Truth Magazine

By Stephen P. Willis

How easy we do forget. Many times in life we find people coming to our aid, assisting us in situations in which we would have otherwise been helpless. But how soon, we forget these people. Peter said that unless Christians, were adding on their part diligence, moral excellence, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness and love they were forgetting God who aided them in the remission of sins: “For he who lacks these qualities is blind or shortsighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins” (2 Pet. 1:9). I would venture to say that we find ourselves forgetting this aid more often than we might think. Consider the following instances.

Attendance. Do you find yourself getting the kids ready to go to midweek worship? Or, do you manage to make it back to the Sunday evening worship service? Or, what about Sunday morning Bible Study – do you plan to be in attendance? I wonder why so many find other things to do instead of worshiping God. Consider your last week: did you make these plans, or did you forget?

Giving. We must all face up to the fact that our physical blessings are bestowed upon us by God. He desires that we give a portion of that which we earn so that the gospel may be spread and needy saints may be attended to. When it comes to returning a portion to the Lord, do you do it grudgingly? Or do you grab whatever amount of “small change” is in your pocket or purse? Did you remember who gave you those blessings, or did you forget?

Spiritual Worship. All of the acts of worship are to be carried out in spirit and in truth (Jn. 4:24). Do you think on spiritual things while engaging in singing, prayer, the Lord’s Supper and while listening to teaching from God’s word, or do you give a sigh and wish that you could “get out of here early today”? Do you give consideration to the things that you should or do you have a mere outward appearance of worshiping? The last time you worshiped, was it in spirit and in truth, or did you forget?

Visiting. How did you become a Christian? Chances are that you were taught by someone’s coming and visiting you! Were you ever sick and wished that others would come and see how you were doing, or that they might help you meet some needs that you could not fill while you were sick? Was merely a phone call a comfort to you? During your last week in regard to your visiting, did you remember to do what you wished others would do for you, or did you forget?

Bible Study. If a foreign preacher came through your city, could he say that the saints there were more noble than the last town he had visited because they searched the scriptures daily? Do you read or meditate on the Bible daily? Speaking of the man favored (blessed) by God, the Psalmist said, “But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night” (1:2). If you were blessed according to your Bible study, how blessed would you be? Did you study your Bible last week, or did you forget?

What if Jesus and the Heavenly Father were as forgetful as we? We often think of Jesus as one born with a mission: the saving of mankind. What if He forgot His mission? What if He became as unsatisfied with His mission as we do ours? Or consider God: if after we have obeyed the gospel and lived our lives. to His glory, He were to forget to read our names out of the Book of Life, we would not think that too fair. We might cry out, “But, Lord, you forgot to read my name!” What would be our feelings if He replied, “Sorry, I just forgot.” The truth of the matter is that Jesus did not forget His mission: mankind has a hope of salvation. And, God will not forget to read our names out of the Book of Life – if our names are recorded there. God will not hesitate to punish those deserving punishment either.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 49, p. 786
December 11, 1980

By James L. Yopp

The Crossroads church of Christ in Gainesville, Florida is one of the fastest growing congregations in the United States. They baptize over 200 people per year. Their attendance is in excess of 1000. Their budget exceeds $9,500 per Sunday. They are effectively activating almost every member of the local church. In many ways, they excell more than any church of Christ in the recent past.

For all of their growth, enthusiasm, and dedication, heated opposition has come from the other churches of Christ, especially among those who are sympathetic to the Gospel Advocate and Contending For the Faith. Others, as Fanning Yater Tant, having observed the phenomenal growth, became interested in the methods they used and whether these methods could be adopted for use by conservative churches. (In all fairness, brother Tant’s first visit to Crossroads earlier this year had somewhat of an adverse affect upon Northeast in Gainesville. However, that seems to have disappeared.).

The elders at Crossroads are very cordial men, and this writer, in company with Yater Tant and one of the other Northeast elders, had a very congenial discussion with the local preacher, Chuck Lucas, and the two elders, Rogers Bartley and Richard Whitehead. They seemed willing to try to answer any question that was put to them. They repeatedly offered to discuss their work and position with others.

