Truth Magazine

By Mary Mayberry

The values of society are often expressed in music. Songs tell us a lot about ourselves and what we would like to be. Historians can analyze past cultures by looking at the period’s music. When future historians look back on our age, how will they view our society? What will they think of our ideals when they examine our popular songs?

The average teenager listens to rock music several hours a day. They wake up to it, eat to it, study to it, sleep to it. They plug in their earphones and jog to it. What values are they absorbing? Health and nutrition experts tell us, “You are what you eat.” This principle also has a spiritual and moral application. Listening to rock music is the equivalent of eating from a garbage can. So much of today’s music is ugly, its themes are corrupt; it wallows in vulgarity.

A number of influential women in Washington, along with the National Parent-Teacher Association, focused national attention on this problem last fall. In testimony before a Senate Committee, they pointed out how suggestive, violent, and obscene rock lyrics had become. Susan Baker, the wife of Treasury Secretary James Baker, pointed out that a growing number of songs glorify “rape, sadomasochism, incest, the occult and suicide.” She expressed her concern that the increased emphasis on violence and sex in music was simply “a form of child abuse.”(1)

A Brief Look Back

Rock ‘n’ roll has had its critics from the very beginning. “In 1954 outraged parents formed the Crusade for Decent Discs and lobbied radio stations to ban rock’s ‘jungle’ sounds.”(2) Elvis’ gyrating pelvis shocked television audiences. He began a trend that has grown worse and worse.

The 1950s and early 1960s brought Buddy Holly, Fats Domino, Jerry Lee Lewis and the Beach Boys. The Beatles lead the British invasion in the mid-1960s. By today’s standards, they were fairly clean cut when they first appeared on the Ed Sullivan show. Yet, in a few years their mop-tops grew longer and their music began to reflect an experimentation with drugs. By the late 1960s the light-hearted love songs of early rock ‘n’ roll had given way to songs of rebellion, protest, drugs and sex. “I want to hold your hand” was replaced with “Let’s spend the night together.”

The 1970s saw the beginnings of punk with its message of anarchy. That mindless drivel called disco flourished for several years, but in time it faded in popularity. By the mid-1980s rock was dominated by such avant-garde stars as Boy George, The Eurythmics, Madonna, Twisted Sister, Prince, ad nauseam. Performers have become increasingly bizarre. Today’s music scene is not only characterized by the above mentioned vices, but also by perversion. The Bible says, “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). We see this happening before our very eyes.

Punk Rock

The punk movement originated in the white industrial ghettos of England in the early 1970s. Punks try to shock adults by their outlandish dress and crudeness. They often dye their hair several colors and/or cut it into mohawks. They sometimes mutilate themselves by sticking pins through their faces or carving messages on their arms with knives. The punk symbol is an “A” for anarchy, and they have a total disrespect for authority. Their nihilistic message aff irms that social chaos and destruction are inevitable. It is revealing to simply notice the names of certain punk groups: Suicidal Tendencies, Septic Death, Nazi Punks, Sex Gang Children, and Social Destruction.

Heavy Metal Bands

Heavy Metal groups have a militant – almost fascist tone. They wear black, spiked uniforms. Their hair is usually long, but sometimes it is cropped on the top. A sampling of Heavy Metal bands would include Spinal Tap, Judas Priest, KISS, Motley Crue, AC/DC, and Ozzy Osbourne.

Heavy Metal music is filled with hatred of school, parents, society, symbols of authority, and middle class values. Their message is violent and sexist. It emphasizes such sociopathic themes as murder, rape and suicide. Twisted Sister sings, “Your hands are tied, your legs are strapped . . . you’re under the blade.” (The freakish lead singer of this group, Dee Snider, tried to explain these lyrics before the Senate hearing by saying that this song was about the fear of undergoing major surgery. Somehow I doubt it.) Motley Crue’s album “Shout At The Devil” contains the song “Too Young To Fall In Love.” The lyrics describe a woman in the crudest terms, and then go on to say “Well now I’m killing you . . . watch your face turning blue.”

Many of these groups are also connected with Satanism. The name of the rock group KISS supposedly means “Kings In Satan’s Service.” A word that is chanted at Heavy Metal concerts in “NATAS,” which is “SATAN” spelled backwards. Recently, a man named Richard Ramariz was arrested in California. He was charged with being “The Night Stalker,” a serial killer who committed a number of extremely brutal murders. There was evidence of devil worship at several of these crime scenes. Ramariz was wrapped up in the music of AC/DC, a Heavy Metal band that emphasizes Satanic themes.

