Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

The church which meets at the Dunn Road Chapel, Hazelwood, Missouri, has long been under the influence of Carl Ketcherside’s cancerous errors (2 Tim. 2:17). That church’s “Winter Youth Study” for 1972 (complete with “the Melody Boys Quartet”) featured “Carl Ketcherside” and “Gordon Wilson.” “Rod Langston” and “Bernie Crum” also spoke. Brother Wilson’s dissimulation is long overdue in coming to light, and his remarks on faith and works long overdue in being reviewed (Gal. 2:13). Gordon is not the only one guilty of such compromise, but he must face his responsibility for such conduct lest others be “carried away with their dissimulation.”

Instead of reviewing brief quotations from Gordon’s speech, I am giving the reader the full text of his loose statements on faith and works. The following paragraphs have been transcribed (and checked several times) from a tape of that speech.

Transcription of the Part of Gordon Wilson’s Lesson Dealing With Faith and Works

“Then, again, we often consider in harmonizing a pair of contradictions, the time element that is involved in the making of apparently contradictory statements. You see, what is true at one time may not be true at another time. And visa-versa. There may be something that is true of a person in one condition or at one time in his life that would not be true of him in another condition or at another time in his life.

“An example of this is, the supposed discrepancy so often called to our attention between James and, Paul on the subject of faith and works. Of course, Paul said in Ephesians chapter 2, ‘By grace have you been saved through faith, that not of yourselves it is the gift of God, not of works that no man should boast.’ While on the other hand; James said in James the second chapter, ‘You see then that man is justified by works and not by faith only.’ Now isn’t that a contradiction regarding justification between James and Paul?

“Well, I think not, because they are talking about two different time periods in the lives of the people who they addressed. When Paul writes his statement in Ephesians with reference to the fact that you’re saved by grace through faith, not of works, that no man should glory, he said, ‘For by grace have you been saved through faith.’ He’s talking about their salvation in the place and the time where they came into Jesus Christ. On the other hand, James, when he said that one is justified by works, is not addressing the alien sinner nor is he talking about what the alien sinner does. But, he’s addressing brethren in Christ Jesus and talking about that which justifies us in Christ as servants of the Lord responding to the salvation which is by faith.

“The word ‘works,’ Paul and James agree on. Neither man nor any other New Testament writer ever uses the word ‘works,’ with approval of the obedience of an alien sinner. Never! Look it up in your concordance, my friend. The Bible never speaks of works with approval as a means for salvation from sin. It isn’t there. It does speak of the obedience of faith. And it does talk about faith which means not merely believing evidence but submitting one’s whole life in submission and, obedience, with all that involved that is included in becoming a child of God. But when James says we’re justified by works, he’s talking about the only kind of works there are . . . (unintelligible phrase, possibly “for the Christian,” “for the child of God,” or the like). The Christian works in response to what God has given him and he works for the Lord. But human works didn’t save him, God’s grace through man’s exercised faith is what saved him.

“James and Paul agree one hundred percent. But they’re talking about two different times in a person’s life. And the time element makes the difference, and discounts the contradiction.”

James: “Works” for Saints Only?

First, faith, any faith, whether of an alien or a saved one, must be accompanied by “works” (obedience) or it is dead. Anyone who thinks otherwise is “vain” (Jas. 2:20). True, James is writing to Christians (Jas. 1:1,2; 2:1; 3:1; 5:12,19), but he is not writing specifically of the faith of a saint; but of all faith. Any faith that hath not works is dead, being alone. James uses demons for an example. May we not safely assume ‘they would classify as “alien sinners?” Well, James says their faith is dead because it is alone; that is, not accompanied by works, obedience.

Second, one is “justified by faith” in becoming a Christian (Rom. 5:1). One saved stands “by faith” (2 Cor. 1:24; Rom. 11:20). Both the one saved by faith and the one standing by faith must have “works” (obedience) or their faith is dead. The statement by Habakkuk is quoted by Paul and applied to the initial justification provided in Christ, not by the works of the law (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). But this same principle is inherent in the life of those who have been justified by faith. How do they continue to live? The Hebrew writer says, “Now the just shall live by faith” (Heb. 10:38). In this text he is talking to those who “were illuminated” (Heb. 10:32). So, the justification by faith, “the just shall five by faith,” is applicable to both saint and sinner (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38).

