Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

When Truth Magazine began in the fall of 1956, the sponsoring church issue had been brewing since shortly after the end of World War II. As American servicemen came home from Europe and the Pacific with images of the horrors of war stamped in their minds, a new wave of evangelistic fervor surged through the hearts of many brethren. This admirable zeal was tainted by a failure to keep in focus what the New Testament taught about the work and organization of the church. That the local church was obligated to preach the gospel at home and abroad to the limit of its ability was not in doubt. But the limitations upon the oversight of local church elders was not so clearly perceived. This zeal without knowledge gave rise to the sponsoring church.

Just What Is a Sponsoring Church?

A sponsoring church is one that assumes a program of work, accepts responsibility for funding it and then solicits other congregations to pro-vide the money. The elders of that sponsoring church agree to oversee the work, guarantee the expense, provide what funding they are able and then rely on other congregations to send them the funds to accomplish the work. In this arrangement, a local church eldership assumes a work which it alone is not able to do, a work to which all congregations sustain the same relationship.

In the early part of this century, the church at Henderson, Tennessee began such a work. Under the elders there, evangelists were to be sent out into western Tennessee and Kentucky, northern Mississippi, northeastern Arkansas, and southeastern Missouri. The Henderson elders offered them-selves to choose the men, send them out and see to the work, and asked other congregations to provide the funding. David Lipscomb was still editor of the Gospel Advocate and opened fire on the plan with heavy artillery. He saw it as a died-in-the-wool missionary society which was made no better for being under the elders of the Henderson church. Under such fire, the plan withered and died.

Revised Versions

After World War II, the sponsoring church was reborn. The Union Avenue church in Memphis, Tennessee decided to become a sponsoring church for the work in Japan. The church in Brownsville, Texas sponsored the work in Italy and the Broadway church in Lubbock, Texas became sponsor for the work in Germany. After the first wave of excitement and enthusiasm had faded somewhat, opposition was raised to such plans. Articles began to appear in the Gospel Guardian and this opened a loud controversy taken up by the Gospel Advocate. Numerous articles began to appear on the subject of church cooperation. Those opposed to the sponsoring church arrangement were soon dubbed “anti-cooperation.” The Preceptor which began in 1951, also took aim on this subject and opposed the sponsoring church. It became commonplace for men who wanted to go overseas to preach, to find a sponsoring church. That practice persists to the present hour.

The signature sponsoring church effort began in 1951 when two young preachers, James Walter Nichols and James D. Willeford, brought a plan which they had used on a more limited scale in the Midwest, to the elders of the Fifth and Highland church in Abilene, Texas. It was a plan for a nationwide network radio program. The elders agreed to accept the sponsorship of this program. I heard the first broadcast in the home of one of the elders of the West End church in Atlanta, Georgia. As the program expanded to television and monetary demands became greater, the solicitations became more fervent. Soon one of the elders devoted full time to traveling the country seeking funding for the work. Area representatives were chosen over the nation.

Truth Magazine and the Controversy

When Truth Magazine began, it was nearly a year be-fore direct reference was made to a sponsoring church and even longer before Herald of Truth was singled out. Early issues of the paper carried articles on a variety of subjects, many of them aimed at modernism which was a real threat in the Chicago area where the paper was born. But there were early articles on Bible authority and on controversy and attitudes which ought to prevail in the wake of it. In December 1956 there was a reprint of an article on “Church Cooperation” by H. Leo Boles which appeared in the Gospel Advocate in 1932. Ray Ferris followed with an article in February 1957 on “What Is Autonomy?” In March 1957, Bryan Vinson, Jr. had an editorial on “Our Level of Discussion” in which he mentioned that Herald of Truth (and some other subjects) were being defended on an emotional level rather than a studied scriptural investigation. In 1958 various articles appeared which mentioned the sponsoring church along with church supported benevolent institutions.

In April 1959, Morris W.R. Bailey of Canada, wrote on “When Is a Practice Unscriptural?” In it he dealt with the sponsoring church and the Herald of Truth in particular. In October 1959, Harry Pickup, Jr. wrote on “The Oversight of Elders.” In 1959-60 Cecil Willis wrote a series on “All-Sufficiency” which dealt with this subject. During these years there were reports of several debates among brethren on this subject. These included both of the Cogdill-Woods debates (Birmingham, Alabama and Newbern, Tennessee), the Flannery-Inman debate in Columbus, Ohio, and the Grider-Woods debate in Louisville, Kentucky.

