Truth Magazine

By Herschel E. Patton

For years Calvinism had no impact upon New Testament Christianity at all, except as a heresy to be met by strenuous opposition.

Calvinism involves the underlying theme of salvation being wholly by grace and apart from any works or responsibility on the part of man. The theory contends that man is born totally depraved: God unconditionally elects or predestinates each one who is saved: The atonement was not for all but only the elect: Those elected will be irresistibly made new by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit; And those thus saved will persevere (can’t fall) by God’s grace unto the end. The obvious conclusion from all this is that man is passive, has no responsibility at all, but is made new and saved eternally solely by God’s grace and power. It is argued that if man has to do anything to be saved from sin and eternally his salvation would be by works and not grace.

Brethren connected with the Restoration Movement and “pioneer preachers” successfully met each tenet of the Calvinistic theory in preaching, writing, and debates. Even throughout the greater part of this twentieth century, gospel preachers have done the same, with the brotherhood resounding with a hearty “Amen.”

In some instances, the Calvinistic idea of foreordination – all that comes to pass has been unchangeably foreordained of God (what is to be will be), is seen to have had some impact on a few brethren’s thinking as they speak of tragedies in life as “God’s will,” “God sent for some purpose,” or “God’s chastening for some evil done” (cf. contentions of Job’s friends). This impact, however, has been small.

However, in the latter part of this century, charges of “Calvinism,” “Shades of Calvinism,” and “Neo-Calvinism” are being heard. Some advocating things provoking these charges have drawn away disciples after them and formed groups that are estranged from other brethren. Some congregations are filled with unrest and doubts, and even divisions have taken place.

What actions, sentiments, teaching has brought this rift about? Was what was being done and taught of sufficient magnitude to merit protests and opposition?

The New Unity Movement

Almost two decades ago Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, and others switched from an extremely conservative position and became greatly involved in what was called “The New Unity Movement.” They admit having been affected by the voice of “our religious neighbors in ecumenical circles.”

Ketcherside said “there may be children of God scattered among various sects today” (Mission Messenger, Feb., 1958, p. 12). “It does not at all disturb me to think that many pious individuals who love God and their fellow man within a denominational tradition will walk the golden streets” (Ibid., Aug. ’73, p. 111).

Leroy Garrett said, “Saints of God are scattered throughout the Christian world, belonging to all sorts of sects and denominations” (Restoration Review, Sept., 1964).

The reasoning by which these men justify their present beliefs and practices had a great impact on some brethren who were dismayed, disheartened, and discouraged by numerous divisions in the brotherhood (institutionalism, sponsoring church type of cooperation, social gospel, etc.), and wanted some means of justifying fellowship with all brethren regardless of these differences. Edward Fudge was one, among others, greatly influenced by the teaching of Ketcherside and Garrett, and was in the forefront of what came to be known as the “Grace-Fellowship” movement.

Ketcherside, Garrett, Fudge, and others made a distinction between “gospel” and “doctrine,” saying that gospel only involves the things about Christ, His divinity, mission, death, burial, resurrection, and glorification. The conclusion drawn from this was that whoever believed in Christ – these facts of the gospel – accepting and acknowledging them, was saved by the gospel of His grace. It is denied that fully understanding and observing the teaching of Christ, involving details of worshiping, serving, and living “before God” are essential to eternal salvation. They tell us that as long as there is in one’s heart faith in Christ, resulting in a sincere effort to please God, even repenting of recognized, known sins, there is no reason to be concerned about detailed orders and instruction which we may not understand or observe. God’s grace takes care of all these failures.

This theory allows for limited obedience in becoming a Christian, in worshiping and serving God, and lessens one’s responsibility for faithfulness, making one’s security rest solely in the grace of God without concern for personal responsibility. Is it any wonder that the charge of “Calvinism” has been made concerning this teaching?