Third, Gordon Wilson says no alien sinner is ever said to be justified by works. Well, if “Rahab the harlot” was not an alien sinner who is said to have been “justified by works,” then I have misread James 2:25. Look it up in your New Testament!

What’s the Difference Between “Exercised Faith” and “Works”?

Fourth, Brother, Wilson speaks of “exercised faith” on the part of the alien in becoming a Christian. What he calls “exercised faith,” James and I call a “working faith.” Observe a parallel quote of Gordon’s statement: “God’s grace through man’s, exercised (obedient, working) faith is what saved him.” I dare say it would take a good bit of “works” and “exercising” to explain the difference between an “exercised faith” and an “obedient or working faith.”

Fifth, Gordon Wilson’s fundamental error is that he thinks James and Paul are “talking about two different times in a person’s life.” It is not two different periods of time, but two different kinds of works that Paul and James are discussing. Both Paul and James quote Genesis 15:6. Paul says it proves justification without works (Rom. 4:1-5). James says it proves justification by works (Jas: 2:20-22). Is this two different times in the life of a person? No, it is the same time in the life of the same man (Abraham). It is two kinds of works, but it is not two different times.

Both Wrong and Inconsistent

In debate, Baptists have made the same argument Gordon has made here. Of course, their end (conclusion) was not the same, but that is only because Gordon is inconsistent with the general thrust of his argument. Baptists are wrong and consistent in their conclusions. Gordon is both wrong and inconsistent: A good Baptist debater could take Gordon’s claim that “works” never refers to an alien’s obedience, and whip him from pillar to post and back again!

Truth Magazine, XX:7, p. 9-10
February 12, 1976

By Dick Blackford

Question: Where in the Bible do you find authority for a young Christian woman to teach an older Christian woman?

Answer: The subject of women teaching has long been a controversial thing. This question which we had to deal with recently indicates that it will probably continue to be. It is so controversial that when the subject arises many always take a negative approach and automatically begin thinking of ways in which she may be restricted. It rarely dawns on them to take a positive view as to what is a woman’s duty regarding teaching (and she does have a duty to teach!). It seems to be a “cart-before-the horse” situation. Many are more concerned about the exception than they are about the rule. The thing is approached backwards. They leave undone the “weightier matters” (her obligation to teach – and how weighty a matter that is!) so that the most important thing is completely overshadowed by a cloud of controversy and confusion over an exception. It becomes a matter of majoring in minors and minoring in majors. The exception gets all the attention and the rule is forgotten to such a degree that some women have even concluded that they have no obligation to teach whatsoever. That is a sad and tragic thing to me. They may ridicule the digressive, brother who says “it is better to do something wrong than to do nothing at all” but they take an equally erroneous view when they feel that “it is better to do, nothing at all than to ‘do something’ wrong.” Both views are damnable. Actually, it is better to do what is right than to do wrong or to do nothing.

So, perhaps for the . first time in your life, let’s approach it positively by talking about her obligation to teach. Notice:

1) The Great Commission obligates her to teach both saints and sinners (Mt. 28:19,20).

2) Acts 8:1-4 is an approved example of both men and women teaching.

3) Priscilla taught Apollos (Acts 18:26).

4) She should teach her children (Titus 2:4).

5) She should teach her husband (1 Pet: 3:1; Titus 2:4).

6) She should “be ready always to give an answer. . . .” (1 Pet. 3:15).

7) She is commanded to teach in singing (Col. 3:16).

8) The term “men” in 2 Tim. 2:2 authorizes her to teach as it is the Greek word anthropos, which means “without distinction of sex. A human being, whether male or female” (Thayer, p. 46).

9) 2 Tim. 2:24 says the “Lord’s servant must be apt to teach. . . .”

