Truth Magazine

By Robert F. Turner

In his book, How Christianity Grows in the City, Alvin Jennings says the first century saints of a city met for worship in small “house churches,” and all such churches of a city were under one group of elders. If this plan is followed he says, “The church, the treasury and elders will be one in the urban area.” Further, “Congregational autonomy will begin to fade within the city and individual congregational growth consciousness will give way to the overall growth of the urban church with all its congregations regardless of their place of assembly.” In a previous article we discussed “One Eldership Over Many ‘House Churches,”‘ and in this article we examine scriptural uses of the word “church,” and what is meant by such expressions as “the church in their house” (Rom. 16:5).

The book places great emphasis upon the vast number of saints in Jerusalem, and the physical problems of getting such a number together for worship. The author is a bit careless with his statistics: p. 31 says 50/100,000 saints before the close of the first century; p. 50, 100,000 by 50 A.D.; and p. 74, 50/100,000 by the time of the dispersion (surely meaning the destruction of Jerusalem). (1) We do not believe the validity of worship depends upon all saints of a local church being assembled at the same time or place. (2) The early multiplication of saints at the beginning of the church was a special situation; and there is no reason to suppose they suddenly formed independent congregations, and by the Lord’s Day following Pentecost were “gathered about the Table” Texas style. (3) The “all things common” (Acts 4:32) and treasury “at the apostles’ feet” (v. 37) were not patterns for all time, as is apparent from later information. It was some time after Pentecost before deacons were appointed (6:1f); and we first read of elders ca. 45 A.D. (11:30).

We believe the practice of the first saints was consistent with truth as a whole, but those who cite the early Jerusalem situation to further their special cause may find they have bitten off more than they can chew. Since the first converts made up the universal body of Christ, how about a universal treasury? Truth is, we do not know many details about the worship and work of early saints in Jerusalem. Jennings says “the patterns given to us through Jesus Christ and His special spokesman, the apostles, (must) be followed explicitly.” But patterns are not established by assumptions concerning some portion of revelation. We must search the total record for a pattern.

The “house churches” of How Christianity Grows . . . are sometimes churches, sometimes not churches. The author equates them with “groups” and “assemblies”; and says in large cities of the first century many such groups made up each city church. He says each church should be independent and autonomous, but his drawing of the “Urban Church of Tomorrow” (p. 64), shows churches with elders (no treasury), plus a panel of city elders who control the total city treasury. Independence and autonomy become empty words under such circumstances. Clearly, we must determine the use of “church” as it is applied to what the author calls “house churches.”

In the New Testament ekklesia is usually translated “church.” This collective noun groups its objects, the people of God, and treats them as one. “On this rock I will build my church,” i.e., my people, those who rest upon the divine foundation. Christ bought the church (Acts 20:28) when He died for all who will obey Him (Heb. 5:9). So, “the church” in its universal sense consists of the Lord’s people, metaphorically assembled in this term. The “grouping” does not necessitate their being physically assembled. They are “the general assembly and church of the firstborn (ones) who are enrolled in heaven” (Heb. 12:23). God “established” and “instituted” this church like He “instituted” marriage, or civil government. He made plans and gave instructions for this relationship. He also gave plans for brethren to act collectively, with overseers, servants, and a treasury (see previous article); and “church” in this sense is an organized body politic, which we usually call a “local church.”

But there are other scriptural uses of the term. Faithfulness is the essential ingredient for coming to Christ, and for remaining in His fellowship; hence “church” has a qualitative sense, referring to a certain kind of people. In Acts 5:11 “the church” is distinguished from “as many as heard these things”: viz., from some other than the saints. And the word may also be used in a distributive sense. In Acts 9:31 “The church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria” refers not to some tri-state institution, but to saints in these three territories. (See ASV, and proper textual studies. Nestle’s text shows all verbs in this verse are singular.) One may speak of “the church in Texas” without implying there is an organized statewide institution. We have been slow to recognize the distributive use of “church,” but I am persuaded it is far more common than supposed. Try reading through Acts and think distributively (saints) when you see the word “church.”