The teaching that there is a distinction between gospel and doctrine, one being important while the other is not, is completely false. Paul preached “gospel” to Rome (Rom. 1:15); they obeyed the “gospel” (10:16); obeyed the form of “doctrine” (6:17); hearing the “word of God” produced “faith” (10:17), and the apostles “ministered the gospel” (15:16). The thing that people obeyed, resulting in salvation, is called “doctrine” (Rom. 6:16-17), “faith” (Acts 6:7; Rom. 1:5), “gospel” (Rom. 10: 16; 2 Thess. 1:8-9), “truth” (1 Pet. 1-22; Rom. 2:8; Gal. 3:1; 5:7), and “word” (1 Pet. 3:1).

Transgressing and abiding not in the doctrine (teaching) of Christ breaks fellowship with both the Father and the Son (2 Jn. 9). Instead of “the doctrine of Christ” being just the things about Christ (His divinity), it is actually what is elsewhere in this chapter referred to as “truth” (vv. 1-2, 4), “His commandments” (v. 6). Those who teach a distinction between gospel and doctrine teach a false doctrine which is designed to relieve one of the responsibility of complete obedience or faithfulness, which is the design of Calvinism.

Continual Cleansing

Concern about the situation of the dedicated Christian who sins unknowingly, inadvertently, or through momentary weakness has lead some to teach an automatic, continuous cleansing by the blood of Christ, based, not on repentance, but on one’s relationship and dedication to Christ. This is very much akin to the Calvinistic theory of “The Security of the Believer” (God does not charge the believer with sin), so has brought forth the charge of “Neo-Calvinism.”

One brother wrote, “While it is possible for a Christian to leave God’s grace, I do not believe it is probable. As a matter of fact, I believe that many, if not most, Christians never lose their relationship with God from the day they are baptized into Christ until they finally enter heaven itself. Christians who are in the light of God are continually saved (1 Jn. 1:7). When they sin their sins aren’t even charged to them but rather to their Lord Jesus who is paying their debt (Rom. 4:8, 23-25). That means that as long4s they are in the light they are forgiven immediately when a sin is committed. Because of their sensitivity and commitment they will pray about their sins but the sin is forgiven even before they ask. It is forgiven because that is one of the benefits of being in the light (1 Jn. 1:7)” (J.B., The Highland Announcer, Vol. 11, No. 17, May, ’82).

Other brethren have publicly declared that a sincere brother who is “in the light” is cleansed “even as he sins.”

Such declarations are based upon the Calvinistic belief of “imputed righteousness”; as the brother quoted above said, “Their sins aren’t even charged to them but rather to their Lord Jesus who is paying their debt.” While some deny believing the doctrine of “imputed righteousness,” they view 66 walking in the light” (1 Jn. 1:7) as a protective realm rather than a course of action, which coincides with the Calvinistic theory of “The Security of the Believer.” It provides for a cleansing apart from the responsibility of complying with conditions (repentance and prayer), and this is Calvinism.

Some contending for “continuous cleansing,” not from the standpoint of being always available, but actual “even as one sins,” contend that the cleansing is conditioned on repentance. But, the repentance they have in mind is actually a penitent attitude which causes one to regularly pray to “forgive us our sins.” Unless such general repentance avails for sins of ignorance, inadvertence, and weakness, we are told that there can be no confidence – feeling of security -for a believer. It is argued that if each sin must be confessed and repented of, then the Christian, knowing that he often sins inadvertently and ignorantly, can never have confidence, unless he dies immediately after repentance. The same thing is true with those who contend that general repentance (“Lord, forgive our sins”) is necessary for continual cleansing. Unless one believes this general repentance takes care of sins to be committed in the future, there could be no confidence unless this prayer is prayed just before one dies. But, how can one repent of a sin not yet committed.

This teaching involves a cleansing by the blood of Christ apart from repentance. The continual cleansing envisioned is actually based upon a penitent attitude (disposition) and because one is in a protective realm, rather than meeting the conditions – repentance, confession, and prayer. Thus, this view of continual cleansing does involve “shades of Calvinism” . . . a cleansing, security, apart from compliance with conditions.