Perhaps the best article of all to that time, was the one by Bryan Vinson, Sr. in November 1961 (“Some Basic Facts Considered”) in which he cited arguments made against the sponsoring church by Foy E. Wallace, Jr. Among them, Wallace had argued that the sponsoring church violated the scriptural limitations placed on elders in 1 Peter 5:2 where they are charged to oversee “the flock among you.” He charged that the sponsoring church created an inequality among churches, sort of a system of religious feudalism. He said it made brotherhood elders of these men and argued that was a step in the direction of Rome. He further argued that this practice created an interdependence of churches without scriptural warrant.

In June 1963, editor Cecil Willis unleased heavy bombardment on the practice with an article on “Brotherhood Elders.” In 1966 Cecil Willis debated Clifton Inman at Parkersburg, West Virginia and thoroughly exploded the argument usually made for the Herald of Truth that it was an “expedient” way to preach the gospel. Willis showed not only that the practice violated scriptural teaching on the work and oversight of elders, but he produced several charts showing from financial reports from the Highland church that it was costing huge sums of money just to “grease the machinery.” He showed how many gospel preachers could be supported at current levels by the funds used to solicit more support. He further questioned the expediency of any-thing which had produced so much tension and division among brethren.

Effectiveness

There can be no doubt that the material published in the paper had a telling effect in helping to salvage scores of congregations and hundreds of brethren, particularly in the Ohio Valley and Upper Midwest who otherwise would have followed the multitude to do evil. The influence of Cecil Willis, Earl Robertson, William Wallace, James P. Needham, and the earlier work of Bryan Vinson, Jr. and Sr., Leslie Diestelkamp, Gordon Pennock, Ray Ferris, and others, made a great difference. There are many faithful churches now in these areas where men are laboring today due to the hard work and unrelenting teaching of these good men and those who assisted them. When the history of the work is written, if it is accurately done, the effect this paper and its writers had on the study and thinking of brethren during these turbulent years will be profound. The abuse they suffered in the process was beyond imagination for those who did not experience it.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 1 p. 3-4
January 2, 1997

By Connie W. Adams

When Truth Magazine began in the fall of 1956, the sponsoring church issue had been brewing since shortly after the end of World War II. As American servicemen came home from Europe and the Pacific with images of the horrors of war stamped in their minds, a new wave of evangelistic fervor surged through the hearts of many brethren. This admirable zeal was tainted by a failure to keep in focus what the New Testament taught about the work and organization of the church. That the local church was obligated to preach the gospel at home and abroad to the limit of its ability was not in doubt. But the limitations upon the oversight of local church elders was not so clearly perceived. This zeal without knowledge gave rise to the sponsoring church.

Just What Is a Sponsoring Church?

A sponsoring church is one that assumes a program of work, accepts responsibility for funding it and then solicits other congregations to pro-vide the money. The elders of that sponsoring church agree to oversee the work, guarantee the expense, provide what funding they are able and then rely on other congregations to send them the funds to accomplish the work. In this arrangement, a local church eldership assumes a work which it alone is not able to do, a work to which all congregations sustain the same relationship.

In the early part of this century, the church at Henderson, Tennessee began such a work. Under the elders there, evangelists were to be sent out into western Tennessee and Kentucky, northern Mississippi, northeastern Arkansas, and southeastern Missouri. The Henderson elders offered them-selves to choose the men, send them out and see to the work, and asked other congregations to provide the funding. David Lipscomb was still editor of the Gospel Advocate and opened fire on the plan with heavy artillery. He saw it as a died-in-the-wool missionary society which was made no better for being under the elders of the Henderson church. Under such fire, the plan withered and died.