There are four passages that speak of “the church in house” (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Phil. 2). This could mean “saints in – house,” in the same way we might write to a church, and make particular mention of close friends and brethren in their household. Nothing in this would imply they worshiped separately or were units of some metropolitan system. But “church in house” could refer to a local organized church, meeting in a private home. In this case Acts 14:23 and 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 would authorize oversight and a treasury there. Twice in my life as a preacher I have done resident work for such churches, meeting in a private dwelling places. Of course some early saints met in private houses; but it will take more than a string of Scriptures which use the word “house” to prove one group of elders should control all the money and direct activities of all the churches in a city. Remove assumptions, while keeping scriptural principles, and “church in their house” poses no problem.

One more suggestion. If you have the book How Christianity Grows in the City, try reading every Scripture citation given, and compare what you find in the Bible with its usage in the book. You will be amazed at where the author finds “house churches,” overseen by city elders. Our “church building” mentality could do with some revision, and more home prayer and Bible studies are certainly in order; but city elders are not the scriptural solution.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 3, pp. 71, 79
February 6, 1986

By Ron Halbrook

Among trends found in conservative denominational or “evangelical” circles during recent years is something called the “discipleship” movement. It is an effort to infuse a spirit of zeal, dedication, and discipline into denominational religion which has grown lax, lazy, and limber. This movement, also called “shepherding,” mixes well-known Bible principles emphasizing personal study, submission, and sacrifice with various techniques of psychological manipulation, self-hypnosis, and small group therapy. If this movement stopped with Bible principles and left off the pop psychology, it would be a healthy trend. As with denominationalism generally, there is poison and death in the pot (2 Kgs. 4:40).

Such trends often have a trickle-down effect among the people of God, some of whom drink too long and too deeply from the wells of denominational theology and literature. The Crossroads movement centered in Gainesville, Florida at the Crossroads Church of Christ reflects some characteristics of the so-called discipleship or shepherding idea. Faithful brethren have emphasized the need for personal evangelism on the part of all Christians (Acts 8:3-4). But some who are enamored of the discipleship shepherding concept speak of converting Christians into “disciples” and turning believers into “witnesses,” citing and perverting Acts 1:8. The idea of assigning someone to monitor every step of a new convert and instructing the new convert to “report in” to his “teacher” in a “teacher-to-disciple” relationship is not biblical, but is a phase of the new crusade.

The end product is a shallow, unbiblical faith in men above God, and loyalty to men above Christ. Some are attracted to the campaign because of its apparent “success” rate, but true success recognizes first the standard of God’s Word and then our responsibility to faithfully proclaim it. The results in terms of the number of people reached is in the hands of God through the means which God provided – the power of the pure, unadulterated gospel of Christ (Rom, 1:16; 1 Cor. 3:6-15). The glow of zeal lures some brethren into the “discipleship” campaign – “they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge” (Rom. 10:2). For further study, read the following article by Hugo McCord from the Gospel Advocate, 19 Dec. 1985, pp. 753, 756.

Discipleship

Hugo McCord
Midwest City, OK

Primarily a disciple is a learner. Biblically, a disciple is more than a learner; he is a follower and an adherent of his teacher. One reads of the disciples of Moses, Isaiah, John the Baptist and Jesus (Isaiah 8:16; Matthew 15:1; John 3:25; 9:28).

Jesus explained the process of making disciples, “They shall be taught of God. Every one that has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes unto me” (John 6:45). His final directions (Matthew 28:19,20) were for His apostles in going to all nations to do three things: (1) make disciples, (2) baptizing them and (3) teaching them.

The book of Acts tells how the apostles followed the Lord’s instructions: (1) disciples were made, (2) were baptized and (3) were taught in Jerusalem, Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Corinth and Ephesus (Acts 2:36-42; 14:21, 22; 18:4, 8, 27; 19:5; 20:28).

Notwithstanding the clarity of the Lord’s commands and of the apostles’ examples, a movement has arisen among us changing the terminology and order of the three specifications in this way: (1) make converts, (2) baptize them and (3) disciple them. A leader writes that Jesus’ order “was not to ‘make converts’ . . . but to ‘make disciples.”‘ Thus he is saying that making converts is one thing while making disciples is something else. Where Jesus listed ‘make disciples” as item (1), some are now listing it as item (3).

