Truth Magazine

By Weldon E. Warnock

Morality involves behavior — behavior that conforms to a standard of what is right and wrong. The standard is the Bible. Behavior is not determined by how we feel or by what we think, or by what is popular, but rather behavior is to be regulated by the Word of God.

The norm for the Christian is God Himself. Peter wrote, “But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation (conduct); Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:15-16). John stated, “And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1 Jn. 3:3). Since God is unchangeable and absolute, then our moral standard is unchangeable and absolute.

What a contrast between the biblical standard and the liberal and modernistic theologians of our era. Ernest Harrison, Anglican, declared, “The New Moralist does not accept at all the notion that there are moral standards which are revealed by God.” Joseph Fletcher, Episcopalian, said, “. . . anything and everything is right or wrong, according to the situation.” Emil Brunner, Swiss Reform, assqrted that there are no intrinsic values.

Unfortunately, the people of God have absorbed some of this loose thinking in one form or another till there is hardly any difference in the manner of living between many members of the church and those “decent” people in the world. Francis Breisch stated as much when he said of “evangelicals” (he would put us in this category) that they tend to be identical with the activities of any other “respectable” members of the community. He said, “They often patronize the same amusements, read the same magazines and books, engage in the same recreations, talk about the same subjects, and listen to the same music. There is little, if anything in their system of values that differs from that of non-evangelicals” (Facing Today’s Problems, p. 123).

One brother said, “The ancient landmarks of Christian living have been removed. They have been set back to take in nearly everything.” Truer words were never spoken. Reasons for this retreat are because elders have lost their courage and conviction to keep the church pure and preachers are more interested in keeping their jobs and their popularity than they are concerned about the moral integrity of the church of our Lord. Let us stand, brethren, for holy living! This is no time for compromise and “soft-peddling.”

The Landmarks of Morality

The landmarks of morality have been set back in many areas. The urgent need is to put them back where God placed them; to restore them to their rightful positions. Areas where there is a need of restoration are:

1. Modest apparel. Christians are to dress in becoming apparel that reflects holiness of life. Paul wrote, “. . that women adorn themselves in modest apparel with shamefacedness and sobriety.” “Shamefacedness” means “a sense of shame” and “sobriety” indicates “propriety; good sense.” When children of God engage in mixed-swimming, parade around in mini-dresses, see-through blouses, tight-fitting skirts and pants, and short-shorts, they have neither shame nor good sense. To dress in such a fashion so as to excite lust in the opposite sex is wrong. Godly, conscientious people do not dress in this manner (cf. 1 Pet. 3:14; Prov. 7:10).

2. Dancing. There are many evils of the modern dance, especially disco dancing. It kills a Christian’s influence, destroys his spirituality, places one in a vile and degrading atmosphere where there is profanity, drugs and alcohol, involves one in lasciviousness, and leads to fornication. Many “good girls” who became unwed mothers trace their downfall to the dance hall. The Bible teaches that lasciviousness and reveling will damn our souls (Gal. 5:19-21).

3. Salacious literature. Some Christian (?) homes receive regularly salacious (lustful) literature. They either buy it at the newsstand or subscribe to it via movie and sex magazines, sordid love stories, filthy detectives or true confessions. They are openly exposing themselves to temptation, sin and spiritual death.

The apostle Paul wrote, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true . . . honest . . . just . . . pure . . . lovely, think on these things” (Phil. 4:8). One cannot read suggestive and vulgar literature and think on these virtuous qualities named by Paul. To live right, we must think right and to think right, we must read right. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he (Prov. 23:7). We need in our homes wholesome literature and not the filthy sluice of slime from degenerate men.

4. Movies and television. A great number of movies are obscene, licentious, godless, blasphemous and degrading. They have been classified as G, PG, R and X in order for the movie-goers to exercise discrimination. But sometimes you cannot depend on the ratings, especially the PG’s, as they may be right on the border line of an R rating.

Movies are now being “piped” into homes on the HBO, Cinemax and Playboy Channel networks that are as rancid and raunchy as any shown at the public theaters. There is little, if any, censure in many cases. Children are left free to watch whatever they want. Television in general is becoming more coarse and more brazen. Whether it be movies or television, Christians must be selective and watch those things in harmony with moral principles.

5. Social drinking and drugs. The abuse of alcohol is one of the most prevalent sins in America. Most people consume alcohol in various measures. Alcoholism (drunkenness) is one of our major social problems. Most Catholics, Protestants and Jews drink alcoholic beverages. But Christians must abstain from this moral blight that is so widespread. However, more and more are seeing nothing wrong with it in moderation.

