Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

This scriptural title was used recently “By Rev. Bruce Cummons, Pastor, Massillon Baptist Temple, Massillon, Ohio,” in an essay on John 3:5. “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” The relevance and pertinence of this passage is clear. “The subject and doctrine of the new birth is all-important. Jesus said that except a man be born again, he cannot enter into God.” Thus, the significance and importance of this study is as great as entering into the kingdom of God.

Purpose of This Theme:

“The purpose of this sermon in to clarify the meaning of the words representing the two agents absolutely essential in the new birth, as set forth in John 3:5, namely water and the spirit. (Observe that Cummons considers these two agents “absolutely essential.” Fine, we shall hold to that:) “I especially want to deal with the fifth verse and its proper interpretation.” (Remember, now, whatever is “proper” is Aabsolutely essential.@)

“Water and The Spirit”

1. General Premises: Mr. Cummons rejects the theory that being born of water is a reference to physical birth. In this, he is correct. He arrives at his special and specific conclusion by these general means. First, he reads the text, context, and related passages. Second, he prays. Third, he turns to Greek texts. “Finally, I pull every book off my library shelf that might have a sermon, a paragraph, a sentence, or a word, concerning the text at hand … Following this plan I have put John 3:5 to the test. . . .”

2. Specific Conclusion: Mr. Cummons quotes his “old seminary professor. . .concerning John 3:5: `There is no need for confusion as to the meaning of water in verse 5… water is a symbol of the word of God. Ephesians 5:26 tells us distinctly, ‘The washing of water by the word.’ Titus 3:5 further emphasizes the same truth – ‘the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.’ He tells us it is with the Word, which is the instrument, and the Spirit who is the agent that one is regenerated. Water symbolizes the Word.” (Dr. Louis Entzminger, Studies In John’s Gospel). Cummons quotes A. C. Gaebelein, H. A. Ironside, and Dr. Lehman Straus to the same effect. Then, Cummons comes clean and postulates. “I state clearly that water in John 3:5 is representative of the Word of God.”

So, Cummons states it “clearly.” His authorities do likewise. Ephesians 5:26 and Titus 3:5 are cited to prove (1) that “the words of our Lord have nothing to do with baptism,” and (2) that “Water in this passage (Jn. 3:5) is the figure of the Word of God.”

My, my, that does make it rich! The Lord meant “Word,” but he said “water.” Paul did the same thing in Ephesians 5:26, according to Cummons. Paul said Christ cleansed the church “with the washing of water by the word.” (Eph. 5:26) But Paul meant “Word” when he said “water.” Was the Lord able to say “Word” if he meant “Word?” Why say “water,” if he meant “Word?” Was Paul unable to say “Word” in place of “water?” But if Cummons is correct, we have Paul saying Christ cleansed the church “with the washing of word by the word.” Now, if Paul said “water” but meant “word,” why can I not say in the last phrase when he said “word” he meant “water.” So, with the Hafley and Cummons amendments, Paul said, “with the washing of the word by the water,” and we are back where we started.

Further, if Jesus said “water” in John 3:5 but meant “Word,” how does Cummons know that he actually meant “Spirit” when he said “Spirit” in John 3:5? Just suppose I were to argue that Jesus meant water baptism when he said “Spirit?” If Cummons claims “water” means “Word,” how could he deny Hafley’s hunch that “Spirit” is water baptism?

“Of” Argument

“Rev.” Cummons makes an argument on the preposition “of” that I think little “of.” Says he, “Read John 3:5… Notice that in one instance the little preposition ‘of’ is in italics. This means it was not in the original language but was placed in the text by the translators. Now, if you will read the text, leaving out the italicized word ‘of,’ you will see what I mean by the words ‘water’ and ‘spirit’ being used together to mean one thing.

“‘Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'” “There is only one preposition ‘of’ used with ‘water and spirit.’ Since there is just one preposition governing the entire phrase, this points to the fact that the words ‘water and spirit’ are to be regarded as one thing and not as two separate things. Both of these things joined together as one are absolutely essential to the new birth!” (“Absolutely essential,” eh? Well, we will mark that down.)

