Truth Magazine

By James W. Adams

Three times in ten verses, David, king of Israel, uses the expression of our title in his lamentation over the deaths of Saul and Jonathan in battle (2 Sam. 1:17-27). When the familiar voice of a long-time friend and brother came to me out of the darkness of midnight via the miracle of the modern telephone very early on May 13, 1985 saying, “Jim, Roy (Cogdill) is dead; he died of a heart attack shortly after midnight,” like David, I cried out in my heart, “How are the mighty fallen! The beauty of Israel is perished! Very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women! “

David used the term “mighty” in the sense in which we use the term “great.” Each is a relative term and is qualified by the context of its application and the point of view of him who uses it. From my point of view and in the context of my relationship to Roy E. Cogdill, he was a “mighty” man and among the “greatest” preachers and defenders of the gospel of Jesus Christ of this generation. I knew him intimately, loved him personally, admired his talent and ability inordinately, and trusted him implicitly.

As a lad, I lived in a small southeast Texas town that had one outstanding feature. Just west of town on the top of a small hill (the highest thereabout) stood a gigantic pine tree-the only pine in the area as it was live oak country. It could be seen for miles around and served as a landmark from which one could always get his bearings. A few years ago, I drove through this little town after more than fifty years absence and noted with dismay that the giant pine was no more. It had yielded to the mutations of time and the ravages of circumstances. In a word, it “had gone the way of all the earth.” It is difficult to describe, and harder to explain, the sense of personal loss that swept over me and the loneliness that gripped my heart with the realization that the rugged pine of my youth was no more. Like the “everlasting hills,” I somehow imagined it would never die. That old, giant tree standing tall in majestic splendor against the western sky, keeping silent vigil over us in the halcyon days of childhood, had imperceptibly become to me a symbol making secure the continuity of my life. Now, it was gone! And with its passing a vital link in the golden chain that bound the present to the past had vanished. So I wept unashamedly in nostalgic loneliness for that which was and would never be again.

This is how I felt when the news of the death of my friend and brother, Roy E. Cogdill, came to me. Roy was seven years older than I. He began preaching earlier in life than did I by some four years. He began preaching under circumstances more conducive to the rapid development of a gospel preacher than did I. Hence, when I came on the scene, he was already widely experienced and almost universally acclaimed as a preacher among the brethren. When I first heard of him in 1935, 1 knew enough to recognize the superiority of his talents, so he immediately became to me symbolic of what is par excellence in gospel preaching.

Through the fifty years since and with considerable growth in my own knowledge and the development of a close personal relationship with Roy, I have never had an occasion to change my first impression of him relative to gospel preaching. He was gifted by nature with all the qualities essential to becoming a great preacher: a strong body, a mellow and powerful voice, a brilliant intellect, a retentive memory, a resolute will, and a dynamic personality.

Roy was a strong character. Good character was instilled in him from birth by a consecrated, devoted, almost doting, mother. She was a strong, New Testament Christian of the “old school”-God bless her! From her and from some of the greatest preachers and debaters of the day in western Oklahoma, Roy imbibed a knowledge and love of the truth of the gospel of Christ which he never forgot or outgrew. From callow youth to learned and sophisticated manhood and old age, he believed with reverence, cherished with love, defended with vigor, and proclaimed with eloquence and power the New Testament gospel embraced in the dawn of his life- a “thus saith the Lord” was literally the motto of his life! Roy was living proof of the validity of the proverb of the Wise Man: “Train up a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not depart from it.”

