Truth Magazine

By Earl Robertson

God, through Isaiah, appealed unto Israel saying, “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” He further declares, “. . . my word . . . shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Isa. 55:7-11).

God’s right to demand the sinner to “forsake his way” is His sovereign right! He is God. God’s appeal in this matter for man to yield and submit is urged on the ground of heaven-wide differences between God and man and the thinking of God and man. Some were willing to admit the difference and stand corrected; others did not yield-the reason being their unwillingness to “let God be true and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

God has plainly spoken to man. Man can understand what God has caused to be spoken to him (Eph. 3:2-6). It seems strange to the Almighty God could not reveal himself to man in as comprehensible language as man himself can speak. How can man speak plainer than his own Maker can? Yet, this is the very feeling one has having listened to some religious guides. They read aloud what the Bible says but it means nothing to them if they wish to engage in something contrary to it. With just a flip of the page the word of God is set aside and a human dogma substituted in its place. This is done without the slightest blush, but not with impunity! This incongruous action engaged by preachers and others is done in the name of righteousness! Who can believe it is right?

Jesus plainly says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:15, 16), but man says “He that believeth is saved and may be baptized if he wishes to do so.” Both statements are not true. Which is right? The Bible says “availing prayers are for the righteous”. (James 5:16), but preachers tell sinners to pray through to salvation. Which is right? Compare John 9:31 with this. God’s way is true, right, workable. Try it and reject the dogmas of men for your blessings.

Truth Magazine XXII: 31, p. 503
August 10, 1978

By Larry Ray Hafley

Our title is that of an article written by a Missionary Baptist preacher, L. R. Riley. It appeared in the Baptist Herald, May 3, 1978. The arguments advanced are not new. They have been advocated and answered scores of times. A few may think that no such teaching must be considered today. Some think that what appears below is not being taught, but it is as the article proves. Now, the article by Mr. Riley.

“The study of churches is a very live and interesting subject today. I offer you the following scriptures that have to do with the church built by Jesus and that has been on the earth since He built it. The scriptures in Zechariah 6:12, 13; Matthew 16:18; Luke 1:17, 6:12, 13; and John 17:4 show that Jesus built his church while he was on the earth and finished his work.

“His churches were sufficient for all man’s needs and had not men begun to establish imitation churches all of the saved would be together in work and worship to the glory and praise of our God.

“In studying the churches of today I find that Baptists are the only ones without a human head, who put blood before water in salvation, and who say that a man is saved without belonging to any kind of a church. ‘If any man be in Christ Jesus he is a new creature.’ (2 Corinthians 5:17).

“It is my conviction that Baptist churches are true New Testament Churches. How can I be sure? What are the tests by which we can know whether a church is New Testament or not?

“Four things must be true concerning a church if it is to be considered New Testament in origin. They are:

“(1) It must be built by Jesus Christ. Matthew 16:18.

“(2) It must be built on Jesus Christ. Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 2:20.

“(3) It must have been built when Jesus was upon the earth. John 17:4.

“(4) Since Jesus was in Palestine, it must of necessity, have been built in Palestine.

“Many people tell me that there is no difference in churches. In one sense that may be true, but I suggest to you that a church is a product of Jesus and not man. The organizations built by men can never rise any higher than that of a society. You do not have to belong to a Baptist church to be saved, but may I suggest the name “Baptist’ is the only scriptural name for a baptized believer. The name was given to the world by the Lord Himself, Matthew 3:1, before John had ever baptized anyone. In this study, if you find any fault of mine, please give me the information and I will correct it.”

Answer To First Paragraph

Note the scriptures given to “show that Jesus built his church while he was on the earth.”

