Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

Immediately before the recent Florida College lectures (January 28-31), there was mailed out a new paper called Falth Magazine, which was printed almost exactly like the format of Truth Magazine. Ordinarily I would not reply to anonymous literature, but I have learned that this paper was mailed all over the nation. It pretended to be a satirical parody of Truth Magazine. It constitutes the lowest smear attack I have ever seen in twenty years of following religious journalism. The paper consists of eight pages, printed in two-color, as we print Truth Magazine. Not only does Falth Magazine solicit contributions, but it also advertises that additional copies may be ordered at the price of $1.00 per copy. Should you doubt anything I am about to say about it, let me suggest that you order a copy of it, should it be the case that you have not seen it already. Checks are to be made payable to Falth Magazine, and sent to Ms. Paula Murray, 4438 Nichols Parkway, Kansas City, Missouri 64111.

For the benefit of those of you who may not already have seen a copy of this sinister document, let me quote from it. Brother James W. Adams and I get most of the attention in this journal. Caricatures are presented of James W. Adams and me, and ridicule is made of what we have said on the grace-fellowship-heresy. The paper pretends to have been edited by someone named “Caesar Willsit.” They even have a picture drawn in the paper that is supposed to look like me. James W. Adams is referred to as “J.A.W.”, which constitutes but a re-ordering of the initials of his name. A number of brethren whose names have been used in the course of this discussion on grace and fellowship are given new, but very similar appellatives. Brother Carl Ketcherside is referred to as “Coil Datcherside,” Brother Edward Fudge as “Egghead Budge,” Brother Randall Trainer as “`Camel Strainer,” and Brother Homer Hailey as “Hosea Holy.”

In addition to changing Truth Magazine’s name to Falth Magazine, they refer to Carl Ketcherside’s paper, Mission Messenger, as Missing Messages, and Florida College is labeled “Flatter College.” On the Masthead of the paper, after listing Caesar Willsit as Editor, the Associate Editors are listed with one-letter or two-letter abbreviations. But if you will merely read through the list, you will discover that these abbreviations match the names of the apostles of Christ, except that “J.A.W.” (James W. Adams) is listed in the place of Judas Iscariot.

Also in the Masthead it is stated, “To insure the anonymity of the satirists, refuse to deny your own possible participation in the creation of Falth Magazine. Whoever asks you will already suspect you anyway! Reply that satirists, whether friend or foe, have aright to remain anonymous, and then point to the request you are now reading to give justification for not committing yourself.” The Falth Magazine is filled with lies and character assassinations from beginning to end. I never have read the rule which said that God gave satirists he right to lie, with impunity.

Caesar Willsit

In the section devoted to me, there are several lies told. These anonymous writers have me saying, “we know the hearts of everyone else. . . ” Another lie told on me is that I make a claim to divine inspiration, and therefore can give divine revelation. They put words in my mouth as though I were God Almighty.. I am quoted as saying, “We make no claim for direct revelation in some of the things which we write. We desire to write only the faith. Thus saith the Lord.” Not only does this statement constitute a blatant lie, for which Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead, but if anyone were to believe what they say in regard to this matter, my reputation as gospel preacher would have been defamed and damaged. I suggest that the writers of Falth Magazine might profitably read a definition: of “libel.” Webster’s Third Unabridged Dictionary defines”libel” like this: “handbill or circular esp. attacking or defaming someone . . . a written or oral defamatory statement or a representation or suggestion that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression . . . a statement or representation published without just cause or excuse, expressed either in print or in writings or by pictures, effigies, or by other signs intending to expose another to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule: defamation of a person by means of written statement, pictures, or other visible signs.”

“LA.W.”

Brother James W. Adams is treated even more shamefully. They quote him as saying, “I have decided, without apology, to (1) prate against them with malicious words, (2) refuse to receive them, (3) forbid others to receive them and (4) cast them out of the church.” It would be very interesting to hear the purveyors of that lie try to prove what they charge in a court of law. Brother Adams also is quoted as saying: “I have never changed on anything, and I never will.” That is but another lie told by our “satirists.” Furthermore, they put these words in the mouth of James Adams: “A passage is better interpreted by going from place to place in the scripture than by remaining with the context (emphasis mine, JAW).” No man on earth ever heard James Adams say anything that is even remotely akin to such a stupid rule. If deeds like this do not hold up a man, unjustly, to criticism and ridicule, would someone tell me what one would have to do to be guilty of libel? Of course, one is not guilty until proven to be such in a court of law.