In the new movement a convert is placed under the supervision of a mature Christian, called a “discipler,” who is to guide and nurture the new Christian until he himself becomes a discipler, and so reproduces himself. “All of” a new convert’s “mind, words and actions” must be conformed “to that of his teacher” (the discipler).

The word Jesus used for item (1), matheteuo, make disciples, never appears in the New Testament for, item (3), where the movement places it. The form (active) in which the word appears in Jesus’ command occurs only one other time in the New Testament where it corresponds to item (1) of Jesus’ words: “And when they had preached the gospel to that city (Derbe), and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, and to Iconium, and to Antioch” (Acts 14:21).

What follows items (1) and (2) (making disciples, and baptism understood) is not a discipling process (which the new movement teaches), but a guiding process by teaching (Acts 14:22) corresponding to Jesus’ item (3): “Confirming the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. Thus according to Luke the new converts of Acts 14:22 had already been discipled, and now were to be guided and nurtured.

Illustrative of the new movement’s altering Jesus’ order is the example of an Abilene Christian University coed. She had become a Christian at age 12, and now, eight years later, was in Scotland doing missionary work for a three-month period. She much appreciated a missionary wife there, and reported, “Sister has lovingly discipled me all summer.”

The necessary work of guiding a new convert is very important, but the ACU coed was not a new convert. The two Christian ladies in Scotland strengthened each other, but properly speaking neither discipled the other. All Christians are to “exhort one another, and build each other up” (1 Thessalonians 5:11), but the idea of assigning a supervisor, a discipler, on whom the new convert is to be dependent, is not a New Testament teaching.

The Lord’s wisdom did not entrust the holy work of supervising, shepherding Christians as sheep, and watching for their souls to a discipler, but to the elders (1 Pet. 5:1-5; Acts 20:28). Actually the new movement effectively supplants the eldership, for it is contructed in a oneunder-one relation, not on a plurality of elders (Acts 14:23).

Further, the new movement says a discipler must limit his work “to a few individuals,” for “discipling can only take place with a few people.” On the contrary, biblical discipling Jesus directed “to all nations” (Matthew 28:19). The apostles’ discipling on the day of Pentecost converted 3,000 (Acts 2:41). An exponent of the new system was asked, “Where does pulpit preaching fit into your plan?” He gave an honest answer: “It doesn’t.” This is contradictory to 1 Corinthians 1:21.

If only a few can be discipled, who decides who is to be selected? Who decides when the process is completed? What is done for the non-discipled? Can a non-discipled Christian be saved? One Christian, hearing of the new system, inquired, “What shall I do? I have been a member of the church for 30 years, and a class teacher for 21, and I have never been discipled.”

The new system holds that discipling is not advised “between people of the opposite sex.” On the other hand, biblical discipling had no gender barrier (“both men and women,” Acts 8:12).

Under the new system “witnessing describes a way of life,” whereas under the New Testament, witnesses “were chosen before God. . . who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead” (Acts 10:41). The new plan wrongly applies Acts 1:8 to Christians today: “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and to the ends of the earth.” This was addressed directly to the apostles. The new plan puts a weak Christian in “direct dependence” on his discipler who becomes his “closest brother.” These two “pray together and share their insights of God’s word.” They enter a “prayer covenant.” Then (in a class situation) one is to “tell who (sic) you prayed with and share one of your prayer requests that the rest of the class can pray about.”

The new system transforms Paul’s words, “The things thou hast heard of me . . . commit to faithful men who will be able to teach others” (2 Tim. 2:2) to mean a discipler “instructs that close brother whom he had discipled to disciple others.”

The new system affirms that not many Christians are worthy to be “disciples.” However, in the inspired writings, no difference can be found between a disciple and a Christian (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 6:1; 11:26). They are synonymous terms. One could as erroneously say that not many disciples are worthy to be called Christians.

Actually, if one can find a biblical emphasis of one term above the other, it would be that “Christian” is more meaningful than “disciple.” After the book of Acts, God’s people are not called disciples. A misplaced emphasis on the word “disciple” calls to mind Alexander Campbell’s mistake. He held that since God’s people were called disciples before they were called Christians the former term is preferable. Campbell’s mistake lives on today in the “Disciples Church.”

