Truth Magazine

By Joshua Gurtler

Throughout the Bible as well as history the refusal of men to study and discuss God’s word has been an ever present problem. Because of cowardice, selfishness, a lack of love, or just plain hard-heartedness, men are apt to keep their thoughts to themselves or in tight circles rather than boldly bringing them into the light for a critical analysis and/or consideration. Recall the Jews refusing to discuss Christ’s question, “Was the baptism of Christ from heaven or men?” (Mark 11:27-33). Or the unwillingness of the Pharisees to listen when Nicodemus said, “Our law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing does it?” (John 7:50-53). What about the Jews who, rather than meeting Stephen’s argument, chose to stone him instead (Acts 7). While standing in judgment upon these, today some brethren ironically manifest the same close-minded attitudes thus putting shackles on the truth.

God repudiates such demeanor when Paul says, “Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10) which can only come by such devotion as seen in the Berean brethren of Acts 17:10, 11. Based on these principles I commend to you the following discussion.

During the days of September 14-18, 1908 brothers W.W. Otey and J.B. Briney, at the meeting house of the Trinity Methodist church in Louisville, Kentucky, engaged in a series of discussions. The two questions discussed are seen in the following propositions.

(1) The use of instrumental music in connection with the songs sung by the church on the Lord’s day, when assembled for edification and communion, is opposed to New Testament teaching and sinful. W.W. Otey, affirms. J.B. Briney, denies.

(2) The use of such organizations as the Illinois Christian Missionary Society, the Foreign Christian Mission Society, etc., is authorized in the New Testament Scrip-tures and is acceptable to God. J.B. Briney, affirms. W.W. Otey, denies.

Instrumental Music in the Lord’s Church

After the “Christian church” and the “Disciples of Christ” gained much popularity after introducing the musical instrument into the worship of the church and dividing congregations coast to coast in the latter part of the 19th century, it behooved many faithful brethren to continue teaching, preaching, writing, and even debating the issue in the hopes of reaching one soul who “sins and unintentionally does any one of the things which the Lord God has commanded not to be done, and he becomes guilty” (Lev. 4:22). Such was the desire of brother W.W. Otey who taught faithfully on this subject and eventually led him to the engagement we are here considering.

Even though the first affirmative speech belonged to brother Otey, he let brother Briney do most of the affirming through a thirty-nine year old article Briney had written before accepting the instrument into the church. Briney here aptly affirmed that Christians were commanded only to sing (1 Cor. 15:15; Eph. 5:18, 19; Heb. 13:15). He went on to say, “I affirm that an instrumental accompaniment is an addition to the ordinance, and effects its character, and is therefore an infringement of the divine prerogative.” Brother Otey stood by these words and drew the following conclusions. (1) As music in the church, New Testament Christians are authorized only to sing, (2) anything additional is foreign to God’s word. “But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men” (Matt. 15:9). (3) If the instrument is used as an expedient, then it is still sinful for it “wounds the conscience” of many brethren and drives the wedge of division in the Lord’s body (Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:12, 13).

Briney’s replies were, through the whole debate, unfortunately unconvincing and unscriptural and clearly contradictory on a number of occasions. At one point he was quoted as saying, “The New Testament is silent in regards to the use of the instrument in worship,” and then turns around and says, “the New Testament authorizes the use of instruments of music in the worship of God.” Which is it? Trying to justify an unscriptural practice often leaves one speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

Brother Briney was then corrected after trying to support his practice by Miriam’s use of instruments in O.T. worship (Exod. 15:20) and shown that the old law was taken away (Gal. 5:9-11; Col. 3:14-17; Rom. 7:1-6). His argumentation then took an unbelievable turn when Briney said that only the “ceremonial law has been taken away leaving us with the Psalms and prophets. Anything from them that is not forbidden in the New Testament is thus authorized.” We know, however, that in Matthew 17:1-5 at the site of the transfiguration, God told the disciples that Christ is who we are to follow today excluding both the Law of Moses and the prophets.

To the argument that instruments are used in heaven in the book of Revelation and so we are to do as well, Otey responded, “While I am in the temporal kingdom of my master here and serving Him here below, I try to be abundantly satisfied with the provisions He has made for me .. . when I enter the pearly gates . . . if He puts a harp in my hand there, I shall loyally and joyfully play it, but inasmuch as he has not put one in my hand here below in the church, I refuse to dishonor Him by playing one in the worship.” How pleased the Lord would be if we would simply settle for the provisions he has made for us here!