An important point needs to be made here. A group may not promote Satan worship in so many words, but they are still “of the Devil” if their message is evil. Just because you don’t listen to Heavy Metal does not mean everything is O.K.! Many performers in the mainstream of rock, such as Sheila E., Prince, Madonna, emphasize vulgarity and/or suggestiveness. They are promoting the cause of Satan!

Recent Efforts At Dealing With The Problem

Last spring, prompted by the excess of modern rock musc and videos, a number of well-connected Washington wives formed the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC). They tried to convince the record industry to adopt a rating system for record albums, similar to the one used for movies. This proposal was rejected, but a compromise was worked out.

“24 American record companies, representing 80 percent of the record and tape business, have now agreed to issue a warning label on future offending albums.”(3) From now on, a label saying “Parental Guidance: Explicit Lyrics” will be placed on albums that are considered explicit.

This is a small step, yet many people in the record industry shouted “censorship!” Danny Goldberg, president of a small record company in NY, described the Senate hearing as “Musical McCarthyism.”(4) He said, “This is absolutely a move toward censorship. A lunatic fringe is trying to subvert one of the most wonderful aspects of our culture.”(5) Angus Young, a member of the band AC/DC, said, “People who want to strangle other people’s rights are possessed by one of the worst devils around – the Satan in their souls which is called intolerance.”(6)Frank Zappa, an eccentric performer “who’s own material often deals explicity with sexual matters,” criticized record labeling as “the equivalent of treating dandruff with decapitation.”(7)These quotations are laughably absurd! How typical. Evil men often try to portray righteousness in a bad light. Isaiah said, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” (Isa. 5:20, NASV). Finally, it should come as no surprise that the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the move as a violation of First Amendment rights.

Mrs. Susan Baker called such charges “outrageous.” She countered that they were simply saying that “we have rights as parents to protect our children.”(8) What about the question of censorship and freedom of speech? The First Amendment has been used long enough as a shield for those who would promote immorality and perversion. I agree with Charles Colson’s approach: “It may be unpopular to say this nowadays, but the First Amendment is not a blank check. As Justice Holmes wrote, the right of free speech does not extend to shouting ‘FireV in a crowded theater. Nor, I submit, does it extend to unrestricted license for the rock industry to pump sewage into the minds of young people.”(9)

We Must Be Selective About What We Listen To

How do you decide what music to listen to? Simply ask yourself a few questions: Does this song go against what I believe as a Christian? Does it glorify sin? Does it leave me feeling dirty and depressed? Would I be embarrased if other Christians knew I listened to this music? Would the Lord approve of me listening to this music? The Bible says that “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Prov. 23:7). We cannot live on a diet of musical filth and be spiritually strong. No one is saying that all popular music is wrong. Some of it is entertaining and uplifting. However, we need to be very selective. In music, as in everything else, we should choose that which is good and wholesome. “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there by any praise, think on these things” (Phil. 4:8).

Endnotes

1. Jay Cocks, “Rock Is A Four-Letter Word,” Time, 30 September 1985, pp. 70-71.

2. Frances Kelly, “Rock’s War of Words,” Macleans, 14 October 1985, p. 95.

3. Ibid.

4. Eric Levin, “Lay Off Of Them Blue Suede Shoes,” People, 4 November 1985, pp. 42-45.

5. Fred Bruning, “The Devilish Soul of Rock ‘n’ Roll,” Macleans, 21 October 1985, p. 13.

6. Levin, op.cit.

7. Kelly, op.cit.

8. Kelsey Menehan, “Parents Group Wants Labels on Explicit Rock Records,” Christianity Today, 22 November 1985, pp. 68-69.

9. Charles Colson, “Is Art Above Ethics?,” Christianity Today, 21 February, 1986, p. 64.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 7, pp. 195-196, 215
April 3, 1986

By Wayne Greeson

Roy Deaver, in a recent article in Firm Foundation, attempts to prove that the church as a collective body may provide benevolent assistance to those who are not Christians using Galatians 6:10 and 2 Corinthians 9:13. The last two articles reviewed his arguments on Galatians 6:10. The second passage Deaver used to support his position that the church may provide financial assistance to those who are not Christians is 2 Corinthians 9:13.

