Truth Magazine

By Ervin Driskill

Brother Gayle Oler continues to write as though his statements, concerning the relationship of Boles Home to the church and whether it is doing the work of the church or the home, had never been met or answered. In B. H. News, January 25, 1962, he has this to say, “Boles Home is doing the work of the home and not the church.” Well, let us suppose that B. H. was emptied of all children and the facilities were used for 350 “widows-indeed” and churches were maintaining their care. Would this be the work of the church or the home? I Tim.5:16 certainly identifies such care of widows as the work of the church. (This does not mean a centralized arrangement of caring for widows indeed, under one eldership, would be right; I only use the illustration to show what is and who is the obligation of the church). My point is this: What makes B. H. caring for 350 children doing the work of the HOME and B. H. caring for 350 widows doing the work of the church? Does Gayle deny that I Tim 5:16 sets forth the work of the church? One of two things is true: (1) Either B. H. (under its present set-up) is doing the work of the church and not the home or (2) I Tim. 5:16 is not a picture of the church at work. Either you deny I Tim. 5:16 or you give up the present set up at Boles Home.

Caring for my family is my obligation and, that which is my obligation becomes my WORK. This is true of any person or organization. When I am unable to meet my obligation I am no longer accountable for the work. When the church steps in, it has accepted its obligation and it has therefore become ITS WORK. From this it is evident that if the church has any obligation to children in B. H. and is meeting the obligation then, it is the WORK OF THE CHURCH and not THE HOME that is being done. These are evident facts and they cannot be gainsaid. If any of these liberal brethren think otherwise let them expose the fallacy. At least two major things are wrong with B. H. (1) They have fostered a work on churches, that is not the work of the churches and, (2) they are having them do it through a human institution.

It has further been argued that caring for orphans is a Religious Work. (Jas. 1: 27.) However, the charter of Boles H. says, “Every director believes, and is required to believe in order to be a director, that the LOCAL CONGREGATION of the church of Christ, IS ALL AND THE ONLY ORGANIZATION AUTHORIZED TO CARRY ON CHRISTIAN WORK OR WORSHIP and that such organization EXCLUDES EACH AND EVERY OTHER ORGANIZATION for the purpose of conducting or carrying on RELIGIOUS WORK or worship, whether the same be missionary or OTHERWISE.” (caps, mine R.E.D.) Notice then, the following:

1. The church being the ONLY ORGANIZATION for carrying on RELIGIOUS WORK, excludes all other organizations for carrying on that work (Boles charter).

2. Boles Home is ANOTHER ORGANIZATION carrying on RELIGIOUS WORK. (Jas. 1:27.) Therefore, Boles Home is excluded by its own charter.

But, with the former before us we reach this conclusion:

1. Another organization to do or carry on RELIGIOUS WORK is an impeachment of the wisdom of God in establishing the church to do RELIGIOUS WORK.

2. Boles Home is that other organization. Therefore, Boles Home is an impeachment of the wisdom of God.

These brethren must either deny Boles Home is doing a RELIGIOUS WORK (and when they do they give up their argument on Jas. 1:27 and it applying to the church rather than the individual), or they must admit Boles Home is doing the WORK OF THE CHURCH, or THEY WILL HAVE TO WRITE ANOTHER CHARTER.

Our brother further says, “B. H. sustains exactly the same organizational relationship to the church of Christ that any other home does.” That then, means there is no such relationship or connection and, if so, what right do men have setting up such an organization and soliciting and receiving contributions from churches? Could we set up natural homes and solicit and receive contributions from the church? We could if B. H. sustains the same organizational relationship as any other home. I can give as much scripture for one as he can for the other and there is none for either.

If men in the church, set up a Missionary Society and make its establishment and continual existence depend on church money and, its policies and operation are set by a board, it becomes an organization of the church; there is organic relationship but, these same men can set up a Benevolent Society (Boles H.) and it is not an organization of the church; there is no organic relationship. Those who so reason are either mighty shall low or, are too dishonest to admit their inconsistency.

Gayle also says, “So B. H. stands in the exact PLACE of the home, and in no other” and then argues there is no difference in the natural home and Boles H. How can B. H. be “the home” and at the same time “stand in the place of the home?”