Confidence In Clear Bible Teaching

If brethren would quit trying to justify (excuse) wrong doing and emphasizing God’s grace in “overlooking” wrong doing, or theorizing on what God will do with certain ones under certain circumstances (“whittling on God’s end of the stick,” as brother Robert Turner says), and just follow what is plainly revealed, Christians could press on toward the eternal goal with knowledge, safety, joy, and confidence.

The Bible clearly teaches that all do sin and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23; 1 Jn. 1:8, 10). But, it is comforting for Christians to know that when they sin, they are not without hope (1 Jn. 2:1-2). Christ is our advocate with the Father, our, propitiation, and through, Him we find forgiveness “if we confess our sins” (1 Jn. 1:9).This is the “walking in the light” – action – of 1:7 that results in cleansing by the blood of Christ.

The Bible clearly teaches that sin (any sin) separates from God (Isa. 59:2). It just as clearly teaches that this separation does not have to be permanent (1 Jn. 1:9; Acts 8:22). Repentance, confession, and prayer results in forgiveness – a return to God.

These plain facts trouble some, causing them to wonder if “every sin” separates from God, and if so, conclude that throughout life one is frequently “in grace” and “out of grace. . . an apostate.” This is what the apostle John is explaining in 1 John. A man is not without hope, even though he sins. He has an advocate with God through Christ, as he complies with the conditions laid down.

The word “apostate” is often misunderstood in the way it is used. It simply means a departure from the commandments of God (translated “to forsake” in Acts 21:21 and “falling away” in 2 Thess. 2:3). Often the word is used with reference to one who has completely abandoned the faith and is doomed with little, if any, hope of recovery. This latter use of the term certainly does not describe one who sins but will repent, confess, and pray and again have fellowship with God. Galatians 6:1 describes one who sins, is separated from God, in need of restoration, but is not an apostate in the sense of one who has abandoned the faith with no hope of restoration. It is not, therefore, a matter of “in grace” or “an apostate” in every case.

The Bible, in revealing to us God’s mercy in dealing with His children’s frailties in matters of growth and service, and grace in providing an ever abiding means for forgiveness, gives the Christian all the assurance he needs to live “under the sun” with confidence, joy, and hope. The false doctrines of Calvinism can add nothing, other than false hope, to this.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 1, pp. 25-26
January 2, 1986

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Does the confession mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 10:32, 33 refer to confessing or denying Him in one’s life, or does it mean with the lips?

Reply: Jesus said, “Every one therefore who shall confess me before me, him will I also confess before my Father who is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32, 33).

Some time ago I received by mail a bulletin in which the following comment is made on the above passage: “Note that the confessing or denying is, in this context, in life, and by one’s life. ” It is difficult to understand how the author of this statement arrives at this conclusion. We believe that this comment is erroneous for the following reasons:

(1) The context of the passage is seen in the background, where Jesus is encouraging His apostles to not be afraid when they would be persecuted. The confession or denial in Matthew 10:32,33 refers primarily to times when they would be brought before tribunals. The word “therefore” in this passage indicates that what follows is in regard to what has preceded. What had preceded? Jesus had said in verse 28, “And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” The Lord is encouraging His disciples not to fear men. After assuring them of their Father’s care (vv 29,30), He says, “Fear not therefore. . . ” (v. 3 1). Then Jesus follows with the statement under consideration, “Every one therefore who shall confess me before men. . . . ” The context should be obvious, not only from the preceding verses, but also by those which follow. Note that Jesus states in verse 34, “Think not that I came to send peace on the earth.” Jesus is telling His followers that He does not preach peace at any price. They are not to compromise the truth, even at the cost of their own families (v. 37). The passage then closes with the Lord’s admonition to each of them to take his cross and follow Him (v. 38). Finally, “He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (v. 39). It is in this setting (vv. 28-39) that our text is found. To “take his cross” would sometimes necessitate an oral acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. To confess Him publicly could mean persecution (Acts 4:19-21; 5:33-42) and in some instances it was death (Acts 12:1, 2).

