God and False Prophets in the Old Testament
Ronald D. Gilbert

False prophets have been around all through the ages. The first, an original false prophet, was Satan.  His method of operation can be seen in Genesis 3.  He used deception, doubt, distortion, and denial to produce disbelief of God’s Word.  False prophets through the ages continued to do the same.  God has always made His Word clear.  “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17).  From the above clear statement, the results of a false prophet are seen in Genesis 3.  “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat” (Gen. 3:6).

When one studies the Old Testament, he sees two classes of false prophets: those from without (such as the false prophets of the heathen nations) and those from within (the false prophets among God’s people).  We shall consider these two groups in some detail.

First, there were false prophets from without.  When the children of Israel came into the land of Canaan, they were to drive out the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites, and Jebusites.  God was clear as to the relationship between His people and the inhabitants of the land.  “And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice; why have ye done this?” (Judg. 2:2).  Throughout the book of Judges, because they did not drive out the false prophets of the land, they found themselves in trouble with God (Judg. 2:11; 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1).  Notice how false prophets work—the children of Israel did not completely stop serving God; they tried to serve the true God and false gods.  The same is true today; false prophets do not try to get their followers to abandon God completely and turn against every truth.  They, like Satan, in the beginning get their followers to doubt, distort, and deny certain truths by means of deception.  If the people of God had followed God’s Word and driven out these people from the land, their lives would have been better.

Also consider the contest between the false prophets of Baal and Elijah.  This meeting at Mt. Carmel was not a “unity meeting” or a “joint worship service” or a “lectureship program.”  It was much like a modern debate with truth there to expose error.  In I Kings 18:21, Elijah spoke out and made his position clear.  How can some so-called “gospel preachers” be on programs with known false teachers and not speak out against these false prophets?  Elijah mocked them and showed the absurdity of a god who cannot hear or is on a journey.  When faced with a clear picture of truth and error honest people can see the truth.  God ordered these false prophets of Baal killed.  True men of God understand they can have no fellowship with false teachers from without.

The second area of false prophets were the ones from within.  Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and Deuteronomy 18:20-22 gave a warning concerning a prophet who spoke but his word did not come to pass.

In I Kings 13 the events of the old prophet and the man of God are recorded.  This passage shows what happened to a man of God who tried to fellowship someone God said not to fellowship.  God sent this prophet on a mission with a message.  In I Kings 13:17, God had told the prophet, “Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest.”  These instructions seem to be clear.  The old prophet said in I Kings 13:18, “I am a prophet also”; he told him that an angel said to bring this man of God back to his house that he might eat bread.  I Kings 13:18 says “But he lied unto him.”  In I Kings 13:20-34 God did speak a message of doom through the mouth of the old prophet telling the man of God he would die for not obeying God.  Can’t you just hear some then and now saying “What harm can come from just eating with someone; surely we can be friendly”?  Today men should think about passages like Romans 16:17-18; Ephesians 5:11; II John 9-11.  Have you ever heard of anyone saying concerning one who has been withdrawn from “what harm can come from eating with someone?”  I Corinthians 5:9-11 says not to eat with those individuals.

God’s Word is clear.  It has always been wrong to work with, endorse, fellowship, support, encourage false prophets from without and from within.  Why is this so hard for some brethren today to see and understand?

Editorial
Malcolm L. Hill

A number of days ago I talked with a good friend and brother about the mixed-up condition our brotherhood is in.  This article comes out of thoughts which came from that conversation.  Our brotherhood has gotten so liberal and so lax that many will fellowship whomever and whatever they wish.  In recent years many of my brethren have talked with me about drawing the circle so narrow that only a few will be left in the circle of our fellowship.  The attitude of most brethren  at this time does not cause me to be concerned about the circle being too small.  The problem as I see it is the circle of fellowship is too large.  Our fellowship should be only as large as God permits and no smaller than the Scriptures authorize.  Only God has the right to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18-19).  God alone has the right to draw the line of fellowship.  We must find out where it is and respect it from all directions.  God’s line of fellowship must be our line of fellowship (I John 1:6-7).

