Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

Peter’s sermon on Petecost is reported in Acts 2, Verse 40 says, “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” Obviously, there is some sense in which people can save themselves. Let us reflect briefly on the question, What can one do to save himself?

1. He cannot devise a plan of his own. The Bible is very clear in stating that an individual is not at liberty to work out his own little scheme of redemption. Long before the advent of the Messiah, Jeremiah the prophet said, “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23).

Although man is free to make his own choices, he cannot direct his course so as to save his soul without yielding to the will of God for the following reasons: (1) Man as the creature is dependent upon God the Creature is dependent upon God the Creator. (2) The sinner is powerless to atone for his own sins. (3) Without revelation from God man would never come to know God, and there are many facts about himself that man could never know. (4) Men who have followed their own wisdom invariably have plunged deeper and deeper into sin. (5) Unlike birds that travel great distances by instinct; man is not programmed by nature with intuition by which he may safely guide his soul.

2. He cannot merit salvation by good deeds. Some folks seem to have the idea that if they are morally upright God will save them by virtue of their goodness. Others seem to think that righteous acts will somehow compensate for their wrongs and God will reward them. To all such people obedience to the gospel is viewed as needless.

The New Testament says, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Tit. 3:5). Paul reminded Timothy that God “hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, nor according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus~before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:9, 10). Salvation is God’s free gift, not something that man earns or deserves.

3. Some say he can do nothing. There are religious people who teach that there is no way whatever in which man can save himself. They want us to believe that God predestinated certain individuals to life and certain others to death, and that this choice was made arbitrarily before to the foundation of the world, therefore man is powerless to do anything in any sense to save himself. According to this theory, one must wait for a special divine call that comes through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit to know that he is one of God’s elect. If he never receives such a call, that person is doomed to eternal perdition.

The Bible affirms that there are certain things that man can do and must do to be saved. God does for man what man cannot do for himself, then God requires man to believe and obey Jesus Christ. To say that man can do absolutely nothing would make God directly reponsible for every soul that is lost!

4. To save himself one can:

(a) Apply God’s word. This is what Peter was talking about in Acts 2:40. He had just preached to his hearers about Jesus’ being both Lord and Christ. “What shall we do?” was their question now that they realized their lost condition. “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). Note that they were told to repent. This was something required. They were told to be baptized. This, too, was set before them as a gospel requirement. Then came the exhortation, “Save yourselves from this untoward (perverse) generation.” By repenting of their sins and being baptized for the remission of their sins they would be saved from the eternal fate that awaited the masses of perverse men and women in that generation. Verse 41 says, “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized . . .” Every sinner can and must believe and apply the gospel to himself.

(b) Give attention to stedfastness. Paul wrote to the Philippians, “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). Compare this with the statement of Phil. 1:27 in which he told them to “stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.” Paul was writing to people who had already obeyed the gospel, but their eternal security depended on their continuing to stand fast in the faith. We work out our own salvation by holding to the faith through which God preserves us (1 Pet. 1:5).

(c) Take heed. Timothy was instructed, “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine: continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (1 Tim. 4:16). The child of God must take heed to his life to be saved in heave (I Cor. 10:12; Heb.2:1; 3:12).

In summation, an individual cannot save himself in some ways of looking at it, yet in another sense he can and must save himself. God acts upon us through the gospel, and we must act in response to be saved.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 9, p. 153
March 1, 1979

By Wallace H. Little

This may sound more like “Salvation and Religion” than politics because I am dealing with the religious institutions there. But I am talking about their political effects, and the concurrent economic power they possess, rather than religious results.

In the Philippines today, there are two notable religious powers in politics. One is the Roman Catholic Church, which has been in that nation for something on the order of 400 plus years. It is thoroughly entrenched. While its religious influence has been partially dilured by its acceptance of pagan and indigenous religious practices, its politics remains at or near its peak. The nation is approximately 83 % Roman Catholic. This percentage show up in the family, in the barrio, the province, the educational system, the government, industry and commerce, and you name it. There is no area which is untouched by the influence of the Roman Church. So strong is it in one sense, that I knew personally a man who was convinced of the truth of the gospel, but refused to be baptized until his wife and two adult daughters (themselves Roman Catholics) gave their approval. The rooms in the schools are decorated with Roman Catholic Church paraphernalia, and there are statues to various “saints” in the yards of most I have seen. The RCC exerts much direct and indirect control over what is taught, how it is taught, who teaches it and the materials used. You can be sure little is presented which does not show Catholicism in the best possible light.