Where, oh where, is Cummon’s scholarship? Why did he fail to cite a scholar who says the absence of a second “of” means the two things are actually only one and the same thing. However, 1 John 5:6 says Christ came “by water and blood.” Does the absence of a second “by” mean that water and blood “are to be regarded as one thing?” No, therefore, we wave “by(e), by (e)” to that argument. Compare also Rev. 5:9; 7:9, 11:9 – “of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” “Since there is just one preposition governing the entire phrase,” does this point “to the fact that the words… are to be regarded as one thing and not as two separate things?”

Cummon’s Confusions or Scholars’ Conclusions

Cummons quotes Eph. 5:26 and Titus 3:5 and concludes, “The foregoing texts of Scripture have no reference to baptism! They speak of the word of God… used by the Holy Spirit as one and the same power. . . .” It was Cummons who said “with the help… many. . able scholars” he was given “an insight into the original Greek.” Let us see some “able scholars” Cummons would do well to envy. And lest we forget, the elements of the new birth are ‘absolutely essential.”

John 3:5

“There is not one Christian writer of any antiquity in any language but what understands it of baptism. And if` it be not so understood it is difficult to give an account how a person is born of water, anymore than of wood…. All the ancient Christians (without the exception of one man) do understand that rule of our Savior (John 3:5) ‘Verily,’ verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, ” of baptism…. I believe Calvin was the first that ever denied ,this place to mean baptism. He gave another interpretation, which he confesses to be new” (Wall. History of Infant Baptism, Vol. I, pp. 92, 443).

“There can be no doubt, on any honest interpretation of the words, that gennethenai ek hudatos (born of water) refers to the token or outward sign of baptism – gennethenai ek pneumatos (born of Spirit) to the thing signified, or inward grace of the Holy Spirit. All attempts to get rid of these two plain facts have sprung from doctrinal prejudices, by which the views of expositors have been warped” (Dean Alford, Greek Testament, Vol. I, p. 714).

“The convert is immersed in the material and spiritual elements, rises newborn out of them, and enters into the kingdom. . . .Of the two elements, water signifies the purifying power, spirit the life-giving power: the one removes hindrances, making the baptized ready to receive the other (Acts 2:38; Tit. 3:5). Note that ek is not repeated before pneumatos, so that the two factors are treated as inseparable” (Plummer, Cambridge Greek Testament, The Gospel of John, p. 102).

“. . the necessity of baptism in order to participation in the messianic kingdom (a doctrine against which Calvin in particular, and other expositors of the Reformed Church contend) has certainly its basis in this passage” (H.A.W. Meyer, Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. III, p. 124).

” If brother Vaughn convinced us that born of water refers to anything but the baptism of one previously born of the Spirit, we never knew it,. . It means nothing else, and no Baptist that we ever heard or read of ever believed otherwise until A. Campbell frightened them away from an interpretation that is sustained by the consensus of all scholars of all denominations in all ages” (J. R. Graves, Tennessee Baptist, May 17, 1884.)

“By water, here is evidently signified baptism. Thus the word is used in Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5” (Albert Barnes, Barnes On The New Testament, Luke John, p. 210).

Conclusion

Other authorities could be cited, but the above will suffice. Let it be observed that the Lord’s statement in John 3:5 can be interpreted in light of other things He said concerning entrance into the kingdom of God. In Matthew 7:21, He said that only those who do the will of the Father shall enter into the kingdom. In Matthew 18:3, he said the disciples must be converted before they could enter the kingdom. These are all different wordings of the same fact, i.e., how one obtains entrance to the kingdom of God. One must be converted, do the will of the Father, be born again.

Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). An apostle of Christ, speaking as the Holy Spirit gave him utterance said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). Ananias, a man sent of God, told Saul of Tarsus, “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). So, even if we could exclude baptism in water from John 3:5, we could not wring and wrest it out of these plain statements of Scripture.

In view of this, how can one read either the scholars or the Scriptures and conclude that baptism is anything less than “ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL?”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:43, p. 10-11
September 5, 1974

By Steve Wolfgang

Dear Brother Bill,

It is with a sense of trepidation and not a small amount of chagrin that I compose this letter. I have refrained from doing so since your promotional session in Louisville last December. But after continuing to see, in issue after issue of the Guardian (since I am not one of those who quits reading whatever he disagrees with), journalistic pot-shots, sideswipes, and hit-and-run tactics, under cover of a strange kind of “piety,” I feel a need to register a “second-generation pulse rate.”