I hardly have a discussion on the theme of fellowship but that local autonomy enters the picture.  Some brethren seem to think that no one has a right to question the practice and teaching of a sister congregation, and they say local autonomy demands this.  If this is so, Paul did not abide by this rule.  He wrote 14 letters to churches and individuals about the Christian life and doing the Lord’s will.  Was Paul wrong in doing this?  Did he transgress the local autonomy of any congregation in teaching them to do right and to reject the wrong?  He wrote letters, like those to the Corinthians, to correct many false teachings and practices.  Was he out of place in doing this?  If he was, then we would be wrong if we followed his example.  But if he was right, then we would be right if we preached to and wrote about non-biblical practices of any or all churches of Christ.  God commands us to point out those who teach and practice false doctrine (Rom. 16:17-18.)  I have been told by some, mostly by way of letter, to mind my own business.  I am minding my own business when I write the truth or speak the truth.  It is the business of every gospel preacher to defend the Word of God (Jude 3; Phil. 1:17).  All of us need to remember that we are our brother’s keeper.

Some have told us that it is not our business to withdraw fellowship from a sister congregation.  I do not know how we could withdraw fellowship from a sister congregation like we withdraw from a member of the local church or the home congregation.  However, we can “mark” and “have no fellowship” with those who do not practice or follow the truth (Rom. 16:17-18).  This is about the same thing as, but not equal to, the withdrawing of fellowship from an individual in the local congregation.  God’s authority is behind the local congregation (Heb. 13:17).  No eldership is over more than one congregation; thus, they have no right to withdraw fellowship from a member of the church who belongs to another congregation of the Lord’s people.  Elders do have the right to mark another congregation if such is biblically necessary (Rom. 16:17-18).  They do have a right to mark a member of another congregation if he is sowing discord and teaching doctrines contrary to Bible teaching (Rom. 16:17-18).

I have a big problem with brethren who fellowship known false teachers, and there is no question about their being false teachers.  I also have problems with brethren that will fellowship those who have fellowshipped false teachers knowingly and intentionally.  This principle is exactly what John had in mind in II John 9-11.  Could one be on a program with false teachers if he reproves and rebukes them?  Yes, without question.  But this is not the normal procedure.

Some say it is not their responsibility to know who is on a program.  So according to this, we may conclude that closing our eyes and ears to the truth is all right?  God demands all of us as Christians to be on the alert (I Pet. 5:8; I John 4:1; Eph. 5:11; II John 9-11; Matt. 7:15-20; Acts 20:28-32; Rom. 16:17-18).  Being willfully ignorant is not acceptable to the Lord. Do I believe in guilt by association?  Not exactly.  I do believe that we should associate with the right crowd (I Cor. 15:33).  We taught our children to run with the right crowd, and all parents that care have done the same.  I believe Christians should run with the right crowd.  I do firmly believe in guilt by participation and such does the Bible teach (Eph. 5:11).  Some brethren do not want to pay the price for faithfulness to Christ in Christian fellowship.  Sometimes we must give up dear friends and loved ones to follow Christ (Matt. 10:35-39).  Are you willing to do this?

What is the Doctrine of Christ in II John 9-11?
Kerry Duke

In this age of great controversy and turbulence in the church, the meaning of II John 9-11 is a hotly debated issue.  John wrote:

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.  He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Violating this doctrine is serious.  One who does so does not have God, and one who supports or encourages him partakes of his evil teaching.  This passage is basic in the discussion of Christian fellowship.

What is “the doctrine of Christ”? Is it the doctrine Christ teaches or the doctrine about Christ?  Put it another way, is it the teaching of the New Testament in general, or is it limited to the specific doctrine of Christ’s deity?  If it is the New Testament in general, then we are forbidden to fellowship those who teach falsely on any one of a number of points.  But if it only refers to the teaching concerning Jesus’ deity, then this passage only forbids us to fellowship those who deny that Jesus was deity manifested in the flesh.  The difference between these interpretations is great; thus, the meaning of “the doctrine of Christ” has enormous practical application.

