Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

The homeplace in Virginia which my father and his brother built when I was three years old, never had a front porch. The original structure was four rooms built of rough lumber from trees cut on the spot where the house was to be built. A steady job by 1939 enabled my father to add eight feet to one side of the house and to add four rooms upstairs, making it a nice-sized farm house. My parents patterned it after a farm house they saw in southeastern Virginia, complete with a front porch extending across the front of the house and around one side to include the chimney. But my folks were never quite able to build that porch. The reason for that contains a lesson many parents could use.

Paul wrote “for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children. And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you …” (2 Cor. 12:14). In this context Paul explained why he would not be a burden to the Corinthians when he visited them again. You see, he had “begotten” them “through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15) and looked upon them as his children in the Lord. He was as a father to them. He did not expect them to sustain him. No, he would “lay up for them,” he would “very gladly spend and be spent” for them. The attitude shown here would greatly benefit all who preach the gospel. It would abolish selfishness.

But there is also a great truth taught here about parents and children. It was actually that truth upon which Paul relied to impress his point to the Corinthians. The truth is that parents ought to provide for their children.

After my mother’s death in July, this truth came home to me forcefully after a conversation with my aunt Ida, my mother’s only remaining sib-ling. She said, “They always wanted that porch on the front of the house, but there was always somewhere else for the money to be spent.” Why did I learn that from an aunt? I never heard either of my parents speak about a frustrated dream of a porch. But I am one of several reasons why the porch was never built.

My father was a carpenter on a construction crew for Hercules Powder Company. He farmed a little on the side to provide food for the family. My mother was a homemaker. Our house not only was home to three children but to other relatives. My great-grandmother and grandmother lived there until they died. My father’s sister lived there most of her adult life. My grandfather spent his last few years there. In 1948, I went away to Florida College, never to live at home again. It took every dime I could earn and all they could do to make that possible. My father sold chickens and farm produce from door to door in Hopewell, Virginia to make extra money. He drove a 1936 Chevrolet for a long, long time. His wardrobe was limited.

So was my mother’s. Without complaint and no attempt to make me feel guilty, they sacrificed to help me all they could to go to college for four years. Before I had finished, Wiley began preaching and decided four years in college would be a great help to him. My parents tightened their belts and pitched in to help all they could. It was even more difficult for Wiley to go than for me because he was already married and had two children at the time, with a third born while they were at Florida College.

My sister, nine years younger than me, also attended Florida College. More sacrifices had to be made. Still, no porch. When Glenda had finished, they decided to care for some foster children and there were a number of these in succession. Soon, it was retirement time and more limited in-come. Then the ravages of time and age took their toll. When Daddy passed away in 1986, our mother continued in the home place along with our aunt Beulah, her sister-in-law. It was her desire to be independent as long as she could and to maintain her own home. She died on July 16 in the bed-room at the homeplace where my father had breathed his last.

Now we are left to sort through the memories of a marriage that lasted 63 years plus nine more years during which our mother was the rock that sustained all of us through the loss of the spouses of all three children and assorted heartaches and concerns. On the real estate market, the old house is probably not worth a great deal by the standards of today. If only those walls could talk! There has been a heap of living in that big house with no front porch. You see, with them, their children and other people came before the porch. Now there is a lesson on priorities.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 22, p. 3-4
November 16, 1995

By Irvin Himmel

Christ gave commandment to the apostles, “Go ye therefore, d teach all nations, baptizing them . . .” (Matt. 28:19).

The teacher in a class of children wanted to impress this lesson on her pupils.”She handed each of them a sheet of paper and told them to print the words, “Go, ye, teach all nations.” One little girl printed it this way: “Go, ye, teach all notions.”

It would seem that some religious people have misread the great commission just as that little girl wrote it, “Go, ye, teach all notions.”

All manner of ideas, concepts, doctrines, and beliefs are being taught. Religious people who claim to follow Jesus Christ teach such notions as theistic evolution, reincarnation, premillennialism, salvation by faith only, impossibility of apostasy, infant baptism, papal infallibility, situation ethics, hereditary depravity, unconditional election, direct operation of the Holy Spirit, exorcism, and numerous other concepts foreign to the New Testament.

