Truth Magazine

By Irven Lee

Several years ago I saw a comic strip in which a little boy was asking his mother, “Why did we get daddy?” Some little people even if they had the mature intellect of adults, might feel like asking a similar question because they are ignored by their father. He does not, in some cases seem to be a working member of the team. His time is dedicated to his business, his recreation, and only to those things that interest him. This is unfortunate. He could and should be a very precious and much loved member of the family.

“If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8). A man who adequately provides the things that money can buy for his wife and children must work with diligence. This is no easy task. Food, clothing, shelter, medical needs, and reasonable social affairs are expensive. The able bodied man who is not willing to toil to provide for these things has revolted against God’s law and is worse than an infidel. Some seem to prefer to beg or steal rather than to earn these necessary things. There are a few drones that seem not to know what is going on about them. They can have large families, but the wives and children must provide for themselves. This is a repulsive sight.

Some men in our generation amass fortunes and seek to buy the loyalty of their children. They allow them to have and spend great sums of money. This extreme is dangerous. Such children may develop such drug habits and life styles that even their large money supply is not adequate to fulfill their demands. Crime, immorality, and dishonesty may cause them to become a curse to their families and to society in general.

A Gift of Time

There is great need for a father’s wisdom in providing for the necessities of his children and also providing the love, counsel, and oversight that will help them to learn to properly use what they have. Time is one of the greatest gifts a man could have for his children. A father should be a very good friend to each of his children. Each will delight in early childhood to have his attention as evidence of his love. If he listens to his child and talks to his child of things that interest the little one, a close tie between the two is developed. This close contact can be maintained by the wise father so that the older son or daughter will see no communication or generation gap later. This is the id-al and it is well worth the effort and the cost in time. Children need to be fed and clothed, but they also need to be trained. “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6). Example is an essential element in the training process. We actually show them how they ought to live. We cannot send our influence the right way while we go the wrong way in our own lives.

A Good Example

The alcoholic’s family often suffers much because of the irritable nature of the slave of alcohol. Some who drink become very irritable while under the influence. Their children are also sometimes made to suffer for lack of food, clothing, and other things that money can buy because the bread winner buys liquor first and then does not have enough left to provide for those who have a right to look to him for support.

It is difficult for me to understand why a son or daughter of an alcoholic father or of alcoholic parents will follow in the steps of these slaves, but many of them do follow the unfortunate example of their parents. Why do they form the habit that will cause their children to suffer as they have had to do? Example is a powerful force. Fathers should take more thought to the examples they are setting before their families.

The unholy family environment may be such that the only contact the children may have with others will be with the wrong kind of companions. Their associates may tend to be those that tolerate the liquor habit. Each child may start the habit by taking the first drinks with the full confidence that he will not continue in that way. The alcoholic tends to bring forth children after his kind. This is true of addicts of all harmful drugs.

Parents who are vulgar blasphemers may see their children become just as vulgar and irreverent as they are. Dishonest parents are likely to have dishonest children. This is true so often that the public may penalize worthy sons of an unworthy father. The family name may carry a certain stigma with it. We should all be watchful and ready to encourage that young man who is worthy of a good name.

We have taken several words to say that a father should leave a good example and, therefore, a good name for his children. Money cannot replace that precious right. Some unholy fathers do provide money but not the good example. They are not able to give good, meaningful advice. Good advice is in harmony with the conduct of the one who gives it. We cannot send our influence one way while we go another.

Teaching God’s Word

The tongue is a little member, but it boasts great things. The teaching is not only by example. Many things need to be said in teaching the basic principles or righteousness so that the young can learn to make their own decisions. The gospel is taught by word of mouth. The love of God, the message and example of Christ, the word of the Spirit, and the hope of heaven are taught by word of mouth. Very many fathers fail miserably to bring their children “up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Comparatively few have the great advantage that Timothy had in being associated with his wonderful mother and grandmother (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14, 15). Nothing is said of his father to indicate that he took his part in the training of the child. Too many fathers leave the spiritual training to the mothers, and that is not what the Lord intended. The father is to take his place as head of the home and guide in the training in spiritual things as well as in physical things. Why are there not more ,fathers who will do so?

