Truth Magazine

By Johnny Stringer

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28).

Just how extensively is this principle to be applied? Are there no limitations to the “all things” that work together for our good? Many apply this statement without limitations, but to do so leads to some strange conclusions. If a dog over in Mongolia digs a hole, does that hole benefit you or me? It is a thing, but is it included among the “all things” which work together for our good? I do not believe so. I believe we would be just as well off if the dog had never dug the hole.

It seems clear that the term all is limited by the context in which it is found. For example, when Paul said, “All things are lawful,” we must understand that the “all things” did not include drunkenness, murder, and adultery. Some people who say “All things are lawful” may mean to include those things, but in the context of the Bible, the writer must not have meant to include them, for they are prohibited in the Bible. Similarly, I am convinced that the “all things” of Romans 8:28 are limited by the context. The dog’s hole in Mongolia is not the kind of thing under discussion in the context of Romans 8:28.

Paul proceeds in verse 29 to elaborate on verse 28. The connection between the two verses is seen in the word for at the beginning of verse 29. In verses 29-30 Paul summarizes the things God has done which culminate in our glorification. God is doing many things for us, and all these things are working together for our good. The “all things” working together for our good are the things God is doing toward our ultimate glorification. These are the things under consideration in the context. Paul speaks of our glorification in the past tense because it has occurred in God’s plan or purpose. Such usage of the past tense is also found in Genesis 17:5, Joshua 6:2, and Isaiah 53:4-8.

Comforting Assurance

Paul’s purpose in this passage is to give assurance. The assurance is only for those who love God (v. 28), and loving God involves obedience to him (1 Jn. 5:3). Having stated that God is working things out for the ultimate good – the glorification – of those who love the Lord, Paul proceeds to assure that God will carry out his purpose.

We can find wonderful comfort in the assurance Paul gives in this passage. We can feel secure in the knowledge that no one has the power to defeat God’s purpose for those who love him (v. 31). Moreover, we should realize that if God was willing to give his Son to die for us, he surely will continue to work toward our glorification, giving us all the things that he purposed for us – if we continue to love him (v. 32). Then Paul points out that if God has justified us (acquitted us of our sins and declared us to be not guilty), no one can charge us with sin and bring about our condemnation. Jesus died for us and there is no force that can cause us to be lost if we avail ourselves of his intercession (vv. 33-34).

Finally, Paul assures us that God’s love toward us is constant and unfailing (vv. 35-39). We may go through many tribulations and hardships, but we can be comforted by the knowledge that God still loves us. Things may not be going well for the present, but we can be confident that he is still working toward our ultimate glorification. As we endure suffering and hardship, it may not seem that we are winning a glorious victory, but regardless of how things seem, we are “more than conquerors”; for after the suffering, the glory will come (vv. 35-37).

Verses 38-39 assure us in majestic language that no power or force whatever can cause God to quit loving those who love him. If we lose our souls, it will not be because any of the forces listed in these verses caused God to quit loving us and therefore withdraw our salvation. Rather, it will be because we renounced him and his blessings. This passage does not say anything about what we can do. We can renounce God and salvation if we choose; God does not force his blessings on anyone. But so long as we love him, he continues to work toward our ultimate glorification as promised in Romans 8:28-30.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 4, p. 111
February 20, 1992

By Lewis Willis

Parade Magazine in the Akron Beacon Journal (7-14-91), contained a brief article entitled “Unflattering Portrait.” The substance of the article was a statement Senator Mark 0. Hatfield (R., Ore.) recently entered into the Congressional Record regarding the current status and real-life circumstances of American children. (All of the emphasises are mine, LW).

As good as the 1980s were for the military, what has happened to the children of this country? Many of the key measures of children’s well-being dramatically indicate that the 1980s were a terrible decade. Child poverty, violent deaths among teenagers and births to unmarried teens all increased substantially.

One American child in five now lives in poverty. Another one in five lives with a single parent. By the year 2000, both numbers will be one in four. If current trends continue. . . Every day, 135,000 children take a gun to school. Every 32 seconds, a 15to 19-year-old woman becomes pregnant. Every 55 seconds, a child is born to a mother who does not even hold a high school diploma. And, finally, every 14 hours, a child the age of 5 or younger is murdered.

The information above was presented by a politician – not a preacher! I don’t know how it affected you, but it was deeply disturbing to me. The children referred to are the next generation of Americans. From these will be converted the next generation of Christians. History and Scripture say that this kind of situation does not improve – it gets worse. “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13).