The last argument worthy of mentioning is when Briney said, “harmonious melody of the accompanying instruments, edifies me … it has a subduing effect upon me. You know, my friends, that music has a taming effect even upon wild animals. You can mange them better, it subdues them.” To that Otey confirmed that Briney had just proven his point, “my good friend has given me the very illustration which proves just that . . . the mere sound of an instrument does appeal to the `fleshly’ sense of hearing . . . but remember our worship is not `fleshly’ but `spiritual. And with this, the first half of the debate ended with the affirmative proven.

Missionary Societies

In the second half of the discussion, brother Briney was responsible for proving that the missionary societies are authorized in the N.T. Scriptures. (See proposition #2 at the beginning of this article.) As could be expected, Briney’s time was filled with less of a scriptural discussion and more of an appeal to emotions by arguing that the ends of such justifies the means used. At one point he erected a map on the stage and pointed out all of the congregations established by their society and asked how one could condemn so much good work being done. He demanded that brother Otey tell how much work he was doing without a missionary society. To such a pompous and “this-worldly” attitude Otey quoted Matthew 6:1-4, “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them, otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.”

The only three Scriptures Briney used to support his practice were passages he said were clear examples of missionary societies in the New Testament. First, Christ’s “limited commission” to the apostles in Matthew 10 was proposed to fill such. Otey shows it falling far short in the fact that they weren’t the church, they weren’t under the New Covenant, and they were later instructed differently after the kingdom was established. Secondly, Briney said that the appointing of the seven in Acts 6 was a society. Otey said that would be impossible because it was the work of only one individual autonomous church and not the work of one head controlling multiplicity of churches. Third, it was suggested that the work done by the brethren in Acts 13:1-5 was such. Otey again corrected brother Briney showing him that no organized group of churches had sent these men out to do the work of the Lord but rather the Holy Spirit (v. 2).

Whatever cases are recorded in the Bible, one fact is always crystal clear, never do we see one church or eldership, or organization overseeing, directing or dictating the work of another church or the use of their funds. Never!

Otey laid a foundation for the work of the church as taught in the New Testament. 1. There is only one religious body (Eph. 4:4-6) with one head (Col. 1:18). Proponents of missionary societies neither believe this nor do they practice it. 2. We need no addition to what God has given us (2 Pet. 1:3). 3. Otey indicated that many of the characteristics of the societies indicate a worldly origin and tendency (Col. 2:8, 9). 4. The only way we see the work of the Lord being supported in the New Testament is by individual churches making an autonomous, conscious decision to directly support faithful men in the preaching of the word (Phil. 4:15, 16).

An interesting thing occurred when, after brother Briney repudiated the teaching of delegate assemblies in societies, Otey showed that the Illinois Missionary Society uses such which left Briney denying the very society that he agreed to affirm.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in these subjects or in studying religious debates. Some of my other favorites include the Bates-Teller discussion on the existence of God, the Warner-Fuqua debate concerning whether or not non-Christians are amenable to the law of Christ, the Halbrook-Freeman debate on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, the Houchen-Tatum debate on four errors of the Baptist church, and the Cogdill-Turner discussion dealing with institutionalism.

I often have brethren tell me that debates are inappropriate and are even a sinful means of teaching the truth. It’s interesting that Christ didn’t know that when he de-bated with the Pharisees and scribes on many occasions, or Paul when he reasoned in the School of Tyranus or with the pagans on Mars Hill, or even when he with-stood Peter to the face because he “stood condemned” in Galatians 2.

It is true that there may be abuses of something that is right and legitimate in and of itself. Just because Peter abused his office of an apostle and elder ostracizing certain Gentile brethren doesn’t mean that such positions are sinful. In the twenty plus debates I have studied, yes there were inconsiderate attitudes at times, but in every case the truth was taught and I continue to learn valuable insights into the Scriptures with each succeeding one.

I would hope that all brethren would have the open-mindedness to discuss every issue as we are commanded, in our search for the truth. Proverbs 27:17 tells us that “iron sharpeneth iron,” but too often we end up leaving our swords in the sheaths of ignorance or proof texts rather than wielding them as commanded and testing them “to see if you are in the faith.”

