Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

Every parent should be deeply interested in the physical, moral and spiritual welfare of his or her offspring. Children are a wonderful blessing from God. Their upbringing presents a great, challenge to both father and mother. Parental responsibility demands. wisdom, patience, courage, sympathy, love, and a lot of other attributes.

Some parents, perhaps unwittingly, do their children grave injustices. The following are a few of the ways in which mothers and fathers wrong their sons and daughters:

(1) Babying

Some parents would like to see their children stay in that precious stage of being cute little babies. Occasionally a remark like this is heard by a mother who holds a lovely child in her arms: “Isn’t it awful that they have to grow up?” But is it really awful? Growth is natural. Only retarded children fail to grow up. I have always been thankful that my children are not retarded, and I have rejoiced to see them grow and mature.

Parents are foolish not to accept growth as a normal part of life. Treating a growing youth as if a little baby does much harm. The immaturity shown by some youngsters in their late teens and early twenties reflects the results of parents’ treating them like babies instead of maturing young men and women. Life is not all fun and games. Young people need to learn from their parents that they are expected to think and act more maturely with each passing year.

(2) Pampering

In this age of great material prosperity many parents give their children virtually everything they desire – if it can be bought with money. Teenagers drive costly cars, own expensive stereo outfits, have the latest electronic gadgets for entertainment, spend lavishly on recreation, and expect the “old man” to furnish all of this plus food, clothing, and a room.

The indulgent manner in which young people are reared contributes to irresponsible behavior, lack of appreciation for blessings, and inability to cope with hardships. Mother and daddy, you do your child no favor by endless pampering. Learn the difference between loving care and overindulgence.

(3) Neglecting Discipline

Many children have the freedom to do just about what they please. There is precious little restraint. Although they are not capable of making certain decisions, their parents leave them without direction and guidance. These parents who are permissive toward their offspring are not doing them a favor. Good parents say “no” to whatever is not in the best interests of their children.

Fathers and mothers need to train their children to accept responsibilities. Girls to be taught to sew and cook. Boys should be taught to work. I know that in some cases it is less bother for a parent to do a job than to stay after Johnny or Mary, reminding and perhaps threatening punishment, but if Johnny and Mary are allowed to be lazy, in later years they will suffer the consequences. Parents do their children a serious wrong when they do not teach them (by whatever means necessary) to work around the house.

(4) Ignoring Needs

We bristle with righteous indignation when we read a newspaper account of parents who have failed to provide food, clothing, and medical care for their children. Child abuse takes on a variety of forms. A parent may provide aft the temporal necessities and still ignore the personal attention that should be given to the problems which a child encounters. Some children are starved for affection from their own parents!

A father who is gone from home except for occasional weekend visits could be losing his son or daughter without realizing it. I feel strongly that some preachers have become so wrapped up in preaching, traveling and teaching, dealing with marriage problems and controversies in the church, that they have failed to take the time to help their own children. It is sad that some parents have so little time for their sons and daughters.

Then there are parents who are keenly aware of all the needs which their offspring have except the most important – their spiritual training. Even among Christians, there are parents who pay no attention to whether or not their children attend Bible classes, study their lessons, and behave properly during church services. Every father needs to give personal attention to the spiritual life of his children.

(5) Setting Bad Examples

It should be obvious to parents that they do an injustice when they fail to teach their children by wholesome example. A child learns quickly that his mother and father do not really mean what they say – when they are seen doing the opposite.

Parents, let us take a good look at ourselves. We may be just too easy-going. Do we look the other way when we ought to show firmness in dealing with our children? Do our youngsters feel close to mom and pop, or somewhat estranged due to our lack of interest in them? Our children need our help. Let’s provide it!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 20, pp. 609, 624
October 20, 1983

By Larry Ray Hafley

I ‘There is much mystery about the n4ture of Jesus’ body after the resurrection. It was a tangible body: the disciples saw Jesus (Mark 16:14; John 20:18; 1 Cor. 9: 1, etc.), and he talked with them (Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24:17, 25ff., etc.). The women who met with him on the path clasped His feet (Matt. 28:9), and apparently Mary Magdalene, too, clung to Him. He invited Thomas to handle His body (John 20.27). There is no evidence that Thomas did so, but it is most unlikely that Jesus would have invited Him to if it had not been possible. He ate in the presence of the disciples (Luke 24:42, 43). All of this indicates that his was a real body; he was no ghost” (Ray Summers, The Life Beyond, pp. 45, 46).