The New Testament has a lot to say about a woman’s responsibility to teach. In short, a woman is as much obligated to teach as is a man, unless there are passages which limit her teaching.

Now to Titus 2:4. This is not a prohibitive passage. The word prohibit means “to forbid, to refuse to permit.” This passage is not excluding (forbidding, prohibiting) the young woman from doing anything. That is not even the point of the passage (to tell us what a young woman is not to do) any more than Jn. 6:27 is telling us not to work for our groceries. Titus 2:1-9 is not the “sum total” of anyone’s responsibilities any more than Jas: 1:27 is the “sum total” of pure religion. There is grave danger in isolating one passage from all others and acting as though this were the complete revealed will of God on the subject.

To be sure, there are some things that are more becoming or befitting (Titus 2:1) when taught by the aged. But the fact that aged women are mentioned does not forbid these same things being taught by others. Both Peter and Paul (men) taught the obligations of women to their husbands and children (Eph. 5:6; 1 Pet. 3) and all Christians are to follow their example, Phil. 4:9. It is true that fathers have a special responsibility to train their children (Eph. 6:4) but that verse is by no means forbidding a mother to teach anything to her children. Titus 2 mentions some five classes of people (aged men, aged women, young women, young men, servants) and tells us some things to which each has a special responsibility. Isolating this passage from all others can really run us into trouble. For example, teaching is not specifically mentioned as one of the things that aged men are to do. Is it sinful for an aged man to teach since it is not specified in Titus 2? Does God give a qualification for elders (That they be apt to teach, 2 Tim. 3:2) that they can never fulfill – because it is forbidden by not being specified in Titus 2? Or must we use the scriptures already previously given to show that aged men also have this duty?

Now, let us pose another question that will help us arrive at the truth. What scripture authorizes a young woman to teach her own children? I cannot think of one that specifically tells her to (and that is what some are wanting regarding her teaching someone older than her – a specific word-for-word verse rather than generic authority). I believe this passage authorizes her to teach her children because she is to love them (Titus 2:4). It is unthinkable that one could love her child and not try to save it from hell. The two ideas would be incompatible. She is also authorized to teach her husband for the same reason – she is to love him? It is possible that she can do this without violating a restriction. BUT, are her children and husband the only people that she is to love? They are if Titus 2 is giving us her only responsibilities. However, she is also to love her neighbors, enemies, brethren, etc. (Rom. 13:9; Mt. 5:44; 1 Pet. 1:22). This would also include her loving the older woman and even teaching her if there was something she needed to be taught and if the younger woman had the ability to teach it. Of course she should do so with respect of age.

Some other consequences (and I do not rest my case on these but upon what has already been said) would be that it would be wrong for a 39 year old woman to convert a 50 year old woman! We could have (in fact we would have to if such were the case) a 65 year old new convert teaching a class of 45 year old women who were mature Christians and had been in the kingdom for 25 years. (This passage is presupposing that such older women have themselves learned the lessons they are to teach the younger women). The ladies would have to have a countdown (or a count-up) every time they came together to see who was the oldest woman present. (And how many do you suppose would admit to being the oldest?)

NOW, to the exception. And did it ever dawn on you that there is only one exception (singular) to a woman’s teaching? That’s right, 1 Tim. 2:12. She is not to teach over a man. Do you now see how “out of joint” we have been on this by putting the emphasis on the exception instead of the rule? Some women have felt that they had no duty to teach at all and some men have felt that they had no responsibility to teach unless they had mastered the talent of proper voice control and perfect grammar! No wonder the kingdom is not growing as it should! Let us be about our Father’s business!

Truth Magazine, XX:7, p. 7-8
February 12, 1976

By John McCort

“We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is correctly translated; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God” (Joseph Smith, “Articles of Faith,” Article.8). “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book” (Joseph Smith, “A Compendium Of The Doctrines Of The Gospel,” p. 273.) “If the Book of Mormon is the word of God then it is to be accepted with equal authority . . . Yea with greater authority, since it purports to be not only the word of God, but translated into the English language by the power of God.