(2) The definition of the Greek word homologeo, translated “confess” in Matthew 10:32,33, refers primarily to an oral confession. The expression “confess me” is an Aramaic idiom and is literally, “make his confession in and for me” (see A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the N. T., Vol. 1, p. 83). The confession to be made implies identification or union with Christ.

W.E. Vine defines the word: “to declare openly by way of speaking out freely, such confession being the effect of deep conviction of facts, Matt. 7:23; 10:32 (twice) and Luke 12:8” (Expository Dictionary of N. T. Words, Vol. 1, p. 224).

J.H. Thayer defines the word: “to declare openly, speak out freely, confess” (Greek English Lexicon, p. 446).

Edward Robinson defines it: “to confess publicly, to acknowledge openly, to profess.” Also, “to confess in behalf of any one, i.e. to profess or acknowledge him, Matt. 10: 32; Lk. 12:8” (Greek and English Lexicon, p. 507).

R.C.H. Lenski comments on the word: “The verb really means ‘to say the same thing’ as another, to voice agreement with him, and thus to acknowledge and to confess him” (The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, p. 421).

William Hendricksen, commenting on the word says: “To profess or ‘confess’ – Christ means to acknowledge him as Lord of one’s life and to do so openly (‘before men’), even in the hearing of those who were opposing him” (Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, p. 473). He also observes that the passage (Matt. 10:32, 33) is an example of antithetic parallelism (verses 32b, 33b; Ibid., p. 473). In view of this, if the context of Matthew 10:32, 33 is “in life, and by one’s life,” then it would follow that the confession of Jesus before His Father in heaven would also be “in life, and by His life.” This would be absurd. Who can believe it? No, Jesus is primarily referring to a lip confession in our passage, as the context shows, and the confession of Jesus before the Father in heaven will also be oral.

(3) The Greek word translated “confess” also means an oral confession in other passages in the New Testament. In Matthew 7:23, the same Greek word is translated “profess.” Jesus said, “then will I profess unto them.” This refers to the day of judgment, and that this profession will be oral, we cannot deny. Paul, in Romans 10:9, wrote: “because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord . . .” It is obvious that this is an oral confession. The gospel of John states (Jn. 12:42), “Nevertheless even of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess it.” They failed to acknowledge orally what they believed to be true. Writing to young Timothy, Paul mentions that the young evangelist “didst confess the good confession in the sight of many witnesses” (1 Tim. 6:12). Wc do not know for sure when that confession was made, but probably when he was on trial for his life (see Heb. 13:23). It was an oral confession in face of danger or even death. We read in 1 John 1:9, “If we confess our sins . . .” It is apparent that this confession is oral, not by our life. Likewise, the same word is found in 1 John 4:2: “every spirit that confesseth that Jesus is come. . . . ” No one can deny that this is an oral confession. Then in 2 John 7, “For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh.” So, in the foregoing passages, the Greek word that is translated “confess” or “profess” is homologeo and in every instance it is to be understood as oral.

We have seen that the context of our passage indicates an oral confession, the Greek word showing the confession to be primarily oral; and other passages where the same word is used plainly illustrate that it is oral. It is true that we confess Jesus by the lives that we live, in addition to our lip profession; but the conclusion that the context of Matthew 10:32, 33 is “in life, and by our life” is a mere assertion and contrary to the teaching of Jesus. We are always to continue confessing Jesus orally as well as by our lives (our profession). We must confess Him in word and deed.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, pp. 37, 50
January 16, 1986

By Robert F. Turner

Alvin Jennings’ book, How Christianity Grows in the City, is an expanded and renamed edition of his original 3 R’s of Urban Church Growth. It caused a stir among liberal churches, including a rather “hot” review by G.K. Wallace in the Gospel Advocate (Nov. 19, ’81); and now the book is being sent to conservative brethren. The writer makes a strong and commendable plea for individual involvement, one-on-one teaching the gospel to our neighbors, and home Bible studies. Small group studies seem to get a less prejudicial hearing, and talents for leadership are more easily discovered and developed there. But Jennings’ book goes far beyond home “devotionals” and Bible study. He treats these neighborhood groups as “house churches,” and contends all such groups in a given city should be under one eldership.