The following are propositions I shall be happy to affirm and deny:

1. Resolved: The New Testament teaches the church’s obligation, in benevolence, extends to saints ONLY.

2. Resolved: The New Testament teaches the church has a responsibility to care for orphans who are not saints as well as those who are.

I will affirm the first and deny the second. Let someone first establish the right of the church to support orphans per se and then we will discuss the relationship of Boles Home to the church etc.

It becomes a little disconcerting for brethren to state their belief in the all sufficiency of the church and then come forth with a lot of specious palaver trying to prove their unscriptural practice is in harmony with their statement of belief.

Truth Magazine VI: 7, pp. 13-14
April 1962

By J. W. McGarvey

(Ed. Note: The following article originally appeared in the Christian Standard, Nov. 13, 1897).

I answer the following question: I read, years ago, your article in Lard’s Quarterly on “By one Spirit are we all baptized into the one body,” etc. J. J. Haley claims for it Holy Spirit baptism. Have you changed your view, or do you believe now as you did then? – W. C. Rogers.

I remember the article referred to, but I long ago gave away the copy of the Quarterly which contained it, and I can not now consult it. The article had rather a singular origin. Bro. Lard and I agreed as to the meaning of the passage; but he had some misgivings about it, so he made the proposal that I should write a defense of our interpretation; that he should make under an assumed name the strongest objections to it that he could, and that I should then make a short rejoinder. It has been so long since I read my article that I can not now recall all the course of my argument, and I am not sure that I did not say some things that I would not now repeat; but my understanding of the apostle’s meaning has undergone no change, and I will try to set it forth in brief.

As given in the Revised Version, the language of the text is this: “For in one spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit” ( 1 Cor. 12:13). Two facts in the past experience of the disciples are here set forth: first, that in one Spirit they had all been baptized into one body; and second, that they had all been made to drink of one Spirit. I think that it will not be denied that the word “drink,” in the latter clause, is a metaphor for the enjoyment of the Holy Spirit; and that the reference is to that gift of the Holy Spirit promised to all who repent and are baptized. This enjoyment of the’ Spirit, which begins of course with its reception, is represented by the apostle as being preceded by the other fact that all had been in one Spirit baptized into one body. In other words, being baptized into the one body had preceded being made to drink of the one Spirit. Can the baptism then mean the baptism in the Holy Spirit? I think not; for he who is thus baptized begins in the act to drink of the Spirit, and this drinking would not be spoken of as a subsequent and separate experience.

Again, in all passages where the word “baptize” is connected with that in or into which the act brings the subject, the verb is placed first. For example, “I baptize you in water;” “He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire;” “All who were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death.” Even in our passage, “baptized into one body.” Now, if the apostle had meant to say that this baptism into one body was the Holy Spirit baptism, he would have expressed himself, according to the universal usage, differently. He would have said, “We were all baptized in one Spirit into one body.” This would have been unambiguous. But, connecting the expression “into one body” with the baptism, he places the expression in “one spirit,” not between them, but before both. What, then, does he mean by this latter expression? This is the real issue.

It is well known that Paul, in a few instances, uses the expression, “in the Spirit,” for the state of one in whom the Spirit dwells; but it is also used to indicate the controlling guidance of the Holy Spirit; and the latter usage is more frequent than the former. What is more to the point, the latter usage is the one that prevails throughout the context of the passage under discussion. The introductory remark of the context is this: “Wherefore, I give you to understand that no man speaking in the Spirit of God saith Jesus is anathema; and no man can say Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit” (v. 2). Now, a man can say Jesus is Lord without being in the Holy Spirit in the sense of having the Holy Spirit dwelling in him, but he cannot say it without the Holy Spirit as his guide to a knowledge of Jesus. The Spirit’s guidance in the matter is exercised through the word of truth. Farther on the apostle adds: “For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; and to another the gift of healing, in the same Spirit” (vs. 8, 9); where the expressions “through the Spirit,” “according to the same Spirit,” and “in the same Spirit,” are equivalents, and all specify the action of the Holy Spirit in the several instances, and not the state of being in the Holy Spirit. If there could be any doubt of this, it would be removed by verse 11, which is a summary of the preceding specifications of the Spirit’s work: “But all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as he will.” In such a connection, when the apostle adds, “in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body,” it appears incontrovertible that he is adding another specification of what the Holy Spirit does–that by its guidance, which was known to be exercised through the preached Word, the disciples had been baptized into the one body. The baptism could be understood by his readers only as the same by which they were baptized into Christ, and into his death; that is, the baptism in water.