The Mormon attitude toward the Bible is utter blasphemy. Joseph Smith stated that the Book of Mormon would get a man closer to God than even the Bible. Orson Pratt, a prominent, early Mormon leader, stated, “All therefore, is uncertainty as to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament; they can be proved to be changed, added unto and corrupted in almost every text …. Who knows that even one verse of the whole Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original” (Orsow Pratt’s Works, p. 217-218).

The Mormons actually claim that the Book of Mormon is far superior to the Bible since it was translated into the English language by the power of God. This claim to inspired translation into the English language will prove to be the Achilles’ heel to the claim of Mormon inspiration. Not only do they claim the original plates were inspired but he actual translation into the English language was inspired. This means that there can be no mistakes in the process of translation.

“By and of the seer stone, sentences would appear, were read by the prophet and written by Martin Harris, and when finished, he would say written, and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another would appear in its place; but if not written correctly, it would remain until corrected. So that the translation was just as it was engraved upon the plates precisely in the language it was written” (Testimony of David Whitmer, one of the original three witnesses to the Book of Mormon). “Until the writing was correct in every particular; the words last given would remain before the eyes of the translator and not disappear” (B. H. Roberts, “Brief History Of The Church”). Therefore they Mormons cannot even claim any transcribing errors and mistakes in English grammar.

20,000 Changes

Nearly 20,000 changes have been made in the Book of Mormon since the original 1830 edition. These 20,000 changes represent a staggering embarrassment to the claim of Mormon inspiration. Do the Mormons claim that God made 20,000 mistakes when helping Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon. These errors and changes are not merely typographical errors. These are errors in grammar and even some contradictions.

Here are just a few of the changes that have been made in the Book of Mormon. In the original 1830 edition, Alma 20:30 read, “. . . they had arriven . . .” It remained that way until 1920 when it was changed to, . . . they had arrived . . . ” Alma 46:19, in the 1830 edition; read, “. . . waving the rent of his garment in the air that all might see the writing which he had wrote on the rent.” In the 1908 edition it was changed to read, “. . . waving the rent part of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had written upon the rent part.” 1 Nephi 5:11, in the 1830 edition, read, “. . . Adam and Eve, which was our first parents. . . .” In the 1908 edition it was changed to; “Adam and Eve, who were our first parents. . . .” In the original edition, Alma 32:5 read, “. . . the one which was the most foremost among them.” In the 1908 edition, it was changed to “. . . the one who was the most foremost among them.” In 1920, the passage was again changed to read, “. . . the one who was the ( ) foremost among them . . .” deleting the word most.

Not only has the Book of Mormon been changed, the supposedly inspired “Articles of Faith” have been dramatically altered. 90 words from the original “Articles of Faith” have been deleted in the modern editions. Fourteen words have been added to the modern editions which were not in the original. Four words have been changed from the original, edition to the modern edition. Since the “Articles of Faith” are comparatively short; these changes represent some very substantial alterations. In the original “Articles of Faith” there were fourteen articles. In the modern edition there are only thirteen articles with number eleven being omitted in its entirety.

Portions Identical to the King James Version

There is something that is very strange about the Book of Mormon. The golden plates, from which the Book of Mormon was supposedly translated, were, according to the Mormons, written about 600 B.C. Yet one-eighteenth of the Book of Mormon is identical, word for word, to the 1611 King James Version of the Bible. The thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians is quoted word for word. An entire chapter out of the book of Isaiah is quoted. How is it that: the Book of Mormon, which predates the King James Version by nearly 2,000 years, could have precisely the same language word for word? Another strange thing is that there are no quotations from the American Standard Version of the Bible. Another item which is equally strange is that the Book of Mormon even quotes the words that are in italics (which were supplied by the King James Version translators). In the Bible, the words in italics are words which are supplied by the translators and are not in the original text. How is it that the Book of Mormon would be identical to the King James Version in parts, and even contain the italicized words supplied by translators nearly 2,000 years later? Some of these supplied words do not appear in any other translation? Surely the Book of Mormon is a fraud.