Furthermore, these “satirists” run a full-page ad on the back cover entitled, “Special Offer.” The ad states, “Now available for the first time!!! … photostatic copies of J.A.W.’s secret files. Clear, un-retouched copies of past bulletins, personal letters, tape transcripts, diaries, discarded memos, health records, birth certificates, baptismal papers, and love letters! … Best collection of evil accounts in the conservative brotherhood! … You send us the name of any brother in your congregation and we will send you all the damaging evidence we have on him!!!”

I am not a lawyer, but I certainly would hate to have written the above ad, and have to face it in court. I would be fearful that it might be a costly little bit of fun. The writers of Falth Magazine write as though they are just having fun. But the issues we are being forced to discuss are not one bit funny to me. Brethren have taken some loose positions in order to try to broaden our fellowship, so as to permit us to fellowship some of the liberal brethren, and perhaps a few from the Christian Church. As these discussions continue, do not let anyone confuse you about why the discussions are occurring. Some brethren, unscripturally, are trying to devise some means of justifying a broadened fellowship. All the theological contortions we are witnessing, and we shall witness yet more, are but necessary efforts to try to maintain some semblance of consistency while also trying to broaden our fellowship.

Those with whom we are in controversy will have to do as they see fit in regard to Falth Magazine. One of those with whom we have been in controversy was overheard to say, “I have mixed emotions about it.” One thing is for sure, if I were in their shoes and had nothing to do with preparing and mailing out Falth Magazine, I would immediately denounce it and disavow it in the sharpest possible terms. This would be a good time for those who are so opposed to “journalistic abuse” to get on their high-horse and really fire away. Lets just watch and see how much the creators of Falth Magazine are scored for what is the foulest blow I have seen struck in about twenty years of following writings among brethren.

The only person’s name appearing in Falth Magazine is that of Ms. Paula Murray. She is not a Christian. She operates a mail forwarding service. She stated she had nothing to do with the publication or with its mailing. Yet she is acting as the agent of Falth Magazine. So she is implicated. Let it just be said now that the Cogdill Foundation intends to use every righteous and legal means at our disposal in order to try to find out who the publishers of Faith Magazine really are. Once their names are made known to the brotherhood, the reprehension of the brotherhood for such a vile deed will constitute severe punishment for its perpetrators.

In view of the indication given in the Masthead that each has been instructed “to deny your own possible participation in the creation of Faith Magazine,” one is made to wonder if indeed its real creators will do so under oath, and thus perjure themselves. Or will these bold heroes permit Ms. Paula Murray to bear the whole burden of defending the creators of Faith Magazine. Only two reasons come to my mind as to why anyone would write any piece of material such as Faith Magazine anonymously. Those two, reasons are: (1) the writer is ashamed of what he has to say; or (2) The writer is afraid for others to know he said it. These reasons are the cause for my selection of the title of this article, “Yellow Journalism.” I think the writers of Falth Magazine are ashamed and perhaps now also afraid to reveal themselves.

The bold writers of Faith Magazine may leave Ms. Paula Murray in the position where Brother Edward Fudge has left Brother William Wallace. Brother Wallace has been running around the country like a chicken with its head cut off trying to defend Brother Fudge. A man of candor and integrity would be ashamed to put his friend in the position in which Brother Fudge has placed Brother Wallace. Brother Wallace has written to churches all over the country asking permission to come to speak on “The Gospel Guardian, Past, Present, and Future.” Brethren would hang me to the nearest tree if I were to write for permission to speak in church meeting houses on “Truth Magazine, Past, Present; and Future.” And if I did that, I should be sharply criticized. The Cogdill Foundation (like the C.E.I. Company) is a human organization, and has no more right to use the church’s facilities to discuss its business activities than a college or a service station would have. Remember that Brother Wallace is the one who has been speaking of “power structures” and “organizational combines,” etc. But now he has asked churches all over the land to permit him to come to speak on “The Gospel Guardian, Past, Present, and Future.”