“Why are ye troubled? And why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (Lk. 24:38,39). Yes, Jesus was in His physical body, “the body of his flesh.” Assuredly, he was no ghost. However, there is much speculation about other aspects of His body because of His appearance to the disciples in a secured room (Jn. 20:19), and His vanishing “out of their sight” (Lk. 24:31). But why the amazement? Certainly, the man who could walk on the water and traverse a stormy sea (Mk. 6:48), and who could restore a severed ear (Lk. 22:51), could also miraculously appear and disappear. There is no need to suppose that Jesus’ body was different after His resurrection. It was the same flesh that’was killed that was raised (Acts 2:31,32). He is not now in His physical body (Heb. 5:7; Phil. 3:21; 1 Jn. 3:2), but He was between His resurrection and ascension (2 Tim. 2: 8).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 19, p. 598
October 6, 1983

By Frank Jamerson

In previous articles we have studied the life that is essential for unity and the facts of unity. The fourth chapter of Ephesians continues with a discussion of the “gifts” that Christ gave that we may attain “the unity of the faith” (read Eph. 4:7-16). The context is not dealing with the duration of the gifts, but with the purpose of them. the gifts were to produce a “full grown man” in contrast to children who are “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” This process continues as newborn babes are brought to maturity through these gifts which Christ gave.

When Christ came to the earth, died, arose and ascended to the right hand of God, He “led captivity (sin, which held man) captive” and “gave gifts unto men.” The gifts are listed in verse 11. “And he gave some to be apostles; and some prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.” Each of these gifts had and has an important part in the unity that Christ enjoins.

The word “apostle” means “one sent forth.” It is used of Christ, who was sent to the earth (Heb. 3: 1). It is also used of those who were sent by a church (see 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). In Ephesians 4, the word refers to those who were chosen and sent by Christ. There was only one successor to an apostle. Matthias took Judas’ place, but he met the qualifications of accompanying Jesus from His baptism to His ascension and being an eye-witness of the resurrection (Acts 1:21-26). Paul was called “out of due season” to be an apostle (1 Cor. 15:8,9).

The work of apostles was to reveal and confirm the gospel. Mark said that Jesus commissioned the apostles to “go . . . into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mk. 16:15). “And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen” (v.20). They laid the foundation of the church, which is Christ (1 Cor. 3:11).

In a slightly different figure of speech, Paul said, “being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:20). It seems in this verse that the apostles and prophets are viewed as part of the foundation with Jesus being the “chief corner stone.”

Some religious people contend that we must have apostles on earth in order to have the New Testament church. If that were true, we would have to have Jesus on earth, too! The fact is that Jesus rules today through His word which was revealed and confirmed by the apostles and prophets. The foundation has been laid, and it is sufficient!

The “prophets” were men who spoke by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:20, 21). The prophets of our text were engaged in the same kind of work as the apostles. They did not have power to lay hands on people and bestow miraculous gifts, as the apostles did (Acts 8:18), but they were miraculously guided in their teaching. Prophets were not simply preachers. They were inspired preachers. Prophecy ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-10), but preaching did not. There are no “prophets” today for the same reason that there are no apostles on earth today. (Reading the words of a prophet would no more make you a prophet than reading the words of ani apostle would make you an apostle!)

Christ gave “evangelists, ” which means “messengers of good.” Evangelists of the first century may have had miraculous powers to confirm their message, as did Philip (Acts 8:13), but that is not an essential part of their work. The work of an evangelist is to “preach the work; be urgent in season and out of season… suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry” (2 Tim. 4:2-5). They are also called “ministers” (1 Tim. 4:6) and “preachers” (1 Tim. 2:7). They were not called “pastors.” There is a difference between an evangelist and a pastor, just as there is between an evangelist and an apostle!

Christ also gave “pastors.” The word poitnen is only translated “pastor” once in the standard English versions. (From the denominational use of it, one would think that it is on every page of the New Testament!) It is translated “shepherd” seventeen times and “rule” four times. The verb form of the word is translated to “feed” or “tend.” Paul told elders to “feed the church of the Lord” (Acts 20:17, 28). Peter exhorted elders to “feed” (KJV), “tend” (ASV), or “shepherd” (NASV) “the flock of God which is among you . . .” (I Pet. 5:2). The qualifications of elders, or pastors, are given in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

God intended that elders be appointed in every church (Acts 14:23). They are watchmen of souls and must give account of their stewardship (Heb. 13:17). They are not “lords,” but they do “rule” and must show kindness and consideration for others in the decisions that they make (1 Tim. 3:5; 5:17). When qualified men are appointed as elders and the flock “knows and esteems them highly” (1 Thess. 5:12,13), unity is apt to exist!