(1) Zechariah 6:12, 13: “And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord: Even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” Christ shall come from God; He shall build the temple, bear the glory, sit and rule on his throne and shall be a priest on his throne. Yes, but not “while he was upon the earth.” Jesus did not enter into His glory until after His death (Lk. 24:26; Isa. 53:10-12). The glory He was to bear was “the glory that should follow” His sufferings (1 Pet. 1:11). Further, Christ could not sit and rule and be a priest upon His throne while “he was on the earth,” as Riley says. Why not? “For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there be priests that offer gifts according to the law” (Heb. 8:4). Zechariah stresses where the Christ shall rule as King and serve as priest “upon his throne.” Jesus did not ascent to the throne until after His resurrection (Acts 2:29-36). Therefore, He did not build the temple while “he was on the earth.”

(2) Matthew 16:18: “. . . And upon this rock I will build my church . . . .” Jesus said He would build His church, but He did not say when. He certainly did not say, “I will do it `while’ I am `on the earth.’ “

(3) Luke 1:17: “And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” This speaks of the preparatory work of John the Baptist, but does not say the church would be built “while” Jesus was “on the earth.”

(4) Luke 6:12, 13: “And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles.” According to Baptist doctrine, this represents the establishment of the church. It is simply what it says, i.e., a calling of His disciples and the choosing of the apostles. No mention is made of the church being established in this text. This creates a “very live and interesting” dilemma for Mr. Riley. If Luke 6:12, 13 proves the church was then established, why did Jesus say, nearly a full year later, “I will build my church?” Matthew 16:18 was spoken a year after the calling of the twelve. Also, in Luke 10:9, the Lord said the kingdom was “come nigh” or “at hand.” Why say that if it was in existence as early as Luke 6:12,13?

Mr. Riley gives his texts a definite order: Zechariah 6:12, 13,’prophecy of the church; Matthew 16:18, promise of the church; Luke 1:17, preparation of the church; Lk. 6:12, 13; John 17:4, creation and completion of the church. But he fails to notice that Matthew was spoken afer Luke 6:12, 13.

Answer To Second Paragraph

True. Agreed.

Answer To Third Paragraph

So, Jesus is the head of the Baptist church only. He is not the head -of the Methodist Church or of any other church. Talk about those narrow-minded Campbellites!

Mr. Riley puts them all to shame since “Baptists are the only ones without a human head.” Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Lutherans, are you listening? You have never heard a gospel preacher make a bolder claim than Mr. Riley has made, yet you will “brother” him and bother us. Why?

“Blood before water in salvation” — I suppose if one teaches that baptism in water is an essential condition of pardon that he is guilty of putting “water before blood in salvation.” That is undoubtedly Mr. Riley’s point. The Baptist Herald might tell us whether or not Baptists “put repentance and faith before blood in salvation.” If baptism is accepted as one of the terms of pardon, then one is charged with putting water before blood in salvation. Well, if repentance and faith are taught as terms of pardon, are not the Baptists convicted of putting repentance and faith “before blood in salvation?”

Baptists “say that a man can be saved without belonging to any kind of a church.” That knocks out a Baptist Church, too. Being in Christ is the same thing as being in his body, the church (2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 12:13).

“Three Things Must Be True”

(1) There is no proof that Jesus built a Baptist Church. He built His church. It is “New Testament in origin,” but that does not mean it is a Baptist Church.

(2) Again, true; but this does not establish that Baptist churches are built on Jesus. We have shown that the Lord’s church could not have been built while Jesus was upon the earth. Jesus’ work was finished in that He had concluded His teaching and was committed to go to the cross. It was now in the hands of the Father to raise and glorify His Son. However, even if the church was established while Jesus was on earth, this would not prove it was a Baptist Church.

(3) Isaiah 28:16 gives us information as to the beginning of the church as does Isaiah 2:2-4 and Luke 24:46-49. But regardless of that, if the church had been built in Rome, it would not prove it was a Baptist Church.