It was once said that if triangles made God he would be three-sided, and such is true among many today. Whenever we refuse to study, discuss, and yes even de-bate God’s word on any given subject we become like the triangle, making God fit into our comfortable compact mold and resort to idolatry, lest we “see with our eyes, and hear with our ears” and are inconvenienced by the rigidness of truth. Let us therefore take a stand as our faithful examples of old did in order that we may be “ready to give a defense.”

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 23, p. 18-19
December 5, 1996

By Timothy J. Smelser

In The Life of Reason the American philosopher George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” In Paul’s letter to the Corinthian Christians we understand that the record of God’s dealings with the Israelites was written for our ad-monition that we might learn by example not to do the things that they did (1 Cor. 10:6-11). Whether it is secular history or church history, one of the great benefits of studying such is to learn from the mistakes that others have made so that those errors are not repeated.

Homer Hailey’s book Attitudes and Consequences in the Restoration Movement examines two attitudes toward Scripture that have resulted in the religious situation we find in the church today. The development of these attitudes centers around the issue of scriptural authority and can be traced back to apostolic times. Hailey’s book is actually an expansion of his thesis for his Master’s degree which he earned from Southern Methodist University in 1944. He states as his objective, “to consider the attitude of the nineteenth century reformers toward the Scriptures, and to trace that attitude through the growth and development of the movement known as the Restoration Movement, until finally another attitude developed, parallel with it, repeating the history of the early centuries, which resulted in a division in that great brotherhood . . .” (Hailey, 13). Fanning Yater Tant, in an addendum found in the most recent edition of the book, summarizes Hailey’s thesis as “`attitudes’ toward the Scripture, rather than understandings or interpretations of it are the basic root of divisions and separations” (258).

In the preface Hailey almost appears apologetic for his extensive use of quotes from other books and religious journals, but the reader will likely find this to be one of the great strengths of this book. Besides quoting from noted historians such as Schaff, Jennings, Garrison, Gates, and others, Halley uses many biographies written by the contemporaries of the Restoration leaders. Letting the men of the movement speak for themselves, Halley incorporates lengthy quotations from some of the more familiar journals such as The Christian Baptist, The Millennial Harbinger, Lard’s Quarterly, and refers to yet others which might not be so familiar to the average reader such as The Christian Journal or The Scroll.

The book itself is divided into three parts. The first part covering the years of 1809-1849 (although the first two chapters address attitudes leading up to the year 1809); the second part 1849-1875; and the third 1890-present (1945). As was mentioned above, the book was republished in 1975 and included an addendum by Fanning Yater Tant covering the period of 1945-1975. In the first chapter Hailey captures the attitude of the New Testament writers toward Scripture choosing as his starting point the same model the leaders of the Restoration chose. What follows in chapter one is a brief, yet excel-lent, overview of attitudes toward Scripture from the Roman Catholic Church (citing Augustine and Thomas Aquinas), i.e., that “Scripture must be authoritative because the church declares it so” (14) and “to the church even Scripture owes its authority” (15), to the sixteenth century reformers (such as Luther and Zwingli) and on to the Congregationalist and Baptist churches in early America. His purpose is to show the development of attitudes and the subsequent unrest which would set the stage for the great Restoration Movement in this country.

A detailed history of all the men and events involved in the Restoration Movement is never attempted by Hailey. Instead, his interest lies in the struggles experienced as application of Thomas Campbell’s famous slogan (“Speak where the Scriptures speak, and keep silent where the Scriptures are silent”) was made to numerous is-sues. Throughout the book, the reader is brought back to the idea that there are two prevalent attitudes at work. The first, that “the Scriptures provided the all-sufficient guide in matters of doctrine, worship, and morality” and the second that “where the Scriptures did not specifically forbid a thing, the worshiper was at liberty to use his own judgment and wisdom in the matter of its introduction” (197). These two attitudes seemed to stem from the same basic root, but ultimately the application of such would cause them to stand diametrically opposed to one another. This became apparent even to the Campbells as they came to realize that due to these different attitudes the union they initially desired with the religious bodies of that time was a hopeless task (68).