As one who has attended and spoken at several “unity forums,” who reads the literature of the “unity faction” in the Restoration Movement (e.g., Mission Messenger, Restoration Review, Integrity, and Mission), and who has had occasion during the course of both private study and formal schoolwork to grapple with the questions implicit in the severing- of fellowship and maintaining the existing ruptures; I can understand (although I do not condone) the inclination of some so-called “second-generation preachers” (including some of my closest friends) to be swept away with all the rhetoric. What I do not understand is how some of the older, more experienced men (including yourself) have apparently been affected as well; I would like to think that you know better. I have respected your ability since the days when you preached in Indianapolis during, my high school years-but I must confess that events of the past several months have left me perplexed, amazed, and frankly, appalled.

First, I fail to understand why you would label a man (Brother Cecil Willis), for all practical purposes, a liar when what is involved is only a memory lapse-and the lapse is yours, Brother Bill, not his (I speak with reference to the alleged “most of the night discussion” in your article, “Editor Willis’ Pleasant Task,” Gospel Guardian, December 6, 1973). I do not know all the details of how late you stayed, but I do know what I saw and heard for myself-a tired, red-eyed Bill Wallace early one morning at Cecil’s home, who, when asked, declined to feel anyone’s pulse on grounds of fatigue due to “being up late last night talking.” (I do not recall the exact words, but this was the gist of the conversation). Now Bill, it may be that your memory, and Cecil’s (and mine, for that matter), are defective, but why label a man-especially one with whom you have worked so closely in the past-a common liar over something like that? I do not agree with everything Cecil has done or does, either-and certainly he can take care of himself-but I fail to find any basis for such a slanderous charge.

While I am on the subject, I recall a comment you made shortly after one of those early “pulse-feeling” trips:”

A visit with Cecil Willis of Truth Magazine, in Marion, Indiana; was a highlight of the Indiana trip. It is always great to visit with him. He is a man of God who has the best interests of the Cause of Christ at heart, always. . we engaged in lively conversation about brotherhood affairs and his counsel is highly beneficial. (“The Pulse of the Brethren (II),” Gospel Guardian. October 9, 1969, p. 362).

What has Cecil done to change so drastically,(into an arrogant power-wielder, manipulating brethren and doing despite to the body of Christ while ascending to the titular headship of a sect, as you have recently portrayed him)?

Second, this entire business of nit-picking and introducing irrelevancies (who was where, when, and with whom; who stayed at Cecil’s home how long; who sold Bibles (or sacked groceries?) in St. Louis during which summer; etc., etc., ad infinitum et nauseam) into the discussion reflects a disappointing unwillingness to deal with issues that have been clearly, and sincerely, called to the, brethren’s attention just dump a kettle of red herrings into the water and you are off the hook, so to speak.

Additionally, the old “rubberstamp” approach’ seems to have resurfaced-just label someone’s argument ‘with an emotionally loaded term and one need not deal with the scriptural principles involved (as in “good works,” “Sommerism,” “anti,” etc.). In this case, substitute labels such as “legalism,” “spiritual , cannibalism,” “sectarianism,” “brotherhood manipulation;” etc., and you are henceforth excused from further discussion. Or, you can publicly and piously proclaim “withdrawal” from open skirmish and continue to pot-shot from behind the trees with every weekly issue. (With articles like, “On False Teachers, Centralization of Power, Works of the Flesh,” “Spiritual Manslaughter,” “Paul and Controversy” “Any Pharisees Around?” “Confused about Calvinism?” “Journalistic Ethics,” etc., etc., who do you think you’re fooling; by proclaiming a “withdrawal”?)