I attended one of those meetings (the Louisville one), and heard a tape recording of one of the others. It did not take very long to discuss “The Gospel Guardian, Past, Present, and Future.” The issue rather quickly became, “Edward Fudge, Past, Present, and Future,” Brother Wallace seems unable to understand why brethren are so concerned about Brother Edward Fudge. It is because they see some things Brother Wallace refuses to see. Brethren pretty generally know about Brother Fudge’s past and present false teaching. Since his family now owns the Gospel Guardian, and Brother Fudge is an Associate Editor and heir-apparent, is it any wonder that brethren would become concerned about the future of the Gospel Guardian?

Brethren in several of these meetings have asked, “Why is not Brother Fudge out defending his own teaching, since it is very evident that it was primarily his teaching that caused apprehensions about the future of the Gospel Guardian?” Brother Wallace can, at that point, only force a little smile, shrug his shoulders, hold up his hands and say something like this, “I do not know why Brother Fudge is not out defending his own teaching. I have tried to get him to come out and defend his teaching. But it would take a lot of smoking out to get him in a meeting like this.” If one of my friends were to force me repeatedly into such an awkward position as Brother Wallace is in, we would not be friends very long.

All of that regarding Fudge and Wallace was said to preface this remark: I wonder if those bold writers of Falth Magazine are going to permit Ms. Paula Murray to bear the cost of defending them from their dastardly deed. Or, are they willing to step forth, acknowledge themselves as the authors and promoters of Falth Magazine or not? I stated we intend to use available legal means to try to ascertain who the backers of Falth Magazine are. Brethren have the right to know who these grand and bold heroes are. It may be necessary to take appropriate legal action, which is costly both to those who initiate the action as well as to those who are named as defendants, in order to learn the identity of the producers of Faith Magazine. In view of their Masthead statement, they may think that protection of their anonymity is sufficient reason to lie under oath, or they could take the “Fifth Amendment.” On the other hand, if the producers of Falth Magazine will identify themselves, we will proceed no further with legal action. Even if legal action were taken against Ms. Paula Murray and her mail forwarding firm (which serves as agent for Falth Magazine), it may be impossible yet to learn who is back of Falth Magazine. But brethren have the right to know, and those who wrote Falth Magazine also need to learn that when one writes, he has obligations not only before God, but also before the laws of the Land.

The perpetrators of Falth Magazine may have been just jesting, but it is difficult for me to conceive of persons enjoying a little fun enough to pay several hundreds of dollars just to have a little fun. If that is all they were doing, they ought to apologize to the brotherhood for making a mockery of serious discussion of Bible themes. If they were not jesting, then their attack was of the most vicious and lawless sort. The producers of Falth Magazine, whether one or many and whether young or old, ought publicly to apologize for their mocking production, and we would let the matter stop right there. But until someone either identifies himself or themselves, we can only proceed with step by step legal action against a non-Christian and her business firm and seek to learn who really is back of this mischievous deed.

I suggest to the producers of Falth Magazine that God already knows who you are, and it is just slightly possible that brethren eventually will know who you are. It would be much the more honorable thing to identify yourself than for us to have to try to smoke you out. Is it that you are afraid of what you have written; or that; you are so ashamed of it, that you insist upon protecting your anonymity? A deed like this, if never corrected, had better be kept quiet throughout your lifetimes. I think it would take brethren a good while to cease to associate you in their minds with Faith Magazine, and that association will not do either your reputation or character any good in the minds of thinking brethren.

This is probably all we shall have to say about Falth Magazine. I hope now we can be done with game playing and character assassination, and get on with the discussion of issues that are disturbing some brethren and destroying others. I had hoped this discussion soon could be brought to a close, but brethren are now using. other denominational error in order to try to justify their loose position on the grace-fellowship question. So we now must go into a discussion of some other denominational doctrines that were refuted on a thousand rostrums in years gone by as brethren contested truth with error in their debates with sectarians. But some of our brethren evidently have not heard of those conflicts of yesteryear, and the outcome of those truth-error confrontations. The sectarians learned from those confrontations that it would be best if they not debate anymore. Like Brother Fudge, they removed themselves from the arena of debate, as though debate was beneath their dignity.