We certainly should realize that 135,000 guns in the classroom means that no teacher is safe in that setting. It also means that the children in that room are not safe either. It has been alarming to hear of the violence associated with a current movie. Even an Akron teenager was shot in the stomach upon departing from the movie about gang life. Whether the movie prompted the shooting or not, the young man’s assailant had a gun at the movie where your children might have been. Two 14-year-old boys murdered a 50-year-old man in Cleveland last Sunday. They shot him! Senator Hatfield said that a child the age of 5 or younger is murdered every 14 hours in America. If that is true today, what do you suppose it might be 20 years from now? And, if it strikes terror in our hearts now, we will scarcely be able to express our terror 20 years from now. America, to its shame, has the highest incidence of crime of any nation in the world – and it gets worse every day. Parents are having to admit that “my kid” committed the crime, or was the victim of one of these crimes. Most of us are inclined to think that “it won’t happen to me and my family.” However, every day it is happening to more and more American families. It could be yours or mine next.

It is going to require a massive teaching effort to turn this situation around. We cannot expect that government, the schools or social organizations are going to do the teaching. In fact, not even the Church will succeed in doing all the teaching that needs to be done to change the direction our nation is going. The required teaching is going to have to be done on the most basic level of society -parents are going to have to accept their responsibility and both teach and discipline their children to live by the proper standards that assure success and safety in society. Of course, it is our conviction that the Bible is that standard. It is the only thing that will change America’s course.

The responsibility for this teaching is found several places in the New Testament. The “aged-women” are told to “teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Tit. 2:3-5). Paul also gave this instruction: “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bare children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully” (1 Tim. 5:14). Raising children properly is not just a woman’s responsibility – it is also a responsibility of men. Men are to provide for their own house, and if they do not, they have denied the faith, and they are worse than infidels (1 Tim. 5:8). No man has provided for his household who does not teach his children how to act. And that is true no matter what kind of house you provide for them to live in, or how good the food is you provide. Paul said, “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). When parents – both father and mother – address themselves to teaching and training their children, they will succeed in raising them as they should be raised. But it will not happen until they do what they are supposed to do.

Elders are told their children must be faithful (Tit. 1:6) and in subjection (1 Tim. 3:4). Deacons are men who are “ruling their children and their own houses well” (1 Tim. 3:12). Through the years we have recognized that these are essential qualifications of elders and deacons. However, can we not see the advantage if all of us will raise our children by the same guidelines and discipline as they are to use? If their families are better because they have been raised properly, so will ours be better if we will do the same thing. It is foolhardy to think I can neglect my parental duty and still succeed as a parent. Parents are your eyes open?

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 5, pp. 130, 151
March 5, 1992

By Fred A. Shewmaker

A short time ago a quarterly publication called The Word of Truth arrived in my mail box. It was marked Volume 32, Number 3 and dated April, 1989. Also on the masthead there is the statement, “Set for the Defense of the Gospel.” The name caught my attention because for nearly nine years I conducted a radio program which was called “The Word of Truth” program. The statement of position also was of special interest because above the space reserved for addressing on the back page of every issue of the local bulletin, which I now edit, the words “For the Defense of the Gospel” appear. As to why the April, 1989 issue was just recently in the mail, your guess is as good as mine.

While scanning the articles, it was observed that all, except two very short ones on the back page, were uncredited. However, in the publisher’s statement Given O. Blakely is listed as the author and Editor. One of the articles is entitled “The Basis for Divine Authorization. ” The second sentence of that article is “The position which I have deliberately chosen to reject states, ‘Only what is authorized may be used in the worship of God. “‘ This is not a new attitude. It is an attitude as old as Cain (Gen. 4:3; Heb. 11:4; Rom. 10:17). Nadab and Abihu displayed the same attitude (Lev. 10:1-3). Cain, Nadab and Abihu are not the kind of people with whom one would expect to find a defender of the gospel.

The third sentence of the article also is revealing: “Even matters of opinion, I am apprized, ‘must be authorized by the Bible.”‘ The thing this reveals is that the author is capable of failing to deal fairly with an issue. He does not identify his appraiser and treats the matter as though the person is typical of all who hold the position the author is disavowing. Such is not the case and treating it as though it is, falls short of fairness. If a person holds an opinion, he believes something he has not been able to prove by a proper use of the Scriptures. However, his belief may be provable by the Scriptures and, if the person who holds it ever discovers the proof, it will at that point cease to be an opinion and become a part of his faith.

“Whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). (This does not apply only to doubting, as many have contended. Doubt is specified, but the statement here quoted is a general principal/truth upon which the preceding specific argumentation is based and therefore is not limited to or by the immediate context.) This is not the only biblical example of an appeal to a general principle/truth being employed to support specific argumentation. The Bible does not authorize the use of anything in the worship of God that is only a matter of opinion. Our worship must not be based upon individual, majority or unanimous opinion, but rather must be based upon faith.