“The Only Scriptural Name”

Mr. Riley becomes even more bold when he suggesteth, “May I suggest the name ‘Baptist’ is the only scriptural name for a baptized believer.” What? The name “Methodist” is not scriptural? No, nor neither Presbyterian, Lutheran, or Pentecostal-they are all unscriptural. But so is the name “Christian!” For, if “the name `Baptist’ is the only scriptural name for a baptized believer,” then the name “Christian” is as unscriptural as the name “Episcopalian.” Evidently the New Testament writers did not know that “Baptist” is the only scriptural name. They never called a single baptized believer a Baptist. No, not one. Peter said, “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God on this behalf;” or “in this name” (1 Pet. 4:16-ASV). The name Baptist was not given to the world in Matthew 3:1 or anywhere else. It was given to John. He was “the Baptist,” not a Baptist. He was “the baptizer” simply because he baptized people (Mk. 6:24-ASV). Where did Mr. Riley learn that the name “Baptist” is the only scriptural name? Where did he learn that God gave it “to the world?” Where?

We have found fault with Mr. Riley’s article and supplied the information he requested. Now, will the Baptist Herald see that his study is corrected as promised?

Truth Magazine XXII: 31, pp. 503-505
August 10, 1978

By Roland Worth, Jr.

Very few people will take the time and effort to defend the existence of humanly composed creeds. A notable exception is Arnold T. Olson, head of the Evangelical Free Church of America. In his book, This We Believe: The Background and Exposition of the Doctrinal Statement of the Evangelical Free Church of America, he defends at length the right of churches to have such creeds (Free Church Publications, Minneapolis, Minnesota: 1961). Although he lumps his arguments under only a few major headings, it will help in a study of them if we break them down into smaller units of thought.

The first thing that is notable about his defense of creeds is that nowhere does he cite book, chapter, and verse authorizing a church to adopt such creeds. It has been said (and it continues to need to be repeated in the future) that to have a creed and to fully believe in the authority of the Bible is a contradiction in terms. If a creed says less than the Bible it is an act of sacrilege against the Divine Author of the Scriptures; if it says more than the Bible it is an act of insubordination and rebellion against being confined to that which the Spirit has revealed; if the creed is identical with the Bible there is no need to have it at all.

However if a substantial body of people want something they will soon find a justification for it. Their reasoning may be far fetched but they will still be able to find something, somewhere to hang their position upon. So it is not surprising that though there is no legislative authority given to the church by the Bible, that men have invented rationales by which to defend the existence of their creeds. We will. quote those of Mr. Olson at length so that there can be no question that we have given him a fair hearing.

1. An unwillingness to commit oneself to a creed indicates an unwillingness to be committed. “Through the centuries the very idea of a creed has been under attack . . . This is an age of emphasis on freedom and freedom from conscience. It is a time when strong convictions are considered reactionary. Theology is taught on a cafeteria basis. ‘Here it is, take what you like, leave the rest.’ It is a period when men refuse to commit themselves. The example set by the teachers of our universities in refusing to commit themselves through the loyalty oaths is reflected more and more by the graduates in refusing to commit themselves positively to a statement of faith” (p. 17).

None of us would deny that spiritual cowardliness is present in some opposers of creeds. However the reasons we oppose creeds are at least three in number: (a) They divert attention from reliance on the Bible; (b) Due to their long usage, they become a center of loyalty in competition with the Bible and thereby make needed doctrinal change impossible; (c) They are wrong if they contain anything different (either more or less) than the Bible and not needed if they contain the same. If for us to deny the need for creeds indicates a lack of spiritual commitment, what does it indicate that Paul, Peter, and none of the other apostles who ever wrote or endorsed a creed? Are we to attribute to them doctrinal cowardliness? Of course not! Then let us not simplistically dismiss opposition to creeds today with such a charge. Let us hear the charge leveled only against those to whom it is genuinely applicable.