The Book of Mormon: Inspired or Not?

The Book of Mormon does not claim for itself to be inspired. “Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon the plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even they did err of old” (1 Nephi 19:6). “And it came to pass that I, Jacob, began to be old; and the record of this people being kept on the other plates of Nephi, wherefore I conclude this record declaring that I have written according to the best of my knowledge” (Jacob 7:26). The alleged authors of the Book of Mormon make no claim to inspiration and even allow the possibility of error in the original plates. How then could it be superior to the Bible and the book by which people get nearer to God; even nearer than the Bible?

The Mormon claim to inspiration almost boggles the imagination. Its stupendous claim to be far superior to the Bible is one of deluded conceit if not utter blasphemy. It is, at the very least, a colossal fraud.

Truth Magazine, XX:7, p. 6-7
February 12, 1976

By Cecil Willis

For the past few weeks we have been diligently trying to learn what the scriptures teach concerning the relationship between the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ. The danger of confusing the two ‘laws is one of the most persistent problems confronting the religious world, both in our generation and the _New Testament period. Some might think that we are spending too much time on this particular problem, but if one will reflect on the errors in modern denominational churches which arise because they confuse the Law and the Gospel, he will then decide that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to overemphasize the importance of this study. Again this week we want to select some instances in the scriptures in which this particular problem is discussed, and analyze them as best we can in this brief study.

A Spiritual Marriage

By our title, we are implying that those who choose a part of the Old Covenant to graft into the New Covenant are guilty of spiritual adultery. Paul said that they are married to two husbands. Carefully follow these inspired words from the pen of the great apostle Paul, as recorded in Romans 7:1-6: “Or are ye ignorant brethren (for I speak to men who know the law), that the law hath dominion over a man for so long time as he liveth? For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband. So then if, while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be joined to another man. Wherefore, my brethren; ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter.” If one will consult the context of this passage, he will see that Paul’s purpose was to show the relationship between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. In fact, the first five chapters of the book of Romans deal with the problem of how one is justified. Paul undertakes to show that one is not justified by the Law of Moses, but by the system of faith.

Then in Rom. 7, Paul spoke of one’s relationship to Christ as a, marriage. In a number of other passages, our connection with Christ is declared to be a marriage. In Eph. 5:22-23 Paul thoroughly discussed marriage, and then said, “This mystery is great, but I speak in regard of Christ and the church.” In Rev. 22:17, the apostle John spoke of the church as he bride. Paul said in 2 Cor. 11:2, “For I am jealous over you with a godly, jealousy; for I espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ.” So, Paul used God’s truths concerning marriage to apply to a spiritual marriage, the wedding of the Christian unto Christ, or of the church’s being, married to Christ.

He tells us that God’s marriage laws say that the woman is married to the man for so long time as he liveth. In the Gospel accounts, Christ stated that the only legitimate reason for one to leave his or her mate was if one left his mate for any cause other than fornication, and married again; then he should be called an adulterer. Our society has so degenerated that divorces are granted for any or no cause, and promiscuous or no marriages are very common. Yet, from the beginning. it hath not been so. God’s law relating to marriage still says; “For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband. So then if, while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress; though she be, joined to another man” (Rom. 7:2, 3). Good people, that law of God is, yet binding upon all men and women, and God makes no exceptions to it. The mere fact that our government may recognize a marriage is no indication that God approves it. When a man and a woman are joined together in marriage, only death is to separate them.