I may add that, in the only two instances of baptism in the Holy Spirit expressly so styled in the Scriptures, this baptism did not introduce its subjects into the one body. The first was that of the apostles on the great Pentecost, and the second the family and friends of Cornelius. In the former instance the subjects of the baptism were already members of the body, and in the latter they became such afterward by being baptized, as Peter commanded in the name of Jesus Christ.

Truth Magazine VI:5, pp. 14-15
February 1962

By Osby Weaver

We do not propose to be able to answer all the questions that might be asked nor solve all of the problems that might arise as a result of marital entanglements in which some people find themselves involved. We do know that if all parties concerned would always respect the word of God on this question, no such problems would ever arise. Hence, whatever confusion, disunity, and inequities exist in marriages cannot be charged to the Lord.

In this article we are primarily concerned with a discussion of those issues about which we can be certain and regarding which errors have been propagated.

It is erroneously affirmed by some that one can marry, divorce for any cause, and re-marry as many times as it pleases him before he becomes a Christian, and God takes no notice of his marital capers until he is baptized, at which time, God then joins him to the one he got caught with when he was baptized. The reasoning employed by the exponents of this theory is as follows. “One is not a subject of God’s law until he becomes a citizen of God’s kingdom; that while he is in the devil’s kingdom, he is not amenable to God.” We shall now proceed to point out the fallacy of such reasoning and show that such a conclusion proves too much for the the0rizer, and that he will not accept the consequences of his own proof.

The first consequence of this theory that we mention is this: It makes marriage a church ordinance, ignoring the fact that marriage is 4000 years older than the church, and declares that all those outside the church are not married in God’s sight. This in turn demands that children born of such alien parentage be considered illegitimate by the God of heaven and makes marriage depend upon the church for its acceptability with God.

That such a position is ridiculous when one contemplates the baptism of only one party to the marriage vows is clearly seen. According to this theory, we suppose the one being baptized would be considered married in God’s sight, while the other would not, seeing that he was not subject to God’s marriage law and God took no cognizance of his marital state. Would this constitute a half-marriage? If the one not baptized was not subject to God’s law, then he would have the same liberty to put away his wife and take another, as the theory supposes any alien has, with the one being put away in this case being a Christian. The wife, who is a Christian, could not plead fornication as the cause of separation no matter what her husband had done, for if the alien is not subject to God’s law, then he cannot be guilty of the sin of fornication. Therefore, a non-Christian could desert a Christian, engage in the practice of any and all immoral acts, and the Christian could do nothing about it. She would stand to lose her home, never able to contract another marriage (on the basis of fornication being the cause), and that, too, with no objections from God. How could God object to the actions of an alien if the alien was not responsible to God in any sense except from a civil point of view?

Let us further consider the consequences as it relates to one who lives in a land that permits the practice of polygamy. A man comes to be baptized who has several wives. Can he keep them all? Does God join him to all of them at the point of baptism? Can he keep any of them? If so, which one? Can he pick his preference? Sometime it is argued that because children are involved, certain exceptions should be made to God’s demands concerning marriage. Well, let us suppose that this polygamist has children by each of his several wives; does that mean he can keep all the wives? If not, then why argue that one could keep one wife because there were children involved? We are not unmindful of the plight of children in such circumstances, nor unsympathetic toward them, but their presence does not change God’s law in any degree.