2. Everyone has a creed even if he doesn’t call it by that name. “Everyone has a creed of some sort. He has a conviction even if it be that he has no creed!” (p. 23). So what? There are things that I believe in very firmly, but that is not the question at issue. That question is by what right do I prepare and bind on others that which I hold to be true. If I can convince them through scripture that I am right then they have the moral obligation to accept what their mind tells them is the truth. But creeds do not reply on the power of argument to bind others. They demand blind loyalty, period. They cannot argue. They cannot defend. They cannot repent if they err. Men can. So the fact that we all have things we believe in does not prove that such beliefs should be placed in writing and bound on others as a test of fellowship.

3. The mere statement of belief in the scriptures does not produce conformity as to what is believed. “Even among those who agree as to the fact that the Bible, the Old and New Testament, is the Word of God, there is wide disagreement as to what the Bible teaches. There was, for example, a wide difference in the understanding of the atonement among our founders in spite of the fact that they ‘accepted the Bible, both the Old and the New Testament, as the Word of God.’ While, as the history states, the leaders also accepted the Bible as the final authority on all matters of doctrine, they were anything but dogmatically agreed on many of the doctrines that are taken for granted today” (p. 26).

First of all, the existence of a creed only allows us to authoritatively know what that creed teaches. But just because a creed teaches something does absolutely nothing to prove that the Scriptures teach the same thing. Book, chapter, and verse have to be cited for that and that can be done without the existence of a creed.

Second of all, just because a creed teaches something does not mean that everyone who swears loyalty to it will really believe it. People can (and do)! “interpret” their way around creeds just like they do scripture. So how in the world can we contend that scripture is “inadequate” because people can find excuses to avoid accepting the clear Will of God?

For the record, it should be noted that Olson admits that creeds can be undermined; he said, “A creed is not the solution to doctrinal questions nor does it end theological controversies. A creed does not guarantee orthodoxy in any group; it merely publishes what the organization considers to be of sound doctrine. In fact, some church bodies which today would deny the virgin birth of Christ, the inspiration of the Scriptures, and classify the Bible story of creation as a myth have official doctrinal statements which would be acceptable in the most evangelical circles” (p. 42). If creeds cannot produce uniformity then we should not introduce such an argument against accepting the Bible as our sole religious standard!

4. The Bible itself contains doctrinal summaries. Olson cites four passages (p 26). 1 Cor. 8:6; 12:13; 2 Tim. 2:5-6; 1 Tim. 3:16. First of all, none of these contain even half of what we find in creeds! 1 Cor. 8:6 only deals with the legitimacy of monotheism and how that all things were created by Christ. 1 Cor. 12:13 only deals with the fact that all are baptized into one body. 1 Tim. 2:5-6 only deals with the facts that there is one God, one mediator (Jesus), and how that Jesus became a ransom for us. 1 Tim. 3:16 gives a brief summary of Christ’s life and conquest that sounds more like a Psalm that a creed! Neither of the passages from Timothy mention how we are saved. The second passage from Timothy does not even mention God the Father. Look at what all these passages lack! None of them would satisfy men as a creed today! So it is completely preposterous to appeal to them as precedents for our having creeds. Furthermore, these Biblical statements were written by inspiration. Is the creed of Mr. Olson’s church or that of any church? Of course not! Only through following what is inspired can we be certain that we are doing right.

These few passages from the Bible are not a creed; the entire Bible (taken together) constitutes our creed. And that should be our only creed! For therein we hear God speaking. In human creeds we only hear the voice of human beings speak, with all the prejudices and biases that go with it.

5. “The creed provides a confession of faith” (p. 33). Doesn’t the Bible do the same? Is that which is written by inspiration an inferior confession of faith to those of purely human composition?

6. The church was founded on a confession. In reference to Matt. 16:16-18, Olson comments, “The church is built on the foundation of a confessed faith in Jesus Christ. This is often overlooked” (p. 33). Firstly, this was not a written creed that men were expected to swear loyalty to. Second, inspiration was involved. Of Peter’s confession, Christ said, “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which art in heaven” (v. 17). Can Mr. Olson claim inspiration for his creed? If he can (and if he can make the claim stick), he would have a valid parallel. Thirdly, this was not what we today know as a creed: It deals only with Christ’s relationship to the Father, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Do you know of any denominational creed that consists only of a reference to Christ’s supernaturalness?