Revised Versions

After World War II, the sponsoring church was reborn. The Union Avenue church in Memphis, Tennessee decided to become a sponsoring church for the work in Japan. The church in Brownsville, Texas sponsored the work in Italy and the Broadway church in Lubbock, Texas became sponsor for the work in Germany. After the first wave of excitement and enthusiasm had faded somewhat, opposition was raised to such plans. Articles began to appear in the Gospel Guardian and this opened a loud controversy taken up by the Gospel Advocate. Numerous articles began to appear on the subject of church cooperation. Those opposed to the sponsoring church arrangement were soon dubbed “anti-cooperation.” The Preceptor which began in 1951, also took aim on this subject and opposed the sponsoring church. It became commonplace for men who wanted to go overseas to preach, to find a sponsoring church. That practice persists to the present hour.

The signature sponsoring church effort began in 1951 when two young preachers, James Walter Nichols and James D. Willeford, brought a plan which they had used on a more limited scale in the Midwest, to the elders of the Fifth and Highland church in Abilene, Texas. It was a plan for a nationwide network radio program. The elders agreed to accept the sponsorship of this program. I heard the first broadcast in the home of one of the elders of the West End church in Atlanta, Georgia. As the program expanded to television and monetary demands became greater, the solicitations became more fervent. Soon one of the elders devoted full time to traveling the country seeking funding for the work. Area representatives were chosen over the nation.

Truth Magazine and the Controversy

When Truth Magazine began, it was nearly a year be-fore direct reference was made to a sponsoring church and even longer before Herald of Truth was singled out. Early issues of the paper carried articles on a variety of subjects, many of them aimed at modernism which was a real threat in the Chicago area where the paper was born. But there were early articles on Bible authority and on controversy and attitudes which ought to prevail in the wake of it. In December 1956 there was a reprint of an article on “Church Cooperation” by H. Leo Boles which appeared in the Gospel Advocate in 1932. Ray Ferris followed with an article in February 1957 on “What Is Autonomy?” In March 1957, Bryan Vinson, Jr. had an editorial on “Our Level of Discussion” in which he mentioned that Herald of Truth (and some other subjects) were being defended on an emotional level rather than a studied scriptural investigation. In 1958 various articles appeared which mentioned the sponsoring church along with church supported benevolent institutions.

In April 1959, Morris W.R. Bailey of Canada, wrote on “When Is a Practice Unscriptural?” In it he dealt with the sponsoring church and the Herald of Truth in particular. In October 1959, Harry Pickup, Jr. wrote on “The Oversight of Elders.” In 1959-60 Cecil Willis wrote a series on “All-Sufficiency” which dealt with this subject. During these years there were reports of several debates among brethren on this subject. These included both of the Cogdill-Woods debates (Birmingham, Alabama and Newbern, Tennessee), the Flannery-Inman debate in Columbus, Ohio, and the Grider-Woods debate in Louisville, Kentucky.

Perhaps the best article of all to that time, was the one by Bryan Vinson, Sr. in November 1961 (“Some Basic Facts Considered”) in which he cited arguments made against the sponsoring church by Foy E. Wallace, Jr. Among them, Wallace had argued that the sponsoring church violated the scriptural limitations placed on elders in 1 Peter 5:2 where they are charged to oversee “the flock among you.” He charged that the sponsoring church created an inequality among churches, sort of a system of religious feudalism. He said it made brotherhood elders of these men and argued that was a step in the direction of Rome. He further argued that this practice created an interdependence of churches without scriptural warrant.

In June 1963, editor Cecil Willis unleased heavy bombardment on the practice with an article on “Brotherhood Elders.” In 1966 Cecil Willis debated Clifton Inman at Parkersburg, West Virginia and thoroughly exploded the argument usually made for the Herald of Truth that it was an “expedient” way to preach the gospel. Willis showed not only that the practice violated scriptural teaching on the work and oversight of elders, but he produced several charts showing from financial reports from the Highland church that it was costing huge sums of money just to “grease the machinery.” He showed how many gospel preachers could be supported at current levels by the funds used to solicit more support. He further questioned the expediency of any-thing which had produced so much tension and division among brethren.