But we need to consider that social drinking ruins our influence, harms the body, dulls our judgment, runs the risk of alcohol addiction, and finally, is contrary to the Bible. The Bible condemns both drunkenness and social drinking (Prov. 20:1; 23:29-32; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:18; 1 Pet. 3:3-4).

Drug abuse (narcotics, stimulants, depressants and hallucinogens) is also widespread, affecting all levels of society the young, old, rich, poor, educated, uneducated, religious and non-religious. From a Christian point of view there are many reasons why a child of God should not experiment with drugs. Among those reasons are illegality of the practice (Rom. 13), health of the body and mind which are to be used for God’s glory ( Cor. 6:19-20), influence (Mt. 5:16; Phil. 2:15) and a work of the flesh (drugs were used in connection with sorcery, Gal. 5:19-21). A Christian should be satisfied with his life in Christ rather than seeking a “high” from drug abuse (cf. Gal. 2:20).

6. Marriage fidelity. Extra-marital affairs (adultery), wife-swapping and divorce and remarriage have become common occurrences. There is an epidemic of marriage infidelity in the church, even among preachers, elders, deacons and Bible teachers. The divine injunction to “flee fornication” (1 Cor. 6:18) is completely ignored.

God’s standard on the permanency of marriage has been lowered and accommodations have been made to fellowship those who have abandoned their mates by divorce and are living in adultery. The church is being filled with adulterous members.

The law of God on marriage for both saint and sinner is “till death do us part” (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39), with only one exception – fornication (Mt. 5:32; 19:9). Hebrews 13:4 needs to be shouted from the housetop, “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

7. Modern music. There is nothing wrong with music per se. All of us enjoy listening to music of some kind. However, much of today’s music has become a channel for selling this generation on drugs, rebellion, illicit sex, vulgar language and antiChristian philosophy. This is true with much (not all) “rock ‘n’ roll” music and some of the country songs.

Some of the Top Hits in the past have been, “Let’s Make a Baby,” “Do Something Freaky,” “Afternoon Delight,” “Share the Night Together,” “Hot Child in the City,” “I Had Her Almost Persuaded,” “Behind Closed Doors,” and others

that are too explicit to mention. With songs like these it is no wonder we are undergoing such a sexual revolution wherein virginity has become old-fashion.

Andrew Fletcher, back in the 17th century, penned the famous line, “Give me the making of the songs of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” The point is that our music probably influences us more than our laws. Teen-agers say they can listen to all of today’s music without being affected, but it is just not so. Somewhere it will show up in their lives.

Christians must develop a new mind and they cannot do this by listening to “gutter” music. Paul said, “And be renewed in the spirit of your mind” (Eph. 4:23). A person who is regenerated, renewed and reformed will be discerning as to what he listens to in the way of music. Parents need to be observant and constructive as to the kind of records their children buy and the songs they hear.

Several other things could be enumerated that endanger the children of God but space does not permit. What is imperative among all of us is that we return to or hold on to the principles of righteousness that God has clearly laid down in His Word. Those things are as follows:

Principles of Moral Conduct

1. Love not the world. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (I1Jn. 2:15; cf. Jas. 1:27; 4:4).

2. Be not conformed to the world. “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind. . . ” (Rom. 12:2). I like Phillip’s translation of this text. “Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mold, but let God mold your minds from within. . .”

3. Have no fellowship. “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). Not only must we not participate in the works of darkness, but we must reprove, express disapproval, condemn, expose and refute. God calls on us here to be militant toward sin.

4. Abstain from all evil. “Abstain from all appearance (every form) of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22; cf. 1 Thess. 4:3; 1 Pet. 2:11). “Abstain” means to “hold off from.”

5. Flee from all evil. “Flee also youthful lusts” (2 Tim. 2:22; cf. 1 Tim. 6:11; 1 Cor. 6:18). We need to run from sin and not wait around the corner or leave a forwarding address.

6. Put off the old man. “That ye put off concerning the former conversation (behavior) the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts. . . . And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (Eph. 4:22,24).

7. Mortify the flesh. “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry” (Col. 3:5; cf. Rom. 6).

8. Deny ungodliness and worldly lusts. “Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” (Tit. 2:12).

Conclusion

In conclusion, may we all awake to Paul’s clarion call, “Awake to righteousness, and sin not” (I Cor. 15:34). May Jesus rind us without spot and blameless when He comes (2 Pet. 3:14). Let us sing the old song with all fervor and sincerity, “Purer in heart, O God, Help me to be. . . . “

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 346-347, 353
June 5, 1986

By Frank Jamerson

Several years ago a visitor who believed in sprinkling asked me: “Why don’t you ever quote any of the passages that favor sprinkling?” I had to confess that I did not know any such passages!