Another error stemming from the new movement is the setting of a probation period for discipled Christians until they may be appointed evangelists. A congregation of 1,000 members in 43 house churches reported their evangelist had “baptized and discipled to Christ for three years” five brothers before their “being appointed evangelists.” Moreover, a gospel preacher of more than 30 years experience all over the world with hundreds of conversions to his credit, placing membership with the congregation, was asked to be an apprentice before he could be appointed an evangelist.

The new movement emanates from deep devotion and is characterized by fervent work. Actually, however, it crystallizes itself into a church within a church, stirring friction. The dedication of the disciplers executing their new plan is wholly to be admired and praised. May those not espousing their errors pray sincerely for them and emulate their enthusiasm, bearing “them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge” (Romans 10:2).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 3, pp. 80-81
February 6, 1986

By Webb Harris, Jr.

I am in no wise an expert on the field of door-to-door evangelism. No doubt, some who will read this article were knocking doors many years before I was born. However, I feel that I have some invaluable information to impart to any and all who are seeking effective ways to take the gospel of Christ into their community.

The practice of knocking doors is an oft-maligned art. Many brethren are convinced that the only fruits door-knocking will ever bear are slamming doors and sore feet. Who hasn’t been exposed to the horror stories of cruel and unusual persecution inflicted on personal-workers who roused the neighborhood atheist from his afternoon nap? “We shouldn’t bother folks,” “it doesn’t work,” and “we tried it once without success” are familiar Phrases. Question: Is door,-to-door evangelism really a waste of time?

Here is a parable: When Jim-Bob was a little boy, he plucked an unripe orange from a tree, bit into it without peeling it and wore a grimace until bedtime. He wondered how anybody could cat an orange. He marveled that people actually send whole crates to their northern relatives as gifts. He promised himself that he would never touch another orange so long as he lived. Today Jim-Bob is 58 years old and still insists that oranges are the most wretched fruit found south of the Yukon. Can you diagnose Jim-Bob’s problem? He ate the orange incorrectly and blamed the orange! Accordingly, it is not impossible that some brethren who have knocked doors in the past to no avail, have knocked “incorrectly.”

Knocking On Doors In Umatilla

I am convinced that door-to-door work is far from a “waste of time.” Quite to the contrary, I believe it is a highly effective way of finding honest and sincere hearts in our cities. Brethren, even if you knocked for five years without one response, you would have accomplished much. You would have been fulfilling the great commission of Mark 16 “go” and “preach.” While many of us are calling to the world to “come” and “hem,” door-knockers are busy going and preaching. Likewise, you would be building a reputation of militance and unashamedness for the church of Christ in your community. People remember who knocks on their door! And remember, that is what would be accomplished even if you never set up one Bible-study.

We have tested door-knocking in Umatilla. About five Christians get together twice a month to go out into the community to knock doors. None of these saints has had any experience whatsoever with door-to-door speaking. But they have committed themselves to do it, and to do it right.

Brethren, we hadn’t been knocking doors for two months before we were invited to show the Jule Miller filmstrips to the Thursday evening gathering of the Church of God in town. We’d knocked on the door of one of the “deacons.”

On one occasion we set up four home-studies in 45 minutes. On another outing a middle-aged couple invited us to study with them one evening per week. In a month’s time, we baptized the wife. Three months after that, we baptized the husband. Both remain faithful and are budding personal workers. On yet another occasion a family of Pentecostals, who were just starting their own “church” in town, asked us to show the aforementioned filmstrips to their. group. These studies are underway right now. And, believe it or not, we have not yet had to cope with our first slammed door.

Having heard nothing but disdain for door-knocking for as long as I can remember, I never cease to be bowled over by the wonderful responses we are met with. Friends, God blesses His children’s efforts to share the truth.

Some Tips

There are four very important things that I have learned in my door-knocking efforts that I would share with anyone who is contemplating such work. Again, I do not claim to be an expert, but I write from my personal experiences.