In employment, a Roman Catholic has a decided edge on anyone else who is not also a member of the RCC. If a dispute occurs between employees, one of them which is not a Roman Catholic, the odds heavily favor it being settled in favor of the Catholic. In a nation such as our own, where separation of church and state is mandated by the Constitution as well as accepted in practice, it is difficult for us to appreciate the all-pervading influence the RCC has in all levels and all stages of Philippine society. There are times when even wanting to preach the pure gospel of Christ in the streets will bring about wrath of the Catholic who feels he must become the “protector of the faith.” Our brethren there have been threatened with jail for preaching the truth. More than once, they have ended up in jail for doing so. It is hard for one not accustomed to such influence to understand why an intelligent people will sit still for the power exercised by the RCC. But it is there. One who goes there to work without regard for its existence is due for a surprise, and not a pleasant one, either.

Another religion which exerts a large influence there is the Iglesia ni Christo, literally, “Church of Christ.” This is not our brethren, who to meet the requirements of Philippine law, have identified themselves as “church of Christ (New Testament). ” Iglesia ni Christo was founded in 1914 by Felix Manalo who touted himself as a prophet equal to Christ. Since his death, his son has taken his place. Basically, the Manaloists deny the deity of Christ. The organizational structure is very rigid and tightly controlled. Their buildings all resemble each other, their exterior design being so they are recognized instantly by everyone wherever they might be and whatever their size. These folks comprise approximately 10′ of the population, but exercise a control and influence beyond what this figure indicates. During elections, they vote as a unit, for whichever candidate is selected by their organization. How many politicians in the U.S. would like to have 10% of the total vote “in their pockets”? I am understanding the case when I conclude the politicians there court the Manloists.

Their influence in some industries is exceedingly strong, although recent curbs by the government has reduced this. Still, in a business or industry where their control is assured, one who is not a member would have a very difficult time getting work. If he were a member, then changed his religion, the chances are he would suddenly find he no longer has a job.

A third group, the Muslims, exert considerable influence where their members are strong. This is mostly in central Mindanao. For the past several years, a portion of them have been in active revolt against the government. Their revolt was and, perhaps, may still be financed by some Arab oil nations whose speciality seems to be putting their noses into the internal affairs of other countries. Recently, the revolt seems to be quieting down and the area coming more under the effective control of the government. Examples of the treatment of others by the Muslims can be proved to underscore the influence of these people in their areas, and the consequent danger to all non-Muslims. For example several years ago, an attack was planned against a town not too far from Pagadian City, Mindanao. It was to kill the non-Muslims and undoubtedly to make off with whatever spoil could be found. It failed only because the mayor, a Muslim himself, learned of the plan, and placed his responsibilities above the desires of the rebels, his own ethnic group. The non-Muslims were warned and escaped before the attack. In other situations, folks were not so fortunate.

In one area, repeated Muslim attacks against ethnic ‘minorities produced death, homes and working tools burned and destroyed, and farm animals burned,butchered and stolen. Several thousand were forced off their own lands and migrated to the hill country north of Davao City, in southern Mindanao. There, the only work they could find was as tenant farmers in the uplands. Here irrigation was impossible and crops depended upon rain. Among this group were about 600 brethren making up 17 congregations. Without tools or farm animals for putting the plows, each man was capable of farming only about one hectare of land, as a tenant farmer. This meant the land-owner received 2501o of each crop. In a good year, a hectare provided enough rice or corn to permit a man to take care of his wife, three or four children and himself barely.

