Truth Magazine

By Morris W. R. Bailey

“Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am king. To this end have I been born, and to this end am I come into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate said unto him, What is truth?” (John 18:3 7, 38.)

The reader’s attention is directed to the question asked by Pilate. What is truth? Truly this should be a thought-provoking question. In every line of human endeavor there is nothing more challenging to the human mind than the search for truth, and nothing is broader in its implications. I have often wondered what prompted Pilate to ask this question. Was it cynicism? Or was there aroused in Pilate a sincere desire to learn more about the nature of Christ’s kingdom and the constitution on which it rested? It will be observed that when Pilate asked this question he was under extreme pressure. He was in a most difficult position, faced with the urgency of making a momentous decision. Actually he was between the horns of a dilemma and faced with the necessity of making a choice between two decisions. Before him stood Jesus Christ whom Pilate knew to be innocent of all the charges brought against him. Three times he had brought down his judgment, –I find no fault in him. Pilate could therefore have dismissed the charges and released Jesus. But out beyond stood the bloodthirsty mob of Jews, determined that Jesus must be put to death. The situation was tense. Any moment it threatened to erupt into a violent uprising. This, Pilate could not afford. An uprising now, could easily cost him his prestige, and possibly his position. It was under these conditions that Pilate asked the question of our text, –What is truth?

Whether it was asked cynically or sincerely by Pilate, the question is a most challenging one. Eternal issues are involved. It is especially important today when viewed against the background of current religious attitudes. We are living in an age when people like to boast of religious tolerance and broadmindedness, and when there is little in the line of genuine religious conviction. The popular concept that is echoed from so many pulpits today, and which is more and more being woven into the warp and woof of twentieth century religion is that different and conflicting religious beliefs are no cause for concern, because it doesn’t make any difference what one believes just as long as they are sincere. In other words, the test of doctrinal purity today is not truth but sincerity.

Because of this lack of genuine conviction regarding truth, the religious world has undergone a very pronounced change in its attitude toward religious controversy and the discussion of religious differences. Gone is the militant spirit of yesteryear that prompted sectarian preachers to challenge for public discussions in which to promote and defend their doctrines. Sometimes sectarian preachers debated one another when both were wrong. But at least they realized then what many people don’t seem to realize now, –that two conflicting doctrines cannot both be true. But it seems like those days are gone and in the place of conviction there has grown up the sickly and sickening attitude that it is all right to believe anything if one believes it sincerely enough. What do most people care today if the doctrine preached by those who call themselves Jehovah Witnesses makes man nothing more than a super-animal and denies the bodily resurrection of Christ? What do most people today care if the doctrine preached by Mormons, when pressed to its logical conclusion, makes God nothing more than a glorified human being and living in polygamous relationships? In fact, the only thing that is wrong, in the thinking of many today, is to believe that some body else is wrong. That is being narrow-minded, and is anathema to the thinking (or lack of thinking) that characterizes this age.

If there is to be any way out of the morass in which the religious world is lost today the first step will in the very nature of things have to be a change in men’s attitude toward truth. There will have to be a sincere appreciation for, and a genuine search after truth. People need to ask again the question asked by Pilate,–What is truth? The dying embers of human philosophy that judges doctrines by sincerity, popularity, or expediency must be fanned into a flame of consuming zeal for truth. The stagnant pools of apathy must be replaced by the moving stream that rolls eagerly on toward the sea of eternal truth. Unity as an end in itself is not sufficient. Men may be united in error. The unity for which Christ prayed and for which Paul pleaded will be a by-product of the religious world’s acceptance of truth. What saith the Lord? What do the scriptures teach? A sincere appreciation for the importance of these questions, the proper answer thereto, and a proper application of the principles involved are the only hope for an ailing Christendom.

The apathy toward doctrinal purity that is so prevalent today is inexcusable. God has not left man without witness as to the importance of truth and its function in saving the lost and bringing wayward man back to God.