Christians are spiritually married to Christ, and men were at one time married to the Law of Moses. The only way in which men are permitted to be married to Christ is for the first husband, Moses, to be taken away. “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God” (Rom. 7:4). In the physical marriage relation, one cannot be married to two husbands at one time. Men were at one time married to Moses, but they now are to be wed to Christ. Before one could be married to husband No. 2, Christ, husband No. 1, Moses, had to die. When was man made dead to the Law of Moses? Paul tells us in no uncertain terms: “wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law, through the body of Christ” (Rom. 7:4). So when Christ died on the cross to take away the Law of commandments written in ordinances that were against us, referring to the law of Moses; it then became possible for us to be joined to another. But we could not be joined to the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ at the same time, for if we are married to two spiritual husbands at the same time, we are spiritual adulterers, and we know that no adulterer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Yet, there are millions of people who want to remain married to the Law of Moses. They want to continue to obey the decrees of the Mosaical Law, yet they want to wear the name of Christ. Paul denounced this practice as adulterous, and condemned those who practiced it. Friends, you may think that this is plain language, and that I am abusing people, but if you will just turn and read Romans 7:1-6, you will see that this is exactly what Paul said, and woe be unto me if I preach not the Gospel. Let me encourage you not to take only my word for these statements, but take your own Bible and study them. If we understand the Bible at all, we will understand it alike, so search the Scriptures daily to see whether these things are so, for the truth shall make you free. Error can never be substituted for truth.

Now what is the conclusion of this matter? We cannot live under the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ at the same time. So under which are we living? Here is the conclusion of the whole matter, stated in the inspired words of Paul: “But we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter” (Rom. 7:6). What relation do we sustain to the Law? Paul says we have been discharged from it. No person amenable to God can misunderstand what Paul meant when he said that we are discharged from the law. Some may not believe it, but they, too, understand, what he says.

2 Corinthians 3

After our lesson, this article, we are going to discontinue this particular phase of our study on the Law and the Gospel. This is now four weeks in which we have done nothing but study plain statements of Scripture showing that the Law was abrogated. If this truth is not now established, no amount of testimony from the Bible would establish it. However, we would like to study just one more passage.

The entire third chapter of Second Corinthians is a contrasting of the Law of Moses and the gospel of Christ. The superiority of Christianity is pointed out. Notice how Paul showed that the Law, the ministration of death, passed away, and the Gospel, the ministration of glory, remains. He said, “Being made manifest that ye are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in tables that are hearts of flesh” (2 Cor. 3:3). This shows definitely that Paul spoke of the Law, for he called it that which was written on tables of stone, which of course, was the Ten Commandments which God wrote with His own finger. Then Paul went on to speak of that Law, and said that it was done away: “But if the ministration of death, written, and engravers on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look stedfastly upon the face of Moses, for the glory of his face; which glory was passing away; how shall not rather the ministration of the spirit be with glory? For if the ministration of condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. For if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory” (2 Cor. 3:7-11). Paul said the Law, was glorious, but the Gospel is more glorious. The Law passed away, was nailed to the cross, but the more glorious system of the Gospel remaineth.

Paul went on to say, “Having therefore such a hope we use great boldness of speech; and are not as Moses, who put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel should not look stedfastly on the end of that which was passing away: but their minds were hardened: for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remaineth, it not being revealed to them that it was done away in Christ” (2 Cor. 3:12-14). I do not know what words Paul could have used that would have been plainer than those he used here to tell us that the Law was done away. He said that there were some people who still felt that the Law was binding, but it had not been understood by them that the Law, the one written on stones, the Ten Commandment Law, was done away in Christ. Now let him who says that this Law is yet binding on man products the evidence that it is, and explain what Paul has said in this passage.

Conclusion

We want to see thousands of people cease to try to be saved by a law done away in Christ, and obey the Law of Him who nailed the Law of Moses to His cross. Those who try to live under the Old Testament Law are no worse than those that have tasted the preciousness of the Gospel, and yet want to go back to that Law for certain items which they prefer, which are omitted in the Gospel. We exhort you to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, repent of your sins, confess your faith in Him, and be buried with Christ in baptism into death, for the remission of your sins. This is the teaching of the Gospel of Christ, and is no part of the Old Testament Law. This may easily be your last opportunity to become a Christian. Use it! “For what is your life? It is but a vapor that appeareth for a little while, and then vanisheth away” (Jas. 4:14).

Truth Magazine, XX:7, p. 3-5
February 12, 1976