(1) Two is enough. Sometimes a preacher wants to start knocking doors, so he asks for all interested members to meet at the building at 11:00 Saturday morning. That morning only two show up. And instead of going out into the community with the tiny number they have, they conclude that there isn’t enough interest on the part of the brethren to keep up the “program.”

Brethren, don’t expect 9/10 of the church to be enthusiastic about door-to-door work. Most people think it’s a waste of time! If only two members are interested, then two will have to be enough. With God’s blessing, you’ll soon make believers out of more members.

(2) You must get inside peoples’ houses. When I write about door-knocking, I am not writing about leaving tracts on the door-mats of the community. I believe that is to blame for much of our disenchantment. We’ve hung tracts and meeting announcements on door-knobs for years, with no response. And then we cry that people aren’t interested in the truth. Come on, brethren! That which I find on my door is usually read flippantly and then disposed of; and I am not about to accuse my neighbor of apathy and/or worldliness when he does the same.

We have got to get inside peoples’ houses. We’ve got to sit down with them at the kitchen table. We’ve got to talk with them in the living room. It’s impossible to preach an effective sermon to a nose sticking out through a crack in the front door. Get inside! But how do we get inside? Read on.

(3) You do not need a spiel, you have the gospel. Somewhere along the line we -got the idea that we had to have a “sales-pitch” to get people to listen to us. We memorize speeches and spiels and then fire away as soon as the door opens. Do you know what the fellow at the door thinks? He thinks you’re selling something. And he’s not interested.

Friend, get yourself the first lesson of a Bible correspondence course, or the Jule Miller filmstrip brochure, or a printed invitation to services, or what have you. Take along your pocket New Testament. Ask God’s blessing and go knock doors. You’re not a high-pressure encyclopedia salesman, you’re a Christian concerned about souls and looking for an honest heart. When someone opens the door, tell them who you are and where you’re from and ask them if you can come in and talk with them about the course, the filmstrips, etc. Ask them if and where they go to church and how often they study their Bible. And listen to them! They are tired of the Watchtower’s Witnesses, who come to their doors and treat them like utter imbeciles.

(4) Lower-income families and minority groups are most receptive. The less affluent and white the area, the more receptive and friendly the people seem to be. I always assumed that blacks would be a little hostile to a couple of white door-knockers in their community. How wrong they’ve proven me to be! Brethren, I don’t ask them if I can “come in”; they tell me to “come in” before I can open my mouth. Mark 12:37 says, “and the common people heard Him gladly.” Jesus said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Matt. 11:25). It is frightening that the Lord’s church can exist in a town for 50 years and neglect an entire section of the populace (blacks, hispanics, the poor, etc.); and all the while, that neglected portion would be the most receptive of all!

Undoubtedly, there are many other things that can be written and points that can be made on this topic. I am interested in the thoughts and experiences of others and am eager to learn more effective ways of taking the good news door-to-door. If you have helpful comments, submit an article. If you are moved to try this type of work, write me about your efforts. We are fellow-workers in the kingdom of God.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 3, pp. 76-77
February 6, 1986

By S. Leonard Tyler

This is an imaginative story but thought provoking. It was told by C.E. Henry in The Voice of Evangelism (July 23, 1960). So much truth is expressed in such a unique manner, I thought it worth passing on to you.

The story follows:

One day a little white lamb was taking a walk with his mother, and as they walked, they went by a pig pen. A pig was stretched out, grunting contentedly as he wallowed in the mud and muck of the pen. He looked so perfectly contented and comfortable that the little lamb was greatly impressed. Indeed, the lamb was led to believe that he had been missing something. He turned to his mother a little breathlessly because of the wonderful idea that had just come to him.

“Mother,” he said, “may I wallow?”

The question rocked Mother Sheep back on her heels. She was both shocked and surprised to think that a son of hers would ask such a question. When she had regained her composure, she answered quite firmly, “Of course not! Sheep don’t wallow.”

But, Little Lamb was not convinced, and the minute his mother’s back was turned, he darted over to the pig pen, slipped between the bars, and felt his fed sink into the cool mud. It was deeper than he had thought, and it smelled terrible. He tried to back out, but found the mud clinging to his feet. He began to be frightened, and he jerked frantically, but only got deeper. By now he was terrified. He wished fervently that he hadn’t come, that he had obeyed his mother. He threshed about in desperation, lost his balance, and sprawled on his side in the evil smelling muck.