Makes Us Free

“Jesus therefore said to those Jews that believed him, If ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples; and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. They answered unto him, We are Abraham’s seed and have never yet been in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Everyone that committeth sin is a bondservant of sin.” (John 8:31-34.)

Thus does Jesus tell us that we are made free from sin by the truth. Freedom is a much-cherished hope for anyone in bondage and for which men will pay almost any price. Nations under the rule of a cruel foreign power have often risen up in rebellion to obtain their freedom. Prisoners of war have often spent months digging tunnels or have even sacrificed their lives in a break for freedom. The man behind penitentiary walls look forward to the day of his release and freedom.

But the most bitter and most exacting of all bondage is man’s enslavement to sin. Sin is a hard and cruel taskmaster. It exacts much, but gives so little in return. It holds man bound with fetters not easily broken, a slave to his own passions and appetites. The tens of thousands of alcoholics throughout the nation stand as grim evidence of the enslaving power of sin. Freedom from sin is therefore man’s greatest need. Happily for man there is a means of deliverance from the bondage of sin. Jesus said that the truth makes man free. But if it takes the truth to make us free from sin, then it is most certain that error will not, and it is the sheerest folly for man to seek refuge in false doctrine regardless of how sincere he may be. If it takes the truth to make us free from sin, should not the quest for truth be the most important thing in life and worth any sacrifice or any price?

Saved by Believing Truth

“And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be judged who believed not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” (2 Thess. 2:11-13.)

Thus does Paul tell us that we are saved by believing the truth. The Bible represents man as lost in sin. To escape damnation, man must be saved from sin. Jesus announced that His mission to earth was to seek and save the lost. (Luke 19:10.) But God has made salvation conditional for man, and faith is one of the conditions. “He that be” lieveth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16.) However it is not the mere act of believing something that saves man. It is what he believes. Let us illustrate it this way. Man lives by eating. But it is not the mere act of eating that keeps man alive. It is what he eats. He could starve to death eating some things. Man must drink to live. But it is not the mere act of drinking that sustains life. Water is nature’s own beverage without which neither man nor beast can long survive. But a few grains of strychnine added to a glass of water make a deadly potion. Man lives by breathing, but it is not the mere act of breathing that imparts life. It makes a difference what he breathes. Motorists have often died from breathing the deadly carbon monoxide fumes from the exhaust of an automobile.

And just so man is saved from sin by faith. But it is not the mere act of believing something that saves. Paul said that those who believe a lie will be lost. (2 Thess. 2:11, 12.) Man must believe the truth in order to be saved. And if it takes the belief of the truth to save, then how earnestly man should seek for the truth!Souls Purified

“Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently.” (1 Peter 1:22.)

Man in his unconverted state is unclean and therefore unfit for heaven. Before he can enjoy the hope of heaven he must be purified from sin. Peter tells us that our souls are purified by obedience to the truth. It is not sufficient that man obey something that he conceives to be right. Sacrifice and zeal can n ever take the place of obedience to the truth. Those who obey not the truth are lost. (Romans 2:8,9.)

Since man is made free from the bondage of sin by the truth; saved by believing the truth, and his soul purified by obedience to the truth, the question asked by Pilate nineteen hundred years ago is the most urgent question today. What is truth? In an article to follow we shall seek the answer to this question.

Truth Magazine VI: 9 & 10, pp. 14-16
June & July 1962

By Foy W. Vinson

There are many things that baptism will not do. It doesn’t change one’s heart, remove temptation, guarantee a sinless life or guarantee eternal life. And yet at the same time there are some things which baptism will do. Modern denominationalism has been almost entirely negative in its treatment of baptism to the point that to most people it is nothing more than an “outward sign of an inward grace,” which really means nothing at all. Regardless of such thinking, the New Testament makes some very positive statements relative to the design and effects of scriptural baptism. It teaches that baptism will do the following.