Much of the appeal and drive of the book is gained by citing the abuses to be seen in large building-oriented churches, preacher rule, congregational jealousies, infighting, etc. The writer dreams of “unstructured, unpolitical, and unmaterialistic” churches – toward which we all should strive. But “look at all the wrong. . . ” does not prove one’s proposal to be right. He dwells long on the fact that early churches often met in private homes, but this does not argue one group of elders should be over many churches. He challenges a “holy place” for worship -as do all who understand true worship. He cites differences in belief among independent congregations, but those same differences will exist in his “house churches” if brethren are free to study and act out of personal conviction. He decries elders who “lord it” over the church, but all history testifies that one group of elders over all churches in a city is conducive to more, not less lording.

It is not my intention to review this book in detail, but to address two subjects found therein: the structure of first century congregations; and, what determines the scope or boundaries of local church “oversight.” The writer sums his aims by saying, “The church, the treasury and elders will be one in the urban area. Elders will allow and encourage assemblies anywhere and everywhere that men may gather in the name of Jesus. Congregational autonomy will begin to fade within the city, (my emphasis) 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.” Here is a church, made up of churches, under a single eldership. We shall deal with the “eldership” concept first; then, investigate “the church in – house” and its application to first century congregational structure.

The most obvious text for city-wide elders is Titus 1:5, appoint elders in every city”; and a few seem to think this settles the matter. But we must ask, can we safely assume this verse teaches that God intended each city have only one group of elders, though it may contain many churches? Does this mean the scope of oversight is determined by geographic or civic boundaries? If there were five churches in a city, and Titus appointed elders in each of them (five churches, five groups of elders), would he not have done what Paul commanded? Going further, if one only of the five churches had qualified men, and Titus appointed those men to serve that church, would not this meet the demands of the text? These men could tend the flock which is among them, and before whom they could be “ensamples'”(1 Pet. 5:2-3).

We must also ask if Paul’s practice violated the instructions he gave to Titus. Paul and Barnabas “appointed for them elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). It is easy enough to say “These churches were still small enough to meet in one household per city. . . ” but assertion is not proof. Uncertainty is admitted by adding, “or, the writer may have been thinking of the church in each city as being made up of all the household assemblies in that town.” This blandly assumes the point which must be proven. Such assumptions are frequent in the author’s attempts to give scriptural backing for his concept. Note: “We know that in some cities there were a number of house churches. When Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:27, he urged that the letter be read ‘to all the brethren,’ suggesting the existence of more than one assembly in Thessalonica.” Do you see “house churches” in that statement? It is not surprising that those who do, are able to see one group of elders over all of them.

“Elders in every church” makes oversight of the same scope as collective functions. The “church,” not just a plurality of brethren, heard and spoke in matters of discipline (Matt. 18:17). The “church,” consisting of, yet distinct from believers, cared for widows indeed (1 Tim. 5:16). Paul gave orders to the “churches” regarding accumulation of funds peculiarly theirs (1 Cor. 16:1-3), and the “church” at Philippi “communicated” (singular verb) with Paul, in their support of him (Phil. 4:15). These are examples of team work on the part of saints that necessitated examples of team work on the part of saints that necessitated the forming of a common mind, being subject to some kind of direction and guidance. Wherever there is a “church” in this sense, there must be oversight; and the appointment of “elders in every church” is consistent with this principle. There is no authority for enlarging oversight beyond the boundaries of the saints who agree to function as one. This becomes the scope of oversight, not geography or city limits.