Everything imaginable is taught rather than the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. Perhaps we need to reread the commission given by our Master to the apostles and note more carefully what it says. Mark’s account is unmistakably plain in saying “preach the gospel to every creature.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 22, p. 4
November 16, 1995

By Larry Ray Hafley

(From Seventy Years On The Frontier, by Alexander Majors, we seize this selection.) The beaver “is an animal possessed of great intelligence, as the amount and kind of work accomplished by it show. It is a natural-born engineer, as connected with water; it can build dams across small streams that…hold the water equal, if not superior, to the very best dams that can be constructed by skilled engineers.

“… the higher up the stream they go, their dams are built correspondingly higher; hence a dam built at an altitude of 1,000 feet would not be built as high as one built at an altitude of 3,000 feet, in order to overcome the deeper freezing at that point, for in constructing these dams they must be of sufficient height to give plenty of room to get their food in the water under the ice .. .

“The beaver, considered as an engineer, is a remarkable animal. He can run a tunnel as direct as the best engineer could do with his instruments to guide him. I have seen where they have built a dam across a stream, and not having a sufficient head of water to keep their pond full, they would cross to a stream higher up the side of the mountain, and cut a ditch from the upper stream and connect it with the pond of the lower, and do it as neatly as an engineer with his tools could possible do it. I have often said the buck beaver in the Rocky Mountains had more engineering skill than the entire corps of engineers who were connected with General Grant’s army when he besieged Vicksburg on the banks of the Mississippi. The beaver would never have attempted (as Grant did  LRH) to turn the Mississippi into a canal to change its channel without first making a dam across the channel below the point of starting the canal. The beaver, as I have said, rivals and sometimes even excels the ingenuity of man.

“Another of the peculiarities of the beaver is the great sharpness of its teeth, remaining for many years as sharp as the best edged tool. The mechanic with the finest steel can not make a tool that will not in a short time become so blunt and so dulled as to require renewed sharpening, and this, with the beaver, would have to be repeated hundreds of times in order to do” its work during its lifetime of ten to fifteen years. The tools of men need sharpening, but the beaver’s teeth do not.

To use the language of Jehovah’s questions to Job, “Who taught the beaver and who instructed him in the lore of engineering? And who gave him his teeth such as cannot be eaasily duplicated by the tools of men? Who put the gauge of mountain altitude into the beaver’s heart and taught him to build dams corresponding to the depth of winter’s ice? Who gave the beaver his paddle-formed tail?” Do our atheist friends hear the echoing answer to these questions, “God”?

Majors says, “The beaver’s feet are webbed for the purpose of swimming, and there are nails on his feet, so that he can scratch the earth almost the equal of the badger.” The beaver is adapted for swimming, logging, and digging tunnels. His design signifies his Designer! Indeed, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God” (Psa. 53:1).

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 22, p. 7
November 16, 1995

By Mike Willis

The charge has frequently been made that affirming that Romans 14 is limited in application to matters of indifference effectively “guts” the chapter of any meaning. Sometimes the speaker will affirm that in all of the matters on which brethren are disagreed one of the parties believes that the matter under discussion is a matter of faith. Consequently, if one limits the chapter to matters of indifference, the chapter has no application.

The Problem is Not Unique to This Interpretation

If this objection has validity for one interpretation of Romans 14, it also has validity for others. Remember, there are only three possible applications of Romans 14:

Proposition 1. Romans 14 includes all matters of faith.

Proposition 2. Romans 14 includes some matters of faith.

Proposition 3. Romans 14 includes no matters of faith.

No one except the universalist will accept the principle that Romans 14 has application to all matters of faith. That has been rejected by everyone among us. The only two serious interpretations are numbers 2 and 3. The objection is made that Romans 14 has no application when limited to matters of indifference (no. 3) because at least one party does not admit the matter is a matter of indifference. The very same objection falls with equal force on interpretation number two. Unless both parties admit that the “matter of faith” under consideration falls into that list of “some matters of faith” on which brethren can be disagreed, then Romans 14 is “gutted” in the same way.

If one insists that a list of matters of faith and matters of indifference must be drawn up before interpretation number three has any use, then the same objection falls on interpretation number two, except that two lists will need to be made: (a) a list distinguishing matters of faith from matters of indifference and (b) a list distinguishing which matters of faith are matters on which we must agree and which are matters on which we can disagree. Rather than interpretation number two providing an ad-vantage in reference to this objection, it doubles the problem.

