mr. Cayton to produce the miracle he claimed he would perform. The ball was now in his court. He must either “put up or shut up.”

When Mr. Cayton arose to speak he said that if we would let the word of God be the final court of authority beyond which there is no appeal, he could “prove in less than 45 minutes everything Mr. Willis said was nothing but a fabrication and a plot of hell.” However, he must not have been satisfied with that because he did just as brother Willis indicated he probably would do. He claimed that God’s promises have always been conditional saying, “You’ll never find one person in the word of God that ever received the Holy Ghost blaspheming it . . . . Not one person has ever been healed that rejected (they might not have had faith) but not one person like Mr. Willis and his condition with his thumb has ever experienced the touch of God standing up in God’s face, ‘God, you do not do this’ . . .”

The only actual argument from scripture that Mr. Cayton made was taken from 1 Corinthians 13:8, upon which, he affirmed, brother Willis based his whole doctrine. Lewis had argued that the miracles were to be done away when that which is perfect, or the completed revelation of the New Testament, had come. Cayton answered that the book of Revelation was written in A.D. 96 while James 1:22-25, written in A.D. 60 says that “the perfect law of liberty” existed then even though there were still New Testament books to be written. Thus, he concluded that “that which is perfect” must refer to the second coming of Christ.

Throughout his speech, Mr. Cayton accused brother Willis of mocking as did the scoffers on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, of hypocrisy for expecting a miracle while ordering a “gag rule” on the audience, and of being a false prophet for telling such lies to the people. At one point he quoted Paul’s statement, “What concord hath Christ with Belial?” and said brother Willis was having fellowship with the atheist by asking for a miracle. He affirmed that if one doesn’t believe the “apostles’ doctrine,” he would not receive one thing from God.

Following this, Mr. Cayton began appealing to the testimony of himself and others. He claimed to have experienced healing in his own life and to have seen people touched of God, healed, made whole. He later said that there was a woman present who had been raised in “this kind of church” but had come out from “all these lies and hypocrisy” to receive the Holy Ghost. In fact, he indicated he could speak with hours of testimony. However, he ignored the presence of several individuals with obvious physical handicaps by saying that the greatest miracle that could happen to anyone is to be baptized with the Spirit and speak in tongues.

In an attempt to answer brother Willis’ question about the Godhead, Mr. Cayton cited John 1:1 and 14 and said that since Jesus was both God and man it was the flesh crying out. Unfortunately, he never did tell us to whom the flesh was crying out. He closed by trying to identify brother Willis with Satan who tempted the Lord to turn stones into bread when he challenged Cayton to “grow a leg on that man.” Evidently Mr. Cayton forgot about another situation in 1 Kings 18:20-40 where it was the miracle-working Elijah that issued the challenge and then performed the miracle to confirm his message.

Mr. Cayton had ample opportunity to perform a miracle. Water was provided which he could turn into wine, blood, or Pepsi-Cola. There were two loaves of bread and a can of sardines with which he could feed the entire audience and a basket in which to collect the leftovers. He could walk on the water of the baptistry and, like Jesus did with Peter, invite Lewis to go with him. Brother Willis has a crooked thumb which he would like healed. Three men were sitting on the front row, George Baker and David Kiefer both with legs missing, and Russ Kegg with polio.

For whatever reasons, Mr. Cayton declined to perform his miracle. The best he could do was to aver that miracles have not passed away and that there are no people like the so-called church of Christ that come any closer to blaspheming the Holy Ghost when they speak against the work of the Holy Ghost. There was no attempt at a rebuttal. The audience was left to weigh the evidence for themselves. The conclusion was obvious. It is clear to this reviewer that Mr. Cayton does not possess the powers that he claims. Thus, truth was vindicated by brother Lewis Willis.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 12, pp. 364-365
June 21, 1984

By David McClister

Keeping in mind the facts presented in the two previous articles of this study, we must now undertake to identify the “prophesying” of 1 Corinthians 11:4f. Before this can be done correctly, however, a word must be said concerning the difference between a prophet and a teacher. All prophets taught the people of God, for such was the purpose of their prophesying. God wanted to instruct His people, so He spoke to them through His prophets, and this was accomplished through divine inspiration. God spoke to the prophet, the prophet then spoke to the people. It cannot be said, however, that all teachers were (or are) prophets. While it is true that teachers proclaim God’s will as did the prophets, there is one important element missing in the teacher that was present in the prophet, viz divine inspiration. The teacher only “pounds upon and presents what has already been revealed. Teaching was a part (not the whole) or prophecy, and prophecy is not ordinary teaching. Hence, we find that the prophets are distinguished as a different class of servants in passages such as Acts 13:1; Ephesians 4:11; etc. and are not the same as teachers.