“The doctrine of Christ” in II John 9 is the teaching of Jesus through the inspired writers of the New Testament.  “The doctrine of Christ” is the same as “the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42), “the gospel” (Gal. 2:14), “the truth” (I Pet. 1:22), “the new testament” (Heb. 9:15), and a number of other equivalent expressions.  It includes but is not limited to the doctrine that Jesus was God manifested in the flesh.

What is the proof of this claim?  How can “the doctrine of Christ” in II John 9 refer to the teaching of Christ as a whole when just two verses earlier John wrote, “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” and then adds “This is a deceiver and an antichrist” (v.7)?  This verse, contrary to the claims of some, is not the central context of the book of II John.  It is actually only a sub-point of the larger and more central theme of the book; this will be shown later.  Before demonstrating this point, however, it is useful to expose the weakness and inconsistency of arguments commonly used to disprove the idea that “the doctrine of Christ” is simply the doctrine about Christ.

Writers who contend that “the doctrine of Christ” refers to the teaching of the New Testament in general often make the mistake of trying to prove this interpretation solely on the basis of Greek grammar.  The Greek for “the doctrine of Christ” is te didache tou Christou.  As far as Greek grammar alone is concerned, “of Christ” (tou Christou) could be either a subjective genitive, which means Christ is the subject who is producing the action signified by the noun (the doctrine or the teaching) or an objective genitive, which means Christ is the object which is receiving the action of the verb signified by the noun (the doctrine or the teaching).  For instance, Matthew 11:2 states, “Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples.”  The “works of Christ” are the works Christ did; this is a subjective genitive.  But Paul said Epaphroditus was near death “for the work of Christ” (Phil. 2:30).  “The work of Christ” here is the work he did for Christ; this is an objective genitive. Only the context of a particular passage determines which usage is employed.  And note that the context is the same in English as it is in Greek.  There are no magical signs in the Greek phrase te didache tou Christou.  It just means “the doctrine of Christ”—nothing more, nothing less.  Yet some brethren claim that the Greek text of II John 9-11 proves that the “doctrine of Christ” is the New Testament in general, citing as many Greek “authorities” as they can find who agree with them without giving contextual proof of their position.  They are oblivious to the fact that the only way those Greek “authorities” can determine whether a subjective or an objective genitive is used in II John 9 is the context, not some mysterious grammatical key that unlocks the meaning of the Greek text!

Another well-intended but inadequate way of trying to establish this position is to examine similar constructions elsewhere and to form a conclusion on this information alone without fully consulting the context of the passage in question.  This procedure can be helpful, but it must not be employed to the neglect of the context or to the overriding of the context of the passage at issue.  For instance, “his doctrine” (Matt. 4:2; 7:28; 22:33; Mark 1:22; 11:18; Luke 4:32; John 18:19) is literally the doctrine of him, that is, of Christ.  This is a subjective genitive: the doctrine Jesus taught.  The same is true of “the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees” (Matt. 16:12), “the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes” (Rev. 2:15), “my doctrine” (the doctrine of me, John 7:16), and “your doctrine” (the doctrine of you, Acts 5:28).  Thus it is true that when the New Testament mentions the doctrine “of” someone, it means in all these passages cited the doctrine which they teach, not the doctrine about them.  But this frequency by itself does not prove that the same meaning occurs in II John 9.  Each passage must be weighed on its own bases according to its own context.  For instance, what is “the preaching of Jesus Christ” in Romans 16:25—the preaching Jesus did, or the preaching about him?  Since the verse says the Roman Christians were established “according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ,” it is the preaching about Christ, for the Romans were converted and edified by such preaching, not the actual preaching Jesus did during His lifetime (though Dana and Mantey regard this as a subjective genitive).  If “the preaching of Christ” can refer to the preaching about Jesus Christ, then we should not prematurely conclude the usage of “the doctrine of Christ” in a particular passage before we carefully consider the context.  We must also admit that a word or phrase can be used in a particular sense in the majority of instances in which it occurs and yet take on a different or a modified meaning in a certain verse because of the context and the way it is used.  For instance, “sanctify” often means in the New Testament to set apart someone from sin and the world and into the church.  But this cannot be the meaning of Jesus’ words “I sanctify myself” in John 17:19 (or, contrary to the way it is often quoted, in John 17:17, since the disciples had already been set apart from sin).  The sanctification of which Jesus speaks is being set apart for a special work. Similarly, “the doctrine of Christ” must be analyzed from the context of II John, not the context of other passages where a similar construction is found.