Another example of the author’s carelessness about fairly representing the position his disavows is the first sentence of paragraph three: “It became clear that this view proclaimed a perception of Godward activity that required specific Divine approval for every action directed toward him.” By this the author equates “only what is authorized” with “specific Divine approval,” but the two are not equal Holding the view that “only what is authorized may be used in the worship of God” leaves the door wide open for general authorization. To deal fairly with the matter of authorization, one must consider both its general and specific forms.

In paragraph 4 the author writes, “I suppose that what God has ‘sanctified’ is authorized – or what is declared to be ‘acceptable’ – or, what He is said to ‘receive’ – or, what is ‘approved’ by Him, or, what is ‘lawful.’ My analysis of the concept of Divine authorization shall be built around these revealed terms.” This is made very interesting when the author entitles the sixth division of his article, “Scriptures Portray Unauthorized Things Being Accepted by God.” Think about that! He supposes “what is declared to be ‘acceptable'” is authorized. Does not his supposition also demand that what is unauthorized be unacceptable? If not, why not? And does not that make the title of his sixth division mean Scriptures portray unacceptable things being accepted by God?

It does not get better. In his sixth division, regarding the woman who anointed Jesus (Matt. 26:6-13), the author asks, “Was her deed commanded by God? Was there any hint of it being commanded by Him?” Remember he supposes “what is lawful” is authorized, but now in division six he asks, regarding the woman anointing Jesus, “Is there anyone among us that would say that it was authorized?” Regarding the woman who washed the feet of Jesus with her tears (Jn. 12:3ff), he also asks, “Was this a response to the command of God? to the command of Jesus? to a principle set forth in the law? Was it authorized?” Before we deal with these questions, let it be noted, they only underline the author’s mistaken idea that the view he is disavowing requires specific authorization. Gentle reader, what those women did was either authorized or unauthorized and therefore according to the author’s supposition either lawful or unlawful. Indeed, the author in effect has said what they did was unlawful. Then he writes, “And yet it was unquestionably accepted by Him.” The author has put himself in the position of affirming that Jesus accepted unlawful acts, in the face of the fact that Jesus said he would tell those who practice lawlessness to depart (Matt. 7:23).

It is claimed that Lot “asked something that was certainly unauthorized – that he might find refuge in a little city (Gen. 19:2 1). ” This claim is a full-blown flight into fantasy. It was commonly understood by the ancients that God would grant the request of the righteous when they prayed for their welfare. Bildad told Job, “If you would earnestly seek God and make your supplication to the Almighty, If you were pure and upright, Surely now He would awake for you and prosper your rightful habitation” (Job 8:5,6).

The article asks the reader to “Take something that was specifically commanded by God – that meat be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth (1 Tim. 4:3-4).” However, a brief reading of the passage makes it plain that it is not specifically commanded. The fact that God gave meats for food does not constitute a command to utilize them for food. The author pointed out that “Jesus ‘purged’ or cleansed all meats (Mk. 7:19). ” Are we to believe this constitutes a command to eat dogs, cats and rats? There is a difference between allowing and requiring. When one believes it is a sin to participate in a thing which God allows that makes it a sin for him to participate (Rom. 14:23), but it does not render his giving thanks to God unauthorized.

The article claims, “One of the classic examples of this principle (God receives one with a faulty and unauthorized attitude) is found in the book of Exodus.” The reference is to Exodus 32:7-14. It is assumed that when God said, “let me alone,” He commanded Moses and that Moses immediately violated God’s command. As assumptions go, this one may seem more plausible than many, but it is still an assumption. Keil and Delitzsch render God’s statement as a request: “now therefore suffer Me, that My wrath may burn against them . . .”

The author’s stated objective was “to show that the human law that states what is done must first be authorized by God, does not have its source in Scripture.” As the preceding considerations show the stated objective was riot attained. The source of the idea that “what is done must first be authorized by God” is such passages as Matthew 16:18; 18:18; Colossians 3:17, etc. Calling this idea a “human law” has as its source the author’s prejudice against it.

Another appeal was made to the incident of the “woman of Canaan” (Matt. 15:21-31). First, this is an appeal to a time when the Old Testament was still in force. Second, it is assumed that Gentiles were not authorized to make requests. However, Romans 2:12-16 along with 4:15 and 1 John 3:4 indicate that, although Gentiles were not under the Mosaic law, they were under law to God and had the privilege of doing that which is right in the sight of God.

Biblical proof is based upon Bible facts. The article was too long on personal assumptions and too short on Bible facts to be seriously considered a presentation of “The Basis for Divine Authorization. ” Our faith must come from the word of God (Rom. 10:17), not from what we might like, want, suppose or assume regarding selected passages while ignoring other possible explanations of those passages. Proof simply cannot be churned out of suppositions and assumptions.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 4, pp. 103-104
February 20, 1992

By Steve Wallace

During the last full week in November Derek Chambers and I visited two of the Baltic countries, Lithuania and Latvia, to teach the gospel. The purpose of this report is to detail our experiences there and to stir brethren about the possibilities that exist.

” . . . inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide . . .” (Matt. 10:11)

We had no trouble obtaining visas at the airport (at no cost) upon our arrival in Vilnius, Lithuania. When we got to our hotel we were quoted a price that was much higher than that quoted to me over the telephone when I made our reservations. Westerners are recognized and “gouged” by some hotels and taxi drivers. We immediately set out to find other accommodations for our stay. We were not prepared for what we found. We met Kritina Mikushauskas who worked at a restaurant where we stopped. She invited us to stay with her and her husband, Ilvida. Only after we were there did we realize that they were offering us accommodations at no charge! (This in spite of our demands that we pay them.) We stayed with them during our remaining time in Vilnius. We were also helped by the fact that Ilvida’s brother, Romas, spoke almost perfect English. They also assisted us by driving us to several different destinations. Their kindness knew no bounds.

Steve Wallace (second from left) with Romas Mikushauskas (left) and the family with whom he stayed during his visit to Lithuania.

The Results of Our Efforts in Lithuania and Latvia

We spent five days in Vilnius and two days in Riga, Latvia. We cut our stay in Riga short. It was evident after a couple of hours that the response there was nothing like we had witnessed in Lithuania. We spent parts of four days set up on a square in Vilnius. We are hard pressed to estimate the number of people who stopped at our table there. It was many hundreds, and perhaps over a thousand. At almost any given time three to five people would be standing around us looking at the literature we were offering. Some even asked for directions to our assemblies! We handed out over 300 lessons in English, German, and Lithuanian. (We had one short lesson in Lithuanian.) We had a number of discussions with people. We were fortunate that a number of people happened by who were glad to put their English or German to use in translating for us. One discussion went on until after dark. As the temperature was below freezing, six of us went into a restaurant and continued our discussion there for a good while.

Our work suffered greatly due to bad advice we received here in Germany from a native Lithuanian. We were told that many Lithuanians spoke English and German, and that we should not take literature in Russian. While we did find a surprising number of people who spoke English and others who spoke German, neither language is anything near to being common to Lithuania. Almost everyone could speak Russian. Many of the programs on Lithuanian television are in Russian.

Our stay with the Mikushauskas was eventful in spiritual terms. Romas’ daughter had been attending a Pentecostal church in Vilnius for some time and he was concerned about what he had heard about this church. This led to a study with her one evening, with Romas translating. It was a rather long study and after it was finished we could see that the word had made an impression on Romas and his daughter. The last we heard she was studying the tracts we had given her. We also had a good discussion with Ilvida one evening on the existence of God, again with Romas translating. He said that they had been brought up under Communism and the only “gods” they had known were Lenin and Stalin.

A Short History of the Pentecostal Church in Vilnius, Lithuania

We attended one of the assemblies of the Pentecostal church Romas’ daughter attends. There was about an hour and a half “warm up” – tongue speaking, “gospel” music played by a rock band, exhortations – for the featured speaker’s lecture. The hall they meet in is quite large and was half full when we got there. When it was time for the lecture it was standing room only – and there were a lot of people standing. I estimate the crowd to have been somewhere around 500 people. My feelings about the success of this false religion were mixed with curiosity as to how it had come about. I asked Romas to get an idea of how this church had grown to its present state.

In late July or early August of this year, advertisements appeared in a Vilnius newspaper inviting people to come and attend Bible lectures at a specific time and place. There also seems to have been literature passed out on the streets. We do not know whether any incentives other than their version of the gospel were offered. Having met members of newly established churches there, we learned that they are zealous in asking others to attend their assemblies. When we couple this with the openness we saw in the people of Vilnius, the history of this Pentecostal church in Vilnius may be instructive in showing the potential for the true gospel there.

Logistics

The following information may be helpful for the future of the gospel in Lithuania. We made arrangements with three different people in Vilnius to have various lessons translated. We hope to have these in the coming months. The dollar is ridiculously high against the Russian Rubel (the currency in Lithuania). We ate at restaurants for the dollar equivalent of about 20 cents per meal. Reservations for two people for a sleeping car on the train from Vilnius to Riga cost us about 40 cents. A Dutch journalist I talked to said that he could live there for about $150 a month. Bibles were not available in stores in Vilnius. However, we did find them in Riga. This led us to believe that they would also be available in Lithuania in the future.

Conclusion

We are very excited about the response we saw in Lithuania. During the latter part of our stay there and our return trip to Germany much time was spent talking about going back next year. We hope this report will stir others to enter this great open door for the gospel.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 4, pp. 114-115
February 20, 1992