Effectiveness

There can be no doubt that the material published in the paper had a telling effect in helping to salvage scores of congregations and hundreds of brethren, particularly in the Ohio Valley and Upper Midwest who otherwise would have followed the multitude to do evil. The influence of Cecil Willis, Earl Robertson, William Wallace, James P. Needham, and the earlier work of Bryan Vinson, Jr. and Sr., Leslie Diestelkamp, Gordon Pennock, Ray Ferris, and others, made a great difference. There are many faithful churches now in these areas where men are laboring today due to the hard work and unrelenting teaching of these good men and those who assisted them. When the history of the work is written, if it is accurately done, the effect this paper and its writers had on the study and thinking of brethren during these turbulent years will be profound. The abuse they suffered in the process was beyond imagination for those who did not experience it.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 1 p. 3-4
January 2, 1997

By Connie W. Adams

When Truth Magazine began in the fall of 1956, the sponsoring church issue had been brewing since shortly after the end of World War II. As American servicemen came home from Europe and the Pacific with images of the horrors of war stamped in their minds, a new wave of evangelistic fervor surged through the hearts of many brethren. This admirable zeal was tainted by a failure to keep in focus what the New Testament taught about the work and organization of the church. That the local church was obligated to preach the gospel at home and abroad to the limit of its ability was not in doubt. But the limitations upon the oversight of local church elders was not so clearly perceived. This zeal without knowledge gave rise to the sponsoring church.

Just What Is a Sponsoring Church?

A sponsoring church is one that assumes a program of work, accepts responsibility for funding it and then solicits other congregations to pro-vide the money. The elders of that sponsoring church agree to oversee the work, guarantee the expense, provide what funding they are able and then rely on other congregations to send them the funds to accomplish the work. In this arrangement, a local church eldership assumes a work which it alone is not able to do, a work to which all congregations sustain the same relationship.

In the early part of this century, the church at Henderson, Tennessee began such a work. Under the elders there, evangelists were to be sent out into western Tennessee and Kentucky, northern Mississippi, northeastern Arkansas, and southeastern Missouri. The Henderson elders offered them-selves to choose the men, send them out and see to the work, and asked other congregations to provide the funding. David Lipscomb was still editor of the Gospel Advocate and opened fire on the plan with heavy artillery. He saw it as a died-in-the-wool missionary society which was made no better for being under the elders of the Henderson church. Under such fire, the plan withered and died.

Revised Versions

After World War II, the sponsoring church was reborn. The Union Avenue church in Memphis, Tennessee decided to become a sponsoring church for the work in Japan. The church in Brownsville, Texas sponsored the work in Italy and the Broadway church in Lubbock, Texas became sponsor for the work in Germany. After the first wave of excitement and enthusiasm had faded somewhat, opposition was raised to such plans. Articles began to appear in the Gospel Guardian and this opened a loud controversy taken up by the Gospel Advocate. Numerous articles began to appear on the subject of church cooperation. Those opposed to the sponsoring church arrangement were soon dubbed “anti-cooperation.” The Preceptor which began in 1951, also took aim on this subject and opposed the sponsoring church. It became commonplace for men who wanted to go overseas to preach, to find a sponsoring church. That practice persists to the present hour.

The signature sponsoring church effort began in 1951 when two young preachers, James Walter Nichols and James D. Willeford, brought a plan which they had used on a more limited scale in the Midwest, to the elders of the Fifth and Highland church in Abilene, Texas. It was a plan for a nationwide network radio program. The elders agreed to accept the sponsorship of this program. I heard the first broadcast in the home of one of the elders of the West End church in Atlanta, Georgia. As the program expanded to television and monetary demands became greater, the solicitations became more fervent. Soon one of the elders devoted full time to traveling the country seeking funding for the work. Area representatives were chosen over the nation.

Truth Magazine and the Controversy

When Truth Magazine began, it was nearly a year be-fore direct reference was made to a sponsoring church and even longer before Herald of Truth was singled out. Early issues of the paper carried articles on a variety of subjects, many of them aimed at modernism which was a real threat in the Chicago area where the paper was born. But there were early articles on Bible authority and on controversy and attitudes which ought to prevail in the wake of it. In December 1956 there was a reprint of an article on “Church Cooperation” by H. Leo Boles which appeared in the Gospel Advocate in 1932. Ray Ferris followed with an article in February 1957 on “What Is Autonomy?” In March 1957, Bryan Vinson, Jr. had an editorial on “Our Level of Discussion” in which he mentioned that Herald of Truth (and some other subjects) were being defended on an emotional level rather than a studied scriptural investigation. In 1958 various articles appeared which mentioned the sponsoring church along with church supported benevolent institutions.