Third, and by far the most bothersome aspect of the controversy, is the apparently pervasive nature of the false teaching being done. What you presented in Louisville as being “Ed Fudge’s positions” seems to have been, at least partially accepted and endorsed as your own. You use the same quotations, interpret key passages (such as Romans 4, 1 John 1, etc.) in the same manner (as in “Confused about Calvinism?”, February 7, 1974; “On Friendly Terms with God,” March 14, 1974; “What is Walking in the Light?”, April 18, 1974; and others), and otherwise seemingly sympathize with Ed’s positions or protect him (why, who knows?) by attempting to classify his view on Calvinistic or Reformation positions (such as the imputation of the personal righteousness of Christ to the believer) as no more important than the means of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, or things practiced privately by individual Christians which do not affect corporate congregational activity, or the means by which God saves men (as in “On False Teachers . . .,” June 13, 1974, and “How Sound are You?”, May 2, 1974). Ignoring for the time being the moot question of whether men such as Burns, Sommer, and Whiteside have been quoted or referred to entirely within context, I am left with the same question I asked Brother Fudge at Lawrenceville, Georgia, in August, 1972; (the answer to which question introduced me to Edward’s “meek and quiet spirit”): “If you accept a person’s premises and use the same scriptures, arguments and quotations to bolster the position, how can you avoid arriving at the same conclusions?” The point is not (as some would like to think) a smear campaign to indict by unfavorable association but similarity of teaching.

It is saddening to me to contemplate the possibility that Bill Wallace has been affected by the rhetoric being flung around today with reference to fellowship, but I don’t think I’m the only one who smells the smoke! As I recall, the only response you made to Cecil’s quotation (“Tell Us It Is Not So,” Truth Magazine, April 26, 1973) of Leroy Garrett’s report that you were “reexamining” your position on fellowship, finding your former position “too difficult to live with” (“Mini-Meeting Trail: Texas Style,” Restoration Review, September, 1972) was to label Leroy as a source “ordinarily considered) unreliable or prejudicial in journalistic reporting” (“We Are Under Attack-(I),” Gospel Guardian, July 19, 1973). Now of course I do not agree with Leroy Garrett on most issues, I suppose, but I see no reason why he should lie about such an occurrence. While he may not be doctrinally “sound,” he is a personable gentleman, at least in my experiences in being around him, and I see no reason to question his veracity. It seems somewhat strange to me that everyone with whom your memory conflicts is out of step–Cecil Willis, Leroy Garrett, Jim Cope, James Adams, Roy Cogdill (as in “Why?”, Gospel Guardian, December 13, 1973)-except Bill Wallace! “Why,” indeed, Brother Bill?

I find it difficult to believe that someone as seasoned and historically well-informed as Bill Wallace cannot see the source and implications of the shopworn Calvinistic concepts which are being utilized to attempt to justify a wider fellowship. But I suppose if everyone could see the implications and end products of his actions, there would be no digressions. Failure or inability to look ahead, to stop digression the only place it can be stopped-in the very beginning-of such is the very stuff of digression.

Can we not discuss the issues, Brother Bill, calmly and fairly, even if others may choose not to do so? Or must we, as you expressed yourself to me several months ago, “fuss for awhile” and then merely attempt to ignore problems and issues by dismissing them as prideful “preacher squabbles”? I pray not. If the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ to the believer is correct and scriptural; if it is, in fact, virtually if not altogether impossible for a Christian to fall “out of the state of grace,” or to cease to “walk in the light;” if we have, in time past, 2 John 9; then let us come out openly and squarely deal with those issues and attendant ones, instead of implicating by innuendo and insinuation (the tactics of false teachers in every age). Certainly, if any issues bear open investigation, these do! May God help us to have eyes to see, ears to hear, and the strength of His might to stand upon His truth!

P.S.

Bill-

I would be interested to have you respond to this Aopen letter” in any way you see fit, even if you choose not to print it in the Guardian (as I suspect you will not). I have contemplated writing it for a good while (it was not composed hastily) and finally just read “too much” in the Guardian. But I would appreciate a response, if only a letter.

Also, you mentioned several issues ago that you had recently been studying some material pertaining to the church in the first half of the twentieth century. Since I am doing the same kind of thing (1900-1940) for my Ph.D dissertation at Vanderbilt, I would be interested to hear any observations you might care to make, or to know of any interesting material you may have come across.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:43, p. 8-9
September 5, 1974

By Daniel H. King

Very often when I am engaged in an attempt at getting a brother to sit down with me and determine together exactly what the Word of God teaches on a given subject, I have the designation “Pharisee” thrown up at me. Now, frankly, I must make the admission that under those circumstances a jibe like that does not really bother me. In fact, it=s a compliment! What does irritate me, though, is the misunderstanding that lies behind their usage of the word. Ponder this question for a moment: Where is there a biblical denunciation of the exacting determination of and adherence to the law of the Lord which characterized the Pharisees? Unless I am very badly mistaken you will look in vain to find such. It just is not there. On the contrary, let me direct your attention to a few considerations which you may not have focused upon previously.