A crop failure is a disaster. In the spring of 1978, such a crop failure occurred because of a drought. Unable to irrigate, these people could not put out their first crop. When the food from their previous harvest was consumed, the food speculators moved in. These offered rice on loan at 6.40 a kilo (the going retail price was 2.10 kilo, but it takes money to buy at that price, and these tenant farmers had none). This “loan” was to be paid back when the second harvest came in, but in cash, not rice. It meant selling the crop in the open market for the wholesale price (about 1.50 per kilo). The results were that they owed approximately 4 kilo’s of rice money for each kilo of rice they borrowed. The ethnic minorities including our brethren, had to deal with the food speculators because no one else was willing to deal with them. The stage was set for near-perpetual economic slavery. U.S. brethren, on learning of the situation, provided enough benevolent funds to break the hold of the food speculators on the brethren. The non-Christians were not so fortunate.

Three percent of the population comprise all the members of the various denominations and sects there. In this figure is included our brethren in Christ (of course, the Philippine Government looks on God’s children as just another denomination). These groups have little if any influence in politics. This is because of their small sizes, divisions, and the fact their thrust and interest go in other directions. This is specially true of brethren.

Until the mid-1960’s, those who held to the institutional position were pretty much in control of God’s people there. The Philippine Bible College (PBC) at Baguio City, had its tentacles in virtually all churches in that nation. The Americans who ran the PBC had close control over these churches. Then things began to change. Brethren there with little outside help and only their New Testaments to go.hy (what else should they have needed, really?) began to seethe authority of Christ prohibited many of those things being done by the school. The revolt against institutionalism spread rapidly. Yet the zeal of honest brethren was not only to fight against this evil, but also to get out and convert. And convert they did. Today,, the power of the liberals in that nation ,is broken so badly that the liberals are outnumbered on the order of ten to one, or more, by conservative brethren. The total number of congregations the liberals can claim, no matter how broad the definition, is less than 50. Some months ago, the liberals in Japan held a “Workshop.” Bob Nichols, a friend of mine for many years, was invited to attend, even though he opposed their institutional apostasy. While there, he heard several of the American liberals from the Philippines talk. One remarked, “The anti’s have taken over the Philippines.” The one who made the comment was not exactly happy about it. I am!

What I am trying to show is that it is not the easiest thing in the world for one to become a Christian in the Philippines, and it is likewise difficult for one to remain a faithful saint. The obstacles are many, especially by exposure to the political pressures of false religions. Likewise, the pressures from false brethren are strong against any who become and remain faithful Christians. I know brethren personally who have suffered at the hands of liberals, particularly by the Americans who run the Philippine Bible College, through political pressure brought on them because of their faithfulness to Christ.

Yet, inspite of the problems and the pressures, the Philippines today is one of the nations on earth where the fields are still white unto harvest. The people hunger to hear the gospel. In my own experience, I have known many to literally miss meals in order to hear Christ preached. Once becomming Christians, many continue to be subjected to the political pressure of the non-Christians and ungodly brethren. This is to be expected (2 Tim. 3:12). I wish this were limited to the liberals toward those who opposed their institutional apostasy. But that is not to be. What is most disturbing is to find brethren who claim to be conservative doing some of things to each other they do, in the name of religion. And as with those of false religions, the tactics of evil brethren are political. From among these, we have found men and women whose interest was not in salvation, but rather, to make godliness a way of gain (1 Tim. 6:5). See “Philippines: Salvation And Economics” for more details on this. Yet, the work continues, the church there grows and many are edified after entering Christ’s body.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 9, pp. 151-152
March 1, 1979

By Ron Halbrook

Hosea’s statement, “Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone,” provides the basis for the Ephraim’s Idols column (4:17). Hosea prophesied about 750 B.C., or about thirty years before the fall of Israel to Assyria. The leaven of a lawless or apostate spirit worked in Israel until she was not fit to save. Her devotion to the calf worship of Jeroboam I and to the Baal worship introduced by Ahab and Jezebel was her downfall. Her sin was not only spiritual adultery or unfaithfulness, but also spiritual whoredom or prostitution. That is, she sold herself to false religion in seeking the pleasures of sin and the promise of prosperity. She joined herself to idolatry and reveled in its rewards. “Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people: for thou bast gone a whoring from thy God, thou hast loved a reward upon every cornfloor” (9:1).