“All” in 2 Corinthians 9:13

Deaver writes, “Paul refers to the great contribution and makes specific reference to ‘. . . the liberality of your contribution unto them and unto all. . . .’ We stress the ‘unto all.’ The contribution under consideration went to saints, but it was not restricted to saints. ‘Unto all’ is the translation of the Greek eis pantas, a preposition used with a form of the Greek word pas. . . . we have listed five parallel constructions (he lists only four including 2 Cor. 9:13, wg) involving a Greek preposition used with the word pantas (all): (1) Acts 5:11, epi pantas; (2) Galatians 6: 10, pros pantas; (3) 1 Thessalonians 3:12, eis pantas. Our opponents have always admitted. . . that the first four (sic) instances clearly and obviously refer to persons who are not Christians. ” Therefore Deaver concludes that “unto all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 must refer to those who are not Christians.

Deaver’s argument contains a large unmentioned assumption which he carefully avoids. Deaver’s argument assumes that the Greek pantas meaning “all” always refers to those who are not Christians. Thayer indicates that pantay is a general pronoun which refers to “all of a like kind” not all humanity, and the context determines the kind (Thayer, pp. 492-493). Below are listed four passages using the Greek pronoun pantas in which the “all of a like kind” are saints! (1) Acts 2:44, “And all that believed were together. . . “; (2) Ephesians 4:13, “Till we all come in the unity of the faith. . . “; (3) Galatians 2:14, “But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before all. . . “; (4) 1 Timothy 5:20, “Them that sin rebuke before all. . . “

Putting “All” In Context

We must first understand the context of Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 9:13, “The liberality of your contribution unto them and unto all,” to understand of whom Paul is speaking. Repeatedly, Paul explicitly says the contribution he was preparing to carry to Jerusalem was for “saints.” The money Paul took to Jerusalem was. . . . . . raised for “saints” (1 Cor. 16:1-3)

. . . to be contributed to “saints” (Rom. 15:26)

. . . to minister unto “saints” (Rom. 15:25)

. . . to be accepted by “saints” (Rom. 15:31)

. . . a contribution for fellowship with saints (Rom. 15:27)

Paul was one of the chosen messengers of the contributing churches entrusted to carry their contributions to Jerusalem “for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem” (2 Cor. 8:18-24; Rom. 15:26). Yet Deaver would have us believe that Paul lied and breached the trust of the churches who sent him by delivering the contribution of the churches not only to saints, but also to those who were not saints! Who shall we believe, Roy Deaver or the Apostle Paul?

When Paul wrote 2 Corinthians, he had already discharged his responsibility to the churches by delivering their contribution to Jerusalem. In writing to the church at Corinth, Paul explained to whom he had delivered their contribution. Again, repeatedly Paul explicitly says the contribution he delivered to Jerusalem was given to “saints. ” The contribution Paul delivered to Jerusalem. . .

. . . ministered unto “saints” (2 Cor. 8:4)

. . . provided fellowship with “saints” (2 Cor. 8:4)

. . . supplied equality between “saints” (2 Cor. 8:13-15)

. . . ministered unto “saints” (2 Cor. 9:1)

. . . supplied the needs of “saints” (2 Cor. 9:12)

. . . caused “saints” to glorify God (2 Cor. 9:13)

. . . caused “saints” to pray and long for givers (2 Cor. 9:14).

Paul confirms throughout 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 that he had delivered the contribution to the needy saints in Jerusalem. What presumption for Deaver to come along and assert Paul delivered the contribution to those who were not saints! Deaver tries to squeeze non-Christians into the Greek pronoun pantas, “all, ” in 2 Corinthians 9:13, not by a sound examination of the context but in order to justify his practice and false doctrine.

The Fellowship Of The Contribution

Paul wrote of the Corinthians’ “liberal distribution unto them and all.” The meaning of the word “distribution” excludes the possibility that “all” refers to non-Christians. Thayer defines koinonia, translated “distribution” in the King James Version, as a “benefaction jointly contributed, a collection, as exhibiting an embodiment and proof of fellowship. . . for the benefit of one, 2 Cor. 9:13. . . ” (Thayer, p. 352). Vine bluntly says, “The verb does not mean to distribute; hence R.V. ‘communicating.’ Similarly koinonia, fellowship, communion, is translated ‘distribution’ in 2 Cor. 9:13. . . ” (Vine, pp. 327-328).

