Truth Magazine

By Richie Thetford

God knows the importance of discipline to turn a nation or an individual around to repentance. God has always disciplined his children when they needed it. The Hebrew writer says, “And you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, Nor faint when you are reproved by him; For those whom the Lord loves he disciplines, And he scourges every son whom he receives. It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness” (Heb. 12:5-10; see also Deut. 11:2; Job 5:17; 1 Cor. 11:32). Once parents have allowed God to set the standard in their home and then make every attempt to discipline themselves to carry out God’s commands, they can then exercise the appropriate discipline for correction as God has allowed.

Fathers therefore have the same responsibility within their homes. This is often where the breakdown occurs. You have heard, “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself’ (James 2:17). You can apply that same thinking to discipline. Believing that the child needs discipline and not doing anything about it will not help your child. By the way some parents act today I would think that they are living a “faith only” religion when it comes to discipline!

Children need discipline. God showed us that in He-brews 12:7. The home is the logical place for this to take place. Children must learn to go by the rules. The earlier they learn the better. However, all efforts will be in vain if both parents don’t present a unified front. Once the parents have discussed how they are going to discipline their children, then it is important that the discipline is carried out consistently by either parent. When one patent disciplines the child for doing something wrong and the other parent will not discipline the child for the same offense, then the discipline becomes ineffective and the child will not know what he is to do or not to do! Both parents must be operating under the same standard and that is God’s standard. That is why it is so important to have Christian parents. One must also remember that discipline should not be administered on the basis of “moods” or it will become meaningless.

Proper discipline should be: Loving and diligent. “He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently” (Prov. 13:24).

Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary defines “rod” as being a stick used for punishing, ruling, to walk after. “Chasten” is defined to chasten (with blows) to correct, punish, reform, reprove, teach.

Timely and controlled. “Discipline your son while there is hope, And do not desire his death” (Prov. 19:18).

Educational. “The rod and reproof give wisdom, But a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother” (Prov. 19:15).

Corrective. “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him” (Prov. 22:15).

Adequate. “Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you beat him with the rod, he will not die” (Prov. 23:13); “Fathers, do not exasperate your children, that they may not lose heart” (Col. 3:21). Exercise balanced discipline. Balance firmness with patience. Spank when necessary but without excess or abuse.

Balanced and Consistent. “And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). When proper discipline has been given, a wise son will accept it, knowing it is for his own good for both today and in the future.

As parents we only have one chance to raise our children. Soon they will be grown and on their own. How they live their lives after they “leave the nest” will depend upon how we  the parents raise our beloved children today. The following poem entitled “The Sculptor” tells the story of the parent’s one opportunity to shape the lives of our young.

The Sculptor I took a piece of plastic clay

And idly fashioned it, one day,

And as my fingers pressed it, still

It moved and yielded to my will.

I came again when days were passed,

That bit of clay was hard at last;

The form I gave it, still it bore,

And I could change that form no more.

Then I took a piece of living clay

And gently formed it, day by day,

And molded with power and art,

A young child’s soft and yielding heart.

I came again when years were gone.

It was a man I looked upon.

He still that early impress bore;

And I could change it, nevermore.

Author Unknown

Proper discipline is essential to raising our children in accordance with God’s directive. But there is another side to discipline and that is the parent who uses improper discipline on his children. There could be too little or none at all (I Sam 3:11-14; 2:23; Prov 13:24; 19:18; 22:15; 29:15). Some feel that these Old Testament passages don’t apply today. Children have not changed over the years as far as the discipline that they need. These Old Testament passages are for our learning and it is time that we parents start learning from these passages (Rom. 15:4).

Other improper disciple techniques are:

Rigid and unjust punishment (Eph. 6:4): Some parents deal out punishment to children before they find out what really happened. We need to think before we act. Make sure that the punishment we give our children is justified.

Partiality in discipline: Some children always seem to get in trouble even if they were not at fault, while others never seem to get punished. We must ensure that our discipline is handled impartially.

Inconsistent discipline: This is the big one! Little Johnny may be told three times to get out of the street before he receives punishment from one parent but the other parent will punish him the very first time he is caught in the street. We need to be consistent in our discipline or the child will not know what is or isn’t important and whether or not you really mean it.

Deceptive and idle threats such as “If you do that I’ll beat your brains out.” No, you won’t, you know it and your child knows it. Make sure the things that you tell your child is something that you’re prepared to do and able to backup.

Overly strict: These are the ones that expect too much from a child and try to make them an adult at age 8. These are the same types of parents that over discipline their children by using sledge hammers to drive thumb tacks.