Graphic figures describe the awful condition of Israel, also called Samaria or Ephraim. The nation was a harlot, joined to idols (4:17); a half-baked cake, fit only to be thrown out (7:8); a silly, senseless dove, fluttering desperately here and there in search of safety (7:1 I); a wild ass, running off in self-willed stubbornness (8:9); a blighted plant, with dead roots and no hope of fruit (9:16); and, a luxuriant vine running and making display of itself, but worthless to the husbandman (10:1). Israel had sown the wind and would reap all the fury of the whirlwind (8:7; 12:1).

God’s lawsuit against Israel charged her with an apostate spirit and many lawless deed. Truth and loyalty had been supplanted by lying and immorality. Rebuke was pointless because ignored. Israel had forgotten “the law of thy God” and, therefore, was “destroyed for lack of knowledge” (4:6). Not only the people, but also the priests who encouraged sin for their own advantage would be cut off. “The spirit of whoredoms” or harlotry had caused Israel to err, and Judah was forewarned not to partake of that spirit (vv. 12, IS). “Since Israel is stubborn like a stubborn heifer, can the Lord now pasture them like a lamb in a large field? Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone.” Though the nation’s leaders “dearly love shame” – that is, they love the very things for which they should be ashamed – God will fill them with shame in destruction for their sins (vv. 16-19, HAS).

Ephraim, who stands for the nation, is hopeless; he is joined, or mated, to idols as a wife is joined to her husband. He is so hopelessly united with them that recovery now seems impossible. “Let him alone,” give him up to abandonment. This case is desperate, there is no hope (Homer Haily, The Minor Prophets, p. I51).

Israel found hope in its own solutions and was proud of its accomplishments. The prophet’s plea, the plea of God’s loving kindness, went unheeded. For, as Hosea explained, “Their deeds will not allow them to return to their God. For a spirit of harlotry is within them and they do not know the Lord” (5:4, NAS).

Rather than being old and dustry, the history of Israel is the’ record of current events! The first fifty years of the 19th century witnessed a call for the restoration of New Testament Christianity among all those professing to believe in Jesus Christ. Great strides were made. Thousands upon thousands gave up their denominational names, creeds, clergies, and councils in a return to Bible names, a simple confession of Jesus Christ, baptism into Him, and allegiance to Him and His word alone. Sadly, within the next fifty years an apostate spirit began to work as a leaven within the ranks of these simple Christians. Unity was destroyed as lawless deed were practiced and promoted. Missionary, benevolent, and edification societies centralized the work of local churches, compromising their autonomy in the name of “the great works we are doing.” These local churches lost their identity with the New Testament order of things in organization (Tit. 1:5). Instrumental music, choirs, and contests corrupted the simple plan of worship found in Scripture, as churches boasted, “But look how we’re growing.” The denominational concept of a local preacher serving as the lone “pastor” of a church supplanted the New Testament teaching on preachers, elders or pastors, and deacons. Efforts of such men as Benjamin Franklin, David Lipscomb, James A. Harding, and others who opposed apostasy did not succeed with many brethren.

Those determined to walk in the old paths came to the point of recognizing, with broken hearts, “Ephraim is join to idols.” A large segment of the restoration churches begun in the 19th century re-entered the border lands of conservative Protestant denominationalism with some misgivings or else settled down in that old country with comfort and pride. Such churches are generally known as Christian Churches or sometimes Church of christ (Instrumental) today. Another large group having historical roots in the restoration effort eventually joined the mainstream of liberal Protestantism and in 1968 proudly acknowledged full denominational status by means of an all-embracing organizational restructure. This group calls itself Disciples of Christ (Christian Church), or officially the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). By 1900 many brethren recognized that Ephraim was joined to his idols, left him alone, and began rebuilding the cause of New Testament Christianity.

Rebuilding according to the New Testament pattern of faith and practice continued with increasing zeal through the Second World War. Sadly, from about 1950 onward the spirit of apostasy worked in lawless deeds again: the work of churches was centralized through human institutions and “sponsoring” churches, and the spiritual mission of the church was gradually supplanted by social and recreational programs. After a quarter-century, many brethren have been forced to recognize with broken hearts, “Ephraim is joined to idols.” Efforts to warn and rebuke have been so ignored as to make them useless, in many quarters. When “their deeds will not allow them to return to their God” because of the “spirit of harlotry” within them, there is nothing to do but let them alone.