We are not saying there is no local church except when the members are literally assembled (cf. 1 Cor. 14:23). Nor are we saying various saints may not meet at different times and places (Acts 12:5,12,17). We do say that when a group of saints are identified as an organized church, the Scriptures indicate this group should be independent and autonomous (self-ruled). Independence and autonomy are God-ordained characteristics for the local church, not subject to alteration by the will of the people. But the writer of the book under consideration says, “Smaller suburban towns could be included in the urban church if they so desire, or they may elect to maintain an autonomous church in their own city. An example would be the harbor city of Cenchrea near Corinth, just seven miles away. There was a church at Cenchrea as well as at Corinth (Rom. 16:1)” (p. 68).

The books begins by offering what was called the divine pattern, elders over one city only. The writer even says, “There was no authority to extend the organization of the church above or beyond the city, so there is no danger of developing an hierarchy or super-organization such as bishop over a plurality of cities” (p. 58). But now, “if they so desire” other cities may join up. With such matters put in the realm of “judgment or opinion” we can not seriously regard this book as a guide to scriptural church organization.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, pp. 39, 47
January 19, 1986

By Bill Cavender

For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and re”Fturneth not thither, but waterth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Isa. 55:8-13).

Our God and Father in heaven has ordained that by the preaching of the gospel of Christ lost men and women shall hear, believe and obey His truth to the saving of the soul from sin’s guilt. Paul said, “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:21). He told our brethren in Corinth that “though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). James, an elder of the church of Christ in Jerusalem, our Lord’s brother, and brother of Jude (Acts 12:17; 15:13ff; 21:18; Gal. 1:19; 2:9; Jude 1), servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ (Jas. 1:1), tells us that “of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures” and to “lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness (“overflowing of wickedness” – ASV), and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls” (Jas. 1:18, 21). Peter says that our souls are purified through obeying the truth through the Spirit and this is accomplished by the word of God, the truth of the gospel (1 Pet. 1:22-25). Jesus said that it is the baptized believer who is saved from his past sins, this believer being such because he has heard the gospel (Mk. 16:15-16; Rom. 10:13-17).

God’s power to save the lost is made known, and is effected and exerted through His word. “The word, of God is quick and powerful (“living, and active” – ASV) . . . and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). This word of the truth of the gospel is “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Rom. 1:16; 1 Thess. 2:2, 8,9,13; 1 Pet. 1:22-25). There are believers only where the word of God is taught, where the gospel of Christ is preached. Those who hear and believe the truth of the gospel have the authority, power and right to become God’s children when they will repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins (John 1: 12; Acts 2:37-41). The blood of the precious Jesus, who came to seek and to save the lost, and to die for lost sinners, only cleanses those who through faith obey the gospel, being baptized into Christ (1 Pet. 1:18-19; Rom. 5:6-10; 3:21-26; Luke 19:10; Rev. 1:5; Acts 22:16; Rom. 6:3-7).

Preachers are commanded by the God of heaven to “preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and teaching,” and to “watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry” (2 Tim. 4:1-5). Without fear or favor of or from men the true preacher of God’s word is to “go into all the world,” preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ to saint and sinner, friend and foe, male and female, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, black and white, to all those who will believe and to those who will not, doing nothing by partiality (Gal. 1:10; Eph. 3:8-11; 2 Cor. 12:15; 13:8; 1 Tim. 5:21). The welfare of the church and of the world depends upon the faithful, diligent proclamation of God’s word by true and tried preachers. “The word of God is not bound,” and it is to have “free course, and be glorified” (2 Tim. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:1). The only power in all the world that will really change men, turn their hearts from error and evil, and create in them a new and pure heart and good conscience, is the power of God Almighty working through His word of truth.

The world and the church need the gospel preached and taught without addition or subtraction, without compromise or apology, without human wisdom and opinions, without pretense and hypocrisy. Each and every gospel preacher should dedicate himself to this task. God’s work will not return unto Him void if it is proclaimed in all of its power, purity, purpose and perfectness, and if it is not obscured by the faults and failures, sins and shortcomings, doctrines and divisiveness, of those who profess to be its adherents, advocates and apologists.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, pp. 33, 55
January 16, 1986