The pig looked over his way and grunted companionably, but Little Lamb was frantic. He could not move. He could only roll his eyes, and he thought every breath would be his last. Finally, just as he had bleated weakly for the last time and had given up, the farmer came along and tenderly lifted the little lamb from his death trap, thoroughly cleaned him, and restored him to his mother.

His mother was terribly hurt because he had disobeyed her, yet even more concerned because her own son, a tiny white sheep, had tried to wallow.

“I feel that you have learned your lesson,” she said. “Only pigs wallow. As a sheep, you are the one animal that sets the pattern of behavior above all other animals. Hogs are born to wallow, but sheep are different creatures from hogs, and sheep don’t wallow.”

The moral of this story is obvious. The Christian is a “new creature.” He is God’s sheep. And when, beyond a shadow of a doubt, he is a new creature, he should know that he is not to “wallow.”

The above story is imaginative, for no sheep ever, ever asks if he can wallow. Just so, the Christian will be apart from the world. The things of the world will hold no more appeal to him than a hog wallow would for a sheep. They will be repulsive to him.

Some Thoughts Worthy Of Consideration

(1) The pig was contented. The contentment attracted attention. The sheep wanted contentment. If we could find contentment in being Christians, we could build in others a desire to be a Christian. However, if we go around complaining, criticizing, and fault finding, we need not expect to win others to Christ. And besides that “godliness actually is a means of great gain, when accompanied by contentment” (1 Tim. 6:6, NASB). The child of God who can find happiness in serving the Lord will find contentment. If you are not happy and content in Christ, seek knowledge and understanding.

(2) The mother thought that her pronouncement, “Of course not! Sheep don’t wallow,” was sufficient. The little lamb was not much impressed and when the mother’s back was turned, he crawled under the fence and into the mud.

Mothers and fathers need to learn that telling our boys and girls, “No that is not right. Good boys and girls don’t wallow, ” is not convincing enough. We must give more time, spend more effort and explain the dangers of playing with wrong.

How often we are confronted with, “Why can’t we attend the X-rated movies or dance? We are old enough, mature enough to drink a little at parties, others are doing it and they are respectable.” You may say, and I think it is true, “Sheep don’t wallow” like the story said, but that will not work, if the parents wallow. Because a good mother and father sheep “don’t wallow either.” Be an example!

“Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold they are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). New creatures in Christ will have the mind of Christ (Phil. 2:5), and think as Christ. He will also live as a new creature seeking those things which are above where Christ is (Col. 3:1-2). His mind will be set on things above – not on things of the world. He won’t wallow.

Paul wrote, “Knowing this that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we. should no longer be in bondage to sin. . . . Put to death therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Because of these things the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience. . .” (Rom. 6:6; Col. 3:5-6).

You may feel that one should never make so-much-a-do about a little old imaginative sheep story. But, if one will ponder the thoughts just a little, it may not be so foreign from the truth as one might imagine. Jesus used it in a metaphor in John 10 to impress His disciples with some fundamental truth. He compares Himself with the good shepherd that will give His life or His sheep in contrast to the hireling. He knows His sheep and His sheep know him. They hear His voice and follow Him. They don’t wallow.

He also uses another sheep illustration in a parable in Luke 15:3-7, “What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?” When he hath found the sheep, he shoulders it and saves it and invites his friends and neighbors to rejoice with him “for I have found my sheep which was lost.” He closes with “I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.” Jesus classified the wandering people, scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd. “Then saith He unto His disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few” (Matt. 9:36,37). Again, “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16).

In the final and great day of judgment when all nations shall be gathered before him, “and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.” To those on the right, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” But to those on the left hand, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:32-34, 41).

Who is guilty of wallowing? He who plays with temptation until lust conceives and brings forth sin. Sin full grown brings death. “Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation.” Remember, “Sheep don’t wallow!”

Guardian of Truth XXX: 3, pp. 78-79
February 6, 1986