First, baptism will remit one’s sins. Men usually deny this but God’s word emphatically affirms it. In Acts 2:38 the apostle Peter told inquiring believers to “repent and be baptized — for the remission of sins.” Language could be no clearer! Penitent believers are to be baptized in order that they may obtain remission or forgiveness of sins. This fact explains the words of Ananias as he told Saul of Tarsus to “arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins–.” (Acts. 22: 16.) Some seek to evade the obvious conclusion of Peter’s statement in Acts 2:38 by interpreting the word “for” to mean “because of.” This, however, cannot be since relxntance and baptism have the identical design as per this passage, i. e., the “remission of sins.” No one contends that remission precedes repentance and therefore one cannot consistently contend that remission precedes baptism. So baptism does remit one’s sins.

Second, baptism will put one into Christ. In Galatians 3:27 we read: “For as many of you as have been baptized into (Christ have put on (Christ.” We are informed of this same fact in Romans 6:3. Nothing else is said to put us into (Christ. The word “into” is, defined as “from being outside of, as in place, state, forte, etc., to within.” In other words the term “into” describes the process of entering. Before one is put into Christ he is outside of Him and thus without Christ. Paul describes those who are “without Christ” as “having no hope, and without God in the world. ” (Eph. 2: 12.) In contradiction to this we are told that “in Christ” the following things reside: (1) all spiritual blessings (Eph. 1:3); (2) redemption or the forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1: 7); (3) salvation (2 Tim. 2:10); (4) consolation for the dead (Rev. 14:13); (5) a new creation of life (2 Cor. 5: 17). Other blessings in Christ could be mentioned, but these should suffice to cause us to be grateful that baptism does put one into Christ.

Third, baptism will put one into the death of Christ. Paul declares this in Romans 6:3, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” Again we have the word “into,” and it means the same in this passage as it does in Galatians 3:27. So until one is baptized he is out of or without the death of Christ. This means that such a person is in the spiritual condition that obtained before Christ died on the cross and which would have continued to obtain had he not died. This is so because there has been no personal application of the death or shedding of the Savior’s blood to the soul and correspondingly no derivation of the benefits accruing therefrom. The benefits of his death are expressed in such terms as redemption, forgiveness, remission, etc. (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1: 14; Matt. 26:28; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19.) A realization that baptism does put us into His death should assuredly increase our respect and appreciation for this ordinance.

Finally, Baptism will save us. This of course has been the gist of all the observations made thus far concerning what baptism will do. Whether we mention that baptism puts one into Christ, or remits ones sins, or puts one into the death of Christ, all of these points can be equated or summed up in this last one, i. e., that baptism saves us. However, Peter makes this precise statement in 1 Peter 3:21 when he says, “The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us–.” This settles the matter once and for all. Any doctrine on baptism, which robs it of this accomplishment, is a false one. The only reason that need be given for why it Let us realize the limitations of baptism, but saves is that God has so stated in His word at the same time let us not be unconscious and has made it a condition of salvation or inappreciative of its accomplishments.

Truth Magazine VI: 9&10, pp. 8-9
June & July 1962

By Connie W. Adams

Church discipline is a much-neglected subject. In many places, a good lesson from the pulpit setting forth just exactly what the Bible says on the subject would be a great shock to those assembled. A failure to understand and practice corrective discipline has resulted in congregations being filled with half-converted, worldly minded, negligent people. This has robbed the church of its spiritual power, caused it to be looked upon with disdain by the world, and thus greatly hindered the spread of the gospel.

WHAT IS DISCIPLINE? Webster defines it as: 1. Treatment suited to a disciple or learner; education; development of the faculties by instruction and exercise; training. 2. Training to act in accordance with established rules. 3. Subjection to rule; submissiveness to order and control. 4. Severe training, corrective of faults, punishment. 5. Correction, chastisement, punishment inflicted by way of correction and training.” Church discipline would involve the whole process of training and development of the child of God in the performance of that which the word of God authorizes. The “established rules” in the case would be the teaching of the New Testament. Every Christian must be trained in that which he is to know and to be. He must learn to develop his skills in the pursuit of his duties. In Mt. 28:20 Jesus said those baptized were to be taught to “observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Titus 2:11-12 shows that the grace of God teaches us to “deny ungodliness and worldly lusts” and to live “soberly, righteously and godly in this present world.” 2 Tim. 3-16-17 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of (God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” As the Christian is instructed in these matters, he is being disciplined. From this standpoint, every Christian needs discipline. For this reason, we need Bible classes, gospel meetings, training programs and such like.