When friends of Roy met in Houston on the evening of April 23, 1985 to honor God in giving vocal expression of appreciation for Roy’s “work of faith, and labor of love, and patience of hope in the Lord Jesus Christ,” several of us noted that Roy probably sacrificed fame, wealth, and worldly power in turning from a blooming, lucrative law practice to the “preaching of the word.” At the close of the service Roy, from his wheel chair, made some remarks. Replying to our statements, he told of an incident which occurred when he was a junior in high school. He began to go about with a crowd of young people whom his mother considered not good for Roy’s spiritual welfare. Roy’s father had been killed in an industrial accident when Roy was eight years of age leaving sister Cogdill a widow. Times were hard and Roy’s father left only a $500.00 insurance policy. With this money, Roy’s mother bought a small house to shelter her four girls and one boy. When she perceived that Roy’s soul might be in jeopardy, she went to an elder of the church, put up her house for security, and borrowed money to send Roy to Cordell Christian College where his faith had a better chance for survival and where he might develop his already evident, superior talents for preaching the word of God. Roy said that he did not know his mother had done this until several years later. Then gazing with complete absorption at a large full length picture of his mother presented to him by brother and sister James and Mildred Yates (elder of the Fry Rd. church and wife), Roy said with tears streaming down his cheeks, “After learning this, I could never do anything but preach the word! ” A more beautiful and poignant incident I think I have never witnessed, and I think it altogether fitting that Roy’s body lies less than a hundred yards in Hobart, Oklahoma Municipal Cemetery from that loving mother’s body, who meant so much to him, awaiting the resurrection of the just.

Lord Macaulay, learned author of a great history of England, once wrote: “Society indeed has its great men and its little men, as the earth has its mountains and its valleys.” Roy Cogdill’s natural gifts and disposition made it inevitable that he would be a leader. He was not destined to follow other men but to lead them. Being thrust into greatness as a leader (Shakespeare), he learned the solemn truth of Lord Byron’s poetic observation: “He who ascends to mountain tops shall find the loftiest peaks most wrapt in clouds and snow; he who surpasses or subdues mankind, must look down on the hate of them below.” Roy never evoked a neutral response from people, even in the kingdom of God. People either loved him or passionately disliked him. Most leaders are men like this. It is warp and woof of that which makes them capable of leadership. So, when I heard of his death, like David, I was constrained to cry, “Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.” Lovers of the truth solemnly weep as we bid goodbye to a faithful soldier of the cross of Christ who has made his last march to lay his armor at the feet of his blessed King. Proponents of error within and without no doubt rejoice and triumph in the streets of spiritual Askelon.

Others will write of Roy’s books, debates, and publishing accomplishments. I shall not infringe upon these areas. It suffices to say: whatever Roy set his hand and heart to do, in the language of Scripture, “He did it with his might.” Therefore, he distinguished himself in many fields. In all of which, we do honor him.

For me personally, a tall, rugged tree, that has always been there since first I began to preach, has fallen. While it stood, it provided for saints across the world a point of reference from which they often got their spirutal bearings. It cast, and continues to cast, a long shadow. Like the echo of a mighty blast reverberating across the land, the shadow cast by Roy’s life and works will shelter many a weary soldier from the burning heat of the great “fight of faith.” Yet, for me, there is a lonely place against the sky as I make my way toward the setting sun of life. However, my deep sense of irreparable loss is tempered by a hope so well expressed in the beautiful song, “Beyond the Sunset.” I find great solace in the fact that “beyond the sunset’s radiant glow, there is a brighter world I know” where Roy, other great soldiers of the cross long dead, and I will one day sit down together and recount earth’s happy experiences in “delightful days that never end.”

As I pen these lines, I think I must feel as Henry Wadsworth Longfellow felt when he penned the following hauntingly beautiful verses:

The day is done, and the darkness
Falls from the wings of Night
As a feather is wafted downward
From an eagle in his flight.

I see the lights of the village
Gleam through the rain and the mist,
And a feeling of sadness comes o’er me
That my soul cannot resist.

A feeling of sadness and longing,
That is not akin to pain,
And resembles sorrow only
As the mist resembles the rain.

For Roy, earth’s day is done, but the Everlasting “Sun” has risen for him in fairer climes on the verdant fields of eternal glory. For us who remain, there is melancholy but not sadness nor pain. We softly weep for days that were and will never be again, but we weep not as “they who have no hope!”