7. “The creed provides a summary of the teachings of the scripture” (p. 34). But an uninspired men describe God’s will as well as inspired writers? Can uninspired men be sure that they are writing a creed that accurately reflects what God would want in such a creed? To which of the creed writers has He spoken in the soft stillness of the night? Is God so ignorant that He could not perceive that men need a creed while men such as Mr. Olson can? However you cut it, it comes down to a reflection on the knowledge and competence of God Himself. If creeds were one-half as vital as denominationalists make them out to be, it would have been a supreme act of incompetence on His part not to have revealed such a creed in the apostolic writings.

8. Christ provides, in essence, an example of what creed writers do. “While the Bible is the `complete revelation of God’s will for the salvation of men,’ this revelation does not suddenly appear in a capsule form at a given point in the Scriptures. The revelation is a progressive one throughout the entire book. A creed, without going into great detail, including chapters and verses, presents the sum total of that revelation. None other than Christ Himself set the example in using this form of teaching truth. When asked which of the commandments was the most important, He replied by giving a summary of the entire teaching of the law and the prophets: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’ (Matthew 22:37-38)” (p. 34-35).

Look at the differences between this and the creeds of today: (a) Jesus spoke by inspiration of the Spirit; creed writers do not. (b) Jesus did not turn to Levi, tell him to put the “creed” in writing, and order the apostles to “sign on the dotted line or get lost.” Christ taught authoritatively and it was because of His authority that men accepted His teaching, not because it was reduced to a written form. (c) Can you name one group around today that would consider Christ’s “creed” summary sufficient as a creed? Clearly what men mean by “creeds” is different from anything Christ’s example would justify!

9. “The creed provides a common testimony as to the official position of the church on the doctrines in question ” (p. 35). “Having been prepared by a duly elected group of representatives of the churches and studied, discussed, and adopted by the chosen delegates of the churches in democratic assembly, the creed is authoritative in character” (p. 35). Humbug. Any religious claim (whether it be in an article like mine or in a creed) is authoritative only to the extent that it faithfully and fully echoes the teaching of Scripture. Nothing can be genuinely authoritative in the field of religion that is not identical with scriptural teaching.

Whether a creed is democratically adopted is not the basis issue. Democracies have been known to be wrong! The real issue is twofold: (a) Does the creed accurately reflect what the Bible teaches? (b) By what Biblical authority does any church adopt a creed instead of relying on the Scriptures alone? Democratic majorities have been wrong; the masses have erred time and again. (And if you do not think they have erred just ask anybody who votes for the loser in a race for public office!) “Democracy” is no substitute for Divine authority.

10. “The creed provides a test of orthodoxy to be used in such areas where actual authority exists” (p. 38). But by what right is any human product a proper ground on which to determine orthodoxy? God has warned that our ways are not His ways (Isa. 55:8-9). Why in the world do we believe that our religious concepts are an exception to this principle?

One writer quoted by Olson comments. “In like manner, a creed saves the Christian community from lawlessness. It provides a thought out norm within which the lines of orthodoxy and heterodoxy are measured” (p. 40). However Olson himself admits that the existence of creeds does not assure that members and leaders will accept the doctrines contained therein (quoted in section three above). A creed no more will save the believer from heresy than the Bible will. Anything can and will be perverted by those unwilling to accept it.

Conclusion

We have surveyed the arguments introduced by a denominational President in defense of having creeds. We have found his arguments inconsistent with admissions that he makes. In other cases we have found that the texts he introduces would never be accepted by any church today as an adequate creedal statement. In short, his evidence does not establish the propriety of having humanly prepared creeds.

Creeds are always dangerous. They become an authority that is appealed to and in practice easily becomes a substitute for scripture. Ask a denominational leader what he believes and more likely than not he will cite his creed. People have enough obstacles in the way of faith in the Bible without religious leaders writing creeds that will divert their thought away from what should be the center of their attention.