What, then, was the prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11:4f? It could be nothing else than true prophesying, which was done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The reasons for this statement are as follows:

(1) The Context. Paul, in the passage before us, assumes that his readers arc already familiar with the idea and practice of a woman prophesying. This is perfect harmony with what is said about prophetesses in the New Testament. Philip had four daughters that prophesied (Acts 21:9). It was even foretold in the Old Testament that women would have the ability to prophesy when God would pour His Spirit upon all flesh (Joel 2:28). Peter said on the day of Pentecost that God had poured forth His Spirit and henceforth introduced the age when men and women would be able to prophesy (Acts 2).

(2) Prophesying by Women. Prophesying, by its very nature, was done publicly. The Bible picture of prophecy is one that shows the prophet speaking openly and publicly to God’s people. A necessary question then arises in the apparent conflict of this passage with 1 Corinthians 14:34. Why would Paul allow the women in 1 Corinthians 11 to prophesy (which obviously involves speaking) if they were veiled, and not allow them to speak at all in 1 Corinthians 14, whether veiled or unveiled? The answer is that the prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11 was that which was done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and was necessarily proclaimed publicly to the church. Since the women could divinely prophesy as could men, the veil was introduced as a symbol of the women’s (continued) subjection to the men. Paul forbids uninspired speech in 1 Corinthians 14, and allows inspired speech by women in 1 Corinthians 11 if the women wear the veil as they speak in the Spirit.

(3) The Combination of Prayer and Spiritual Gifts. In 1 Corinthians 14:14 Paul simply proposes the idea, “if I pray in a tongue.” Now Paul does not go into any detail to explain what he means in saying this. Obviously he did not need to explain it because the recipients of the epistle knew what he was talking about. The Corinthians apparently knew that it was entirely possible to pray to God while speaking in a tongue. Paul would not have said it and would not have made a point about prayer with his statement if it were impossible to combine the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues with prayer. Meyer concedes, “speaking in tongues may have occurred in connection with public prayer by women.”(1) If it was possible to pray in a tongue, then there was inspired prayer, exercised in connection with spiritual gifts.

(4) Prophecy was, in New Testament Times, A Miraculous Gift of the Holy Spirit. The evidence for this is found, as already noted, in 1 Corinthians 12:10. Before anyone contends that the covering must still be worn by women today, he should realize that such a contention implies that he believes the gift of prophecy, which was done only under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and was the occasion for Paul’s writing 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, has not ceased. Yet 1 Corinthians 13:8 states that the spiritual gifts would indeed come to an end, prophesying being one of those gifts. As stated earlier, the prophesying of 1 Corinthians 11 could not be ordinary teaching, for this would not agree with the true significance of biblical prophecy, i.e. its divinely inspired character.

(5) Paul, as an Inspired Apostle of God (1 Cor. 2:10), Would Not Have Condoned False Prophecy. The true prophets spoke by the direct inspiration of God; the false prophets spoke their own will (recall the chart from the previous article). From this fact comes the conclusion that the prophesying in I Corinthians I I must be true prophecy, for Paul would not, yea could not, have given them instructions for carrying out something contrary to God’s will, viz false prophecy.

Conclusion

The ideas of prophecy and inspiration are inseparable. Inspiration is one of the things that makes a prophet a prophet. This concept was understood even by the ancient pagan Greeks. The difference between a true prophet and a false prophet lies in their respective sources of inspiration: the true prophet is inspired of God, the false prophet is “inspired” (stimulated) of human emotion. Because of this connection between prophecy and inspiration, prophecy entails more than ordinary teaching – it is inspired teaching, and more. The prophecy in 1 Corinthians 11, therefore, can only be the true prophecy which was done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If it were anything else Paul would neither have condoned it nor would he have contradicted his own writings in teaching about it. Since the prophecy in 1 Corinthians 11 is of the true, inspired-of-God type, it came to an eventual end, as evidenced by 1 Corinthians 13:8. If it has ended, then regulations concerning its exercise and use are no longer binding.