Special Word Of Appreciation

Mike Willis

Upon learning of the death of brother Cogdill, I conferred with several men regarding publishing a memorial edition of Guardian of Truth to his memory. After a decision to do so was made, I contacted brother James W. Adams to see if he would undertake the task of editing this special edition. This issue has been made possible through his efforts and labor. Brother Adams has been a close personal friend of brother Roy E. Cogdill for many years; they stood side by side engaged in the battles of the Lord, having respect and love for each other. I could not think of anyone more qualified to edit this material.

Brother Adams had a free hand to ask whomever he chose to write for this issue. I felt privileged to be asked to write one of the articles, inasmuch as most other contributors have had greater personal contact with brother Cogdill and have done the Lord’s kingdom a much greater service than I.

I sincerely appreciate brother Adams’ work in getting this material together for this special issue of Guardian of Truth.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 14, pp. 418, 436-437
July 18, 1985

By Fanning Yater Tant

The morning sun was just beginning to drive darkness from the eastern skies when the ringing telephone brought me awake. The message was brief: “Roy died of a massive heart attack about midnight last night.” That was all that could be said at the time. But it was enough to flood my heart and mind with memories of the great and good man whose earthly life had now come to a close.

I recalled the first time I had ever met Roy Cogdill. I was visiting in the home of my uncle, Dr. Tolbert Fanning Yater, in Cleburne, Texas. It was during the Christmas holidays, 1930. Cogdill had just recently come to preach for the Central church of Christ. Although he was still in his early twenties, his name was already widely known as an extremely talented and effective gospel preacher. I was anxious to meet him. From the reputation he had acquired, I had assumed him to be at least middle-aged, or perhaps even past that mark. When I knocked on the door (only a block or two from the Yater home), a slender, blond girl answered the knock. I supposed she was the preacher’s daughter, and asked, “Is your father home?” She replied, “My father doesn’t live here, but would you like to meet my husband?” (Roy often told me I had made a life-long friend of Lorraine by the very first words I ever spoke to her!)

Little did I dream then that I was destined one day to become a fellow-worker and business associate with the man whom I met. Our contacts through the 1930’s were infrequent; but when he moved to Lufkin, Texas, in 1945 and organized the Cogdill Publishing Company, we began an association and a strong friendship which continued through the years. In 1947 1 became editor of Ancient Landmarks, a monthly journal published by the Cogdill Publishing Company. Two years later, at the urging of both Cogdill and Foy E. Wallace, Jr., I took over the editorship of The Gospel Guardian, and continued in that capacity for the next twenty-two years.

These were the troubled years during which the Lord’s church was dividing over “institutionalism”-in reality the same basic problem which a hundred years earlier had divided the church over the “missionary societies.” Roy Cogdill stood unflinchingly in the forefront of this battle “contending earnestly for the faith.” His role in the division this time was much the same as that played by Tolbert Fanning and David Lipscomb in the earlier battle. He became the target of an unbelievable torrent of abuse, slander, and vilification. To read the things written about him during those years, one could almost believe that Satan himself might have taken lessons from him in villainy and depravity. None of this moved him. He was simply incapable of compromise, evasion, or subterfuge when a principle of truth was involved. He was blunt, direct, and could be abrasive in opposing the teachings and projects of those who, in his judgment, were leading the church into denominationalism. His commitment to the Savior and to the church so dominated his life that no ties of friendship, or even family, could sway him from the course he believed to be right.

Yet this hard-nosed, uncompromising aspect of his character was only one facet of a very strong and sensitive man. I went to hear him preach in Florence, Alabama, some time in the late fifties, and when we were alone he asked me, “Yater, do you ever cry?” I replied, “Only rarely perhaps at the death of a family member or some very dear friend.” To which he responded, “Well, sometimes I get so heart-sick and depressed over what is happening to the church that I will get Lorraine in the car, drive way back into the ‘big piney’ woods of east Texas, lay my head in her lap, and cry like a three-year-old child!”

This was a side of Roy Cogdill which few people ever saw-or would believe! I have often thought of this when I recall the words of Fitz-Greene Halleck which he wrote on the death of his friend, Joseph Drake:

Green be the turf above thee,

Friend of my better days!