The English words sprinkle, pour and immerse have different meanings, just as the Greek words from which they are translated. Let us look at each of these words and see if sprinkle or pour mean “baptize.”

“Sprinkle” is generally translated from the word rhantizo. It is found in several passages in the New Testament, but it is never translated “baptize” because it means “to sprinkle.” “For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh. . . ” (Heb. 9:13). Moses took “the blood of the calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people. . . . Moreover the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry he sprinkled in like manner with the blood” (Heb. 9:19,21). There is another word, proschusis which is translated “sprinkling” in Hebrews 11:28. If the writer had meant “baptize” in these passages, he would have used a different Greek word.

There are five different Greek words that are translated “pour.” In John 13:5, we read that Jesus “poureth water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet.” In John 2:15, Jesus “poured out the changers’ money.” Other passages use the word “pour” but none of them mean “baptize.” The conclusion must follow that to pour does not mean to baptize.

The word baptizo is transliterated (the Greek letters transferred into English letters) by the word “baptize.” W.E. Vine defines it as “immersion, submersion and emergence. ” Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon says: “to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge.” It is found many times in the New Testament, but is never translated by the words “sprinkle” or “pour.” If the writers had intended to say “sprinkle” or “pour” they would not have used the word “baptizo,” because it means to immerse.

The context of the word baptizo also shows the meaning of it. When John the baptist was sent to baptize, we find him “baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because they was much water there” (Jn. 3:23). When John baptized Jesus, Mark says: “And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him” (Mk. 1:10,11). John’s baptism was obviously immersion. When Philip baptized the Ethiopian, the context clearly indicates the action of baptism. They “came unto a certain water,” then “went down into the water” and he was baptized and “came up out of the water” (Acts 8:36-39). Twice the New Testament plainly calls baptism a “burial” (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12).

Why then, do people practice sprinkling? It originated as d4clinic baptism.” Those thought to be too sick to be immersed were sprinkled instead. Gradually it grew in popularity, for it was much easier, and after all, if it would be acceptable for a sick man, why not for a well man?

The woman mentioned at the beginning of this article had in mind the passages that speak of baptizing “with water” (see Matt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Jn. 1:26; Acts 1:5; 11:16). She was assuming that “with water” means something other than immersion. The fact is that the Greek word en (translated “with” or “in”) usually refers to “location” (called “locative” in the Greek). Even if it were used in the sense of “instrumental” (the object used), it would still not prove sprinkling. We are immersed “in” water.

The meaning of the word, the context of the word and religious leaders who believed in sprinkling all testify that the word “baptize” means immerse. It is only immersion that is a “likeness” of Christ’s burial and resurrection (Rom. 6:3,4). Sprinkling is a convenient substitute that originated in the mind of men, not from a careful study of God’s word.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 12, pp. 361, 376
June 19, 1986

By Robert F. Turner

The resurrection of Jesus is, of course, absolutely essential to the true meaning of Christianity. Without it Jesus was a teacher of great insight and ability, but self-deceived, and a deceiver. Without it Christianity becomes but another human philosophy, totally of this world. As Paul put it, “then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain” (1 Cor. 15:14), and having only a this life hope “we are of all men most pitiable” (v. 19). Jesus Christ “was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:4). (Phillips says, “patently marked out as the Son of God by the power of the Spirit of holiness which raised Him to life again from the dead.”) Cancel the resurrection, and you cancel the power that gives Christianity its life. Proofs therefore are tremendously important.

The Scriptures, as historic literature from the first century, record many proofs of the resurrection. His enemies knew very well His promise to rise again after three days and used every means at their disposal to make the sepulchee sure, lest “the last error be worse than the first” (Matt. 27:26f). Yet, at the appointed time the tomb was empty. The apostles and early disciples displayed incredible faith – even unto death -for what? A ruse they themselves had worked? But we do not plan to discuss such proofs in this study. Instead, we beg your attention to two proofs offered by the Apostle Peter, on the first Pentecost following the resurrection. One rested upon the testimony of believing witnesses; and the second, upon the experience of enemies who heard the witnesses. The first, His enemies were asked to believe; the second, they could prove to themselves by their own logic and experience.