Again I wish to state that these articles have not been written in any sort of attempt to settle once and for all the controversy between some brethren that has arisen over the interpretation and proper application of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. The purpose of these articles is to present some facts, and some conclusions that may be drawn from them, which should be taken into consideration in the study of this passage of Scripture. It is my sincere hope that brethren will always consider the meanings, usages, and significances of the individual words of the New Testament before the attempt is made to discern its thought in any portion of Scripture.

Endnotes

1. H.A.W. Meyer, Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. VI, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to the Corinthians, trans. D.D. Bannerman, rev. W.P. Dickson (Winona Lake: Alpha Publications, 1979), p. 248.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 12, pp. 361, 372
June 21, 1984

By Jimmy Tuten

As we think of the problem of suffering, we recognize that different people react differently to suffering. Some with minor problems of health act as if they have the most serious handicapped situation on earth. Others handle serious problems as if they had no problem at all. Someone has said, “If folks had more patience the hospitals wouldn’t have so many patients. ” It is sad to see little things in the way of pain and suffering ruining the lives of so many. This makes us appreciate those whose afflictions are great, yet are cheerful and helpful. Any form of illness though, is like a T.V. commercial – even a short one is too long. We have to cope with the problem of pain and suffering. Its reality cannot be denied.

Second Only To Sin

Suffering is a most tragic experience and there is hardly anything more traumatic. But the problem of suffering is second to sin. Sin is the oldest and the most serious problem facing mankind because it brings a death that is worse than physical death (Matt. 10:28; Rom. 6:23). One must bear this in mind with the understanding that suffering is not down-graded. Suffering bears with it consequences that are far-reaching in nature. It is an age-old problem that has been around almost as long as man. Its seriousness is seen in the fact that it can render a man in such a state of mind that it is difficult to reach him with the gospel. Besides the pain that suffering inflicts, it sometimes instills seed of frustrating doubt.

(1) Suffering Is The Second Most Wide-spread Problem. Sin is the most wide-spread problem, for all responsible people sin (1 Jn. 5:19; Rom. 3:23). Yet we know that “man is born into trouble, as the sparks fly upward” (Job 5:6). Look at it: A young man dies in the vigor of youth or a daughter yet in her wedding attire. A mother dies of the dreaded disease at a time when her husband and children need her most. A bread-winner is taken and a family is left in great distress. There is simply no way to know the depth of this problem because we do not know what is kept bottled up inside of some people. “If every man’s internal care were written on his brow, those who our envy share would have our pity now.” But suffering is indeed a most inflicting, wide-spread problem, though second to sin.

(2) Suffering Is The Second Most Frustrating Problem. As can be seen from Isaiah 24, sin is the most frustrating problem of all. Yet the problem of frustrating that is associated with suffering poses one of the greatest problems of all. How frustrating it is to think that, if a man is good he should not have any pain and if he is wicked he should be suffering. Though this is an unscriptural concept, frustration is apparent when we try to unravel the question: “Why do good people suffer?” The thing that makes this so difficult is the fact that not all people understand that conversion affects directly the inward man only and not the outward tabernacle we live in (Rom. 6:6-7; 2 Cor. 4:16). Certainly many of the dissipating effects of sin upon the flesh are eliminated when one begins to live the Christian life, but conversion does not mean that we will not suffer bodily affliction. Though we are not of the world after conversion, we live in the world and the body will have to endure the same afflictions that it endured before coming into Christ. There is a difference though. That difference is what is in the tabernacle, the body, i.e., a new creature with a new out-look on life, a new attitude toward suffering and hope instilled therein. “For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day” (2 Cor. 4:16).

The frustration of suffering is increased by the fact that people want to blame God. Oscar Wildle once said, “There is enough suffering in the streets of London to disprove God.” I ask, “How can this be? How can anyone be driven to thoughts of unbelief when considering suffering?” As in the case of Epicurus (342-270 B.C.) who argued: if God wishes to prevent evil, but cannot, then He is not all powerful; if He can prevent evil, but will not, then He is not good. If he has both the power and the will to eliminate evil, then why is evil in the world) the problem is one of assumption. It is assumed that suffering is evil and that it has no good purpose. Suffering is not evil in and of itself. It is only instrumentally evil or good, depending on the use we make of it. When this is understood, the erroneous position that suffering and God cannot co-exist will not be entertained in the mind. Our Bible teaches us that God is all loving (1 Jn. 4:16), He knows all (1 Jn. 3:20), He is all powerful (Matt. 28) and He is all-wise (Psa. 147:5). Man would have to have perfect knowledge and be God to even question His ways. Man is not capable of knowing all there is to know about suffering. Read carefully Job 38 and understand that in the question, “Who is this that darkeneth -counsel by words without knowledge?” Jehovah shows that man has no right to question His moral goodness or government, His mercy and loving kindness, or His justice. The problem of suffering lies with man and not with God. Suffering should not cause us to go into unbelief. There is some good that comes out of suffering. The writer of Psalms 119:71 said, “It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes.”