In 2 Corinthians 9:13 Paul was commending the Corinthians for the demonstration of their contribution of fellowship “unto them and all.” One writer explains, “The collections that Paul brought to Jerusalem were a tangible expression of fellowship in the churches. The collection has a religious overtone in 2 Cor. 9:13: ‘by the generosity of the fellowship (koinonias, RSV ‘contribution’) for them and for all other.’ For it arises out of the one gospel that unites Jew and Gentile, and belongs to the same spiritual and material giving and taking of which Paul speaks in Rom. 15:26” (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 1, p. 642). The benevolence of the New Testament church is always exalted beyond the mere gift of money and explained as a matter of fellowship between Christians (Rom. 15:27; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:13).

If Deaver asserts that “all” refers to non-Christians, will he accept the consequences of his position? If “all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 refers to those who are not Christians, then the church can and must have fellowship with those who are without! Yet the Apostle John wrote, “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another. . . ” (1 Jn. 1:7). The New Testament is clear, just as the Christian’s fellowship in doctrine, worship and work involves a spiritual sharing only with other Christians, likewise, the benevolence of the church is also matter of fellowship shared only with other Christians in need.

“All” Refers To All Saints Outside Jerusalem

To whom is Paul referring in 2 Corinthians 9:13? Lenski writes, “The saints are seen glorifying God ‘also for the single-mindedness of (your) fellowship with them and with all,’ i.e., for your spiritual fellowship and communion. It is this fellowship of the Corinthians which extends not only to these saints, who are being helped at present but to all God’s saints, whether they are helped or not” (Lenski, The Interpretation of 1 & 2 Corinthians, pp. 1185-86). This Greek scholar and commentator indicates that Paul refers to two groups in 2 Corinthians 9:13, first, to “them,” the needy Jerusalem saints and second, to “all,” all of God’s saints everywhere. His comment indicates that the “all” must be saints because the nature of the Corinthians’ contribution was a matter of fellowship!

Deaver might rightly come along and say, “So you found a scholar who says “all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 refers to all of God’s saints. What does that prove?” One commentator standing alone might not prove much, but I challenge him to find just one conservative commentator (who is not in his camp and trying to prove his doctrine), who says that 46all” in the verse refers to those who are not Christians?

While Deaver is searching, I will add the following commentators to Lenski, all of whom generally agree with Lenski that “all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13 refers to all saints beyond the needy saints at Jerusalem: David Lipscomb, A Commentary On The N. T. Epistles, Vol. 3, p. 125; Moses Lard, Lard’s Quarterly, Oct. 1864, p. 66; Filson, The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 10, p. 379; Plummer, A Critical & Exegetical Commentary On The Second Epistle of St. Paul To The Corinthians, p. 267; The Abingdon Bible Commentary, p. 1202; Bengel, Bengel’s N. T. Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 317; F.W. Farrar, The Pulpit Commentary, 2 Corinthians, p. 220; Tasker, Tyndale N. T. Commentaries, The Second Epistle Of Paul To The Corinthians, p. 129; Bernard, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. 3, p. 94; Meyer, Commentary on 2 Corinthians, pp. 610-611; Lang, Commentary On 2 Corinthians.

I have not been able to find one commentator, who comments on “all” in 2 Corinthians 9:13, who says that “all” refers to those who are not saints. Now, I recognize that human scholars and commentators are not divinely inspired and are fallible. But remember, these commentators have no vested interest, no false doctrine to prove or false practice to support in commenting on this passage.

The virtual unanimity of scholars on 2 Corinthians 9:13 speaks volumes of Deaver and his camp twisting the Scriptures to their destruction in their attempt to justify a practice they cannot find authority for in the New Testament. Neither Galatians 6:10 nor 2 Corinthians 9:13 provides authority for the church to provide benevolence to those who are not Christians. We pray that Deaver and others will stop misusing these passages and stop their unscriptural practice of providing benevolence to those who are not saints.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 7, pp. 201-202
April 3, 1986

By Mike Willis

Well over ten years ago, the Guardian of Truth called attention to the grace-unity movement which was having some influence among us. The doctrine was discussed and several men among us who were propagating it were exposed. Some might think that the movement is dead and will have no more influence among us.