The word “teachers” in the text may refer to the “pastors” who are to be “apt to teach.” (Some argue this because of the grammatical construction of the verse.) It is true that elders are to be teachers, but other passages clearly show that others, in addition to elders, should also be teachers.. “For when by reason of time ye ought to be teachers . . .” (Heb. 5:12). “And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). The word “men” in this passage is from anthropos which means “a human being, male or female.” Women are restricted in their teaching (I Tim. 2:12), but this does not negate their responsibility to “teach. “

These are the “gifts” that Christ gave to bring us unto “the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 19, p. 597
October 6, 1983

By Dan Walters

The Apostle Paul warns us in Colossians 2:8, “Beware led any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” He expresses a similar thought in 2 Corinthians 11:3. “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve, through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” Perhaps we need these warnings of the New Unity Movement, of such men as Ketcherside, Garrett, Kilpatrick, and Fudge, are the result of theological speculation, based upon the traditions of such theologians as Luther and Calvin., They contain their own perverse form of logic and human wisdom, but they could not have been formulated from a simple study of the Bible alone. Ile more I read the writings of R.L. Kilpatrick, for instance, the more amazed I become that he and his associates have been able to deceive any brother who is well grounded in the Scriptures. Kilpatrick could just as well be a Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian, as a member of God’s church. Any brother who could answer such a denominationalist in debate could answer Kilpatrick. There is simply no new material being presented.

Why, then, have certain young preachers been deceived by these apostate brethren, when they would have Probably never been deceived by a Methodist preacher? One answer is that any person who has long been a member of the church of Christ has a strong bias against any material presented directly by a denominational clergyman. But the young preacher of today is not necessarily biased against the theological intellectualism which forms the heart of denominationalism. Most of the brethren who have been deceived have been aspiring intellectuals. I here use the word “intellectual” to refer, not to intelligence and knowledge alone, but to a love of sophisticated terminology and complex abstract reasoning which transcends basic logic and common sense. And there is a difference between an intelligent person and an intellectual, there is also a difference between a Bible student and a theologian. Someone once defined an intellectual as an individual who is educated beyond his intelligence. This may be close to the mark. The modern theologian is a religious philosopher who is not content with simple Bible statements, but insists upon harmonizing everything into a semi-logical pattern which fits certain preconceived theological assumptions.

We may have unknowingly started some of these young preachers down the wrong road. Consider the modern emphasis upon both secular and theological education as a qualification for preaching the gospel. Consider the heavy theological books, many of them written by sectarians, which young preachers are expected to own and to master. For example, I once received a letter from a young preacher in the Philippines who requested that I send him several expensive and profound theological volumes that were recommended to him by some “big name” American preacher. I have never felt the need to own these works myself, and here we are talking about an inexperienced young man who lives in a poor country with a high rate of illiteracy. I sent him several copies of Douthitt’s Bible Topic Studies and Nicholls Pocket Bible Encyclopedia, and did not receive a reply.

We have raised a generation of super-educated young preachers who are intent upon acquiring more and more academic knowledge in the field of theology, who are given recognition for such achievement, and who have not even mastered the fundamentals of simple Bible knowledge. Beside, many of them are not old enough and experienced enough to possess that wisdom which does not come from books. Worse, we recommend that they sit at the feet of Calvinists and other alien sinners and false teachers, either literally in the schools or through the medium of the books. We would not ask a Calvinist theologian to come and preach a sermon or teach a class in our local church. Why then do we subject ourselves and our young brethren to their influence? There may be a place for a few reference works, in the field of dead languages for instance, that have been written by non-Christians. But when it comes to commentaries and other books which must of necessity contain the element of opinion, it seems to me that we have enough of these which have been written by New Testament Christians.

Such old warriors as J.D. Tant and Joe H. Blue did not have much worldly education. Some assume that they would not be effective in our modem age. I disagree. And I am certain neither of these brethren would have had any trouble with Ketcherside, Garrett, Kilpatrick, or Fudge. Brother Blue stated that when he started preaching he had in his saddle bags his Bible and a copy of The Gospel Plan of Salvation by T.W. Brents. Brother Tant authored a book of short, simple sermons, The Gospel X-Ray, which would be of more use to a young preacher than all the works of learned sectarian doctors. These two books, along with the booklets I mentioned earlier, a Cruden’s Complete Concordance, and a good Bible would provide sufficient tools for many years of work in the vineyard of the Lord. Let us get back to the basics, lose our shame of simple and direct sermons, and leave the theologians in their “theological cemeteries.”

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 19, p. 596
October 6, 1983