Response To Discipline

What should a child’s response to proper discipline be? Teach your children to understand why they are being disciplined and how they are to receive it. Here again, they’ll respect the discipline that you give them as a parent when they can see you living what you’re teaching! When a child can see mom and dad living a Christian life by doing the things that are instructed by God then they not only will respond to the consistent discipline, but you as a parent will have peace of mind knowing that you are enforcing the same set of rules that you are guided by!

There are many proverbs telling how one should respond to discipline. In fact you might want to have your children write these verses down so when they do get disciplined, they’ll know why! These passages are Proverbs 6:23; 12:1; 13:18; 19:20; 19:27; 23:12; and especially Hebrews 12:11 which says, “All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.”

In conclusion, Grant Caldwell wrote, “Parents have a tremendous responsibility in training children. There are those that will still say `boys will be boys and girls will be girls,’ but boys will be men and girls will be women. What kind of men and women? Parents have a great deal to do with that answer” (The Home: God’s First Great Institution 93). May God grant that we may be good parents and bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph 6:4)!

Caldwell also said, “Young people, realize what a task your parents have. Work with them, love them, and help them to correct their mistakes. Your home can be what God would have it be. Commit yourselves to see that your home is functioning on God’s discipline and that you are honoring God” (Idem.). Honor your parents (Eph. 6:1), and your discipline will be kept to minimum!

Discipline is something God exercises in raising his children, and he certainly expects us fathers to use discipline in raising our children. But remember, before the discipline we use can be effective, the discipline must be God’s standard in accordance with his commandments! “The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep his commandments, because this applies to every person”(Eccl.12:13).

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 8 p. 12-13
April 20, 1995

By Ron Halbrook

Pope John Paul II was chosen as 1994’s “Man of the Year” for his moral leadership by Time Magazine (26 Dec. 1994/2 Jan. 1995 issue). He told Time, “The Pope must be a moral force.” Time said, “John Paul has presented himself, the defender of Roman Catholic doctrine, as a moral compass for believers and nonbelievers alike.” Even Billy Graham, a Baptist preacher, chimed in, “He’s been the strong conscience of the whole Christian world” (p. 54).

The Man of the Year needs to read the eternal Word of God! “The word of the Lord endureth for ever” (1 Pet. 1:25). Any man who lives in open rebellion against God’s Word nullifies any claim to moral leadership. It is a tragic commentary on our times that such a man could be considered “a moral compass.”

1. Christ, not the Pope, is the rock of our salvation. Catholics claim Christ crowned Peter the first Pope and every Pope is a direct successor to Peter. When Peter confessed, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Christ responded, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:16, 18). The rock is not Peter but is the grand confession of the deity of Jesus Christ. Peter confessed the primacy of Christ, not vice versa! The rock and foundation of our salvation is not a mere mortal but is the divine Son of God. “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11).

2. The Pope is not qualified to oversee a local church, much less the universal church. Christ rules and reigns at God’s right hand as “the head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22). He said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). The Pope’s claim to be head of the universal church on earth is a colossal usurpation of the power that belongs to Christ alone. The Pope’s throne was ordained not by Christ but by the apostate “man of sin … who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess. 2:3-4).

Christ as “the chief Shepherd” ordained local bishops, pastors, or elders to oversee each local church (Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). A plurality of such men is to serve each congregation. He authorized no higher level of organization, whether it be a bishop of two or all congregations.

The qualifications for “the office of a bishop” require that “a bishop must be . . . the husband of one wife…. One that 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. 3:1-5). Catholic priests, monks, nuns, bishops, archbishops, and popes are forbidden to marry, disqualifying them to oversee even one local church. “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, .. . Forbidding to marry” (1 Tim. 4:1-3).

3. Christ expressly forbids such religious titles as Father, Reverend, and Pope. Christ warned of men in special “garments,” seeking “chief seats,” with titles of reverence. “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Matt. 23:5-9). The title “Pope” comes from the Latin word for father.

Sad to say, this “Man of the Year” is just another incarnation of the man of sin, desperately needing to submit to the Son of man, like all sinners. The Pope is not “a moral compass” but needs to make God’s Word his “moral compass.” He needs to read the eternal Word of God with an open heart. When he does, he will find that Christ and not himself is the rock of salvation, that Christ authorized local elders (married men) but not universal popes (unmarried), and that Christ forbids the office and title of “Pope.” When the Pope lays aside the trappings of false religion, he will be ready to be immersed in water for the remission of his sins by the authority of Christ (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3-4). The Lord will then add him to the true church of Christ found in the Bible (Acts 2:47; Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 12:13).