A far more simple and definitive way of identifying “the doctrine of Christ” is to begin at II John 1, where John twice mentions “the truth.”  What truth is this?  Obviously, “the truth” is that which Jesus promised in John 16:13: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.”  It is synonymous with “the word,” “the gospel, “the doctrine,” and other such expressions.  It is certainly not limited to the truth concerning Jesus’ deity.  The same is true in verse two where John says this truth “dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.”  After a greeting in verse three, John introduces the basic theme of the epistle: “I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth.”  The central point of II John is to encourage the Christian walk and to warn against departing from this walk.  Verses one through six contain the admonition; verses seven through eleven contain the warning.  John is both exhorting them and warning them about the same thing.  He is not admonishing them on one point in verses one through six and then warning them about something else in verses seven through eleven.  This admonition centers on love in verse five and then explains what this love means in verse six: “And this is love, that we walk after his commandments.”  The “truth” is “his commandments,” not just the doctrine of Jesus deity, but the commandments of God in general.

The key mistake made by those claiming that “the doctrine of Christ” is limited to Jesus’ incarnation is their misunderstanding of the role of verse seven.  The verse begins with “For” which means John is explaining why the admonition of verse six is so important: “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.  This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”  Walking in God’s commandments is all the more important because of these deceivers.  Thus, verse seven is not the main point of the book; it is actually a subpoint of verse six, an explanatory comment on the previous admonition.  It is not the focal point of the book or the contextually determining thought of the verses before or after it.  Verse eight refers to the admonition of verse six, adding a warning: “Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought.”

The meaning of “the doctrine of Christ” in verse nine is clear when this warning is seen in context as a contrast with the admonition of verse six.  The admonition is to “walk after his commandments” (verse six).  What is the opposite of this?  It is to “abide not in the doctrine of Christ” (verse nine)!  For the contrast to make sense and for the warning to be clear, “the doctrine of Christ” must refer to “his commandments.”  To “abide in the doctrine of Christ” is to “walk after his commandments”; to “abide not in the doctrine of Christ” is to fail to “walk after his commandments.”  Thus, the emphasis on “the truth” in the opening verses, the admonition to keep “his commandments” in verse six, and the clear contrast between the walking of verse six and the failure to abide or walk in the doctrine in verse nine clearly demonstrate the meaning of the doctrine of verses nine and ten.

There is a separate inconsistency in the position that “the doctrine of Christ” refers only to Christ being God in the flesh.  If only the deity of Jesus is meant by this expression, then are we free to bid God speed to those who deny the personal existence and deity of the Holy Spirit?  Can we rightly fellowship those who deny the inspiration of Scripture?  Can we bid God speed to one who preaches that Christ was not raised from the dead?  The proponents of this view of II John 9 respond to these questions in two ways.  One is to say that “the doctrine of Christ” represents the other essentials and includes more than just Jesus’ deity; that is, this expression is a synecdoche, a part that stands for the whole.  This defense cites I John 4:2 as a parallel: “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.”  The confession of this truth obviously includes other essentials.  But this defense obviously backfires, because if “the doctrine of Christ” includes other essentials of the faith, then their argument on the application of II John 10-11 falls flat.  Another way used by these advocates is to assert that while “the doctrine of Christ” in II John 9 is limited to the deity of Christ, there are other passages which show that there are other essentials that are matters of fellowship.  But if they allow this procedure for themselves, why do they forbid those who disagree with them to do the same?  Thus, even if one granted for the sake of argument that the interpretation these men have of II John 9 is correct, one still is not forced to limit the application of II John 10-11 to those who deny the deity of Christ, since by their own admission these men do not believe that this doctrine is the only essential or the only matter of fellowship.