Prophecies from Isaiah and Daniel had pointed to the “rule” of a coming Messiah. (The “anointed one” was Messiah to the Hebrews, Christ to the Greeks.) The “mountain” of Jehovah’s house would be established (Isa. 2), and the “sovereignty” and “dominion” of this government would be exercised by a descendant of David (Dan. 2:44; 7:14; Isa. 9:7). Peter must prove the crucified Jesus to be “Lord and Christ.” Obviously, both of these hinge on proof of the resurrection, and Luke records the marvelous way the Apostle blends these two purposes (Acts 2). Get your Bible, and follow with me.

When the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the Apostles, a multitude of Jews were attracted and were amazed and marveled at what they heard (v. 7f). But others mocked, saying these men were drunk. Their rash charge set the stage for Peter’s introduction. He declared “this is that” manifestation of the Spirit which Joel said would mark the “last days” (final dispensation) in which the remnant of the Jews, and “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Joel 2:28f). He thus gave those who marveled at the demonstration of power something to consider, but with Jesus still dead this could be dismissed as a groundless boast. So Peter offers his first proof of the resurrection: the testimony of witnesses who had seen the resurrected Jesus. Peter said God had raised Him up (v. 24) and established His testimony by other witnesses (v. 32; cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-8). And His testimony was strengthened by the fact that this Jesus was “a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know” (v. 22, all Scripture emphasis mine).

Peter then reasoned with the Jews from Psalms 16:8f, a Scripture they considered Messianic. “David saith concerning him. . . ” (i.e., Jesus), “I beheld the Lord. . . ” (Acts 2:25). Furthermore, the “Holy One” would not see corruption (v. 27). And finally, “Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne; he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ . . . … On the strength of Peter’s first proof, the testimony of witnesses who saw the resurrected Jesus, he has reasoned that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord, Holy One, and Christ; and that He now occupies the throne of David. Unless we are extremely well versed in Hebrew thought and their obsession with prophecies about a Messiah, we can scarce appreciate the force of Peter’s argument. The Holy Spirit was guiding him to reach these Jews with their own brand of logic and with Scriptures they all held in a proper understanding of his next statement. “Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear” (Acts 2:33). “Being exalted” and “having received” are both singular and masculine, and must refer to Christ. It was Jesus who had been exalted, and it was Jesus who had received “the promise of the Holy Spirit.” The big question is, had Jesus been promised the Spirit; or, does this refer to something the Spirit had promised to Jesus?

Robertson says, “In itself the genitive is neither subjective nor objective, but lends itself readily to either point of view.” We must therefore allow the context to answer our question. If “promise of Holy Spirit” refers to the Spirit Himself, we have the problem of deity being given to deity, of whom it has already been implied that He had the Spirit without measure (Jn. 3:34). Isaiah wrote of “the Spirit of Jehovah” resting upon a branch out of Jesse (11:2), upon the “chosen servant” (42:1), and the “anointed” (61:1). However these passages point to the Lord’s show of divine power (Matt. 12:17f; Lk. 4:17f), and of divine approval during His personal ministry (Matt. 3:16-17). 1 am persuaded this passage refers to something the Holy Spirit promised relative to kingship; something closely suited to the argument and proof Peter is offering.

During the Lord’s personal ministry He had spoken of a time when “living waters” would flow from His disciples; and John explains this referred to the Spirit which “was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (Jn. 7:38-39). An outpouring, such as that on Pentecost, awaited the glorification of the Son of God. When Jesus promised the Spirit to His disciples He not only stressed the necessity for His going away; He also explained that He would occupy a new and different heavenly office (Jn. 16:7). Note, “Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name, ask and ye shall receive. . . ” (v. 24). “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter” (14:16). “The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name” (v. 26). His glorification and Lordship is here clearly indicated.

Now, how are these things “the promise of the Holy Spirit”? The immediate context quotes David as saying, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet” (vv. 34-35; Psa. 110:1). Jesus had cited this same Psalm (Matt. 22:43) saying, “How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying. . . . ” Mark’s account of this reads, “David himself said by the Holy Ghost. . . ” (12:36, KJ). Clearly, the Holy Spirit had foretold (promised) that the Son of God would be glorified, seated upon David’s throne. This exaltation would be given Him by the Father (Dan. 7:13-14). Then, and only then, would the glorified Son “pray the Father” that the Spirit be given the disciples “in my name.” But none of this could occur until Jesus had been raised from the dead.