As it stands, the Pope appears to be a moral leader for two reasons. First, our world is lost in the utter darkness of sin and frantically seeks some semblance of moral guidance. Satan raises up his ministers to fill that need. Second, error is more deceptive when mixed with truth. Catholicism offers an appealing mixture of revealed truth and human traditions, all made more palatable by the claim that the Pope is the personal emissary of Christ as a successor to the apostles of Christ.

Satan has made such false claims since Christ and the apostles first revealed the way of truth. “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11:13-15). Deception is stronger when some truth is taught. Satan correctly quoted Scripture to Christ, but used it in an effort to lead Christ to compromise with error. Christ answered by quoting some truth Satan left out (Matt. 4:5-7).

The Pope teaches a mixture of truth and error on moral issues. When he speaks out against abortion on demand, he speaks the truth. Abortion on demand is a murderous violation of the command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself ” (Rom. 13:9-10). It is right to oppose sex outside marriage with or without contraceptives (1 Cor. 6:18; Heb. 13:4). His opposition to contraceptives not involving abortion within marriage is human tradition. He is right to oppose divorce and remarriage at will, but wrong to allow annulment as a substitute, and wrong to oppose remarriage after a divorce for fornication (Matt. 19:9). In short, Catholicism is a mixture of truth and error even on moral issues.

The Pope cannot serve as a true “moral compass” because his very office is a flagrant violation of the gospel of Christ and because Catholicism is an apostasy from the church of Christ revealed in the Bible. The “Man of the Year,” like all of us, needs to embrace the eternal Word of God as his “moral compass.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 8 p. 18-19
April 20, 1995

By Alex Caldwell

Greetings from the brethren at Sturgis, Mississippi. We continue to enjoy good health and rejoice in God’s most holy and divine word. All praise must go to God for his most wonderful blessings. May he also bless you brethren both physically and spiritually during 1995.1 thank God for good, faithful brethren like you who have supported me financially and prayerfully in preaching the good news of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

I have a lot to be thankful for this year. My needs have been provided for by God through good brethren. All praise belongs to God. I truly trust him with all my heart, soul, and mind (Matt. 6:33; 22:37). I pray you do, too. The Sturgis church is continually growing stronger in the Lord every time we meet. Good news! During December of 1994 we had three lost souls put Christ on in baptism. Amen! Brethren, I have been here over two years teaching and preaching on two 30 minute radio programs, and in home Bible studies, and at church every God-given Sun-day trying my best to reach lost souls, but always without success (or so it seemed). I have learned that through patience and longsuffering, all I need to do is just plant the seed, the Word of God, and let God give the increase and things will work out just fine.

I am continuing to preach twice each Sunday, and to have Bible classes at the building twice a week. Our advertising on a cable T.V. station is still drawing sinners’ interest in wanting home Bible studies or free Bible correspondence courses. We here at Sturgis want to do our best to plant the seed of God’s Word and let God do the rest (I Cor. 3:6). Home Bible studies are set up as we have opportunity. I hope and pray you will do the same. We hope and pray this will bring fruit to the honor and glory of God.

I now have one young man about 15 years old helping me in worship when I need him. I thank God for him. Please pray for the Lord of harvest to help us raise up some more workers here.

I have been very busy the last few months. I preached a three-day gospel meeting for the brethren in Oneonta, AL. I also preached a 30 minute sermon on their radio broadcast. When I preached in Memphis, TN, four brethren repented and came back to God. In December of 1994 I preached a whole week’s meeting with my good friend Ron Halbrook and the brethren at West Columbia, TX. We had many visitors in the services and we also went into people’s homes, teaching and preaching the gospel’. A Bible study group which meets at the high school allowed me to speak; I discussed differences between denominationalism and true Christianity because Ron had a recent exchange of newspaper articles with the Methodist preacher. During January of 1995, I preached for the brethren in Trussville, AL. Last of all, I also preached for two congregations in Lufkin, TX.

Faithful brethren in the area preached at Sturgis in my absence. I thank God for these brethren. Please pray for the work here at Sturgis and for me too! I thank brother Ron Halbrook and the Guardian of Truth for helping me to get this report published. Until my next report, keep the faith and pray always.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 8 p. 11
April 20, 1995

By Harry R. Osborne

If you were down to your last dollar, would you make an investment that had one chance in a thousand of making a profit? Suppose that you were starving for food, would you go to a place for food that only had meals once every three years or would you go someplace sure to have it’? If your life was on the line, would you be willing to take a course of action which would give you less than a 1% chance of survival?

If you are like most people, those kind of odds would not be acceptable in a critical situation. However, those who support the general theory of evolution as the explanation for all life forms in existence depend on odds much worse! Yet, in many places, this theory is presented as “fact” and the only “scientific” explanation for life. In the past few articles, we have seen that the Bible has a credible explanation which is in keeping with true, scientific fact.