For a life to be exemplary the good pattern must be continuing action. There is to be that day by day pattern before the growing children. The instruction is also to be on a continuing basis. Repetition is one of the laws of learning. A point of precious truth should be mentioned over and over on different occasions. By this means, and only by this means, can it be deeply implanted into the mind of the child. Let every father who is a Christian understand that training his child by word and by example is a very important part of his responsibility. It is also his wonderful privilege.

Let every non-Christian father realize that he is standing in the way of his children’s obedience to God. “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad” (Matt. 12:30). It seems that some fathers who golf on Sunday or do other things that satisfy themselves have convinced themselves that they can turn all of the religious training of the children over to their wives. They do not forbid their worshiping and they make their transportation available, and then they feel that they have fulfilled their responsibility to the family. Have they forgotten the power of their example? The small children may gladly go with their mother, but as young adults they may demonstrate the power of a father’s example. A man should obey God because of his love for God and for his own salvation. As an added motive he should obey God in every way as a proper pattern for his children.

The devout father who spends much time working to provide for the needs of his family and in training his children by word and example is a great man who can and will be happy in the results of his labors. Whether or not he prospers financially or is prominent in the affairs of this life, he can be great in the eyes of God and in the eyes of his children, if he is successful in being a good father and a worthy Christian. The requirements for these things are not fame nor fortune. These things require faithful dedication to the ideals that are most important.

Ruling His House

Evidently a man is not a good example as a father if he is not willing to work to provide for his own. (See 1 Tim. 5:8; 1 Thess. 4:11, 12; 2 Thess. 3:8-12.) It is also evident that he needs to provide the proper guidance and discipline for his children. (Read Heb. 12:5-11; Prov. 13:24;, 22:6, 15; 29:15-17.) It is true that there is some “know how” involved in fulfilling these responsibilities. In giving the qualifications of elders Paul listed: “One who ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity: (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Tim. 3:4, 5).

Do you know how to rule your own house? If not, you need to learn because there is great need that the job be accomplished. “Correct thy son, and he will give thee rest; yea, he shall give delight unto they soul” (Prov. 29:17). It is possible to discourage and frustrate a child rather than discipline. Discipline is not child abuse, but some fathers do become abusive in what they call discipline. “Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged” (Col. 3:21). Of course, a child may cry when properly disciplined, but he is not to be harassed, frustrated, and made sullen by the actions of a tyrant who is called a father. Too much money and discipline that is too harsh and unreasonable may do much harm. Use all the wisdom you have in your effort to be a good and worthy father who will succeed in this very great undertaking.

The Christ taught His disciples to think of God as Father. His disciples are children of God. The father and child relationship is expected to be very close. It is a very unnatural and repulsive thing to learn of men who not only neglect but even abuse their children. We learn of very small children who have broken bones and other serious injuries received from men who should be worthy to be called fathers. Alcohol and other drugs may be the most common cause of this cruelty from people who were created to be in the image of God. Men who have so completely ignored their role as fathers are more like unreasonable beasts who shall utterly perish in their own corruption. In their destroying they shall surely be destroyed. The role of the father is to provide for, protect, train, and love their children. They are the people to whom the children may turn for security and other special needs.

Very dedicated parents often wonder how they should answer and what they should do on various occasions as their little ones come with their questions and problems. Being filled with a great love for the children and with a great respect for and knowledge of the Bible will help them find the proper answers and make their right decisions in matters that involve these dependent souls. Each has a soul worth more than the world itself, because the spirit goes back to God in death and will not be destroyed when the elements are melted with fervent heat.

Our materialistic America is very well acquainted with the idea of a return on an investment. The matter of sowing and reaping is involved in our relationships in the home and with our neighbors and brethren. “Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Matt. 25:40). “Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, end that he be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt. 18:6). Physical death is not as bad as that which is to come to a father who is the real stumbling stone of his own children. He must give account for his behavior in his own family, as well as in other aspects of life.

“Give, and it shall be given to you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again” (Luke 6:38). This great principle of sowing and reaping certainly applies to a father and his children. The man who has won the respect and love of his children has insurance for times of sickness and in his old age that no insurance company has to offer. He gives when they need him, and they give when he needs them.