Firstly, if you will remember, as Jesus began his condemnatory oration pointed at the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23, the Lord prefaced his remarks by saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat: all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not. Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.” At the very outset of his speech Jesus makes a significant point regarding the Pharisaic approach to interpretation of and obedience to the Law of Moses: the Pharisees were right! Were it not so the Savior certainly would not have said, “the scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat,” and, “all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe.” The fact that they bound “heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders”, does not imply that these burdens were not implicit within the Law itself. Contrariwise, Jesus had earlier offered, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30). The figure of the yoke employed here is undoubtedly a reflection back to the Old Testament usage (Lam. 3:27), but it was commonly applied to the Law by the Rabbis at the time Jesus made the allusion. The Lord was suggesting that the Law of Moses was a “heavy burden,’ grievous to be borne” and he was placing this in contradistinction to his new and superior system. Peter, in his opposition to one of the stipulations of Moses’ Law being bound upon Christians, later queried, “Why make ye trial of God that ye should put a yoke upon the. neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” (Acts 15:10). Paul also utilized this same figure regarding the selfsame issue, “For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage” (Gal. 5:1). Indeed, the yoke of bondage was implicit within the Lalv, making it a “law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2), and placing a curse upon everyone “who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them” (Deut. 27:26; quoted by Paul at Gal. 3:10). The Pharisees were merely binding upon men the burdens and obligations which the Law itself entailed. This is why Jesus did not condemn their strict interpretation of and adherence to the Law: their’s was the right approach!

Now, in case you think that I have missed it on this one, take a look at the sect called Pharisees from the vantage point of a former Pharisee, the apostle Paul. In Paul’s letter to the Philippian Christians, the apostle put his critics to silence by boasting of his past acquaintance with the Hebrew religion and’ the Pharisaic approach to the Old Testament, with words: “a Hebrew of Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee” (Phil. 3:5). What useful purpose would have been served in Paul’s making such a statement if the Pharisaic viewpoint had been completely wrong? It is interesting to note, as well, that the evangelist clearly distinguished himself from the liberal Sadducees in the midst of the divided Sanhedrin council at Jerusalem with the exclamation, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees: touching the hope and the resurrection of the dead I am called in question” (Acts 23:6). This was no mere politically motivated expression-this was Paul’s conviction! Paul’s heart was still committed to the Pharisaic conviction that the Word of God was to be carefully interpreted and strictly obeyed. When he had become a Christian Paul had not given up the Pharisaic contention for reverent devotion and total submissiveness to the authority of the scripture (here applied to the particulars of the resurrection hope and the existence of angels and spirits); rather, he had continued to embrace them. It is only thus that Paul could continue to call himself a Pharisee. The conservative Pharisees were right and the liberal Sadducees were wrong! Again, Paul offered an interesting description of the group in his defense before Agrippa in Caesarea: “After the straitest (strictest, most exacting) sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee” (Acts 26:5). As well, you may remember that there were certain believers who remained with the Pharisaic sect in Jerusalem even after the beginning of the church. And, although they were wrong regarding the continuance of Mosaic legislation into the Christian era (Acts 15:5), it remains quite evident that their basic approach was consistent with that of the early church-else their relationship with the Pharisaical sect, or the church one, would have been entirely severed. Where do we read of Essenes or Sadducees having any such affinities with the church? We do not because their viewpoints were far too disjunctive. The church and Pharisaism, on the other hand, had a common ground upon which they could agree and from which they could work.