But the consequences thus far mentioned by no means represent the greatest danger involved in the theory. If one is not accountable to God while in the devil’s kingdom, he cannot be charged with transgressing God’s law. One certainly cannot transgress a law of which he is not subject. Romans 4:15 says, ” Where there is no law, neither is there transgression.” Hence, if God has no law for the alien, the alien has not transgressed God’s law. Again we read in Romans 5:13: “Sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Therefore, the alien who supposedly is not under God’s law is not charged with sin. If he is not charged with sin, he is not separated from God, because sin is that which separates a man from God. (Isa. 59:1, 2) It would then follow, if the theory is correct, that a man in the devil’s kingdom is not charged with sin and is not therefore separated from God — an alien sinner but not charged with sin–in the devil’s kingdom, but not separated from God! What a theory! I suppose this would establish the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy, for if one were in the devil’s kingdom yet not separated from God, there would be no place from which he could fall and to which he could fall. He would be with God and the devil both at the same time. If such a one came to be baptized, for what would the advocate of this theory tell him he should be baptized? Certainly not for remission of sins, for “where there is no law, sin is not imputed.” If he were not responsible to God, he would have no sins for which to be baptized. A preacher who holds this theory was pressed with this argument and finally answered, “He would not need to be baptized at all.” He had to say it in order to be consistent, thus the consequences of a false doctrine. This doctrine invalidates the gospel of Christ, renders His death a useless sacrifice, and declares His earthly mission to be a total waste of time. Jesus came to “seek and save the lost” only to find that after all had been done to accomplish this aim, that there were no lost, because those outside the kingdom of God were not subjects of His law therefore not sinners.

The consequences of such a theory would be enough itself to explode the theory if there was nothing more, but there is more. In 1 Cor. 5:9, 10, Paul said, “I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators, not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.” If those in the world are not subject to God’s law, just how did they get to be fornicators, covetous, extortioners, and idolaters? What made them such? Again in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 it is said that “fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye were washed . . .” Here were some who were adulterers and fornicators before they were washed and justified, hence one in the devil’s kingdom can be guilty of committing adultery. Therefore, God does take cognizance of one’s marital relations and holds him accountable, therefore, before he is baptized, while he is still in the devil’s kingdom.

After it has been shown conclusively that one in the devil’s kingdom is a subject of God’s moral law; that God does take account of his doings; that he can be guilty of the sin of adultery and fornication, then the advocate of this theory jumps to another position. He admits that God does hold one accountable prior to his baptism, but that baptism cleanses one of his sins, therefore he can go right along living with a companion with whom he was in adultery before he was baptized. “Baptism,” he says, “cleanses the adultery and purifies the marriage so that it is no longer adultery.” To which we have just as often answered that baptism of itself cleanses no one of any sin. Baptism alone will not wash a single sin away. It must be preceded by faith and repentance. Now, whatever is involved in “repentance” is essential to the washing away of sin in baptism. “Repentance” means to “have another mind”–to change the mind, which in turn results in a change of conduct. One cannot habitually continue the practice of sinning and claim to have repented. That is the sense of 1 John 3:9. He cannot continue to sin if he is born of God, but he is not born of God unless he has repented. Things morally wrong before baptism are also wrong after one is baptized. If one insists on continuing in that which was wrong before he was baptized, therefore still wrong, it evidences his failure to repent.

Let us suppose that one is a drunkard before he is baptized, will baptism purify drunkenness and make it righteous? No one argues that he can keep on drinking after he becomes a Christian and do it with God’s approval. “Another,” let us say, “is a thief.” Can he keep on committing acts of theft after he is baptized because baptism cleanses it and makes it righteous? All agree that he must quit stealing and if repentance has been genuine, he will quit. Through fleshy weakness, he may take it up again but each time he steals, he is guilty of sin. Another comes to be baptized who is married to a woman with whom he is in adultery. Must he cease this act with her or does baptism cleanse it and make it righteous? Strange as it seems, there are those who will tell the drunkard and the thief that they must cease their unrighteous acts or be lost, but will tell the adulterer that it is all right for him to continue. “O,” it is said, “it is no longer adultery after baptism.” Well, just what keeps it from being adultery? Was baptism responsible for the transformation? If baptism changes adultery to purity, why will it not also do the same for drunkenness and theft? Is the blood of Christ powerful when applied to adultery?

Though they reach it in different ways, the blood of Christ is the cleansing power to wash sin away for both the alien sinner and the erring child of God. Now, will the blood do something for the alien that it will not do for the erring child? Does the blood of Christ lose some of its power when applied to the sin of the erring child? If it cleanses the alien of adultery and allows him to continue in it, will it do the same for the child of God? If the blood of Christ reached in baptism by the alien sinner will purify for him an adulterous marriage, will it also do the same for an erring child when he reaches it through repentance and prayer? If an alien sinner can put away his wife and marry another, without fornication as the cause, and be so purified by the blood of Christ that he can continue in this second marriage, can a child of God also put away his wife for other reasons and marry another and have his second marriage purified by the blood of Christ so that he may continue in it? If this is so with reference to the second, how about the third, fourth, and fifth? If this is so, then God has no law to protect the home, and the whole marriage realm becomes one big round of promiscuity, and that, too, with God’s approval! Believe it who can!