We must interpret the Bible as a whole to determine what is and what is not a matter of fellowship.  It is clear that a person cannot consistently argue from II John or from the rest of the New Testament that the only false doctrine which should be disfellowshipped is the denial of the person and deity of Jesus Christ.

God And False Prophets—New Testament Teachings
Glenn B. Ramsey

Often the writers of the New Testament sound warn-ings against false prophets and false teachers.  Jesus said, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15).  He warned that “many false prophets shall arise and deceive many” (Matt. 24:11).  Some of these false prophets would demonstrate certain powers and cause wonders to deceive even the best (Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22).

Peter warns, “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (II Pet. 2:1).

The course of wisdom directs children of God to try or test the various teachers and their teachings (see I John 4:1).  The test of whether or not a man is a false teacher (prophet) is not whether or not other men speak well of him!  Indeed, Jesus said in Luke 6:26, “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.”

Man believed the first “false doctrine” or lie in the Garden of Eden.  Man continues to be tempted to believe the teachings that are of the devil.  Any teaching that is not of God is of the devil.  The teachings that are of God are the teachings that are according to His Word.  The Scriptures are complete and completely furnish the man of God unto every good work (II Tim. 3:16-17).  Indeed, the man of God is to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (II Thess. 5:21).

The attitude of God toward one who would teach that which is false is stated in Galatians 1:8-9:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The inspired Paul, who wrote these words, speaks for all who would please God.

It is relatively easy for most folks to claim that they are “against” or that they “hate” false doctrine.  It is more difficult for most folks in the churches of Christ to follow the instructions regarding the ones who teach these “false doctrines.”  But the Bible is just as plain in telling us how we are to regard false teachers as it is in telling us how to identify false doctrine!

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).  Paul clearly tells us in this passage the action that must be taken regarding a false teacher.

The apostle of love, John, writes specifically about God’s will regarding false teachers.  He says,

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.  He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:  For he that biddeth him God speed is a partaker of his evil deeds (II John 9-11).

The instruction of Paul in Ephesians 5:11 is, “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

The man who loves the truth of God will oppose all teaching that is contrary to that truth.  The man who loves the truth of God will oppose all men who teach doctrines (or who practice doctrines) that are contrary to that truth.

It is not a matter of being unable to understand God’s will regarding false teachers (prophets), it is a matter of believing God’s instructions regarding such—and obeying these instructions.

May God help us to be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might!  The church today should recognize that we are in a state of RED ALERT as regarding false teachers and false doctrines that come from without and from within.

Youth Activities of the Church
David Hill

I am always amazed at the accounts given in Middle Tennessee of the activities of the Lord’s church in years gone by.  Years ago the only heat that the church building had was either a wood or coal stove, and the placement of the old stove in the building was not very discreet.  In fact a few old buildings had it prominently placed in the middle of the floor in the middle of the auditorium with the pews configured around it.   Many of the old meeting houses were just a large room which was the auditorium, and that was it.  In this large room sometimes several Bible classes were taught during the Bible study hour.  The classes might be divided into four age groups and each take a corner of the auditorium.   I’ve talked to individuals who were taught in just such an environment, and they have told me about reciting memory verses while three other classes were being conducted around them.  They have mentioned how it could get a bit noisy in there, and sometimes in the summer time quite hot.  But one thing that has caught my attention with many such accounts is the fact that many of those brought up in that environment are still faithful to the Lord.  They have gone on to teach and preach the gospel.  Many of them have had the pleasure of working with their home congregation and seeing it grow out of the old building into new, beautiful, modern facilities.  Often they will speak with great joy about their experiences.