Hailey takes the reader through the debates and discussions that were waged over such early issues as the proper name to wear, the use of creeds, the impropriety of a clergy class, and the purpose of baptism. As issues such as church cooperation and missionary societies polarized brethren, Hailey deals with the instrument question as the “dividing wedge.” Finally, in the third part of the book, he examines each camp separately and the subsequent issues that troubled each in the early part of the twentieth century.

To those not familiar with two of the more famous documents of the Restoration period, a few extracts from The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery can be found in chapter 2, and a very good over-view of Thomas Campbell’s “Declaration and Address” can be found in chapter 3. Also worthy of mention is a satirical article of Alexander Campbell’s in The Christian Baptist written as the unpublished Third Epistle of Peter. His sarcasm was aimed at the “clergy” of his day, but the points are well taken in any age.

Young preachers (and old alike) should take special note of the personal struggles through which the men of the Restoration went. They experienced conflict in heart and conscience as they wrestled through various issues. Some-times this was a time consuming process. For example, in his first de-bate (against John Walker, 1820) Alexander Campbell “mildly suggested baptism for remission of sins as a Bible doctrine” (116). It was not until his debate with William McCalla, three years later, that Campbell affirmed this doctrine with conviction. In almost all of the issues of that day, there was a heart and soul-searching process that took place as men tested their convictions against the truth of God’s word.

Even though they were written fifty years ago, the words of Olan L. Hicks in the introduction to the book explain why this book is essential reading for young preachers today. He said, “There are many in the generation now coming into responsibility who may not know the story of the struggle and vigilance necessary to maintain the integrity of New Testament worship and work. . . . Those who believe in the New Testament as the word of God will have to bear the burden not only of converting the world, but also of combating infidel teaching from every side” (8).

There are probably very few of this generation who have taken the time to read The Arlington Meeting, and it is doubtful that those younger than 30 had the opportunity to attend the Nashville Meeting (1988) or the Dallas Meeting (1990). Gentlemen, if we do not equip ourselves to understand the particulars of the issues we face, if we do not learn from the battles waged and the stands taken by those who came before us, we will not be pre-pared soldiers of the cross. May God bless our efforts as we strive to do the work of evangelists and “fight the good fight of faith.”

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 23, p. 14-15
December 5, 1996

By Marc W. Gibson

“Any work of man will exhibit imperfections, and there are views (not many) in this work which I do not follow; yet, I regard it as the greatest uninspired work ever writ-ten.”‘ This is high praise indeed! For most books, this assessment would be embarrassingly extreme. But after reading J.W. McGarvey’s Original Commentary on Acts, I found this evaluation not that unbelievable.’

J.W. McGarvey (1829-1912) published his commentary on the New Testament book of Acts in 1863, in the midst of the Civil War. He had begun writing it four years earlier when he was about thirty years of age. Upon release, it received very favorable reviews from brethren. Moses Lard wrote, “To say that the work is creditable to its patient and laborious author, would be a poor compliment indeed. It is a high honor to him. Throughout it bears most obvious traces of fine ability, clear, calm, close thought, and unremitting application.”3 W.K. Pendleton agreed, citing the excellent character of McGarvey and declaring that the commentary “strikes the happy medium . . . acceptable both to the common and to the critical reader,” taking us “back, religiously and ecclesiastically, to the days of the Apostles.”4 The appearance of McGarvey’s commentary set off among brethren a wave of interest in commentaries that resulted in the publication of other volumes in the years thereafter (Moses Lard on Romans, Robert Milligan on Hebrews, B.W. Johnson on John, et al.). McGarvey did write a revision of his commentary on Acts in 1892.5 He judged it an improved edition since he felt he was more fitted to the task. Yet, his original commentary remains more popular and, in many ways, still unsurpassed.

McGarvey’s intent and method are clearly laid out in his introduction. He first determines the exact design of Luke in writing his inspired history: “Much the greater part of Acts may be resolved into a detailed history of cases of conversion, and of unsuccessful attempts at the conversions of sinners. If we extract from it all cases of this kind, with the facts and incidents preparatory to each and immediately consequent upon it, we will have exhausted almost the entire contents of the narrative.”6 The leading objects and endeavors of his volume would be to (1) ascertain the exact terms of pardon as taught by the apostles, and the precise elements which constitute real conversion to Christ; (2) set forth the labors of the inspired preachers as the true and infallible guide of the modern evangelist; and (3) to see presented in living form and unmistakable simplicity, the work of the Holy Spirit.’ McGarvey effectively follows these themes throughout.