No, the Pharisees were neither condemned nor castigated for strict adherence to the Law. They were judged guilty because they preached the truth but did not practice what they preached; they said and did not (Matt. 23:3). Also, notwithstanding the fact that the outward forms of their worship were correct, they were worshiping to be seen of men rather than to please God (Matt. 23:5, 27-28). Holding that the Mosaic system was supreme, superior even to that of the Messiah (the Messianic system espoused by Jesus, anyway), they shut the doors of the kingdom to themselves and others (Matt. 23:13). They proselytized by “hook or crook,” then perverted their converts by their own hypocritical ways (Matt. 23:15). In addition, they made false distinctions between oaths (Matt. 23:16-22), allowing certain oaths to be broken, and bound traditions of former generations as on a par with scripture (even at times to the exclusion of scripture itself, as in Matt. 15:1-9). Their strict application of the tithe was good, “these ye ought to have done,” but they neglected the weightier matters of the law, “justice, mercy, and faith” (Matt. 23:23-24); their preoccupation with externalism left out true inner holiness and spirituality (Matt. 23:25-28). In their hardness of heart they garnished the tombs of the prophets, bewailing their awful treatment, yet became guilty of the far-worse crimes of rejecting and crucifying the Son of God and persecuting his chosen apostles and prophets (Matt. 23:29-36).

If they were guilty of all of this, you say, how can there by anything good about them that is worthy of consideration or imitation? In spite of all of this, as we earlier demonstrated, their attitude of regard for the Word of God was good. It was never condemned. Sometimes they were not completely consistent with it, but that does not mean that they- did not possess it. What it means is that they sinned against it and against the God who inspired it. Moreover, their desire for exacting obedience to the law was right. This was precisely what the law demanded. Because they themselves did not put the principle into practice does not in the least undetermine the propriety of the principle itself. It was and is sound. Christ now has a law (Rom. 8:2; Gal. 6:2; Js. 1:25; 2:12), and it is to be respected (Jn. 12:48; 1 Cor. 4:6; Col. 3:17; 1 Tim. 1:3; 2 Tim. 6:3; 2 Jn. 9) and observed . with precision (Jas. 2:10). And, though Christ’s law involves the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:6), liberty from Moses law (Gal. 5:1; 2 Cor. 3:17), and freedom from sin (Jn. 8:32), this does not for one moment imply that it is to be any less respected or any more laxly observed than was Moses’. We can certainly learn many negative lessons from the Pharisees, but we must not fail to learn this positive one.

Now, my main point is this: the term “Pharisee” involves both a derogatory and a complimentary sense. And, it in to my dismay that I hear Christians using the term to make light of the very characteristics that Jesus and Paul complimented them for. By their gross misrepresentation, they do not realize that they are despising the most praiseworthy thing about the Pharisees. Their name is thus being misused to undermine a sound and inherently biblical approach to the Bible.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:43, p. 6-7
September 5, 1974

By Rufus R. Clifford

“Train up a child in the way he should go” and “bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” are Bible statements setting forth the responsibility of parents to their children. Parents make their children, in a large measure, what they become. To determine the destiny of their children for time and eternity is the responsibility of parents. What we are in life depends to a large degree on the environment in which we are reared. Physical health is endangered by exposure to filth and to communicable diseases. Good morals are corrupted by constant association with those impure in heart and life. Solomon said in the long ago that a companion of fools would be destroyed. If one runs with the dogs, he will soon learn to bark. If he lies down with the dogs, he will get up covered with fleas. Paul summed it all up when he said, “Evil companionships corrupt good morals.”

Unless the proper spirit prevails in the home, unless the right attitude toward truth and righteousness is implanted and developed there, disastrous and eternal consequences are certain to result. Happy homes are essential to happy hearts and lives, and also to useful and successful lives. The influence of the home is powerful and lasting. It is here that character is molded and personality is formed. The purpose of the home is to bring lives into this world and to train them for the highest good and greatest usefulness. Children can be so trained and guided as to prefer a happy, godly life to the ways of the world.

Every child is entitled to be well born, to descend from parents whose physical, mental, moral, and spiritual powers have not been depleted or impaired by sinful living. We care not how fine parents may be physically, mentally, and morally, however, they are still unfit to do what is right for their children unless they are Christians. A child has a right to parents who are Christians. One reared in such a home has an infinitely better chance of overcoming the world’s temptations which the years bring to us all. Fortunate, indeed, is the child who, like Timothy of old, grows to manhood or womanhood under the influence of a godly mother and a pious grandmother.

Parents should realize that they will have to give an account to the great Judge in the day of Judgment for the “precious bundles of joy” entrusted to their care, for the influences set in motion in their hearts and lives, and for the examples which they set before them. Parents should, therefore, live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world. This is the way to save ourselves, our children, build up the kingdom of God, and make secure the future of our country.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:43, p. 6
September 5, 1974