But while instructive discipline is needed, the New Testament also provides for corrective discipline. In the army, soldiers are expected to live by the rules. When they fail to do so, correction is meted out. In the church, God expects his people to “follow after holiness,” to “love not the world,” to “set their affections on things above.” Whenever one begins to walk contrary to the pattern of sound words that person needs to be corrected, and the New Testament provides for such correction.

PASSAGES TO CONSIDER: 1. Teachers of error are to be corrected. “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” (Rom. 16:17.) Notice that these are to be marked and avoided because they are not practicing the doctrine of God. Such action was designed to awaken the one in error to his condition and also to save the church from contamination. 2. The “unruly” are to be warned. (1 Thes. 5:14.) 3. True preaching includes reproving and rebuking. (2 Tim. 4:2.) 4. The ungodly are to be purged out. (I Cor. 5.) In this passage we have the account of a fornicator being countenanced in the church at Corinth. They had done nothing about it. This little leaven was in danger of leavening the whole lump, that is, defiling the whole congregation. For the protection of the church, something had to be done. Further, this action was to take place when the church was come together, that is, in the public assembly. They were to “purge out” this ungodly member. This was to be done not only for the safety of the church, but also for the good of the one who had sinned. It was for “the destruction of the flesh.” That is, the sins of lusts of the flesh to which the brother had succumbed. In the destruction of the flesh, there was the hope that his soul would be saved. In the same chapter Paul wrote, “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.” (Verse 11.) Then in verse 13 he said, “Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” Such as are described in this passage are to be purged out, no company is to be kept with them, not even to eating with them, and they are to be put away from among the brethren. Now, just how many congregations do you know of which are practicing what this passage enjoins?

5. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2 Thes. 3:6.) In this passage he deals especially with the brother who would not work, who was idle, and in his idleness had become a busybody. (See verse 11.) Paul said, “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” (Verses 14-15.) The word “disorderly” denotes a soldier who breaks rank. In this context, the soldier broke rank by violating what Paul wrote about working. Now, my question is this: if a man breaks rank and is disorderly, because he violates one thing required of him in his service to God, is he not equally disorderly when he violates some other plain requirement? For example, the Lord taught that Christians are not “to forsake the assembling” of themselves together. To do so is to sin. It is to break rank. I know of brethren who do not believe that a congregation can withdraw from a brother who has simply abandoned the church. Their argument is that you cannot withdraw something you don’t have. It is true that when a brother so conducts himself, he has broken fellowship with God and therefore has none with others who are in fellowship with God. But that same thing is true of a brother who commits adultery or drunkenness. He cuts off fellowship with God in such matters, and therefore has none with any who enjoy fellowship with God. It seems to me that part of this confusion has arisen over the use of the wrong term. We speak of “withdrawing fellowship,” whereas Paul said, “withdraw yourselves.” While a brother may abandon the church and thus cut off fellowship with God and the church, I have an obligation to mark him, note him, keep no company with him until he repents. I know of no more public sin that a man could commit than to just abandon the public meetings of the saints. What greater harm could be done the church in the eyes of the world, or with reference to the weaker members, than for a man so to do?

WHY IS IT NECESSARY? 1. It is necessary because the Lord required it. We cannot respect his authority without complying with what he said on this subject. Those who deny that corrective discipline does any good in all essence are denying that what the Lord required will do good. 2. Fulfilling what the Lord requires preserves the purity of the church. Of course, the church will not be kept absolutely pure, because it is composed of humans. But we are to “follow peace and holiness.” We are to “press toward the prize.” With this spirit in mind, one who stumbles along the way, will recognize his wrong, repent of it, and continue to press in the right direction. Paul said “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” The whole church is liable to be injured by the ungodliness of a corrupt member. l’aul said the word of a certain one would “eat as cloth a gangrene.” (2 Tim. 2:17.)