As we have turned to the task of rebuilding according to the New Testament pattern, a great many of us have lost track of Ephraim as he has pursued lawless deeds in an apostate spirit. While Ephraim may be too far gone into idolatry to return to New Testament teaching, we may still be instructed by his silly and stubborn course. “Though you, Israel, play the harlot, do not let Judah become guilty” (Hos. 4:15). The Ephraim’s Idols column will not generally give detailed reviews of apostate arguments from Scripture, but will give information as to Ephraim’s progress down the road of apostasy along with comments and observations. We do not intend to be totally negative, but wish as well to commend from time to time the efforts of faithful brethren in pursuing New Testament ideals. The best defense against the error of Ephraim’s Idols is a Scriptural offense in walking according to the Bible pattern in all things. Most of Ephraim’s Idols are imported from denominationalism, so we expect to make observations on some events among the denominations. Though our focus will be on Ephraim’s idols, we shall be free to commend the good and to urge fidelity to our Lord’s Word in every way. Building up all things good must complement pulling down the evil, or else the whole point of our labor is lost (Jer. 1:10)!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 9, pp. 149-150
March 1, 1979

By Mike Willis

We have previously studied the subject of the all-sufficiency of the church from two points of view. First of all, I showed that the church which God created was perfect in that God made it adequate to do what He intended for it to do. The imperfections in the church are all human, the same kind of imperfections which will exist in any other institution and which cannot be avoided or improved by the creation of some other organization. Secondly, I demonstrated that the apostasies which have occurred with reference to the missionary societies and sponsoring church arrangements for evangelism were borne of unbelief. The leaders of these movements were men who became convinced that they could improve upon the all-sufficient church. They were convinced that the church as it was given to us by God was unable to do the work which God gave it to do. Hence, they thought that they could improve upon it.

However, we are presently being faced with another perversion pertaining to the all-sufficiency of the church. Brethren have become convinced that such organizations as Florida College, Cog dill Foundation, Vanguard, etc. are sinful because they deny the all-sufficiency of the church. This conclusion is borne out of a misunderstanding of the meaning of the all-sufficiency of the church. Hence, we need to give it some of our attention at the present.

To some, the statement of the all-sufficiency of the church means that no other group can be formed which distributes the word of God without cost. For another group to be formed to distribute the Bible without cost is a manifest dissatisfaction with the church as God gave it to man, according to some. But, what do we mean when we speak of the all-sufficiency of the church? Is the church all-sufficient to be a football team? Is the church all-sufficient to meet all of the benevolent needs of the entire world? Is the church all-sufficient to distribute the Bible? Just what do we mean when we speak of the all-sufficiency of the church?

When we speak of the all-sufficiency of the church, we simply mean that the local church is able to do whatever work God gave it to do. The local congregation is all-sufficient to evangelize a given community; the local church is all-sufficient to take care of its own benevolent needs (understood of course is the idea that one local church can help another local church relieve its needy) without organizing institutions to that work for them; the local church is all-sufficient to do its own edifying without the necessity of creating “edification societies” to which the local congregation sends a donation for that society to do its work for it.

However, does the statement that the church is all-sufficient to do its own work imply that no one else can do any of these works? Has a man denied the all-sufficiency of the church when he goes out to relieve a needy member of the body of Christ? Has a man denied the all-sufficiency of the church when he goes out to teach his neighbor? If not, why would we conclude that the all-sufficiency of the local church was denied if two men pooled their resources to do these same works? Yet, my brethren, some among us have concluded that men do not believe in the all-sufficiency of the church in the event that several of them pool their resources to conduct a tent meeting in an area which does not have a local church!

When such an event has happened, what part of the local church’s work has been said to be such that the local congregation is unable to discharge its work in that area! Have I stated that the local church of which I am a member is insufficient to do its work in evangelism if I start doing some work in evangelism myself? If not, why is the all-sufficiency of the church denied when several of us work together to accomplish this same purpose? When several men pool their resources to conduct a tent meeting somewhere, in what regard have they said that the local churches of which they are members respectively are insufficient to do their respective local works?