God holds both saint and sinner accountable for misdeeds. Sin separates from God for whoever is guilty. (Isa. 59:1, 2) The only way for one, who is separated from God to be reconciled, is to have his sins forgiven. Through the good providence of God, a plan has been revealed from God by which man can be made righteous. That plan is the gospel of Christ. In order to appropriate the grace of God offered in the Gospel, one must meet the conditions set forth, one of which is the cessation of the practice of habitually sinning. Whatever sacrifice one must make, whatever human relationships must be severed in order to meet these conditions, are essential to our salvation. Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.” (Matt. 19:9) From this there is no appeal. Hypothetical cases, borderline incidents, and man-made theories may be brought up; the innocent may suffer for the guilty, but the word of God still reads just as it did before. It is our business to respect it, not attempt to circumvent it.

Truth Magazine VI: 6, pp. 1,8-9
March 1962

By Glenn L. Shaver

In Matthew 13:13-15, Jesus informs us why He spoke to the multitudes in parables: “Because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, ‘By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: Eor this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.”‘ Thus, we see, as it was in the days of Isaiah, so also it was in the times of Christ and we are persuaded that it is true today.

Some comments from eminent scholars may be helpful in understanding the condition of the people’s heart in the days of Isaiah and Christ and thus, by analogy, we may learn why the people’s hearts of our own time have “waxed gross.”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown in the COMMENTARY ON THE WHOLE BIBLE, commenting on the above passage said: “They ‘saw,’ for the light shone on them as never light shone before; but they ‘saw not,’ for they closed their eyes. They ‘heard,’ for He taught them who ‘spake as never man spake;’ but they ‘heard not,’ for they took nothing in, apprehending not the soul-penetrating, life-giving words addressed to them.”

S. T. Bloomfield, in the GREEK TESTAMENT with English Notes, Volume I, states: “. . . the hearts of the men were so hardened by a long course of willful and presumptuous sin, that, according to the regular operation of moral cause and effects, they, though seeing, in fact, did not see; and though hearing, yet, in fact, did not hear, nor hearken, and consequently could not understand.”

J. W. McGarvey, in THE NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY, Volume 1, said: “As Isaiah had written concerning his own generation (Isa. 6:9,10), this people’s heart had ‘waxed gross;’ that is, it has become filled with earthly and sensual desires, and especially so with reference to the expected kingdom of the Messiah. This state of heart made their ears dull of hearing; that is, it made them indisposed to hear with favor the words of Jesus. It led them also to close their eyes; that is, to refuse to see the evidences of his messiahship and his divinity.”

H. Leo Boles, in A COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW said: “…. their hearts had become fat, as applied to the body; sensual and stupid as applied to the mind; they were like a man overcome with obesity, too heavy and dull to hear or see, sleepy and brutish. The spiritual spark is buried in a heap of earthly cares and pleasures.” (Deut. 32:15) He continues his comments on the passage by saying, “These people had hardened their own hearts, had closed their own eyes, had refused to exercise their own powers of understanding, because they did not want to know the truth. The responsibility rested upon them for their present condition; they could not blame the law, God, or any one else; they were wholly responsible. It is the law of God’s spiritual kingdom that resistance to truth hardens the heart. To reject the truth and excuse and defend themselves in opposition to it, they armed themselves with countless errors and falsehoods.” (Ibid.)

Dr. Bloomfield said: ” . . . the Jews would hear indeed the doctrines of the Gospel, but not understand them; would see the miracles wrought in confirmation of its truth, but not be convinced thereby. Not that the evidences themselves were insufficient to establish its truth, but because their hearts were too corrupt to allow them to see the force of those evidences.” (Ibid.)

Adam Clarke, in A COMMENTARY AND CRITICAL NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT, Volume I, states: ” . . . these words were fulfilled in the Jews, in the time of the Prophet Isaiah, so they are now again fulfilled in these their posterity, -who exactly copy their father’s example. These awful words may be again fulfilled in us, if we take not warning by the things which these disobedient people have suffered.”

