Truth Magazine

By Keith Ward

Solomon declared, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6). A boy raised to be honest will not steal or lie; a child raised in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord” will not apostasize once free from parental power; a girl taught modesty will not become a bra-burner.

Bad Attitudes

Parents who have failed object that the proverb is general and not absolute. To illustrate the general nature of proverbs, they cite those where opposite courses are enjoined (26:4-5), and those with obvious exceptions; e.g. we know of poor people who ungraciously badmouth prospective help (18:23). “If true, it would be a violation of free will ” some cry. Considering the number of those who claim to be exceptions, perhaps the general statement should be opposite, “Train up a child in the way he should go and he will depart from it as soon as he gets away from home.”

What “Way” Do We Teach?

Rather than make excuses, parents ought to examine their lives to see if their actions undermine their verbal teaching. A lesson on honesty falls flat when the child remembers the story Dad told the state trooper to avoid a ticket. Soon the child learns the real lesson being taught-morals are useful words and make good conversation, but they are an impractical way to live.

Does your child hate church? Does he boast, “When I am on my own, I won’t go?” Perhaps this attitude extends the complaints he has heard every time the preacher went overtime, reflects the excuses Dad made when called on for service, stems from the greater interest Mom shows in pleasing the baby in front of her than in pleasing God in worship, recalls the number of Dad’s naps followed by a hearty, “Good sermon today” to the preacher.

If he thinks all Christians are hypocrites, it results in part from the numerous cuts and slurs he heard from the back seat. The bulk of the evidence rides in the front seat.

Inevitably, the child leaves and the parents ask, “Where did we go wrong?” or declare, “We raised him better.” When approached, the now grown child replies that Mom and Dad made him go to church, that he does not have to go anymore, and therefore will not.

Obviously, no amount of verbal teaching can ever overcome the training given by the parents’ example, If a boy or girl from a family like this is saved, it will be by the influence of someone else and in spite of his parents’ “training.”

Trained in the Way

Proper raising combines teaching with training by example. My parents set high standards to live by so they could show us the way. Though too young to read, I was instructed, “Sit up and listen to the sermon; you may not understand now, but will remember it when you are older.” It is amazing how much I do remember; of course, the main lesson was reverence. That my parents listened, I had no doubt because they dissected the sermons on the way home to bring pieces down to our level. Their major complaint was (and still is) “too much story telling and not enough Bible.” Dad was available for service and often drove distances to help when a small church had only one man. Attendance was automatic which upset non-christian families when we would not go “to church” with them or skip services for get-togethers.

I rebelled for a time, but patterns carved so deep, seed so carefully sown and tended does not die.

An Attitude That Profits

The only way to treat the proverb is as if it were absolute. With prayer and trembling care, train your children up in the Lord’s way. The parallel with grace is strong. Every Christian must obey the New Testament strictly as if works do save; then in trusting faith depend on God’s grace. The parent must treat the proverb as absolute in the way he approaches child training. If the child departs, he ought to feel that somewhere he failed instead of justifying himself as an exception to the rule and with much soul-searching and prayer, wait on God’s judgment and grace.

Truth Magazine XX: 49, p. 780
December 9, 1976

By Irvin Himmel

In ancient times soldiers fought with swords. The sword was but a tool in the hand of the warrior. The action performed through the agency of the sword was credited to the soldier. God’s word is the Spirit’s sword. Paul instructed Christians to take “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Eph. 6:17). Some want to lay down the sword and have the Spirit fight for them in a supernatural way. This is not God’s plan.

In Eph. 5:18, 19, we are instructed to be “filled with the Spirit,” speaking to ourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. The parallel passage, Col. 3:16, says, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly . . . teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs . . . ” Considering these two passages together, we conclude that to be “filled with the Spirit” necessitates letting Christ’s word “dwell” in us. Some people suppose they can be filled with the Spirit apart from the word. This is not God’s plan.

Many preachers teach that there must be a direct operation of the Spirit on the heart before one can be converted. In the Bible, in every case of conversion, the word of the gospel was preached as the means of bringing the sinner to God. This leads to the conclusion that the Spirit operates through the word to convert the lost.

The word was revealed by the Spirit and is the Spirit’s instrument for converting the lost, leading the children of God, producing the fruit of the Spirit, and filling our hearts. Denominationalism makes the Spirit’s work mystical, inexplicable, and irresistible. Whatever the word of God discloses about the Spirit’s workingwe should accept, but let no operation be chargedto the Spirit unless the word teaches it. All we can know about the Spirit and His functioning is what we learn through the word.

Truth Magazine XX: 49, p. 779
December 9, 1976

By Ron Halbrook

For the truth’s sake, members of churches of Christ must respect what God revealed about the organization of the local church. Either there is a pattern revealed in the Bible for local church organization and function, or there is none. If there is no pattern, then no organizational arrangement under the sun could violate the pattern! Everything from intercongregational “steering committees” to full-grown missionary societies to diocesan bishoprics to denominational conventions to the papal system itself would be scriptural! In fact, that is the very viewpoint widely advocated today. Where there is no law, there is no sin.

But there is a pattern for the organization of the church. Where is it found? In the New Testament. The Scripture completely furnishes us unto “all good works.” The things written were meant to be kept “always in remembrance,” even after the apostolic men died. These things were to be committed to faithful men, “who shall be able to teach others also.” Yes, the New Testament Pattern for the Church is binding for all ages-and we are not too “smart” today to be exempted from that pattern. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught” in God’s Word (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:15; 2 Tim. 2:2; 2 Thess. 2:15).