I know of an occasion in which a local church was burdened with supporting many gospel preachers when another preacher came requesting support to do work overseas. The elders looked at their budget and said that they were unable to help him at the present. One of the members of that local church opened a checking account for the preacher and put some money in it each month for him. Several others participated in this as well by giving him money to forward to this man. How does such an arrangement indict the all-sufficiency of the church?

The Local Congregation or the Church Universal?

Sometimes when brethren make their charges about certain works denying the all-sufficiency of the church, they manifest a certain attitude toward the given work that implies that the church universal is organizationally to be involved in a universal work. For example, brethren state that Florida College’s Bible Department is a denial of the all-sufficiency of the church. The fact that Florida College is preaching the gospel is somehow seen to be a denial of the all-sufficiency of the church in the fields of evangelism or edification. Similarly, when Cogdill Foundation sent tracts to some Filopinos several years ago, some brethren said that this manifested a denial of the all-sufficiency of the church to be the pillar and ground of the truth.

But, I ask, which local church’s work was Cogdill Foundation doing when we sent tracts to someone in the Philippines? Have the members of that local church repented for not doing that work? Similarly, which local church am I charging to be insufficient to do its local work when I believe that Florida College can conduct a lectureship or teach Bible classes? Please give me the name and address of the local church which I am saying that is insufficient to do its work when I state that these works can be done by these groups!

The fact of the matter is that these brethren shift to a universal usage of the word “church” when they speak about the alt-sufficiency of the church. Florida College denies the all-sufficiency of the universal church when it teaches the Bible; Cogdill Foundation in the Philippines. But where did God ever give the universal church any work to do?

Here is the dilemma of these brethren who so misunderstand the all-sufficiency of the church: (1) they have no name of a given local church which is being said to be in-sufficient to do its local work when such works are done by others and (2) they have no work given to the church universal which makes it possible for them to say that the work of the universal church is being denied when such works are performed by others.

The Church Is All-Sufficient To Do Its Work

The church is all-sufficient to do its work. It is not all-sufficient to do works that do not belong exclusively to the church. It is not all-sufficient to do works which God did not give it to do. What we mean by the all-sufficiency of the church is that the local congregation is fully capable to carry out the work which God gave it to do – it is capable to evangelize and edify; it is capable to meet its benevolent responsibilities without organizing human institutions to do those works for them.

When human institutions are organized and maintained without involvement in local church’s work, I do not see how they deny the all-sufficiency of the church. They are organized to do a work separate and apart from a local church’s work; they are supported without involvement of church funds; they are not organized to do the work of any given congregation; they are not overseen by any given congregation; they are not promoted by any given congregation; they are not attached formally or informally to any given church or churches. Consequently, on what basis can such organizations be considered to be a denial of the all-sufficiency of the church? The only way that I see that they could possibly be considered a denial of the all-sufficiency of the church would be to speak of the church’s work on universal terms, something which we have sought to avoid in all of our discussions on institutionalism and the sponsoring church.

These brethren charge the liberals with sin by “seeking to activate the church universal” in their building of human institutions. They then turn right around and use the premise of the activation of the church universal to oppose organizations such as Cogdill Foundation, Vanguard, and Florida College. They cannot have it both ways. They must either admit the right of the church universal to be activated, in which case they can use this argument to oppose Cogdill Foundation, Vanguard, Florida College, etc. but must quit using it against the liberals; or, they must deny that the church universal can be activated, in which case they cannot use this argument against the aforementioned organizations but can continue to use it to expose the heresy of the missionary society and the sponsoring church.

Indeed, some among us do misunderstand the all-sufficiency of the church. Some misunderstand it by building human institutions to do the work which God gave the local church to do. Others misunderstand the all-sufficiency of the church by reaching radical positions which deny that any human institution can distribute the gospel. The logical position to which these brethren are forced is to make the local church responsible for the sole distribution of God’s word. It is responsible for translating the word, printing the word, and distributing it without cost to any person. In the event that some human institution becomes involved in these activities, those institutions are to that degree sinful because they are doing the work of the church. Let us reconsider what we mean when we speak of the all-sufficiency of the church.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 9, pp. 147-149
March 1, 1979