McGarvey’s style of writing makes all his fine books easy and worthwhile reading. In his original commentary on Acts he deliberately takes a narrative style so that it may be read through consecutively. This style is especially effective in making the history come alive as one reads the volume as a flowing story. He does not go verseby-verse disjointedly but integrates the text of Scripture into his flow of commentary. This is accomplished even as McGarvey stops from time to time to elaborate on issues andquestions of his day (and which continue to be issues and questions in our day).

McGarvey succeeded in making his commentary a virtual encyclopedia of biblical subjects. He covers every verse and includes extended discussions of the kingdom, the Holy Spirit, salvation, elders, deacons, confession, water baptism, baptism of the Holy Spirit, the name “Christian,” circumcision, and military service to mention just a few. Many commentaries are too wordy while others barely deal with difficult passages. McGarvey tackles each difficult verse and issue with sound, scriptural exegesis. On a negative note, he will refer, albeit rarely, to older writers and commentators who are unknown to most readers today.

It is also of note that McGarvey deftly catches the emotion and feeling of dramatic historical scenes, making them come alive. Do not miss his powerful and touching portrayal of Stephen in chapter 7, the classic discussion of baptism in chapter 8, his constant synthesis of the accounts of conversion, and the excellent and concise overview of Paul’s sermon in chapter 17. With a command and use of the facts of Scripture, logic, and rhetoric, McGarvey provides us with a sweeping work covering inspired New Testament history.

Of course, there will always be areas of disagreement with any work of men. I took issue with a few of McGarvey’s positions, but they amounted to minor disagreements, certainly not the kind of major doctrinal disagreements one would have with the erroneous teachings found in a liberal, denominational commentary. Without reservation I can recommend this commentary on Acts for both general reading and in-depth study. Its detail is thorough, but not too technical. The exposition is serious, yet written on a popular level. The author’s positions are acquired from the text of Scripture. The Bible student will come away challenged and satisfied. As stated well by one admirer, “Mastery of this matchless work will equip one better to preach the gospel than all the knowledge contained in a hundred works of theology often seen on the shelves of preachers today.”‘

Endnotes

1 Guy N. Woods, Questions and Answers (Open Forum, Freed-Hardeman College Lectures), (Henderson, Tennessee: Freedman-Hardeman College, 1976), 315.

2 This commentary is currently in its ninth edition published by the Guardian of Truth Foundation. 3 Lard’s Quarterly, Volume One (Rosemead, California: The

Old Paths Book Club, 1952), 199.

4 The Millennial Harbinger, 1864 (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, n.d.), 38-39.

5 McGarvey’s New Commentary On Acts of Apostles is avail-

able in the Restoration Library commentary set published by Gospel Light Publishing Company, Delight, Arkansas.

6 J. W. McGarvey, A Commentary on Acts of Apostles (Bowling Green, Kentucky Guardian of Truth Foundation, n.d.), 4.

7 Ibid., 5-7.

8 Woods, op. cit.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 23, p. 12-13
December 5, 1996

By Paul Krenek

In the Spring and Summer of 1893, John William McGarvey delivered a series of sermons recorded, compiled, and printed by those who had the foresight to recognize their value to current and future generations. In his book, McGarvey states in the preface, “I have no partiality for volumes of sermons for I have derived from them comparatively little benefit. In this I suppose myself to be different from many others, for with many good people such volumes appear to be favorites. They should certainly prove helpful to religious persons who are frequently denied the privilege of hearing the living preacher, and they serve as a homiletical aid to such young preachers as can study them without imitating them.” I personally am thankful that someone took the initiative to see that this work and others were preserved for the benefit of Christians who would follow.

J.W. McGarvey was born in Kentucky in 1829 and lived 83 years. He became one of the ripest scholars in the brotherhood. He spent all his adult life defending the Faith and was a man of deep convictions. McGarvey believed the Bible implicitly and could not tolerate men who cast reproach upon it or rejected its authority. He was often branded a “legalist” and a “conservative,” but was always a relentless defender of what he believed the Bible taught. His boldness in proclaiming the truth was characteristic of the Restoration Movement that abounded in debate, spiritual criticism, and dispute in the search for truth. McGarvey’s articles appeared in many religious publications of that day.