The truth is that no one can produce a final and comprehensive list of issues which do or do not fit into Romans 14. Some issues that fall into the category of Romans 14 may not have even arisen yet. As each issue arises, it will have to be considered on its own merit in the light of the whole counsel of God.

The Application

The application problems of Romans 14 existed just as certainly in the first century as they do in the twentieth century. If we can understand the application of the principles in Romans 14 (and parallel texts), we will know how the same problems are to be handled today. Let us consider this study from the standpoints of the strong and weak brethren.

1. Instructions given to the strong brother. The strong brother is strong in two senses: (a) He is standing in the position of the brother whom Paul identifies as correct. Paul clearly comes down on the side of the strong brother in concluding that sin is not committed in eating meats and in esteeming every day just alike (see 14:14, 16). He included himself when he said, “We then that are strong” (15:1). (b) He has the strength of conscience to do what his conscience dictates. Understanding both aspects of what constitutes a person as the “strong” brother in Romans 14, we can now delineate what charges Paul made to the stronger.

a. Receive the weaker brother (14:1; 15:7).

b. Do not engage in doubtful disputations (14:2).

c. Do not despise (or set at nought) your brother (14:3, 10).

d. Do not judge (condemn) your brother (14:3, 10, 13).

e. Be fully persuaded that your action is consis tent with your conscience (14:5).

f. Do not put an occasion of stumbling in front of your weaker brother (14:13).

g. Do not destroy your brother by causing him to violate his conscience (14:15).

h. Follow after those things that make for peace and edify one another (14:19).

i. Keep your personal practice to yourself (14:22).

j. Bear the infirmities. of the weak and do not just please yourself (15:1-2).

2. Instructions given to the weaker brother. The weak brother is “weak” in two senses: (a) He is wrong in his conviction that eating meats is sinful and that one day is to be more esteemed than another; (b) He is weak in his conscience with respect to doing what he thinks is right. Isaiah Grubbs commented about the weaker brother as follows:

He who has not sufficient moral manhood to carry out his own convictions of right, but weakly wavers and yields against his conscience under the pressure of per-suasion or the influence of another’s example, is “weak” in a far more vital element of his being than his intellectual faculties. Paul, therefore, locates the weakness under consideration in the conscience, since it shows itself unable to counteract the influences that draw its subject into a violent conflict with his own convictions (Commentary on Romans 159-160).

The commands that Paul gave to the “weaker” brother are very limited in comparison to those given the stronger brother. F. Godet observed,

As is observed by Hofmann, he had nothing similar to recommend to the weak; for he who is inwardly bound cannot change his conduct, while the strong man who feels himself free may at pleasure make use of his right or waive it in practice (Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans 457).

Because of the limitations imposed by conscience, the following are the only instructions given to the weaker brother in Romans 14:

a. Do not judge the one who eats (14:3).

b. Be fully persuaded that your action is consistent with your conscience (14:5, 23).

This list of responsibilities makes abundantly clear that the burden for keeping the peace in a local congregation lies on the shoulders of those who recognize that a given action is an authorized liberty. The other brother is con-science bound to respect his conscience.

Additional discussion of the charge not to judge the one who eats can be learned from 1 Timothy 4:1-3. That text reads as follows:

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

This text is also speaking about “authorized liberties” (to eat meat or not eat meat; to marry or not to marry). It illuminates the command not to “judge” the one who eats. For this brother there is the danger of elevating one’s personal judgments to the level of divine law. When this occurs, the person guilty has departed from the faith and has begun to follow doctrines of devils. From this we can learn the responsibility of the weaker brother: The weaker brother must not elevate his opinion to the level of divine law to make it a condition of salvation and fellowship.

How It Works

Let’s see how this works with reference to a matter on which brethren are disagreed. Brethren disagree on the covering. From the standpoint of who is bound by his conscience to a single course of action, the person who believes that the woman should wear the covering is conscience bound to wear it. In this respect, she is to be compared to the weaker brother. The sister who believes “neither, if we wear the covering, are we the better; neither, if we wear not the covering, are we the worse” (accommodated to the language of 1 Cor. 8:8), has the liberty of two courses of action. In this respect, she can be compared to the stronger brother.