In the New Testament days, as soon as there were qualified men, there were to be “elders in every church.” Acts 20:17 and 28 show that “elders” are the same as “overseers” (same word as bishop), and they are to “feed” or tend or pastorize (function as a pastor or shepherd) the flock. The qualifications for elders are specified in Scripture, and there was never one pastor or elder or presbyter over one church but always a plurality over each church. The local eldership had a tremendous responsibility, but that work was limited to overseeing the local church. There were no outside organizations latched on to the church, nor sub-organizations within the local church, nor did the eldership of one church ever oversee the work (or any part of the work) of other churches (Acts 14:23; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2; Phil, 1:1).

In the early 1800’s, there was a return to the simple New Testament pattern. This effort to restore the Gospel and the Church to their original purity was called “The Restoration Movement.” But in 1849, representatives from many churches came together to form the American Christian Missionary Society-thus creating an inter-congregational organization outside the local church. That led to a great falling away from the Bible pattern for the work, worship, and organization of the church; the Christian Churches and the Disciples of -Christ denominations resulted. Many churches of Christ are headed down the same road of apostasy today. The present Nashville “Let Freedom Ring” Campaign is just one sign of apostasy. It is directed by an inter-congregational “steering committee” made up of representatives of many churches, latched on to the Radnor church of Nashville, but capable of “pulling up stakes” and latching on to another church or just existing independently.

Remember, brethren: Either there is a Bible pattern, or there is not. Which is it? Look before you leap!

Truth Magazine XX: 49, pp. 778-779
December 9, 1976

By Hoyt H.Houchen

How often have we seen the above statement in Isa. 1:18 used by brethren as an invitation to others to come and study the Bible? It frequently appears as a motto at the bottom of church ads in newspapers, on bill boards, and on business cards of preachers. We would not at all discourage any Christian from inviting others to study with him; in fact, he should be encouraged to do it. But Isa. 1:18 should not be used as the invitation. It is just another passage which brethren frequently misapply.

What is the context of Isa. 1:18? It is an appeal by God to His people to consider a choice. The prophet Isaiah had declared the sins of the people in his day. They are described as a “sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that deal corruptly” (Isa. 1:4). They were estranged from Jehovah, and He, through the prophet Isaiah, was pleading with the people to return to Him. Having rebuked apostate Israel, the prophet exhorted this nation to wash and be clean from her defilement and to be submissive to God. Hear him: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Isa. 1:16,17).

Then comes the plea. “Come now, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool” (Isa. 1:18). Now, what is the choice? God has offered cleansing to His people. It is a matter of Israel either choosing to be willing and obedient (vs. 19) or to refuse and rebel (vs. 20). The choice belonged to the people. If they chose to do the former they would eat the good of the land. That is, they would not be invaded and strangers would not eat their crops. (“The good of the land” commonly referred to its produce, Gen. 45:18,20; Ezra 9:12; Neh. 9:36; Jer. 2:7). But if the people chose to do the latter, they would be devoured with the sword.

The words of Isa. 1:18 are actually a challenge to Israel to a formal trial. One expositor has called this chapter “a trial at law” but he suggests that it is far more a personal than a legal controversy.(1) Delitzsch states that the Hebrew word nocach is used in a reciprocal sense, and with the same meaning as nishpat in Isa. 43:26.(2) The idea is, that like a court of justice, the parties reciprocally state the grounds of their cause. In Amos 4:12, God employs the imagery of battle and challenges Israel to a contest on the battlefield: “Prepare to meet thy God, O Israel.” Here in Isa. 1:18 He challenges His people to meet with Him and test their case in court. God is stating the same thing in Isa. 46:3 where he says: ” . . . let us plead together: set forth thy cause.” God has examined Israel’s sins and now He offers His compassion. God’s verdict is “guilty” but the nation has the option of returning to Jehovah. Israel has all to gain and nothing to lose by returning to Jehovah. She would lose everything by being rebellious and disobedient. This is what Israel must consider. It is acquittal or condemnation, depending upon Israel’s decision. Israel is worthy of death. Yet, Jehovah does not treat Israel according to His retributive justice, but according to His free compassion.(3)

Jehovah accommodates their differences with the words: “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” This is the overture of mercy extended to a sinful nation if it will only repent.

It is always in order for brethren to invite friends and neighbors to the study of God’s word for an honest investigation of truth. It is never in order to take a passage out of its proper setting and misapply it. When Isa. 1:18 is studied within the sphere of its background and circumstances, it can only be understood to mean simply that God invited Israel to court. There could be no actual dispute. The sins of Israel were examined, she was found guilty, and God offered His proposition: repent or perish. The offer to come and reason (plead) was extended by God to man. This was not an invitation from one man to another man. May we always make every effort to be the best Bible students possible, analyzing each Scripture as accurately as we can, with the sincere desire to always arrive at truth.

Endnotes

1. Sir George Adam Smith, The Expositor’s Bible (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1956), Vol. 3, p. 618.

2. Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1967), Vol. 1, p. 98.

3. Ibid., p. 98.

Truth Magazine XX: 49, pp. 777-778
December 9, 1976