But some naive brethren are now laying out once again those thread-worn arguments made by sectarians. Evidently, they are doing so sincerely. Thus, we must fight again in this generation some battles which were fought and won in generations past and gone. But the victories of yesteryear do not suffice for today, The Christian today must also “fight the good fight of faith.” Tricksters, like those. who produced Falth Magazine, are not going to laugh us out of the arena of debate.

Evidently they think their ridicule is more potent than their argument. But others are sincere, and for the sake of these, we must once again discuss matters that at least border on the “once-in-grace, always-in-grace” Baptist position and the question, of whether .the Christian is now in possession of eternal life. These are some of the latest elements being injected into this overall conflict. But I repeat: All of this theological maneuvering is simply an effort to augment and then to defend a broadening of our fellowship so as to take it some liberal brethren, and others whose “hearts are right with God,” in spite of their moral sins, or doctrinal defections.

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

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Arkansas: “Does Titus 1:6 require an elder to continue to have faithful children? For example, an elder has reared faithful children; however, after departing the home they become unfaithful. Does he still qualify?”

Reply:

“A bishop then must be . . . one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4, 5). “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be ”blameless as the steward: of God” (Titus 1:6, 7).

“His Own House”

Titus 1:6 should be viewed in light of 1 Tim. 3:4, 5. The “faithful children” are those in the father’s “own house.” These texts do not directly deal with the child who has, as our querist demonstrates, departed their own parental home. They contemplate children under the care of the parents, still in their “own house.” However, this question concerns children who have formed a home of their own. Does their unfaithfulness after “departing the home” and forming one of their own disqualify an elder?

First, is a “parent responsible for his child’s life and faith after that child leaves home? Is it the fault of every parent who has a child go astray? God has children whom He loses (Isa. 1:2; Heb. 2:13; 3:12): Is God at fault? Is He responsible? I do not think so. While a man has children at home he must be one who “ruleth well his own house, having his, children in subjection,” but does that same subjection inhere when the child leaves that home? No, for the child is not then under the father’s jurisdiction.

The man has shown his ability to rule well those under his direction. It is only after they leave his home that they “become unfaithful.” As an elder, he will “take care of the church of God,” those under his oversight. His oversight contemplates only those in the local church. It does not include those without. Under his rule, his children were subject and faithful. Hence; he has proven he can take care of those under his exemplary leadership.

Second, to say that an elder is not responsible does not remove all taint or stain that may occur. An elder must be blameless. Whether the child is in the home of his father or out of it; if the deeds of his children cast aspersion on the father, he will be disqualified. Often the nearness or nature of the unfaithfulness of a child, whether in or out of his home, may strip an elder of his qualification, “For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God” (Titus 1:7). “Moreover, he must have a good report of them that are without; lest he fall into the reproach and snare of the devil” (1 Tim. 3:7) Obviously, these texts deal with the man himself and not his children, but a child’s riotous, unruly behavior, even those out of the home, may disqualify an elder if the influence of the deeds shadows or casts reflection upon the man himself.

The great character and integrity of elders must not be undermined. Only the best of men may serve as the scriptural qualifications indicate. May we never lower the divine standard of virtue and excellence for the sake of an office or position.

Truth Magazine, XX:6, p. 2
February 5, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

In the conclusion of an article in the Gospel Advocate, February 27, 1975, in which he was rebuking classical modernism within institutional liberalism, Thomas B. Warren said, “A few years ago, we had to meet the unscriptural `anti’ doctrines, such as: (1) ‘It is sinful for a church to take funds from its treasury to buy a bottle of milk for a starving orphan child,’ (2) `It is sinful for one church to send a Bible to another church,’ (3) `It is sinful for a congregation to have more than one Bible class being taught at the same time, and so on.”

Brother Warren mimics the sectarian denominationalist who, upon hearing Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 quoted relative to baptism and the remission of sin, cries, “Campbellism.” When all else fails, try a prejudicial epithet or an emotional innuendo. They work on the unthinking. This is what Brother Warren has done with schooled and skilled intent, or with purpose aforethought, if you prefer.

The Church Or A Human Organization?