Preachers of this era fought furiously for their ideas. They took no offense at criticism and expected no one else to. Men born of more modern times have found it hard to understand that one can staunchly defend the Scriptures without feeling or taking the criticism personally.

McGarvey’s approach to the word was evident in his every sermon. His appeal was always to the Scriptures and he believed 1 Peter 4:11, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.”

McGarvey, a highly educated man, spoke using an oratory style as did many preachers of his time. He quoted Scripture to sustain and support his points. McGarvey recognized the intelligence of his audience and appealed to them to make spiritual decisions based upon the truth of the gospel. He understood the spiritual need of all men and he understood his serious duty of deliverance of the truth. As we set out to read any work written by man, we need to remember the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 4:6, “not to think of men above that which is written.”

McGarvey understood that faith’s foundation resides in the inspiration of the Bible. In the first sermon of his book “Inspiration of The Scriptures,” he set out to show by internal evidences how the Bible is indeed inspired of God and demands the deepest respect of all who study it. McGarvey followed a logical order in the presentation of the sermons recorded in his book. In two sermons, McGarvey deals with man’s greatest problem, sin, and shows that God’s hatred of sin should cause all men to turn from it. After setting forth man’s greatest problem, sin, McGarvey next moves to man’s greatest hope, “Redemption in Christ.” In this sermon McGarvey uses Ephesians 1:7-8 as his text and shows Christ as the basis of man’s hope.

The next sermon is titled “The Remission of Sins.” The main point of this sermon is that one can know without doubt that the forgiveness of sins has occurred, not by feelings or heart-felt emotion, but by obedience to the will of God. In the next four sermons McGarvey deals with the subject of “Conditions of Forgiveness.” In opposition to Calvinistic concepts of salvation he stresses that man is personally responsible for his part in saving his own soul; that God offers pardon on his conditions. In sermons ten through thirteen McGarvey studies cases of conversion in the New Testament showing the response of many who heard and obeyed the gospel of Christ. Those responses recorded in the New Testament are the same responses that will save men in our generation and in all generations to come.

In two sermons which McGarvey calls “Cases of Non-Conversion,” he deals with the rejection of the gospel by Felix and Agrippa. The hearing of the gospel will always bring some response. It may be obeyed or it may be rejected. Each hearer must make his own decision. Christians are to “plant” and “water,” and God will give the increase. In his sermon titled “God is Not Mocked” using Galatians 6:7 as the text, McGarvey sets forth this great principle of truth using Old Testament characters to show how man will reap what he has sown. Two sermons that I especially enjoy reading are on di-vine providence tracing the lives of Joseph and Queen Esther. We can learn by the lives of each of these characters that life has many trials, but God is in control and those who persevere in their faithfulness to him will ultimately be victorious.

McGarvey records two sermons on the church using the Jerusalem church and the Lord’s letter to the seven churches of Asia as examples and admonitions for us today. Between these two sermons, there is one titled “Church Finances” in which brother McGarvey correctly states that all are to “give as God hath prospered him,” and to give cheerfully (1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor.9:7). He also says that a part of the work of deacons is to determine how much each family ought to give. I do not agree with this part of the sermon and can find no passage or principle in Scripture that teaches the deacons to pry into the personal finances of any member. Preachers and elders should encourage liberal giving, but each will answer to God in the matter of being faithful stewards over that which God has blessed us.

A sermon on “The Jordan River” is both interesting and enlightening. McGarvey gives a history of the river by intertwining Bible events and geographical aspects of what he calls “the most famous river in the world.” Perhaps no book of sermons would be complete without one on prayer. McGarvey uses James 5:16 as his text for this sermon. His main thrust is that we should pray in faith, being careful what we pray for, and realize that God has ways of answering prayer in ways that finite man cannot see or understand.

Brother McGarvey closes his book with a sermon titled “Believing a Lie.” This sermon points out the dangers of believing a lie. McGarvey uses several examples showing the disastrous results of believing a lie in matters pertaining to material things. How much more serious it is to believe a lie in spiritual matters.

I would recommend this book for all who seek the benefit of reading sermons that were preached in earlier generations by gospel preachers. We should be thankful for men such as J. W. McGarvey who spent their lives in the study of the Bible and for their works that have been pre-served for our benefit.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 23, p. 11-12
December 5, 1996