Let me assure you that the grace-unity movement is not dead. Our liberal brethren are fighting a life-and-death battle among themselves over whether or not unity with the Christian Church is possible. Several of their more influential men, including such names as Reuel Lemmons, Rubel Shelly, and others, are advocating a unity-in-diversity with those in the Independent Christian Churches. The movement to fellowship Independent Christian Churches is only a temporary stopping place in route to moving into the mainstream of modern Protestant denominationalism.

Those who have left the moorings of Bible authority have moved further and further into denominationalism. They themselves do not know how far to go and where to stop. For example, Carl Ketcherside began by going to the Christian Churches and not singing with the instrument, because at that time he still believed it was sinful. Before long, he was singing with the instrument and condemning those of us who preached that using mechanical instruments of music in worship was sinful. As his departure from the word of God progressed, he began writing about denominational people as “brothers in prospect” and now he considers them brethren. A similar journey away from Jesus could be described in Leroy Garrett, Edward Fudge, Bruce Edwards, and many others.

Major Tenets of the Grace-Unity Movement

What are the major tenets of the grace-unity movement? Given below are some of them:

1. Unity-in-Diversity. The grace-unity movement asserts that the only way unity can be attained and maintained is through unity in diversity. They argue that we can no more think alike than we can look alike. The unity-in-diversity brethren state that we have unity with the Christian Church by recognizing that we are different in our beliefs about using mechanical instruments of music in worship and by accepting each other in spite of this difference.

This kind of unity is not “of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3). Paul did not try to maintain a unity-in-diversity with the Judaizers; instead the Judaizers were charged with preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:8-9) and brethren were told to “cast out the bondwoman and her son” (Gal. 4:30). John did not recommend a unity-in-diversity with the Gnostics of his day; instead he charged that they had gone beyond the doctrine of Christ and did not have God (2 Jn. 9-11). Those who were faithful to Christ were commanded not to bid them Godspeed lest they become partakers in their evil deeds. Yet, the unity-in-diversity brethren tell us to accept those who have corrupted the worship of the Lord’s church by introducing mechanical instruments of music in worship. The unity which they preach is a different unity than what is revealed in the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit.

The unity which they preach is a unity which requires those who oppose instrumental music in worship to compromise their convictions. Those who favor using mechanical instruments of music in worship make no changes whatsoever; they continue to use their instruments of music in worship and preach that it is right to use them, although they are not used at some unity forums lest brethren should be alarmed at where the movement is headed. Those who oppose instrumental music in worship are told to quit preaching that a person sins and brings himself into a state of spiritual condemnation when he uses mechanical instruments of music in worship. He must give up his conviction that using mechanical instruments of music in worship is a sin which will cause one to lose his soul.

2. Fellowship Without Endorsement. Recently, we have been treated to several treatises on fellowship which try to distinguish levels of fellowship. One might be in the fellowship of God but not in the fellowship of other saints. We have been told by some of our grace-unity brethren that those in the Christian Church are in fellowship with God but that they cannot join with them in the fellowship of worship (because it would violate their conscience).

Does fellowship imply endorsement? Leroy Garrett says, “No.” The Bible says, “Yes.” Paul mentioned that James, Cephas, and John “gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9). The “right hands of fellowship” from these leading men indicated that they approved the gospel which Paul was preaching. Yes, the right hands of fellowship meant endorsement. In fact, inviting a Gnostic preacher into one’s home in such a manner as to aid his work and increase his influence resulted in “bidding him Godspeed” and becoming a partaker in his sins (2 Jn. 9-11). The unity-in-diversity brethren are flatly contradicting the word of God when they teach that we can receive those who introduce mechanical instruments of music into the worship of the church without endorsing that which is sinful.

3. Essentials and Non-Essentials. The grace-unity movement unscripturally distinguishes essentials from nonessentials. Everyone of us recognizes that there are essentials and non-essentials in the Bible. Paul placed eating meats sacrificed to idols (Rom. 14-15) in the latter category. Whether or not one decides to marry is placed in that category (1 Cor. 9), as are also whether or not a preacher is supported, meeting in an upper room, etc. However, there are other things which are essential, such as the deity of Christ, the Lordship of Christ, the resurrection, etc.

The grace-unity brethren work to reduce the essentials to a bare minimum. Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside reduce the essentials to seven facts and one act which they call “gospel.” The other items are called “doctrine.” With reference to the “gospel,” all of those brethren who can no more think alike than they can look alike must learn to think alike! Rubel Shelly’s list of essentials is the seven ones of Epheiians 4:4-6; however he quickly points out that using mechanical instruments of music in worship is not a violation of the seven ones.