The question of the church’s care of orphan children is not about “a bottle of milk for a starving orphan child.” The issue is, “Can a church make contributions from its treasury to a benevolent society which will take money from its treasury to `buy a bottle of milk for a starving orphan child?’ ” Assume a similar case in evangelism or missionary work. Has anyone ever inquired whether or not the church can use its funds from its treasury to preach the gospel to a spiritually starved sinner? No, the controversy is, “Can a church take funds from its treasury to build and maintain a missionary organization which in turn must use its treasury to finance the preaching?” Brother Warren knows this only too well. He would rightly resent one who would accuse him of being “anti” gospel preaching simply because he opposes societies and organizations which usurp and supplant the church. The parallel inference and insinuation in the field of benevolence is also justly and properly protested.

Congregational Cooperation Or Ecclesiastical Organization?

Brother Warren’s second example misses the heart of the “sponsoring church” contention. The difference is not the sending of Bibles from one church to another. More correctly, can one church plan, direct, and supervise the funds and function of another church -that is the question. Or, to use Brother Warren’s idea, is it scriptural for one church to serve as the Bible distribution agency of all the churches? No Christian is opposed to congregational cooperation as set forth in the Bible (Rom. 15:25-27; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8 & 9). However, it is well to ask whether Brother Warren would be “anti” or against a church which: (1) seeks and secures funds from other churches, (2) and solicits Bibles, (3) to serve as the transferring agent of all churches who want to send Bibles to other churches. That is more nearly similar to the argument involved in the study of congregational cooperation. (See Acts 14:23; 20:28; Titus 1:5; 1 Pet. 5:2).

Bible Classes Or Sunday School Societies

True, some sincere but misguided Christians repudiate a Bible class arrangement. Brother Warren lists this in the same category with the institutional and cooperation conflict. Do they belong in the same lump? Perhaps the separation could be seen more clearly by means of illustrative comparison. Churches may use Bible classes in their teaching program, but may they form Bible School organizations, separate and apart from the organization of the local church, which provides the class arrangement? Again, no, and it is probable that Brother Warren would concur. Thus, the discussion of the first two points are not synonymous’ ” `anti’ doctrines” as Brother Warren would have us believe.

Conclusion

The generation that does not know the issues described above is destined to repeat the apostasies of the past. Every age must learn the sufficiency of the church of God. Human institutional encroachments will blur and blight the glory of the local congregation if the completeness of the church is not understood and respected.

Truth Magazine, XX:5; p. 13
January 29, 1976

By William C. Sexton

Perhaps I am completely in the dark and fail to understand what Peter meant in (1 Pet. 3:15) when he said, “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; .. . .” I have come to understand Peter to be saying to give the basis for what you believe and practice when called upon to do so. I understand him to be saying show proof that your hope is legitimate! If I am missing the message, I pray that someone tell me what is meant by this revelation from Peter. In light of the verse and my understanding of it and something that has happened to me recently, I present the following for your consideration. I would be pleased to hear from any one who can show me that I have missed the mark that the Lord has set for me, a child of His trying to proclaim the good news of Christ.

An ad was placed in the El Dorado Kansas paper by the church which meets at 1924 Dearborn in Augusta, Kansas, inviting the children to attend a Vacation Bible School. At the bottom of the ad, in bold type capital letters was “REFRESHMENTS WILL BE SERVED.” Again in a box appeared “FUN & GAMES.” In as much as this ad had been published in the paper for the community to examine, I felt it in order to ask for some scripture to sustain this type of activity by a congregation claiming to be a church of Christ. So, I wrote the following letter:

Dear Brethren:

I have seen a copy of your advertisement that you ran in the El Dorado paper. I would like to have an explanation, if you were interested in truth and righteousness, as I assume you feel that you are. I see a contradiction: You say “BACK TO THE BIBLE” and then you say “REFRESHMENTS WILL BE SERVED,” and “FUN & GAMES.” Brethren if I know my Bible and what is going on in the religious world today, then these things are not compatible. In my mind, instead of going back to the Bible, you are adapting the SOCIAL GOSPEL concept of the denominational world. If you think otherwise, where is the passage that authorizes the church to use as a drawing card REFRESHMENTS AND FUN AND GAMES?