In April 1959, Morris W.R. Bailey of Canada, wrote on “When Is a Practice Unscriptural?” In it he dealt with the sponsoring church and the Herald of Truth in particular. In October 1959, Harry Pickup, Jr. wrote on “The Oversight of Elders.” In 1959-60 Cecil Willis wrote a series on “All-Sufficiency” which dealt with this subject. During these years there were reports of several debates among brethren on this subject. These included both of the Cogdill-Woods debates (Birmingham, Alabama and Newbern, Tennessee), the Flannery-Inman debate in Columbus, Ohio, and the Grider-Woods debate in Louisville, Kentucky.

Perhaps the best article of all to that time, was the one by Bryan Vinson, Sr. in November 1961 (“Some Basic Facts Considered”) in which he cited arguments made against the sponsoring church by Foy E. Wallace, Jr. Among them, Wallace had argued that the sponsoring church violated the scriptural limitations placed on elders in 1 Peter 5:2 where they are charged to oversee “the flock among you.” He charged that the sponsoring church created an inequality among churches, sort of a system of religious feudalism. He said it made brotherhood elders of these men and argued that was a step in the direction of Rome. He further argued that this practice created an interdependence of churches without scriptural warrant.

In June 1963, editor Cecil Willis unleased heavy bombardment on the practice with an article on “Brotherhood Elders.” In 1966 Cecil Willis debated Clifton Inman at Parkersburg, West Virginia and thoroughly exploded the argument usually made for the Herald of Truth that it was an “expedient” way to preach the gospel. Willis showed not only that the practice violated scriptural teaching on the work and oversight of elders, but he produced several charts showing from financial reports from the Highland church that it was costing huge sums of money just to “grease the machinery.” He showed how many gospel preachers could be supported at current levels by the funds used to solicit more support. He further questioned the expediency of any-thing which had produced so much tension and division among brethren.

Effectiveness

There can be no doubt that the material published in the paper had a telling effect in helping to salvage scores of congregations and hundreds of brethren, particularly in the Ohio Valley and Upper Midwest who otherwise would have followed the multitude to do evil. The influence of Cecil Willis, Earl Robertson, William Wallace, James P. Needham, and the earlier work of Bryan Vinson, Jr. and Sr., Leslie Diestelkamp, Gordon Pennock, Ray Ferris, and others, made a great difference. There are many faithful churches now in these areas where men are laboring today due to the hard work and unrelenting teaching of these good men and those who assisted them. When the history of the work is written, if it is accurately done, the effect this paper and its writers had on the study and thinking of brethren during these turbulent years will be profound. The abuse they suffered in the process was beyond imagination for those who did not experience it.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 1 p. 3-4
January 2, 1997

By Mike Willis

The second half of the book of Revelation opens with a scene in which a woman gives birth to a child, obviously the Lord Jesus. A great red dragon, identified as “that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan” (Rev. 12:9), tried to destroy the child. When he failed to destroy the child, he turned his attention to destroy the woman and her children. Her seed is identified as those “which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Rev. 12:17)  the church. This chapter reveals that the Devil is constantly trying to destroy the church.

Early Assaults Against the Church

The book of Acts records a number of early attacks against the church.

1. Jewish leaders tried to destroy the church by physical force. The apostles were beaten and told not to preach in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:18). Stephen was stoned to death (Acts 7:54-8:1). This was the beginning of a strong effort to destroy the church by persecution under the leadership of Saul of Tarsus. The movement was so strong that many Christians were forced to leave Jerusalem, but Saul pursued them all the way to Damascus (Acts 8:1-4; 9:1-9). Not many years later, the Jews were able to persuade Herod Agrippa Ito put James to death and imprison Peter (Acts 12:1-2). The Devil was obviously trying to destroy the church.

2. Judaizing doctrine was also employed to attack the church. If the Judaizers’ doctrine had been successful, Christianity would never have become a world religion that reached out to the Gentiles; it would have been considered another Jewish sect and perished like the sects of the Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Essenes, and Ebionites. The specific doctrine of the Judaizing teachers was that Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in order to be saved (see Acts 15). To stop this false doctrine, Paul wrote Romans, Galatians, Philippians, and Hebrews (if he is the author of that book). The Devil used the Judaistic heresy to destroy the church.