The growing influence of the Crossroads’ church (through various enterprises, to be discussed later) has been felt throughout the nation. Many elderships come to Gainesville to study the methodologies followed in their work. They offer “seminars” in which people from everywhere are encouraged to come and be taught (indoctrinated?). Reactionaries to Crossroads would say they are trying to sell their philosophy. Some conservatives would label their activities foolishness. Still others would admire their fidelity. So, what is it with Crossroads? Philosophy, foolishness, or fidelity?

There are many commendable things that can be said of those who make up the Crossroads’ leadership and membership. They seem to be extremely effective in teaching (perhaps part of this is because of the number of contacts made – a lesson for us?). Their zeal, even if it be like those of Romans 10, is indeed evident. There is a devotion to the work within the people at Crossroads that cannot but be admired. There is a strong sense of unity that exists among the membership. The outward manifestations of love are clearly seen. They demonstrate a deep concern for one another and for the unfortunate, including the aged and widows. One has to admire their courage to stand against the secular press and other criticisms that have been made of them and their work. My one regret is their hesitancy to face issues of concern to conservative-minded brethren.

It is fitting also to observe at this point that part of the criticisms against Crossroads are for practices they deny and disclaim any responsibility for occurring. It is regrettable that any group of brethren would launch an attack against a congregation without being able to prove what they say. This writer readily admits that some things which have been said about Crossroads are not true. That does not remove the fact that some of the members will do (and have done) things which are not approved by the elders. As is true in many churches, there is sometimes a difference in what is taught by the leaders and what is practiced by the members. This article will deal only with those teachings and practices of the elders and preacher, and those experiences with Crossroads’ members where proof of occurrence can be given. Even Lucas has said, “Abuses and misrepresentations can occur in any program or teaching.” Hence, certain practices and positions charged to Crossroads are not sanctioned by the Crossroads’ elders and/or preacher.

The Crossroads’ influence has been most strongly felt in communities where colleges and universities are located. The activities and approaches used by the Gainesville church appeal strongly to college-age people and their greatest success in conversions comes from that age group. While intellectuals have tried to explain this in terms of psychological needs felt among these young people, I would explain it in terms of hard work. Any group, full of zeal and determination, with sufficient sweat, can (and will) grow (brethren – there is another lesson here).

Cult?

Since college communities are often the targets of various cults, the success of Crossroads has attracted the secular press (an undependable source of information) and caused much attention to be drawn to Crossroads not only in Gainesville, but in places such as Orlando and St. Petersburg. From this mostly adverse publicity and with the aid of liberal religious leaders, Crossroads has been labeled a “cult.” Is it or is it not? In the eyes of the world, it probably is. But, then, in the eyes of the world, so would any congregation of God’s people be so identified. I have often stated that if the world knew truly what the Bible teaches, they would like Christians less.

There is a certain amount of jealousy toward Crossroads from the denominational preachers of the area. This is evident from what they have said and what they have done, to discredit Crossroads. Anyone who has been able to make inroads into their memberships as much as Crossroads has, would probably incur their wrath as well. But, one wonders if this may not be some of the problem stemming from the opposition of the Gospel Advocate and Contending For the Faith. Crossroads has effectively utilized in their programs what the liberal-minded churches have been doing for years and she has done it so well that a little(?) jealousy may be behind part of the opposition.

But back to the question: Is Crossroads a cult? To state that Crossroads is a cult, in the same sense that the “Moonies” constitute a cult is a misnomer. This is not to say that at times certain cultic characteristics do not surface among the members. For instance, in working with a young lady who was involved at Crossroads, she had to slip away to one of the Northeast members’ homes to talk with us. All of the time she was present, she expressed fear they would find out and continually pressure her with admonitions, rebukes, etc. Additionally, when trying to get in touch with the woman, her roommates (Crossroads’ members) would attempt to interrogate me before telling me the lady was not at homy (I do not know whether she was or not). This type of protectionism and isolationism has added some fuel to the charge, for it does contribute to destroying the individual nature of Christ’s disciple.

Crossroads does not only incur the wrath of certain churches and papers in other parts of the country, but the liberal-minded churches in Gainesville shun her. The attitude that is shown by members at Crossroads contributes, to some degree, to that reaction. One student wrote to me, “I am very involved in another church of Christ in Gainesville and am not interested in any other one.” Many of these young people have closed their minds and refuse to study (or investigate) the differences in Crossroads and others. I have more than 50 letters from students who wanted their names removed from our mailing list and most of them contained statements similar to the one quoted above.