Some parents who seem to have tried hard to be what they should be to their children have their hearts broken by the ungodliness and immorality of their children. All of us should try to help them bear their sorrow. There are many influences that are brought to bear on children other than the wholesome influence of parents who are Christians. As children grow up they come to have responsibilities, too. Sin that destroys them also harms those who have loved them and sacrificed for them. Our unbelieving and ungodly world has many broken hearts.

Conclusion

The right kind of a father is a good husband, a good neighbor, a good, citizen, and a good member of the church. In his being a good example to his children he proves or demonstrates “that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” in all these relationships. If a man mistreats his wife or is unfaithful to her he is certainly not a good father. Neither he, his wife, nor his children has a good home if he is not a good husband and father.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 10, pp. 289, 308-309
May 19, 1983

By C. G. “Colly”Caldwell

One of the most basic and fundamental doctrines of the New Testament is the fact that Jesus Christ was more than man. The Truth proclaims that He is in fact Divine, God the Son (John 1:1; Heb. 1:6-8). So important is it to believe in His Deity that Jesus said, “Except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24). You will notice that the word “he” is italicized indicating that it was supplied by the translators. In fact Jesus is using the Divine designation which was given to Moses when he asked God, “Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you” (Ex. 3:13-14). Again, the point must be made that belief in the Deity of Christ is essential to salvation! On earth He was “God with us,” God and man (Matt. 1:23; John 1:14).

Through the centuries, challenges have arisen to this great Truth. We should be aware of some of the major controversies:

The Sabellians (ca A.D. 215)

Sabellius was a teacher at Rome and a leader of the “modalistic monarchian” school of thought regarding divinity (“monarchy” suggesting the primacy of the Father). He was excommunicated by Callistus, bishop of Rome between A.D. 217 and 222. Sabellius argued that God is one “Person” who projects Himself in three “modes” (filling three roles):

a. Seen as “Father,” He creates and gives law;

b. Seen as “Son,” He .redeems and saves; and

c. Seen as “the Spirit,” He sanctifies giving spiritual life.

Modern forms of Sabellianism are held by the Unitarians and Oneness Pentecostals.

The Arians (ca A.D. 318-381)

Arius was an Alexandrian theologian who died in A.D. 336. Alexander (also of Alexandria) responded to his views before the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) and Athanasius disputed with him afterwards. Arius argued that Jesus was a created being and not eternal. Jesus was an intermediate being between deity and humanity, he said. The Father alone is true God. The Son is called “God” only in a metaphorical sense and, therefore, is not of the same essence (not homoousion, the same substance) as the Father. A modern form of this false position is held by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The Apolliuarlans (ca A.D. 361-381)

The bishop of Laodicea, Apollinarius, was an aggressive polemicist of the fourth century. He claimed that Jesus was Divine to the point that He could not be truly human at the same time. The only life principle in Christ was the Logos, he said, and therefore all human involvement in Jesus was “passively” observed but not really experienced. Jesus consequently did not have a human will and did not participate in human thought processes (learning, etc.). Neither was he really tempted. This position led to the worship of Jesus’ flesh in the transubstantiation view of the Lord’s Supper.

The Nestorians (ca A.D. 428-451)

Originally a monk at Antioch, Nestorius became bishop of Constantinople. He taught that Jesus was actually two distinct persons, one human and one divine. The divine Christ was not involved in suffering, temptation, growth, death, etc. The human part only was borne by Mary. Mary was not, therefore, a God-bearer (theotokos).

The Monophysites (began ca A.D. 440)

In the beginning this movement was led by Eutyches, head of a monastery in Constantinople. Another important advocate of the position was Cyril of Alexandria. These men refused to accept that Jesus had two natures (human and divine) and believed that His divine Logos absorbed His humanity. Jesus, they said, did not have true human nature after His birth. The human was deified in Him so that His body was not of the same substance as ours. The deity in Him was capable of suffering and death, however.

The Monothelites (ca A.D. 580)

This position was thought to have been launched by the emperor Heraclius. The doctrine essentially sanctioned monophysitism and complemented it. It held that the human and divine wills of Jesus were fused into one will. It went on to raise the issue of whether Jesus truly had human personality. “Orthodox” theologians responded that the union of the divine and human did not deprive Jesus of any element of humanity but rather perfected it.