3. Gnostic heresy soon followed on the heels of the Judaizers. The Gnostic heresy took a number of different forms, but one particular form was the Docetic heresy that believed that the flesh is inherently evil. Therefore, the Gnostics concluded that the divine spirit could not unite with sinful flesh. They taught that the divine spirit entered Christ at his baptism and departed from him prior to his death. The books of 1-3 John were written to answer this heresy. John said,

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are see of (Sod: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world (1 John 4:1-3).

This test question was used to determine whether a person was a disciple of Christ or a heretic. In addition to 1-3 John, Colossians was also written to address incipient gnostic errors.

4. Local church problems were also used by the Devil to destroy the Lord’s church. The Devil got his foot in the door at Corinth and tried to demolish that church. The church faced these internal problems: carnal attitudes (1 Cor. 1-4) and social class divisions (1 Cor. 11:18); rivalry in the use of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12-14); worldliness, in the form of sexual immorality and brethren taking one another to court (1 Con. 5-6); divorce and remarriage (1 Cor. 7); brethren who tried to bind human judgments (1 Cor. 8-10); false doctrines relative to the resurrection (1 Cor. 8-10). In addition, the Judaizers from with-out entered the church, bringing their false doctrines (2 Cor. 10:12). These were some of the tools that the Devil used to destroy the church in Corinth.

The Work of the Gospel Preacher

The work of the gospel preacher also reminds us that the Devil is ever working to destroy the Lord’s church. When Paul instructed Timothy and Titus in carrying on the work of gospel preaching, he said,

As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do (1 Tim. 1:3-4).

Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 1:13).

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (2 Tim. 4:1-3).

These words remind us that the truth of the gospel must be preached because the Devil is ever threatening to destroy the church by doctrinal apostasy. Paul exhorted Timothy to fight the good fight of faith by preaching the unsullied gospel.

The Devil Is Still on the Attack

This issue of the Guardian of Truth calls our attention to some of the Devil’s more recent assaults against the church. Soon after the church was restored on this continent, the Devil launched his attacks against her. He used the church support of the missionary society, mechanical instruments of music in worship, premillennialism, one-cup and no Bible classes positions, church support of orphan homes and colleges, the sponsoring church, and the social gospel (fellowship halls, summer camps, medical missions, recreation, etc.) to attack the church and lead it into apostasy.

In addition to these doctrinal issues, the Devil has assaulted the church with worldliness, apathy, bickering and fussing, and other such things to divert it from its God-given mission and to destroy its internal peace. No one can deny that the Devil is alive and well. He is still working to destroy the Lord’s church.

Conclusion

We need to remember that the Devil will never cease his assault and attacks against the church. When they come, the Lord’s people have one of two choices: (a) They can fly the white flag of surrender and there will be no conflicts, issues to be fought, or confrontations between brethren; (b) They can rise up against the Devil’s attack, wielding the sword of the Spirit to fend off his devilish assault. In this case, brethren will be fighting against brethren, conflicts and confrontations will occur, because this is the nature warfare, whether it be spiritual or carnal. In the one case, the church will surrender to Satan and his assaults against the church will be successful. In the other case, God-fearing brethren will withstand the Devil, despite the unpleasant nature of the conflicts. Our choice is simple: Do we fly the white flag of surrender in the hope of escaping unpleasant conflicts or do we withstand the Devil, in spite of the unpleasant nature of the conflicts.

Brethren, there always will be conflicts so long as there is a Devil who is trying to destroy the church. The exact nature of his next assault is not known, but knowing the Devil, one knows that there will be future assaults. For that reason, there will always be a need for open and direct confrontation of the false doctrines preached by the devil’s ministers (2 Cor. 11:13-15). Forums such as Guardian of Truth have served a good purpose in providing a venue in which the false doctrines of the Devil can be exposed and refuted. Sometimes brethren become weary of conflicts and imagine a world in which there is no controversy. The Bible reveals that such a world will not be found until the saints enter glory. So long as there is a Devil there will be controversy, conflicts, false doctrines, and false men. The people of God should accept the fact that there always will be controversy and accept their responsibility of studying the issues that come before us, always resolving to take their stand with the truth!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 1 p. 2
January 2, 1997