I trust that you are sincere in your efforts. Therefore, I believe that such as you have advertised to the community is degrading to the church of Christ: you have left the impression that the church of Christ, like the denominations, uses the social gospel appeal to gain people. I don’t believe that such is scriptural, and I would like to have a public discussion of the same, to examine the scriptures to see if such is authorized. I propose that we discuss the matter one night or two if your desire in your building in Augusta, then the same amount of time we can use in discussing it in facilities that we will provide in Wichita. You can affirm that the church has the right to use REFRESHMENTS, FUN AND GAMES to draw people and I will deny it. In Wichita, I’ll affirm that the church of Christ is limited in its appeal to the use of the gospel, thus it is unscriptural to do what you have done. You may word the propositions as you like as long’ as they conform to the above.

I believe that such a discussion could be very profitable if we are really interested in truth and righteousness-which I believe I am and if we conduct ourselves as brothers in Christ. I promise to conduct myself as a Christian, seeking the truth.

I would be pleased to have quick response.

Your brother in Christ,

William C. Sexton.

I wrote the above letter August 6, 1975. A few days later, I received the following letter:

Mr. Sexton:

In response to your letter of August the 6th it will be of no useful benefit for us to “discuss” the issue that you presented since they do not represent issues, but rather your own warped view of what the scripture says. Secondly, we have several babes in Christ in this congregation and I would not subject them to your poison at any price. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the ad which you referred to in your letter. We are talking about a Vacation Bible School in which each child received a minimum of 100 minutes of Bible teaching per day. In the past week we have been put into direct contact with more new prospects for teaching than you and your persuasion have seen in the past year. I am quite confident that you received word of this ad from . . . (brother’s name withheld because it would serve no good purpose to use it here) in El Dorado, I’m insulted by this second hand challenge.

May I wish you the best as you try to put down the “Kool-aid” rebellion, meanwhile we’ll be converting souls for the Lord. I believe that if you look you will agree that before you try to find the “mote” in our eye, that there is some “beam casting” that needs to be done from your own.

In Him,

Jim Bailey.

Beloved, I wonder if you feel “insulted” by being asked to give scripture for what you are doing? If you do, then I ask, Why? I hope that you are not insulted by such a request. Instead I hope that you are willing to give a scriptural basis for all that you do, and if you find that you are doing something that is without scriptural authorization that you will gladly and quickly give it up. I believe with all of my heart that such an attitude and stand is required by the Lord. However, if you believe this or not; if you feel insulted or not – I am still asking you to give me a reason for all that you preach and practice. I ask for it because I believe that it is my duty and I want you to be saved and I want to be saved, too. We not only have the right, but we are duty-bound, if I understand my Bible, to call upon all to be governed completely by the scriptures (1 Pet. 4:11; Col. 3:17; Gal. 1:6-8; 2 Jn. 9-11). If you or I develop such an attitude toward our practice and the scriptures, beloved, we have become somewhat like the religious leaders of Jesus’, day, (cf. Mt. 23). Such, I believe, is a spiritual sickness that will destroy the soul.

Anyone can get angry and falsely charge the inquirer with being wicked and thus less right than self. However, remember, as you engage in such activity that the Lord was thus charged by the self-righteous Jews. I can think of no reason why I should become angry at a person who is asking me to prove that I am doing what the King wants. I might get angry if I am doing something that I have no authority to do and I want to keep on doing it.

My final appeal is this: if you can show me the scripture that authorizes the church to use SOCIAL APPEALS to bring in members, then beloved I will start using them and I will announce to the world that I have been wrong these years. Until you can show me that such is approved of God, then I am determined to keep on challenging you, beloved. Perhaps I can cause you to re-think, re-consider, and re-direct your life. I stand ready to defend what I preach and practice. Futhermore, when I come to the point that I cannot defend by the scriptures what I am doing, I will quit preaching. If I am ever convinced that scriptural proof is not needed, then I will stop preaching, because it will not matter if people are right according to the scriptures any how. Beloved think on this matter, and if I am wrong then tell me; and if I am thinking and acting correctly in this regard, then be glad when one asks you if you have scripture for what you do. Such is an indication that he loves your soul and wants you to be saved, as did Jesus in His day and as His ministers do today!

Truth Magazine, XX:5: p. 11-12
January 29, 1976