Yet the modern-day Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar and Elihu think they have the solutions to the problem of suffering. Let us look at some solutions men offer today.

Modem-day Solutions

(1) Atheists say that the only feasible solution is infidelity. They maintain that the very presence of suffering makes the thought of the existence of God unthinkable. Walter Coffman himself said, “The problem of suffering is crucially important because it shows the God of popular theism does not exist” (The Faith of A Heretic). A present-day, widely known atheist by the name of Wallace Mattson said, “Only one argument is offered as a positive reason for believing that God does not exist. It is that his existence is incompatible with imperfections in the world” (The Existence of God, p. 135). So, the reasoning is that since we have trouble harmonizing our concept of suffering with what we know about God, just don’t trouble yourself any more. Just Wipe God from your mind. They would have us simply take up the solution of not believing that there is a God as described in the Bible, and “presto!” your troubles are over. But I have a question: ” Would the lack of suffering in the world be the only way we would know that there is a God?”

Anyone who seriously considers this proposal can see that it does not take a cousin of Solomon to recognize that such reasoning leaves no room for any wisdom except human wisdom (1 Cor. 1:21). But there is a lot of wisdom in this world other than that which is human (Rom. 1:20). How brazen are atheists who insist that their wisdom be accepted and that all other wisdom be rejected. Creatures of God need to know that there are some things that our minds are not programmed to do. It may insult us to know that there are some things we cannot know and some things we cannot do, but it is none-the-less true. I repeat, God simply has not programmed us to know all things and hence it is not possible to rightfully question His ways. Man is given the capacity to know only what he can handle. “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:29). We are not designed to be omniscient (Rom. 11:33-34).

I contend that atheism is no solution to the problem of suffering! If I sought a solution to the problem in the realm of infidelity, I only compound and complicate the problem. As an atheist I would still have to contend with the problem of suffering. As such, what solution would I give and how would I explain it? Whatever I did as an atheist in trying to explain and resolve this problem would involve me (as an atheist) in a hopeless contradiction. I cannot possibly explain suffering from this standpoint without claiming for myself what I would deny in Jehovah! Look at it. Is the atheist claiming that God does not exist, or that He exists while not being all good? If God does not exist then how can there be evil in the world? All of this boils down to the fact that an atheist cannot so argue without appealing to some universal system of justice which evil (suffering) violates. But, if God does not exist, then there is no universal system of “rightness,” and how could there be any such thing as evil? It would be good if the atheist would define that standard by which he determines that certain things are evil. Many have shown over and over that the atheist cannot do so and be consistent with his own philosophy.

One other thought: If imperfections prove there is no God then what about the perfections? There are more perfect things in the world than there are imperfect. There is more beauty than ugliness. Would these prove that there is a God? Don’t you think we ought to be fair about the matter and look at the whole picture, the good and the bad?

(2) The world in general tell us that the solution to suffering is retribution. What is “retribution”? It is the idea that all suffering comes directly from and is in proportion to sin. It is the belief that one deserves to suffer because he sins and that the righteous do not suffer. We saw this idea espoused in the philosophy of the three friends of Job as recorded in the book that bears his name. The men of Melita felt that Paul deserved to suffer from the viper bite because they assumed that he was a murderer (Acts 28:4). When the people ask the Lord, “Master who did this sin? This man, or his parents?” (Jn. 9:1), they evidenced their belief in the law of retribution (cf. Lk. 13:2,4). But regardless of how popular the belief might be, it is not biblical. There is some suffering that comes from sin, but not in the sense implied and argued for in the theory of retribution. The doctrine of retribution tries to exonerate God, but it is not the answer. If you feel that it is the solution to suffering, then please explain how it is that our Lord suffered when He did no sin (Heb. 4:15).

(3) Some tell us that the removal of all suffering is the solution. But if we did remove all pain from our lives we would be doing away with the good that comes from it. There is a principle of good issuing from pain and suffering. Job said, “I shall come forth as gold” (23:10). Did not the writer of Hebrews 12:11 say, “Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: never the less afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.”