Brethren who reduce the “essentials” to a bare minimum are forced to go through the commandments of God and decide which are “essential” and which are “non-essential.” Surely they would be so kind as to tell the rest of us what criteria is used to distinguish an essential from a non-essential. Their subjective and arbitrary lists are worthless. Is God’s commandment to “flee fornication” an essential or a non-essential? How can we tell? Brethren, I have no desire to join hands with those brethren who put themselves in the position of becoming a judge of the law of God, distinguishing which of God’s commands must be obeyed and which do not have to be obeyed (Jas. 4:11-12).

4. Who Is A Christian. As the grace-unity movement continues its evolution, more and more the question is raised regarding who is a Christian. Leroy Garrett recognizes Christians in all denominations, regardless of whether or not they have been baptized. They may even be modernists, embracing evolution and denying the virgin birth of Jesus! Rubel Shelly says that one is a Christian so long as he is baptized in order to obey God. (The Baptists who deny that baptism is for the remission of sins teach that one is baptized in order to obey God.) The grace-unity movement loosens what God has bound as the conditions for becoming a Christian.

The Lord Himself said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). 1 will not tell a man that he is saved before and without being baptized. I will not recognize as saved anyone who has not complied with the Lord’s conditions. We dare not loose what God has bound (Matt. 16:19; 18:18).

How Much Love And Tolerance?

The grace-unity brethren preach love and tolerance. However, when they speak of those who oppose their unity-in-diversity, they become filled with venom. Those who oppose the unity-in-diversity movement are “close minded,” “sectarian,” “legalists,” “would be popes,” etc. Their publications are on the “gutter level,” contain “smut,” and are “slander sheets.” Those who oppose the grace-unity movement are not invited to the unity forums because “they do not have the right attitude” and are “knuckleheads.” I continue to marvel that the tolerant are so intolerant of the intolerant! To the preachers of tolerance, I say, “Physician, heal thyself!”

Are ill-will and malice toward those who call for book, chapter and verse tenets of the grace-unity movement? One could draw the conclusion that this was so from reading their journals. When these brethren write about denominational folks, they are described in glowing terms – they are so full of the Spirit, they are scholars, etc. When speaking of Christians who call for book, chapter and verse authority for everything we do, they syternatically attack us with such derogatory terms as “keepers of the orthodoxy,” “watch dogs,” “legalists,” “would-be popes,” etc. The heart of these brethren is exposed by their words. These brethren have much more in common with the denominations than they do with the Lord’s church. They are bent on reshaping the Lord’s church into a denomination!

Conclusion

Brethren, beware of these false teachers. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. They preach love and tolerance, but they are full of venom, bitterness, and intolerance. While we continue to oppose the grace-unity movement, let each of us resolve to work for the unity of the Spirit in every way that we can.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 7, pp. 193, 214-215
April 3, 1986

By Ronnie Westmoreland

One would think living in such a nation as this, that people would be constantly thinking and preparing for the future. We prepare our food that we eat; we prepare our clothes and other things for a trip that we have planned; this nation prepares its troops for the defense of itself. But it seems that the two most important events in our lives are the two that little or no preparation is made for, at least by the majority of the people of this nation. The two events that most often catch people unprepared are death, and the judgment that will certainly follow (Heb. 9:27). “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”

At a funeral, the statement that one hears so often is, how well he or she had been doing, or it seemed to happen so suddenly. Yet, James 4:17 teaches us, “Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.” One never knows what the day in which we are living will bring forth, but we do know that death and judgment are coming. So it looks like we would be preparing each day as if it were to come that day. Being prepared is something that is taught throughout the Bible. Jesus tells us what we must do in order to prepare for judgment through His word. Since it is His word that will judge us in the day of judgment (Jn. 12:48; Rev. 20:12), then we should listen to Him.

The Bible declares what we must do. Romans 10:17 says, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” One must believe. “But without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). “1 tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Lk. 13:3,5). One must confess Christ before men. “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven” (Mt. 10:32). One must be baptized. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16; see also Acts 2:38, Rom. 6:1-6, 1 Pet. 3:21). Revelation 2:10 says, “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.” These are the things in which we should be always ready. We should be living each day as if it were our last, because it just may be.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 7, p. 200
April 3, 1986