None knew thee but to love thee,

Nor named thee but to praise.

I would certainly have to revise the last line of that quatrain, but the, first part of it is profoundly true-those people who were privileged really to know Roy Cogdill, his strength, his compassion, his sensitivity, were bound to him by ties that were unbelievably strong. He, himself, was capable of strong emotions, and he evoked powerful loyalties among those who were close to him-and equally strong (and often bitter) opposition among those who clashed with him.

I went with him once to Tyler, Texas, for a confrontation with Otis Gatewood. (Gatewood had persuaded the Grove Avenue Church in San Antonio to cut off support for Dick Smith who was in Germany, but who was in conflict with Gatewood’s approach to evangelizing the German people.) The conversation between the two men was heated, and finally Gatewood stuck out his chin and said, “Go ahead and hit me, Royl Just hit me on the chin. I know you want to!” Roy was simply livid with anger, but his voice was completely under control, and did not even quaver as he replied, “No, I will not hit you, Otis, though you deserve a whole lot worse than that for what you did to Dick Smith. I will simply hold you in utter contempt!” And with that he turned and walked away. I have never seen a man so angryor one with such total control of his anger.

It was during these turbulent years that Athens Clay Pullias, president of David Lipscomb College, sent word to Roy that he must not ever again set foot on the campus of that school! Cogdill was vastly amused at the effrontery and arrogance of the man, and ignored the order with complete unconcern. Pullias later forsook the Lord, and joined the Presbyterian church. He was referred to in Nashville as “Pullias the Apostate.” Incidentally, he preceded Roy in death by only four or five weeks.

After Lorraine’s death, it was my happy privilege to speak the words which united Cogdill with his second wife, Nita Faulkner. She was a lovely widow, with two children, whom Cogdill adopted. In many ways these last twenty-five years of his life seemed happier and less demanding than the earlier years. The horrible fight over “institutionalism” had reached its peak, and the tensions were easing off a bit. The division over which Roy had so agonized had finally come and it appeared to be irreversible. Cogdill accepted the fact with profound sorrow, but did not cease to plead for unity on the basis of God’s truth. Nita was a constant source of strength and encouragement to him, and cared for him with infinite tenderness during the final years when he was fighting a losing battle against cancer. He was immensely proud of her total commitment to him and to the life he had chosen to live. He told me once of being stopped by a highway patrol car in Florida on some sort of minor traffic violation. He did not believe he was guilty, and argued with the officer about it. The officer lost his temper and said, “I ought to punch you in the jaw right now.” To which Cogdill replied, “You lay one finger on me, young man, and you’ll be in more trouble than you ever dreamed of!”

It was at this point that Nita entered the fray. Chuckling over the incident later, and with very obvious pride, Roy said, “That red-headed woman of mine lit into him in a fashion that almost made me sorry for the poor guy! She told him off in a way I’ll guarantee he will never forget!”

Yes, Roy Cogdill was indeed “a man to be remembered.” And the words of the melancholy Hamlet as he spoke of the death of the king might well describe him:

He was a man, take him for all in all,

I shall not look upon his like again.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 14, pp. 431-432
July 18, 1985

By Steve Kearney

“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church. “

To every informed Catholic, this verse is the answer to all questions about the teaching and authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This is so because of what Matthew 16:18 means to them. It means that Peter was made the first Pope, Vicar of Christ, foundation and head of the Catholic Church. It means that Peter has all of Christ’s authority on earth. It means that Peter passed this authority to his successors, the Bishops of Rome even to the present day Pope. It means that every tradition sanctioned by the Popes is equal in authority to the Sacred Scriptures.

Little wonder that the cumulative effect is faith in the Catholic Church as the one true church, infallibly right in all of its teaching. In the light of such claims, it will be the purpose of this article to find out if the Bible supports these unique privileges.

The Argument In The Biblical Context

Would you not agree that the teaching which makes Peter the foundation of the church and Christ’s Vicar on earth is of such consequence that one would naturally expect to see it mentioned-directly or indirectly-in almost every book of the New Testament? You may be surprised to learn that it is not mentioned in any of these epistles. That means that the supremacy of Peter is not corroborated by the 27 books of the New Testament. On the contrary, the weight of evidence is against Peter being the foundation and head of the church.