The stronger brother, the brother who believes “neither, if we wear the covering, are we the better; neither, if we wear not the covering, are we the worse,” should follow these instructions regarding his conduct to his brothers and sisters who believe that they should wear the covering:

a. Receive the weaker brother (14:1; 15:7).

b. Do not engage in doubtful disputations (14:2).

c. Do not despise (or set at nought) your brother (14:3, 10).

d. Do not judge (condemn) your brother (14:3, 10, 13).

e. Be fully persuaded that your action is consistent with your conscience (14:5).

f. Do not put an occasion of stumbling in front of your weaker brother (14:13).

g. Do not destroy your brother by causing him to violate his conscience (14:15).

h. Follow after those things that make for peace and edify one another (14:19).

i. Keep your personal practice to yourself (14:22). Bear the infirmities of the weak and do not just please yourself (15:1-2).

The instructions given to the weaker brother must be applied to the brother whose conscience dictates to him a specific course of action (that his wife wear the covering):

a. Do not judge the one who eats (14:3). Do not elevate one’s opinion to the level of divine law to make it a condition of salvation and fellowship (1 Tim. 4:1-3).

b. Be fully persuaded that your action is consistent with your conscience (14:5, 23).

Without passing judgment on the rightness or wrongness of the given issue before us, but based solely on the determination of who has the choice of two courses of action consistent with the dictates of his conscience, we are able to apply Romans 14.

What Is A Matter of “Faith”?

In order for anything to be “of faith,” it must be a response to the word of God. Roy E. Cogdill explained this in Faith and the Faith. He wrote,

I cannot believe a thing if God has not said it. So often people use the expression “I believe,” in a very unscriptural manner and, certainly, in a very incorrect way. I hear people saying everywhere I go, “I believe this or I believe that,” and God never said anything that sounded like it. There is not anything in the Bible that even indicates it  nothing in the Word of God that even hints at it. And yet, we talk about “believing.” Well, Paul says, “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.” If the Word of God does not teach it, then one cannot hear it from God; and if one does not hear it from God, there is no proper way of believing it, because one believes in God (124).

Paul’s instructions in Romans 14 do not permit a man to make a list of all of his pet theories and to demand that the whole church bow to them. The one who objects to a certain practice must keep his own conscience clean and must learn not to bind his own conscience on everyone else in matters of this kind. Brethren must take each issue or each objection on its own merits in the light of the whole counsel of God before deciding whether it is a matter like circumcision (1 Cor. 8:8  “But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.”) or a matter of sin.

Brethen have used Romans 14 just as I have advocated in this series of articles and have lived in peace with one another in spite of having differing judgments about a variety of things. Distinguishing matters of sin from matters of judgment, they have also staved off apostasy in a number of conflicts (mechanical instruments of music in worship, church support of human institutions, sponsoring church, etc.). Had the principles being advocated for present application of Romans 14 to marriage, divorce, and remarriage been followed in those conflicts, we would have been destroyed by these apostasies. Those who cry that the interpretation of Romans 14 given in this series of articles will lead to “endless division” cannot sustain their charges by historical demonstration. They ignore the years it has worked for us.

Furthermore, they ignore the fact that in every apostasy that has occurred among the brethren, some have used Romans 14 to justify fellowship with those who introduced unauthorized practices, defend them as righteousness, and call upon others to join them in the practice of their sin. They have been content for churches to choose not to do what they do, so long as their practices are not condemned as sinful and fellowship is not withheld because of their sin. What is presently being advocated with reference to Romans 14 and fellowship is not new. Brethren have answered it with reference to mechanical instruments of music in worship, church support of human institutions, sponsoring church, etc. Why should we be surprised when the same arguments are used to justify a broader fellowship on marriage, divorce, and remarriage?

Conclusion

The example given above demonstrates that Romans 14 is applicable, even when brethren are disagreed on a matter which one believes is a matter of faith and another a matter of authorized liberty. The burden for maintaining fellowship lies on the brother who has the liberty of con-science to choose either of two courses of action (the stronger brother), just as the texts of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10 do. The interpretation that limits Romans 14 to matters of authorized liberty is (a) consistent with the internal evidence in the text and (b) applicable to past and present differences among brethren. This interpretation does not “gut” the chapter of relevance, but is the only understanding of the text that gives due emphasis to the many statements in Romans 14 describing the matters under discussion as authorized by God.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 22, p. 2
November 16, 1995