The intensity that as built around Crossroads could also be interpreted by some as being characteristic of a cult.

I am doing great spiritually, by the way I am attending a church of Christ here in Gainesville that has been able to meet all of my physical, spiritual and other needs.

While faithful saints know the foolishness of this claim, it does illustrate why some feel it is cultic in nature, even though this writer does not, at this point, believe such.

What Some Object To

Crossroads has made different attempts to defend her teachings and practices. These have included use of “seminars,” articles in various national publications, visits by different brethren from throughout the nation to Crossroads, and the local preacher wrote a series of articles in the local bulletin. The attitude was expressed by Lucas in these words,

We, of course, stand ready to defend from the scriptures what we DO believe and practice and are always open to change if shown wrong in any point (At the Crossroads, June 16, 1978).

Unfortunately, many of the articles written by Lucas in defense of Crossroads never get down to the specifics. They especially do not defend the very teachings and practices to which conservative-minded brethren object.

In spite of the protectionism, the harassment methods with which they are charged, and the isolationism being promoted, what is it, specifically, that Crossroads is doing that is different from other churches of Christ and to which many liberal minded brethren object?

1. Much has been said about the “total commitment” advocated by the leaders at Crossroads. In the minds of some, this involves becoming so involved in the local program that people neglect their families, their work, and their civic duties. Among students, different ones charge that grades fall and academic accomplishments suffer (I have a copy of a letter from a mother claiming this.). I have worked with some who were so affected by Crossroads membership. However, the elders do not approve’of any such abuse. Lucas has defined “total commitment” in this manner:

Jesus is not requiring that we “sell all our possessions,” rather that we totally surrender to him everything that we are and everything that we have – our time, our talents, our will, our bodies, our possessions. Everything is to be at his disposal and to be used for his glory. That’s total commitment! (At the Crossroads. May 6, 1979).

One could agree that total commitment to Christ is right, but total commitment to Crossroads (out of love for a group and a work) is wrong. Some experiences of this writer point more toward commitment to Crossroads rather than Christ.

2. Articles that appear in Crossroads’ publications continually advocate what they call “one another” Christianity. Great stress is placed upon all of the passages in the Bible where such an expression occurs. While no Christian would deny the necessity of being concerned for one another, to build a concept with a sectarian flavor from any scriptural principle is an abuse of the word of God. There would be no limit to the ideas that could be promoted. Why not have “caring” Christianity, or “loving” Christianity, or “concern” Christianity, or “giving” Christianity, ad infinitum? A person could take any word, or any expression, that describes the life, faith, or work of a disciple and build a sectarian concept around the idea. Being a Christian embodies all that pleases God without having to promote a particular item or practice.

3. “Soul talks” have been another target of those who criticize Crossroads. Certain ones may envision “hand holding,” “candle burning,” and “spirit moving” when hearing the term. While there may have been abuses in soul talks, they are defined as “small group evangelistic Bible studies,” “discussions about the soul,” “Bible study groups hosted by committed Christians,” “Bible studies led and directed by competent Christian teachers” (At the Crossroads, October 14, 1979). While some may think (this writer; included) the description “soul talks” somewhat questionable, they are nothing less or more than Bible studies. Do we not all need to talk more about the soul?

4. “Prayer partners” constitute another area where much objection has been made. Lucas defines the concept in this way.

We must find ways to implement these “one another” commands. The “prayer partner” concept is one way to do so. In our ministry we have found that having an entire membership involved in “prayer partner” relationships has strengthened us immeasurably as individuals and as a congregation. It has enabled us to meet one another’s needs and to assure that every member of the body is being ministered to. The “prayer partner” arrangement has no connotations of “superiority” or “inferiority,” but the emphasis is on mutual ministry to “one another.” Some have described it as a “spiritual buddy system” – and we do “need one another” (I Corinthians 12:21). (At the Crossroads, October 21, 1979).

When this concept is carried into practice, prayer partners get together “on a regular basis each week.” Shortcomings, failures, weaknesses, and sins are discussed (and confessed) to this prayer partner. At times, the most intimate transgressions and feelings are bared to the “partner.” What is wrong with such a practice?

(1) There is little difference in this and having a priest to which one would go to “purge” his soul of his sins. Much emphasis is placed on guilt in Crossroads’ writings, and this is supposed to be one way of freeing people of guilt. Such a practice is absolutely without any New Testament authority whatsoever.