The Adoptionists (ca A.D. 780)

The Adoptionist controversy arises from the teachings of Elipandus of Spain. It had been hinted at in some of the earlier literature of those taking positions already described. Basically Elipandus held that Jesus became the Son of God by adoption at His baptism (some say at His resurrection). Jesus was in nature simply a man endowed with divinity as a result of His strong desire for union with God and His good life.

The Socinians (ca 1525-1600)

The Socinian movement was led by two Italian theologians, Lelio and Fausto Sozzini. They accepted the Adoptionist position but affirmed that Jesus was supernaturally conceived and resurrected. They denied the preexistence of Christ.

The Mormons (1820- )

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints traces itself to founder Joseph Smith and promoter Brigham Young. They claim that Jesus was the first born (or first created) spirit. Although they do not often have the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing it on national radio or television, they claim that Jesus is a god in the same sense that others of us can attain unto godhood. Other men’s spirits which were created before the world hold the same position as Jesus; that is, incarnated on this earth or on another planet. Mormons have a full “pantheon” of gods and Jesus is one of them. Adam was also one, as was Joseph Smith.

The Christian Scientists (1875- )

Founded by Mary Baker Glover Patterson Eddy, the Christian Scientists have claimed that Jesus was the supreme manifestation of a divine ideal or principle which exists inherently within every man. Mrs. Eddy denied the true existence of the physical universe; therefore, she claimed that Jesus was an illusion of the mortal mind. He was an idea, not God in the flesh.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses (1879- )

The Jehovah’s Witnesses were established by Pastor Charles Taze Russell and promoted by Judge Joseph Franklin Rutherford. The movement resulted from Adventist influences. The Witnesses contend that Jesus is a mighty god but not the Almighty God. He is the first creation of Jehovah God. He is “a god” but not the Son. This position is similar to the Arian position and uses much the same argumentation on Biblical passages such as John 1:1-3.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 9, pp. 274-275
May 5, 1983

By Randy S. Reese, Sr.

While reading the report on the 152nd Semi-annual General Conference of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day-Saints (Mormons), held on October 2-3, 1982, I began to see some very interesting comparisons.

During the 39 talks given, the Bible was quoted 164 times while the Mormon Doctrine was quoted 128 times, this included three quotations from the Gospel of John (Joseph Smith’s Inspired Translation).

The Bible was quoted three times more often than the Book of Mormon, although only 15 books of the New Testament, 14 books of the Old Testament, and 8 books from the Book of Mormon were used.

The most quoted book, of Mormon doctrine was the Doctrine and Covenants quoted 64 times, the least being the book of Abraham once.

The most quoted book of the New Testament was the book of Matthew quoted 34 times also the book of Luke 31 times, the least quoted books were Philippians, Titus, and Revelation.

The most quoted book of the Old Testament was the book of Joshua 12 times and the book of Genesis 7 times. The least quoted was the book of Joel once.

I find their use of the Bible most interesting when considering what Apostle Orson Pratt a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had to say in the 1850’s concerning the Bible and the book of Matthew:

Many Protestants say they take the Bible as their only rule of faith . . . . What evidence have they that the book of Matthew was inspired of God, or any other of the books of the New Testament? The only evidence they have is tradition …. Can we rely upon it in it’s present known corrupted state, as being a faithful record of God’s word?. . . What few (manuscripts that, R.R.) have come down to our day have been mutilated, changed and corrupted . . . . Verses and even whole chapters have been added by unknown persons; and we are not certain that all those which we do know were written by inspiration . . . . Who in his right mind, could for a moment, suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even one verse of the whole Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original? (Orson Pratt’s Works, The Bible Alone An Insufficient Guide, pp. 44-47).

The Apostle Mark E. Peterson one of the speakers at the conference and also a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had this to say about the reliability of the Bible:

Many insertions were made, some of them `slanted’ for selfish purposes, while at times deliberate falsifications and Fabrications were perpetrated” (As Translated Correctly, p. 4). It is evident then that many of the `plain and precious’ things were omitted from the Bible by failure to choose all of the authentic books for inclusion, and by deliberate changes deletions and forgeries. . . (p. 14, all italics mine R.R.).