Truth Magazine XXII: 31, pp. 506-508
August 10, 1978

By Irvin Himmel

There is an appropriate time for long hymns and for short hymns, for long prayers and for short prayers, for long sermons and for short sermons, for long admonitions and for short admonitions, for long compositions and for short compositions. Interestingly, the longest and shortest chapters in the Bible are in the same book and separated by only one other chapter. The longest chapter is Psa. 119, having 176 verses; the shortest is Psa. 117, having two verses.

Let us give some thought to the Bible’s shortest chapter.

O praise the Lord, all ye nations: praise him, all ye people. For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Praise ye the Lord.

God Is To Be Praised

This thought is the beginning and the end of the psalm. Three times in this exceptionally short chapter the psalmist exhorts that praise be offered to God. To praise God means to give honor, adoration, and glory to Him. It means to laud, magnify, or extol. It includes thanksgiving, homage, and expressions of acclaim.

The Bible is filled with examples of men offering praise to false gods. The ancient Philistines worshiped a god called Dagon. When they captured Samson, they sacrificed to Dagon, and “they praised their god” (Judg. 16:24). In the days when Belshazzar was king of Babylon, the sacred vessels taken from the house of God at Jerusalem were used in a drunken feast. “They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone” (Dan. 5:4). Daniel said to Belshazzar, “But thou hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified” (Dan. 5:23).

Only the true God is to be praised. The New Testament teaches that by Christ we are to “offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name” (Heb. 13:15).

Who Is To Praise God

The Israelites were taught through the law to praise God. The little psalm we are studying looks beyond the narrow limits of Israel living under the law to the gospel age. It takes on a Messianic character by admonishing, “O praise the Lord, all ye nations; praise him, all ye people.” This infers the calling of the Gentiles. It looks to the Messiah’s kingdom in which Jews and Gentiles would be united and all would join in glorifying Jehovah.

In Rom. 15, Paul showed that with one mind and one mouth we are to glorify God. We are to receive one another, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, just as Christ has received both Jews and Gentiles to the glory of God. Paul quoted some Old Testament passages pointing to the calling of the Gentiles. In verse I1 he quoted from Psa. 117:1, “Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles, with his people.” This quotation makes it certain that the psalmist was not speaking exclusively of Israel in his admonitions to praise the Lord.

Why God Is To Be Praised

Obviously, God is to be praised because He is our Creator. In Him we live, move, and have our being (Acts 17:28). But the writer of the shortest chapter in the Bible does not discuss this point. He calls upon us to think on two additional reasons for offering praise to God.

First, “God’s merciful kindness is great toward us.” The Israelites should have realized vividly how merciful and kind Jehovah was. He set His affection on them. He brought them out of Egypt. He gave them the promised land. Time and again He passed over their iniquities. He was longsuffering. He was willing to take them back after they had committed spiritual whoredom. We, too, should be aware of His merciful kindness. He is rich in mercy (Eph. 2:4). Think of His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:7). By His grace, mercy, and kindness He sent Jesus to die for us and to provide the way of salvation.

Second, “the truth of the Lord endureth for ever.” God is reliable, truthful, dependable. His promises never fail. His revelation of divine truth will stand when the grass has withered, the flower has fallen, and the earth has melted with fervent heat (1 Pet. 1:23-25).

Conclusion

The shortest chapter in the Bible is not short on value. It teaches important lessons that mankind needs to learn. Some folks are long on praising themselves but short on praising God. The first-century disciples were “praising God” when daily additions were being made to the church (Acts 2:47). Paul and Silas prayed and sang praises to God at midnight in the lonely Philippian prison (Acts 16:25). The beloved John heard a voice out of the throne of heaven saying, “Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great” (Rev. 19:5). The shortest chapter goes to the heart of man’s privilege and duty to praise his God.

Truth Magazine XXII: 32, p. 518
August 17, 1978