3. Such action is designed to save the one in error (I Cor. 5:5.) When the brother finds himself cut off from the company and recognition of the faithful, he may be brought to his senses. Corrective discipline should never be vindictive. The purpose as it concerns the erring brother is to save his soul, when all other efforts have failed.

It should be noted that the act of purging out the old leaven is not the first step in our efforts to reclaim a fallen brother, rather, the last resort. Such action should not be taken until all reasonable efforts to teach and persuade him have proved unsuccessful. Any brother overtaken in a fault is to be restored by the spiritual. (Gal. 6:1.) If any err from the truth, brethren are to seek to convert him from the error of his way and save his soul from death. (Jas. 5:19-20.) He is to be approached with meekness and dealt with in a longsuffering manner.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 1. Some say to withdraw from a brother simply “runs him off.” If he has conducted himself in such a fashion as to be purged out, having resisted all efforts to win him back, then you don’t run him off. He is away from God in his state. You simply let him know, the church as a unit does, and let the world know that you cannot endorse his manner of life.

2. I’ve heard brethren say, “Well, I never heard the old-timely preachers say anything about this.” Now, if you didn’t, that would only mean they failed to do their duty as preachers. 3. Sometimes brethren will object by misapplying the statement of the Lord, “Judge not that ye be not judged.” The kind of judgment involved in that verse is forbidden. It is harsh, unkind, and unreasonable. But other passages show, yea, require, that we exercise judgment in some matters in the church. Jesus said, “Judge righteous judgment.” (Jno. 7:24.) In 1 Cor. 6 Paul rebuked the church at Corinth because they had not judged in the case where one brother went to law with another, and he raised the question, “Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren7” (I Cor. 6:5.)

4. “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone,” some object. Certainly those enforcing corrective discipline should be striving to do right. Sometimes, when this statement is made, it indicates that there has been a wholesale neglect of discipline and that the church has become so corrupt that it would be hard to know where to start and where to stop. But if the statement, “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone” implies that we cannot ever purge out the old leaven, then God would have required something impossible.

5. Some say, “Withdrawing violates the parable of the tares.” In Mt. 13:24-30 we have the parable of the tares in which Jesus said that both the wheat and the chaff were to grow until the end of the world and the Lord would separate them. The idea some erroneously get from this is that if you withdraw from the chaff, you might uproot some of the wheat. In the first place, true disciples are devoted to the Lord and by reason of such devotion are interested in obeying his will. In the second place, this is a perversion of the lesson of the parable. In the same chapter, the Lord explained what he meant by the parable. He said, “The field is the world,” not the church. The good seed are the children of the kingdom and the evil seed are the children of the devil. Both saint and sinner are in the world. The children of the kingdom are not to undertake the business of administering discipline to the world, as some religions have been known to do. God will take care of that matter. This passage does not deal with two classes in the dhurdl, rather, with two classes in the world.

Brethren need to stop hunting for excuses from doing that which is their duty to do. If every congregation would properly tead1 and train the members and then correct those who do not heed the teaching, the church would be purer, its chastity would shine in radiance before the world, it would have a magnetic attraction to the toil worn sinner, the borders of the kingdom would be increased, and more than that, many of the fallen would be reclaimed to the salvation of their souls. May the Lord help us to do such a good job in instructive discipline that corrective discipline will seldom be necessary? Should such become necessary, let us not hesitate to fulfill our God-given responsibilities.

Truth Magazine VI, 9&10 pp. 1,4-5
June – July 1962

By Luther W. Martin

In our modern age of new religious doctrines, new medicines, new inventions, new chemicals, new habits a n d recreations, the scripture that is used as title for this article, needs to be stressed more than ever.

By inspiration, the Apostle Paul states: “…Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (I Cor. 6:19-20.) “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God ” (Rom. 12:1.)