After making such a statement he quotes from the books of Matthew and Luke l I times during his talk. Is he now saying that it is alright to use some of the books of the Bible?

If the Bible is so corrupt why do they persist in quoting from it? Having been a Mormon for eighteen years, I think I can truthfully say that the Mormon church will use any Bible Scripture that will help them when they find it convenient to use it.

I would like to ask any of my Mormon friends who might read this to open their Bible to 2 Peter 1:3. After reading this Scripture do what the Mormons asked you to do when you joined them, Ask God to open your heart so that you can honestly and earnestly examine the true teaching found in the New Testament, so that you can become a part of the true body of Jesus Christ.

In closing I would like to say I hope that we can successfully teach our friends and neighbors the falseness of Mormonism, before that day described in Mt. 7:21-23, When the Lord will say, “I never knew you depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 9, p. 273
May 5, 1983

By 

A reader in Chapel Hill, N.C. wrote Ann Landers and asked her to return her definition of maturity. As I read through the 8-point definition, I immediately realized that these principles also applied to maturity concerning spiritual matters. The New Testament certainly teaches that we as Christians must grow to maturity, striving to be full-grown in our spiritual lives (cf. Eph. 4:12-16; Heb. 5:12-14; 2 Pet. 3:18).

(I) Maturity is the ability to tolerate injustice without wanting to get even. Commonly known as retaliation, the Bible strictly teaches against it. Jesus said, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you” (Mt. 5:44). The mature Christian is the one who will practice this principle in his daily life (cf. Rom. 12:14-21).

(2) Maturity is patience. It is the willingness to postpone immediate gratification in favor of the long-term gain. Christians must indeed endure and forego some of the pleasures of this life if heaven is to be our home. Moses is a good example of one who was willing to do so (Heb. 11:24-27). James said “that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing” (Jas. 1:2-4).

(3) Maturity is perseverance, sweating out a project in the face of heavy opposition and discouraging setbacks. It surely takes a mature Christian to have the kind of steady persistence that is needed to live a faithful life, overcoming the many obstacles that come along. The Bible tells us “not to be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not” (Gal. 6:9). We must be “steadfast and unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58).

(4) Maturity is the capacity to face unpleasantness and frustration, discomfort and defeat without complaint, collapse or attempting to find someone to blame. The mature Christian must pick himself up after a fall and keep trying. Paul did (Phil. 3:12-14)! When discomfort and defeat come our way, we must deal with them in an uncomplaining manner. The mature Christian will be content in whatever circumstance he finds himself (Phil. 4:11-13), realizing that he “can do all things through Christ. “

(5) Maturity is humility. It is being big enough to say, “I was wrong, ” and, when right, the mature person is able to forego the satisfaction of saying, “I told you so. ” Jesus not only taught humility (Lk. 14:7-11), He also exemplified it in His life (Phil. 2:1-8). Jesus said, “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up” (Jas. 4:10). Peter said that we are to “clothe ourselves with humility” (1 Pet. 5:5-7). The mature Christian is one who does so.

(6) Maturity is the ability to evaluate a situation, make a decision and stick with it. The immature spend their lives exploring possibilities, changing their minds and in the end do nothing. The mature Christian has made the commitment to live for the Lord and has conviction enough to stick with it! Yes, we must be willing to “contend for the faith” (Jude 3), “ready always to give an answer of the hope that is in us with meekness and fear” (1 Pet. 3:15). We must be decisive if we are to be full-grown Christians, striving to be stable in all our ways (Eph. 4:14; Jas. 1:5-8).

(7) Maturity means dependability, keeping one’s word, coming through in a crisis. To be dependable means to be worthy of trust; reliable. There are many Christians who are not trustworthy and reliable. This ought not to be! We as Christians need to be reliable and keep our word. “But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation” (Jas. 5:12; cf. also Mt. 5:33-37).

(8) Maturity is the art of living in peace with that which we cannot change, the courage to change that which can be changed, and the wisdom to know the difference. If a person is truly a mature person he will not fret and worry about anything! Jesus said we are not to be anxious about the necessities of life, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you ” (Mt. 6:24-34). Paul said, “Be anxious for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6-7).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 9, p. 272
May 5, 1983