To illustrate, in Luke 22:24-26 Jesus teaches that no Apostle would ever dominate or be officially recognized as head. He said, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ But not so among you.” Surely Jesus knew that Peter was the head of the church since He appointed him such sometime earlier at Caesarea Philippi. As head, Peter of necessity must lord it over all and be seen as a benefactor in bestowing God’s gifts and favors.

In truth Popes are the ecclesiastical replica of the Gentile kings. Why did Jesus say, “But not so among you”? The only legitimate answer is that in the church of Christ no Apostle would ever dominate or be officially recognized as head. The Peter-Pope belief contradicts this teaching of Jesus.

No, Peter is not the head of the church and neither is he the foundation. In 1 Corinthians 3:11 we read, “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” This affirmation is too clear to misunderstand. Since it is so simple it becomes useful in the application of this fail-safe principle of biblical interpretation: that difficult Scriptures be understood in the light of simple ones. By this we mean we will let 1 Corinthians 3:11 explain Matthew 16:18. Undoubtedly then, the rock foundation refers to none other than Jesus Christ, in Matthew 16:18.

Moving along we will now consider the position of Chief Shepherd in the context of the New Testament. Interestingly, the title Chief Shepherd is used only once and that by Peter himself. In 1 Peter 5:4 he says, “And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.” The Holy Spirit through Peter makes it known who the Chief Shepherd is; it is Jesus Christ. In His own lifetime Jesus prophesied, “And they shall become one flock with one Shepherd” (Jn. 10:16). Therefore, it is unscriptural to speak of Peter as another Chief Shepherd.

The whole theory of the supremacy of Peter crumbles under the weight of such revelations. Even the Apostle Paul could assert his equality with the Twelve, “For in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles” (2 Cor. 12:11). Peter was content to call himself, “an apostle of Jesus Christ,” nothing more. All of the apostles were equal in rank and authority with each other, as the following two points will also show.

(1) Peter shared in common the power of “binding and loosing” given to him by Jesus in Matthew 16:19 with the rest of the apostles who were given the same promise in Matthew 18:18.

(2) When the apostles heard that Samaria had received the word of God they sent them Peter and John (Acts 8:14). Jesus tells us, “neither is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him” (Jn. 13:16). For this reason, Peter, who was sent, could not be greater than the others who sent him.

The Peter-Pope idea is unsupported in the greater context of the New Testament revelation. Moreover it is positively refuted by the Scriptures we have just considered.

The Bible: Assumptions And Fact

The primary assumption made by those of the above persuasion is that Jesus made Peter a Pope. The verse does not mention Pope, nor could it without creating a contradiction with another passage of Scripture. The reason being “Pope” means “Father” and, as a religious title, father was forbidden to be worn by Jesus. “And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in Heaven” (Matt. 23:9). Here Jesus is teaching, that no one on earth is your father (spiritually). That no one on earth is to be called your father (spiritually). Obviously then, Peter was not made our Holy Father by Jesus in Matthew 16:18; otherwise there would be two Holy Fathers, one in heaven and one on earth. Jesus cannot contradict Himself; He said, “For One is your Father, He who is in heaven.”

Another thing that is taken for granted is that the church mentioned is the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus did not say “I will build the Roman Catholic Church.” He said, “I will build My church.” In 1 Corinthians 1:1, the Holy Spirit refers to what Jesus built as “the church of God.” In Colossians 1:18, He calls it simply “the church.” In Hebrews 12:23, the writer described the church as “the general assembly and church of the first-born.” Not one verse in the Bible mentions the Roman Catholic Church; it is conspicuous by its absence. Not only is the name not there, but neither is its organization, worship or doctrine. Those who claim it is must first prove it is before they take it for granted that the church in Matthew 16:18 is synonymous with the Roman Catholic Church.