(2) The only sin that one is obligated to confess to another human is one of whi-ch-the-person to whom it is confessed is knowledgeable: All such confession was made with the idea of correcting faults (see James 5:16-20). No Christian is commanded to confess a sin to a person that person does not know about!

(3) The command to confess faults (James 5:16) is not a practice that involves a one-to-one basis, but is a practice that involves all of the brethren. To isolate one brother or sister (prayer partner) to which confession is made without equal involvement of all, is without scriptural foundation.

(continued next week)

Truth Magazine XXIV: 49, pp. 785, 794-795
December 11, 1980

By William C. Sexton

There are different ways of classifying things, all of which can be helpful in allowing us to see matters more fully. So it is, I believe with looking at sin. Therefore, we are challenged to look in this direction. We need to think of the different ways we can and perhaps often do sin, in order that we might improve our lives.

The wages of sin is death (Ram. 6:23). Such is defective, missing the mark; such is deceptive, offering something that it cannot deliver; such is destructive, keeping one separated from God, the source of life (Isa. 59:1-2; 2 Thess. 1:7-10; Jas. 1:15). Consequently, we need to learn how to identify, shun, and be forgiven of sin. Hiding the word of God in our heart is the remedy to keep one from sin (Psa. 119:11) and that word tells us what sin is!

Types Based On Disposition

Ignorance – not knowing what it is, being deceived (Acts 3:18) is one kind of sin. Peter said the Jews killed Jesus in ignorance. Jesus’s prayer on the cross is indicative of the ignorant nature of the action (Lk. 23:34). Likewise, Paul pointed to the ignorance of the people when he spoke to the people in Antioch (Acts 13:27) “because they knew him not, nor the voice of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.” Paul, himself, prior to his conversion, had acted in ignorance in opposing the Christians (Acts 26:9-10).

We need to ever keep in mind, however, that being ignorant does not keep one from being accountable, having the sin charged against him (1 Tim. 1:12-15).

Jesus pointed to not knowing the Scriptures as the cause of the error of certain ones (Mt. 22:29). Therefore, we need to know the Scriptures in order that we may not sin against God and our fellow man!

Weakness – knowing better but not having the strength to say “no” or restrain oneself from so acting – is another type of sin. By following the path of least resistance, many do things that are not pleasing to God. By going places they should not and drinking, smoking, etc., people become involved in behavior that is not beneficial but rather harmful; even if the beginning is small, it opens the door to bigger and more corrupting things.

Peter allowed himself to be carried away by pressure in circumstances to deny and withdraw (Mt. 27:73-75; Gal. 2:11-14). In a different circumstance (Mt. 16:21-23; 26:31-34), Peter had become boastful, refusing to entertain the idea that he would deny the Lord; yet when the hour came, he yielded to the pressure. So, none of us should become too highly lifted up in our pride, for any of us many find the pressure to be of such a degree that we would yield to it.

Later, Peter committed a similar sip, by withdrawing from Gentiles, contrary to what he had preached. Such was a sin, and needed to be called to his attention, hoping that he would see the blame and seek forgiveness. Paul pointed to his sin and recorded the same for people of the future to see that even a man such as Peter could and did sin and was in need of forgiveness.

Rebellion – knowing but not caring – is a type of sin that is destructive, in that it is committed by a person with a disposition that is almost unreachable! It is not that the sin cannot be forgiven, but that it is next to impossible to get such, a person to meet the conditions of pardon, repentance and prayer (Acts 8:22; 1 Jn. 1:9). There are those who have seen themselves as being able and wise enough to push themselves on to safety (2 Pet. 2:9-15).

Many are practicing openly what they know is not allowed by God and decent people in society. They know better but they do not care to violate the rule of God. There is little hope for such people, unless they suffer a set back such as will cause them to re-evaluate their life and total existence.

Many such people have to be placed in confinement; thus, we have the institutions for such people; prisons are an unfit place to have men and women spend time, but some people are not “fit” for society, so they are restrained. Some, religious people, however, openly violate God’s rules and, for awhile, get by with it; their day is coming however (Ram. 14:10-12; 2 Cor. 5:10; Phil. 2:9-11).