In view of the above scriptures, man does not possess the right to abuse or harm his body, any more than he has any right in the sight of God to end his life. Judas committed suicide and we know from the scripture that he “went to his own place.” (See Acts 1:25.)

Surgeon General of the Public Health ServiceSpeaking for the United States Government in an article which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and is more recently copied in part in the Congressional Record, March 19, 1962, pages A-4141-42:

“The Public Health Service believes that the following statements are justified by studies to date:

1. The weight of evidence at present implicates smoking as the principle etiological factor in the increased incidence of lung cancer.

2. Cigarette smoking particularly is associated with an increased chance of developing lung cancer.

3. Stopping cigarette smoking even after long exposure is beneficial.

4. No method of treating tobacco or filtering the smoke has been demonstrated to be effective in materially reducing or eliminating the hazard of lung cancer.

5. The nonsmoker has a lower incidence of lung cancer than the smoker in all controlled studies, whether analyzed in terms of rural areas, urban regions, industrial occupations, or sex.

6. Persons who have never smoked at all –cigarettes, cigars, or pipe–have the best chance of escaping lung cancer.

Unless the use of tobacco can be made safe, the individual person’s risk of lung cancer can best be reduced by the elimination of smoking.”

Royal College of Physicians

Advertising Age, a trade journal published in the U. S.’ reported the findings of the British Royal College of Physicians on the matter of lung cancer and its causes, in its March 12, 1962 issue:

“London, March 7–The Royal College of Physicians claimed today that cigarette smoking is a- cause of lung cancer’ and urged the government to restrict tobacco advertising.

In a report (immediately labeled by the Tobacco Institute in the U.S. as ‘admittedly a review of old data without any new research findings’), the college proposed that tar and nicotine content be printed on each pack of cigarettes.

The medical committee, which drafted the report, was set up in April, 1959, to investigate smoking and atmospheric pollution in relation to lung cancer and other illnesses. Today, it reported that cigarette smoking is a cause of bronchitis as well as lung cancer and probably contributes to the development of coronary disease. It also might be partly responsible for tuberculosis morbidity and mortality in elderly men, and it has an adverse effect on the healing of ulcers, the report said.

Sir Robert Platt, president of the college, presented the report, which went on sale today. He said there is a ‘reluctance to believe the facts’ because big financial interests are involved

The report claimed that health hazards associated with cigarette smoking are so great that prompt preventative measures should be instituted. It proposed restricting advertising, further restricting tobacco sales to children, increasing cigarette taxes, and educating the public to the hazards of smoking.

It said that if cigarette smoking were to end, deaths from lung cancer would decline to some 10% or 20% of its present rate…”

Changing Times–The Kiplinger Magazine

The March, 1962 issue of Changing Times, gives a comprehensive report on the findings of current studies of the relationship between cigarette smoking and the incidence of lung cancer. We copy only a brief excerpt:

“In just one generation, lung cancer, which is fatal 9570 of the time, has changed from an uncommon disease to one that causes by far the largest number of cancer deaths among men. In 1930, there were only 2,500 deaths from lung cancer recorded in the United States; last year, 36,000 persons died of the disease; in 1962, it is predicted that there will be 45,000 new cases and 39,300 deaths.

At this rate, according to the American Public Health Association statistics, a million children now in school will die of lung cancer before they reach the age of 70.

More than a decade ago investigators began the search for the cause of the big increase in lung cancer. Since then, 28 separate studies have been conducted by

scientists in eight different countries. The findings, remarkably alike in result, all point to cigarette smoking as a prime culprit–probably THE prime culprit, though not the only one–in causing cancer of the lung…”

Conclusion

In view of the above quoted factual data, Christians cannot afford to engage in that which endangers their health or which without need or reason, shortens their lives. “But the man who has doubts–misgivings, an uneasy conscience — about eating, and then eats (perhaps because of you), stands condemned…” (Rom. 14: 23.)

Truth Magazine VI: 8, pp. 7-9
May 1962