Peter’s second proof of the resurrection called upon his audience to accept the logical conclusion of their own seeing and hearing. It ran something like this: You have seen and heard proof that the Holy Spirit is poured out from heaven; and you are amazed and marvel at this fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. But these “last day” wonders could not occur until the Messiah is exalted, and the Holy Spirit’s promise of kingship is realized. The promise of kingship was to one who would not be left in the place of the dead, and whose body would not see corruption. The conclusion is inescapable: We are witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (v. 32); and you are witnesses to something that could only occur after Jesus had been resurrected, exalted, and made King on David’s throne (v. 33).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 12, pp. 367-368
June 19, 1986

By Harold V. Comer

This is a day of religious fund raising and money promotions. With all of the emphasis on pressure and gimmicks, there is a great need to restore the New Testament pattern of giving. The first century practice would correct many of the abuses that have become so obvious and distasteful in religious groups today.

I propose that the New Testament church had a specific pattern of fund raising which it was commanded to follow. That pattern called for freely given contributions, contributed upon the first day of the week.

Few people deny the fund raising abuses that exist today. Churches take up repeated collections at any excuse. Stewardship committees solicit members with high pressure techniques seeking larger pledges. Some churches tax members and try to set what each member’s contribution will be.

Some groups have repeated bake sales, rummage sales, fund raising suppers, car washes, candy promotions, and solicitation of non-members. Denominational groups build large endowments and investment resources with contributed funds. Congregations operate rental properties for profit.

Some preachers are always preaching on money and repetitively push for increased giving. Some preachers appeal to materialistic desires with promises of wealth, assuring you that your contribution will be returned in actual dollars and multiplied ten times or even one hundred times.

In churches of Christ a congregation would sell tapes for profit with the stated purpose of supporting its TV program. An institutional radio program offers prizes and gifts if you will send in a minimum contribution. “Special” contributions are taken up on Wednesday evening or during a meeting. Some preachers continually “harp” on giving.

If you are tired of a calloused, materialistic emphasis on money, you need to go back to the New Testament and ask if God cared enough about the financial affairs of His people to command anything specifically about how the necessary money matters were to be carried out. Did God command anything on this subject?

Only Contributions Commanded

In I Corinthians 16:1-2 the apostle Paul commanded,

. . . as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let everyone of you lay by him is store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

In 2 Corinthians 8:7 Paul referred to the grace of giving. He said, “. . . see that ye abound in this grace also.” In 2 Corinthians 9:7 Paul commanded, “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.” In Acts 4:32-37 the church at Jerusalem practiced sacrificial giving in its hour of great need.

Note that the passages show that contributions were commanded. Paul says that his words were an order or a command. God cared enough about their financial processes to specify one way to do it. When an authority specifies a certain way, that command excludes doing it any other way unless that other way is authorized elsewhere. No other commands are given about congregational fund raising so anyone who wants to go back to the New Testament pattern today should expect to have a contribution but should expect to stop there.

The contributions were specified for the first day of the week. The laying by in store was not laying some money by at home because then there would have to be collection or collections when Paul came. The contributions were to be given upon the first day of the week.

That is why churches that are determined to follow the New Testament pattern do not take up collections every night during a gospel meeting or on Wednesday evening. I’m sure that many could use the money well but a continual emphasis on money is finally distracting to their spiritual purpose of saving souls. When churches continually stress money they begin to look like pagan religions where salvation and redemption are purchased with one’s silver and gold (1 Pet. 1:18).

Occasionally, congregations depart from this pattern because of needs that are 46special” purposes to them. An institution or a “missionary” wants a special collection, so the pattern is bent and an unscriptural precedent is set as the congregation takes up a d6special” Wednesday night contribution.

Paul also specified that the contributions were to be given freely and cheerfully. Churches that use high pressure to squeeze more money out of people than they are willing to cheerfully purpose in their heart and give are violating the original plan. They show little concern in restoring the first century pattern for fund raising.

If we restore the New Testament pattern of giving we are going to have to teach commitment of ourselves to God (2 Cor. 8:5). We are also going to have to teach on giving and encourage brethren to give liberally (2 Cor. 9:13). Yet that is different from a constant emphasis on church budgets, needs, and financial matters.

If New Testament churches are to support themselves by the contributions of their own members, that excludes them

from door to door solicitations or street corner appeals. A church that is seeking to restore the first century practice will not allow itself to be drawn into sales and fund raising promotions. It will not be drawn into apartment management or farm management by keeping farms or apartments that might be given to it.

If you appreciate the simplicity of the contribution practices of Paul and Peter and the rest of the apostles, and the congregation where you attend doesn’t follow those, then there are probably other areas where they have departed also and you need to give thorough consideration to all of their practices, examining them and comparing them to the original pattern.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 345, 353
June 5, 1986