Beloved, we can see the different sins, as coming from or being committed by a different type of person, thus revealing something of the character and the likelihood of them seeking and finding forgiveness. Yet, let us remember that each sin can be forgiven and needs to be; but the conditions are the same, and unless such conditions are met, the penalty of death remains (Acts 22:16; 1 Jn. 1:9).

Types Based On Action

Moral – behavior that is immoral – is a sin that is common today and has always been. The standard of morals, of course, is God’s book, the Scriptures, and behavior contrary to them is sinful. So much of this is observable in our land today! The world’s standard is, “if it feels good, do it,” if it doesn’t hurt someone immediately. -Laws of decency are violated; killing, stealing, sexual behavior of fornication and adultery are engaged in by many; at times these sins are committed by “church members,” and at times with no shame! It is a shame that some religious people do commit such; but it is worse when they try to find sanction for such in God’s word.

However, at the other end of the spectrum, some feel that if you are a good moral person, then you are safe and have no need of salvation, forgiveness of sins. All have sinned and are in need of forgiveness, however; it is needful that we recognize this and act accordingly (Rom. 3:23; 6:23). What we need to do is compare ourselves with the inspired word and respond accordingly, not using other people as the standard (Jas. 1:21-25).

Doctrinal – teachings other than the truth of God’s word is sinful too. Much of the Bible (if we will look closely we can see) is taken up to correct mis-concepts and misdeeds! Paul wrote to the Galatians (1:6ff) to refute a perverted gospel and announce that no one had the right to preach “another gospel” without having the curse of God resting on him!

Peter pointed firmly to the need of keeping our speaking confined to the “oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). Even in stronger language, Paul told the Romans (3:3-4) how to be “justified” in what they said and “overcome” when judged: “let God be true, but every man a liar.”

Jesus proclaimed that some worshipped God, His Father, “in vain,” teaching for “doctrine the commandments of men” (Mt. 15:9) “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men” (Mk. 7:7).

Religious Practices – doing things in religion which are not authorized by God – constitute another category of sins! Early in the Law (Lev. 10:1-2), God let it be known what His sentiments toward deviating from His proscriptions in worship were!

People have added various things to what the New Testament authorizes since the first century. Yet, the Scriptures are plain: “Let the word of Christ dwell in your richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Col. 3:16-17). John (2 Jn. 9) pointed to the separated state for those who go beyond the teachings of Jesus while announcing the security of those who remain or “abide” within the teachings!

Doing more or less is walking on dangerous ground (Rev. 22:18-19). Historically, the organizational arrangement has been changed by many, to suit their own likeings. Yet the New Testament arrangement is congregational, (Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:1 ff). The work that the Lord gave the church to do has been changed by some to suit their likes, too. Beloved, we need to see the gravity of such. It is not a small matter to “change” what the Lord said to something else! But many have done so in the past and, no doubt, many will continue to do the same. You and I then need to be careful that we do not participate with such people.

Is There A Difference In Results?

A prevalent idea advanced by some today is that some sins are a lot worse than others. The implication of what some are claiming today, it seems to me, is that some sins will cut one off and another will not. I raise the question: Where is the passage that affirms such?

1. I would suggest that the Scriptures point to some becoming so involved in sinful conduct that it is next to impossible to get the person to meet the terms of forgivensss (cf. Heb. 6:4-6; 10:25-31). But I am aware of no Scripture that affirms that some sins can go undetected and be undestructive to the person. If you know of such a passage, please show it to me. I would like to find such a passage.

2. 1 am aware of the fact that the type of sin one commits may very well be reflective of the character of a person and thus be predictive of that person’s response to God’s will. As we have said before, he who openly rebels against God’s will is not likely to be affected by God’s “goodness” to lead to “repentance” (Rom. 2:4-11). But as I read my New Testament, I am impressed with the destructive nature of “sin,” not that some are bad while others are not so bad.

3. If we can convince ourselves that there are some sins that will not cause us to be lost, what will that do to our watchfulness? Will that tend to cause us to be as careful as we should be or cause us to be less careful? To me the answer is clear!

4. Most important, as I see it, is – what do the Scriptures say? Where is the passage that says some sins will not destroy if not forgiven? Or, where is the passage that says sins undetected will be taken care of -forgiven – by the Lord without any specific response by the sinner? If such is taught by God, then we need to teach it. If such is not taught by the Scriptures, however, what are we doing when we teach such?