Hence, from the above comments we gather the following reasons why the people’s heart had waxed gross:

1. They had continued a long course of willful and presumptuous sin.

2. Their hearts were filled with earthly cares and pleasures and sensual desires.

3. They were indisposed to hear with favor the words of Jesus.

4. Their hearts had become too corrupt to allow them to see the force of the evidences.

They did not want to know the truth; hence, they armed themselves with countless errors and falsehoods.

Now since Isaiah described the awful condition of the people’s heart in his day; Jesus applied the lesson to the people of His time who refused to accept His teaching, and Paul made a similar application to the people in Rome who refused to believe the evidences (Acts 28: 25-27), hence, let us apply this inspired teaching to the people of our time. For example:

1. Have not many people of our day continued a long course of wilful and presumptuous sin?2. Are not many people’s hearts filled with earthly cares and pleasures and sensual desires?

3. Does not the rejection of Christ’s words show that many are indisposed to hear with favor the words of Jesus?

4. Have not the hearts of many become too corrupt to allow them to see the force of the evidences of truth?

5. Is it not true that people who do not love the truth nor seek to know it, arm themselves with countless errors and falsehoods, thus, their hearts are waxed gross?

Now, let us apply the “fruit test” (Matt. 7:14-20), that we may see the attitudes and dispositions of the people’s heart of our own day and see if it isn’t because the heart of man has “waxed gross.”

First, let us explore this among denominational churches. Have we not heard many express themselves after this manner? —

1. It must be right because it has been practiced so long by so many.

2. Others are doing it and it seems so good, so we can do it too.

3. I don’t care what the Bible teaches, I’m satisfied and feel I’m doing right.

4. I don’t care if the Bible does say that, I don’t believe it is essential.5. Don’t read the Bible to me, my parents believed this way and besides we have many educated ministers that believe as I do.

Thus, among denominationalism we see a sectarian prejudicial attitude of heart and a closed mind, which shows that their heart is “waxed gross.” Hence, they use countless errors and falsehoods to pervert, change and twist the truth to salve their own consciences.

Secondly, let us see if this same attitude and condition of heart is to be found among us–members of Christ’s church. Do we not hear many among us today express their mind after this fashion? —

1. We have been doing this for a long time, hence, we are going to keep on doing it.

2. We are going to do this because the people want to and the elders have approved it.

3. The “big preachers” among us believe it is right, hence, we can do it.4. Examples are not binding–there is no set pattern–hence, we can do as we wish.

a. The examples of the churches relieving the needy are not binding on us today, for the church is not its own home and elders of the church cannot oversee a home, hence, we must have Benevolent, Charitable Institutions or Organizations to build a home (house) to provide care–relieve the needy.

b. The church is its own Missionary Society to preach the word, but the Missionary Societies controlled the churches, hence, they were wrong, but we can voluntarily pool our funds under one local eldership–Sponsoring Church Plan–and it will be scriptural.

c. The church is to edify itself, but the schools, colleges and camps are teaching our young people the Bible, hence, it is scriptural to support them in this good work.

5. Thus, many among us pervert, change, and tw st the scriptures to justify their practices–refuse to hear what the truth teaches– and arm themselves with countless errors and falsehoods.

Reader, can you not see the same disposition of mind and condition of heart among brethren today that is found in denominationalism and which was also found in the days of Jesus and Isaiah? Indeed the hearts of many have “waxed gross.” They have closed their eyes so that they cannot see; they have stopped their ears so that they cannot hear; and their hearts have “waxed gross” so- that they cannot understand. In the present controversies we see many who have closed their eyes, stopped their ears, and refuse to understand with their hearts. It seems that pride and prejudice have taken the place of reason and understanding in the hearts of many. Thus, they allow pride and prejudice to rob them of the truth. They reject the truth (established by precept, example and necessary inference), and seek to justify themselves by trying to defend their man-made doctrine with countless errors and falsehoods. What a pitiable condition it is, when people “see,” but “see not,” “hear,” but “hear not,” and cannot understand with their heart.

My sincere desire is that all may love the truth, obey it from the heart, and walk in the truth, so that we can enjoy the wonderful assurance of the words of the Lord Jesus to His disciples, “Blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.” (Mt. 13: 16)

Truth Magazine VI: 6, pp. 14-16
March 1962