There are so many assumptions made about the Peterrock passages that it would be impossible to review them all. What follows is a short list of assumptions on Matthew 16:18-19:

a. That Peter was made a Catholic Priest.

b. That Peter was appointed Bishop of Rome.

c. That he was given infallibility.

d. That he would have successors.

All of these “facts” need to be proven before it can be established that Peter was made Pope. For too long people have been allowed to assume what cannot be proved by these verses.

The Immediate Context And Related Matter

Please read carefully the immediate context of the Peter-rock comparison which is in Matthew 16:13-20. Here the Holy Spirit is disclosing the most marvellous news about the man Jesus, which was expressed so accurately in the words of Peter, “Thou art the Christ the son of the living God. ” That this is the focal point of the Caesarea Philippi story is easy to see by checking the accounts in Mark and Luke. Both climax with Peter’s confession, which goes to prove that Jesus is the central figure, not Peter.

Undoubtedly then, Jesus being the Christ the Son of the living God is the main structure of these verses. What is said to Peter is only an extension of that superstructure. Jesus said, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build My church.” “This rock” is not a new building enshrining Peter. It is, as was stated, an extension of the main building which is Christ the Son of the living God. This will be better understood when you see a comparison between the words Peter and rock as used in Matthew 16:18. The name Peter is translated from the Greek word petros. Petros is masculine gender, and is defined in W.E. Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words, as “a detached stone or boulder.” On the other hand, the word rock is translated from the Greek word petra. Petra is feminine gender, and is defined in W.E. Vine as “a mass of rock.”

The difference should be plain as we read this information back into Matthew 16:18 as follows, “You are petros and upon this petra I will build My church.” Evidently Peter is not the rock foundation, and the only other thing that could be is that “mass of rock” in the confession of Peter, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God.”

It is interesting to note that most of the early Fathers agree with this interpretation. Here is Dr. Kendrick’s breakdown of what the early Fathers believed about the rock in Matthew 16:18,

(a) 17 Fathers designated Peter as the rock.

(b) 8 Fathers taught that the whole apostolic college is the rock.

(c) 44 Fathers designated Peter’s confession of Christ’s divine Sonship as the rock.

(d) 16 Fathers taught that Christ Himself was the rock.

All the evidence in the immediate context, in the Greek and from the early Fathers points to Peter’s confession, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God” as the rock foundation on which the church of Christ was built.

That conclusion harmonizes with the rest of the New Testament which categorically states, “Other foundations can no man lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ.” Peter is not the foundation of the Church; therefore, he is not the Pope.

You can work out all the other implications for yourself!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 13, pp. 398-399
July 4, 1985

By Larry Ray Hafley

A number of years ago, I was shocked and appalled when I attended a “rally” conducted by the ultra liberal Darby Drive church in Florence, Alabama. There were, “Let’s see who can shout, ‘amen,’ the loudest” contests, and there were laughter and applause for “soul stirring,” “keynote” addresses. I was startled-“clapping and applause for the cause,” I suppose.

Well, they cheer and clap for Oral Roberts and Jim Bakker, so I guess we can cheer our brethren. If we can borrow other denominational hoopla-clowns, parties, games and such like-then we ought to be able to clap for sermons. Would I dare to suggest modestly clad cheerleaders? Could we chant, “two, four, six, eight, who do we appreciate?” Would exciting cheers prime a preacher to soar to the alps of oratorical resplendence?

But what if the preacher blows it? I mean, what if he fans on his face? What if he misquotes his texts? What if he cites the wrong passages to sustain his points? What if he is dry, dull and boring? What if he really messes up? Since we can clap and applaud, can we also hiss and boo? If we can smile and laugh at a good sermon, can we jeer and sneer at a bad one? Can we heckle?

And 1, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God (1 Cor. 2:1-5).

“But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine . . . . In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity” (Tit. 2:1,7). “For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of” (1 Cor. 9:16). “But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God which trieth our hearts . . . . Not of men sought we glory, neither of you” (1 Thess. 2:4,6). “For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

Could we now have a nice round of applause for the verses above?

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 13, p. 394
July 4, 1985