Let me indulge myself for a moment. You see, I can certainly identify with the “seemeth to be joyous” aspect of suffering because when I was a boy my father thought a peach tree was for raising children. His attitude toward it was, “I need thee every hour.” But that peach tree brought me pain. My father used to say, “This ‘is going to hurt me more than you.” I could not understand why it was necessary for both of us to be hurt. After a few years, I understood what my father meant. If I had not had that disciplinary pain I would have missed out on something important in my life. I’m glad it was not eliminated in my life experiences.

The good in suffering is seen in that it contributes toward our future glory (Rom. 8:17). It also works patience, the ability to wait without worrying (Jas. 1:2). How we need this factor as we face the experiences of death, divorce, etc. The apostle Paul had a thorn in the flesh and prayed three times that it might be removed. God said, “My grace is sufficient for thee” (2 Cor. 12:7-9). What would he have missed if the thorn had been eliminated? Please note that the passage shows with whom sin originates and that strength lies in weakness. If God removed all suffering we would not experience the strength that comes from it. This is important in life.

Conclusion

Human suffering is allowed by God for our good. Trying to find human solutions are fruitless. Trust God and His Word. “But he knoweth the way that I take,” said Job, “when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold” (Job 23:10). When we see suffering as God sees it and understand why He allows it, we can be like Job in recognizing the good that comes from it. If He removed all suffering and pain, we would miss out on so much! Let’s start looking at pain through the eyes of Jehovah as revealed in Scripture.

One time a sweet lady had lost her husband and was grieved to the point that she was not responding to efforts to console her. The preacher went to see her and found her sitting on the porch embroidering. As he looked at the side of her work that was facing him, he said, “My, what a mess. There are so many knots and the design is not pretty at all.” The despondent lady quickly countered, “But, you are looking at the wrong side!” She then turned the work over and handed it to the preacher, saying, “This is the side you should be looking at.” The preacher said, “Ah, yes! And that’s the way God wants you to look at the death of your husband. Turn it over and look at it as He sees it.”

You may not be able to do anything about your suffering but you can do something about the guilt of sin that you experience. Baptism will save the believer (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21). You can have the guilt washed away in the blood of the Lamb of God (Acts 22:16). In doing this you prepare yourself for a painless life in the after-a-while and throughout all eternity. “Then my wearied spirit now longs to fly out of my troubled breast. 0 come quickly, sweetest Lord, and take my soul to rest.” Another poet said, “Suffice it if my good and ill unreckoned, and both forgiven through thy astounding grace, I find myself by hands familiar beckoned unto my fitting place.” Few have suffered as did the Apostle Paul. Yet he fought a good fight and kept the faith. He will receive a crown. How is it with you, dear reader?

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 12, pp. 358, 374-375
June 21, 1984

By Daniel W. Paulun

Our Father, Who Art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thank You for my life. Thank You for allowing me to be a normal-functioning human being. Thank You for your love to mankind which is patterned by true love in marriage. Thank You for my spouse who tolerates my differences, and thank You for the child that You have allowed us to love, by which we are both blessed and brought closer together.

May You guide me that I may let my child live his own life instead of the life I wish I had lived. Please guard me against burdening the child with doing what I had failed to do.

Help me to see the missteps of this child today in perspective against the long road he must travel and please grant me the grace to be patient with his slow pace.

Please give me the wisdom to know when to smile at the small mischiefs of his age and when to show firmness against the impulses which he fears and cannot handle.

Help me, Father, to hear the anguish in my child’s heart through the din of angry words or across the gulf of brooding silence. And having heard, please grant me the ability to bridge the gap between us – with understanding.

Guide me that I may raise my voice more in joy at what my child is than vexation at what my child is not so that each day my child may grow in sureness of himself.

Then, Heavenly Father, help me to regard my child that You have given with genuine affection so that he will feel affection for others. Please give me strength to free my child from my keep so that my child can move strongly on his own.

Please help me to teach my child Your ways that he understands that Your way is best. And may Your will be done with me, as parent, as well as with my child.

Finally, Father, let me be an example of love and morals that have been revealed through the Bible and by the life and death of Your only begotten Son who died for mankind. May Your will be done and not mine own. In Jesus’ name I pray, Amen.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 12, p. 364
June 21, 1984