It is amazing to visit with folks and hear about their experiences of the past.  All of the ones whom I’ve talked with that have shared these experiences without exception have said, “we didn’t know anything about nice books, a youth program or a youth minister back then.  We just knew that we had to read our Bible and recite verses for memory work or else we’d be in trouble.”  It is in those times of 50 and 60 years ago when the number one major study group at old Freed-Hardeman College was Bible majors.   If you will examine for yourself, I believe you will find that many of the gospel preachers you know and have known came from a background as I have described and in the time frame just referenced.  Contrast that with today and all the modern wonders enjoyed.  Every meeting house has central heat and air, every congregation has electricity and toilet facilities in the building.  Most members have personal computers, and in Middle Tennessee most members have a lot more money than those of days gone by.  Many small congregations even have youth ministers and youth programs.  Yet, true Bible majors have fallen in the liberal arts colleges to approximately 1 to 5% of the student body.  Out of that number, usually about half will actually preach full-time.  And with all the blessing enjoyed by Christians today, our congregations are not producing enough young people interested in preaching the gospel to fill the plush new classrooms of the many preacher training schools.  Therefore, by just about any study of congregations and preachers in recent years, you can see that only about half the pulpits are being filled by preachers.  We at TBC can’t even begin to fill the requests for preachers.  Why? There is a great shortage of gospel preachers.  It’s truly amazing, isn’t it,  to compare the account of 50 years ago with today.

What does this have to do with youth activities in the church?  Well, it would appear that all we’ve done for the past 30 years or so has failed.  But we’ve had youth ministers, youth fairs, uplifts, outreaches, retreats, big rallies, and yet many congregations can’t even select two men faithful enough to serve as elders replacing those godly elders who are passing away.  Youth activities? Yes, we’ve got plenty of them, but very little to show for it.

What should be the youth activities of the church?  If you will study youth programs of the Bible, it might change the prospective you have today.  Eli had a good youth program (I Sam. 1-4).  He apparently trained young men well, but to the neglect of his own children, Hophni and Phinehas (I Sam. 2:12).  He trained the great judge and spiritual leader of Israel, Samuel.   How did he do it?  Samuel had loving parents who wanted him to serve the Lord, and Eli taught him the Lord’s way by practical training on the job.  Paul, the apostle, had a good youth program.  We get a sample of his program beginning in Acts 16 where we meet for the first time the young man Timothy.  Paul prepared Timothy to work with all those he would come in contact with (Acts 16:3), and he took him on the road with him (Acts 16:4-17:15) to assist in the preaching and teaching of the gospel.  I don’t imagine Timothy’s godly mother, Eunice, was in one sense, thrilled at the prospect of her son being threatened and having to face what the great apostle was having to face, but she loved the Lord and had great faith and knew that Timothy was in a great work.  Both she and Timothy’s grandmother, Lois, had “unfeigned faith” (II Tim. 1:5), so they no doubt encouraged Timothy to serve the Lord (II Tim. 1:5; 3:15).  Paul took him out to work and taught him the practical with “on the job training” making him a gospel preacher.  And we know that he did develop into just that, a gospel preacher (II Tim. 4:1-2).  Now, have you got any ideas about youth activities of the church?

Youth programs have the potential to be a great blessing to the work of the Lord’s church.  But it is not gymnasiums, swimming pools, and more activities that are needed in youth work today.  It might be that a lot of practical training in the word of God and in service to the church of Christ would make a significant difference.  This means godly parents must take the lead (Prov. 22:6; Eph. 6:4), and Bible teachers are greatly needed.  I don’t want to go back to no electricity and potbellied stoves, or no activities for the youth, but it might help to go back to the practical teaching that took place in those old buildings of yesteryear.  Perhaps with a new generation of that training, the digression of the church today could be turned around, and we could once again grow and dwell in peace in the body of Christ.