5. There is a legitimate concern by some, I believe, relative to being pressed down and overcome by one’s sense of the situation. The idea is, “If I have to recognize all of my sins and repent specifically of each in order to be saved, then I’m afraid that I’ll overlook one.” Satan, no doubt, the adversary of man, will try to use that type of thinking to get us to give up! However, will he not, on the other end, use the idea if you can get by with one sin, then surely more than one, so why be careful, too (2 Cor. 2:11; 1 Pet. 5:8)?

So, it comes down to the facts stated or unstated in the Scriptures. Look for that passage and stand on it. Faith based on anything other than the word of God (Rom. 10:17) is faulty!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 48, pp. 780-781
December 4, 1980

By Eugene Crawley

Asa, who succeeded his father Abijah as king of Judah, was a good king for a number of years. His reign was one of prosperity, and the land was quiet ten years. The reason for this is, I believe, summed up in 2 Chron. 14:2, “And Asa did that which was good and right in the eyes of the Lord his God.” The writer goes on to enumerate a number of things he did which were pleasing to God, including “and commanded Judah to seek the Lord God of their fathers, and to do the law and the commandments” (vs. 4). Thus, Asa was blessed greatly during his reign, and Judah with him, because of their faithfulness.

When told by Azariah, the prophet, “The Lord is with you, while ye be with him; and if ye seek him, he will be found of you; but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you,” Asa took courage, and put away the abominable idols out of all the land of Judah and Benjamin (2 Chron. 15:2, 8). As a result of his faithfulness and God’s blessing, many in Israel, who had previously forsaken the Lord and His law, returned to faithfulness, “They fell to him out of Israel in abundance, when they saw that the Lord God was with him” (vs. 9).

However, like other kings who prospered greatly, Asa became proud and independent and in his last days forsook the Lord. He made a league with the king of Syria when Baasha, king of Israel came up against Judah. Instead of relying upon the Lord as before, Asa now indicated by his actions that he was self-sufficient and did not need the Lord. Upon such action, Hanani the seer came to Asa, and said, “Herein thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars” (2 Chron. 16:9). This declaration of truth made Asa angry and he had the seer put into prison (vs. 10).

Such things, according to Paul in Romans 15:4, were written for our learning. We should therefore profit from such examples. We should be impressed with the fact that God blesses the faithful, but punishes the disobedient. Also, that He is no respecter of persons. In spite of the fact that Asa and others during the Old Testament period were faithful for awhile and then sinned, did not keep God from punishing them. Neither did it keep him from revealing the dark spots in their lives, thus proving that He renders according to one’s deeds.

There are a number of lessons that can be learned from this account of Asa. Let us note a few of them. The fact that a man is faithful and prospers for a number of years is no guarantee of continued faithfulness; nor is it assurance that God will overlook some-sin, or at short period of unfaithfulness. Judah did well to follow Asa during the time he did good and right in the eyes of the Lord, but they would have been foolish to continue following him when he forsook the Lord. It would have been foolishness for them to reason as some do today, “Well, he used to be faithful, and was a sound teacher, so I am going to continue following him.” To blindly follow one who has been right, accepting all that he teaches without proving it by the word of God, is indeed to act foolishly. Every teaching should be tried or tested by the divine standard, the inspired Scriptures and not by what anyone says or thinks is right.

Asa also acted foolishly by becoming angry at the seer. He simply delivered God’s message. But because it did not please Asa because it was a condemnation of his action, he had him imprisoned. But this did not change God’s judgment; it did not alter one word of what He had said. Some today could well take warning from this. To become angry with the teacher when he is simply delivering God’s message and render evil to him does not change in any way the word of God; for we shall face it in judgment (John 12:48; Rev. 20:10-12).

Another observation of value is that those who have forsaken the Lord and His law will come to those who are faithfully doing God’s will, as those of Israel did with Asa. The influence of faithfulness is great, and we should see to it that our lives are influences for that which is good and right. May God grant courage to all who contend earnestly for the faith, that they may ever be steadfast.

To forsake the Lord and His word, and rely upon one’s own wisdom and strength is to act foolishly. “Herein thou hast done foolishly” should never be said of any child of God, and when it is necessary it is to one’s disadvantage. Therefore live so that such can never truthfully be said of you!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 48, pp. 777-778
December 4, 1980