As we noted previously, some believe that all present life forms originated from one case of non-living matter forming one single-celled organism. They further believe that this one, single-celled organism mutated and reproduced so that better adapted and more sustainable life forms resulted. At the point where they suppose that only one organism existed, what were its odds of mutating successfully and surviving? What were the odds when only a few survived? A famed evolutionist, Sir Julian Huxley, made the following admission about the harmful nature of the overwhelming majority of mutations:

A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thou-sand does not sound like much, but it is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organ-ism living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out of gear (Evolution in Action, 45).

More recent experiments regarding the proportion of favorable mutations as opposed to harmful ones show that Huxley’s one to one thousand ratio is not only generous, but wishful. In one researcher’s work, A.M. Winchester found that well over 99% of all mutations were harmful to life. That figure does not even consider the vast majority of the remaining 1% that, while not being harmful, would not aid the viability of a given life form. Experiments on the fruit fly and other animals involving radiation induced mutations and natural mutations show that favorable mutations are so rare as to be negligible.

Yet, let us suppose that Huxley’s extremely generous ratio were a fact. Even with this generous help, think of the chances of survival for that first organism that supposedly came into existence by spontaneous generation, a process in itself contrary to all known laws of science. That one organism had a one in one thousand chance of surviving. If it survived to reproduce, the next generation was faced with formidable odds again. Beyond that, each generation had to face those odds and overcome them without fail for generations to allow life to survive. For the evolutionary explanation of all life forms to be given a chance, one has to assume a scenario totally outside the realm of probability. Does such a theory sound like “proven fact” to you?

Assuming the general theory of evolution is allowed this enormous leap of faith to provide for the survival of these early life forms, another problem must be faced. The simple fact is that we find no evidence of the kind of mutations necessary to provide for the evolutionary explanation of life. Notice the following from Dr. Bolton Davidheisar:

When a gene mutates it produces an alternative form of the structure or condition it produced before. When a gene for a wing form mutates it produces another wing form, and not an eye color… Thus, if we evolved from protozoa (one-celled organisms), where along the way did we get genes which produce bones, blood, and teeth, for protozoa do not have these? (Evolution and Christian Faith, 213).

As more and more work is done on how the DNA in every cell works in replication, this point becomes an even larger obstacle for the evolutionary explanation of all life forms being the results of mutations from a single-celled organ-ism.

Beyond the problems already noted with mutations to account for all present varieties of life, there is a mathematical problem with the time necessary for the process. Though one or two billion years is a great deal of time, various mathematical models have shown that even the time speculated would not provide enough time for the number of mutations which had to be made to result in the present life forms if we all started from a single-celled organism. An example of this debate can be seen in The Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph (No. 5) published by the Wistar Press in 1967.

When one considers the number of changes that would have to take place in order to change a single-celled organism into every life form in existence and the length of time necessary for each change, the problem becomes a mathematical one. Several mathematical statisticians have published models showing the general theory of evolution to be statistically impossible. To date, I have seen no mathematical attempt to show that the theory is possible within the framework of time given. It is, however, interesting to note that the evolutionists have attempted to help their cause by adding a few billion years to their assumed age of the universe in order to buy more time for their theories. However, this creates other problems for them as we will see in a later article on the age of the earth.

Thus, not only does the evolutionary explanation for all life fail to show the proof that the necessary mutations could occur, it also fails to face the fact that there is not enough time for those changes to occur even if those changes were possible. Add that to the proportion of harmful mutations that do exist and the general theory of evolution faces monumental problems with its explanation for the present variety of life through mutations from a single-celled animal.

However, we have not even had time to note other problems regarding mutations as the mechanism for the evolution of all life forms. We could note that most mutations are recessive giving the change little chance of being manifested in one organism, much less an entire species. We could ask why such upward advancement through mutations is not being seen today. The questions could abound.

The fundamental problem for evolutionists is that mutations provide the only mechanism for their theory. Theodosius Dobzhansky admitted that mutations are “the only known source of new material of genetic variability, and hence of evolution” (American Scientist, 45, p. 385). Ernest Hooten, Harvard anthropologist, sounded a fitting warning when he acknowledged that he and other anthropologists are “leaning upon a broken reed when we depend upon mutations” (Apes, Men & Morons 118).

If the evolutionists want to laugh at the faith necessary to believe in the Bible account of Creation, they better take a long look at their own theory. The Bible explanation that “God created the heavens and the earth” is believable if we are not predisposed to deny the existence of an omnipotent God. If we accept that a single-celled organism suddenly came to life from non-living matter, the evolutionary explanation is still implausible.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 8 p. 14-15
April 20, 1995