Truth Magazine

By Pat Donahue

Mr. Cockrell notes correctly that I agree with him that faith saves, but still doesn’t understand that that doesn’t prove that we are saved at the point of faith. I’ll quote once again Hebrews 11:8, “By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.” Here the walls fell by faith (of the Israelites), but not at the point of faith of the Israelites. Mr. Cockrell understands this principle as he agrees with me that repentance saves, but he believes that “repentance always precedes faith” (Milburn Cockrell, 1st article, 3rd paragraph). Now let’s try Mr. Cockrell’s own statement out on himself. “He (Mr. Cockrell) says he agrees with me that (repentance) saves, but then he says the (repenter) is still a child of the Devil (until he believes)!” The truth is, when the Bible teaches that faith saves, that does not say that salvation occurs at the point of faith; it is teaching that salvation is predicated upon faith. The same is true about repentance. When the Bible, Mr. Cockrell, and I teach that repentance saves, we are not saying that salvation occurs at the point of repentance; we are teaching that salvation is predicated upon repentance.

Read It Again, Mr. Cockrell

Mr. Cockrell states that I did not say one “word” about his argument on 1 Corinthians 1:14-17; 4:15. He needs to go back and check the top of my paragraph labeled “1 Corinthians 1:12-13” in my last article. Mr. Cockrell also says that I did “not examine any of the verses in my (Cockrell’s) arguments 8 to 14.” Again, go back and read the answer to these arguments in my paragraph labeled “Mr. Cockrell ‘s Additional Proof Texts” in my second article.

Synecdoches

I don’t care if he calls it a synecdoche or not, but if Mr. Cockrell can understand that the Bible teaches that repentance saves, but that salvation does not come at the point of repentance, then he ought to be able to understand that just because the Bible teaches that faith saves, that is not the same as saying that salvation comes at the point of faith. However, Mr. Cockrell does admit the use of synecdoches, when in answer to my question, “Why does John 5:25 not prove that all an alien sinner must do in order to be saved is `hear’ the gospel?,” he responds by saying that the “person who hears the gospel in the sense that he understands and believes it (John 5:24-25) is saved.” Mr. Cockrell thus admits that “hear” in John 5:25 is used as a synecdoche for understanding and believing.

Salvation Is Not at the Point of Faith

It is the truth that if the Bible says that our salvation is conditioned upon baptism (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; etc.), and if baptism comes after belief (which it does), then salvation cannot occur at the point of belief. There is no way around that! Matthew 10:22 does not refute this principle because when Christ said, “But he that endureth to the end shall be saved,” he is not talking about initial salvation (the forgiveness of sins that occurs when a person is born again); he is talking about the salvation that Mark 10:30 speaks of when it says, “and in the world to come eternal life.”

Other arguments showing that salvation does not come at the point of faith have already been presented, without response by Mr. Cockrell, therefore I repeat them following. Romans 10:13 undeniably teaches that salvation is conditioned upon calling on the name of the Lord, which, according to v.14, clearly comes after the belief spoken of in the context. Since a person must “call on the name of the Lord” to be saved, and since calling on the name of the Lord comes after believing in Jesus, then salvation comes after a person believes in Jesus.

Romans 10:10 teaches that salvation is conditioned upon a “confession” with the “mouth” (“with the mouth confession is made unto salvation”) which, of course, comes after the belief of the context. Again, salvation comes after belief.

Notice also that Acts 9:5-6 shows that Saul believed on the road to Damascus (something I don’t think Mr. Cockrell will deny), but Acts 22:16 (“. . . and be baptized, and wash away thy sins…”) clearly shows that Saul was still in his sins at least three days later (Acts 9:9). This again shows that a person’s sins are not washed away the moment he believes. In this case, the forgiveness of sins occurred at least three days after Saul believed in Jesus.

Besides teaching that the washing away of Saul’s sins occurred after he believed, Acts 22:16 also teaches that the washing away of his sins occurred when Saul was baptized, and not before. Indeed, this passage teaches that if any alien sinner wants his sins washed away, he must be baptized.

Mark 16:16

Mr. Cockrell responds to Mark 16:16 by saying that a parallel statement would be “He that believeth and takes the Lord’s supper shall be saved,” understanding correctly that we don’t have to take the Lord’s supper to be saved initially. This statement paralleling baptism with the Lord’s supper is true about like my friend’s joke: “My first wife used to be a Pentecostal.” It implies something that is false, that my friend has had more than one wife (he hasn’t). My opponent’s statement is misleading in two ways (and therefore not parallel to Mark 16:16, which is not misleading): (1) It does imply that initial salvation does not come until after one eats the Lord’s supper. This is incorrect. (2) It does imply that initial salvation is conditioned upon eating the Lord’s supper. This is incorrect. Notice that Mark 16:16 does imply that both of these things are true about baptism.

The following are parallel to Mr. Cockrell’s “parallel” statement: (1) He that buys a ticket and gets on the train and stays with their relatives (in Atlanta) shall make it to Atlanta. (2) He that enters the race and gets the most votes and lives in the White House shall be elected President. Both of these statements are misleading. The first makes staying with relatives in Atlanta after arriving there necessary to getting to Atlanta, which is not true; and the second makes living in the White House after being elected President necessary to being elected, which is also not true.

Jesus did not say, “He that believeth and is baptized and eats the Lord’s supper shall be saved (initially).” If he had said that, I would be teaching that eating the Lord’s supper is necessary to initial salvation. But Jesus did say, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” I say exactly the same thing. Why not just accept the obvious meaning of the verse?

1 Peter 3:21

In his response to my argument on 1 Peter 3:21, Mr. Cockrell makes a big deal about the word “figure,” but fails to notice that the figure in the verse is not baptism, but the salvation of Noah’s household. Notice that the NKJV (“There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism”) makes baptism the antitype. The antitype (baptism) is the real; it is that which answers to the type or figure (Noah’s salvation). The NIV indicates the same as it reads, “and this water symbolized baptism that now saves you also” (baptism is not the symbol, but is what is being symbolized, the real). The picture is Noah, the real is baptism. 1 Peter 3:21 says baptism saves; Mr. Cockrell says it does not.

1 Corinthians 1:12-13

Since Mr. Cockrell only talked around 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 without answering my argument on it, I will repeat it for the third time. Paul teaches in vv. 12-13 that for a person to be “of Paul,” Paul would have had to have been crucified for him, and that person would have had to have been baptized in the name of Paul. This implies that for a person to be “of Christ” (that is, to be a Christian), Christ would have had to have been crucified for him, and that person would have had to have been baptized in the name of Christ. There is no way around this. 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 proves that to be of Christ, to be saved, one would have had to have been baptized in the name of Christ.

Acts 2:38

Mr. Cockrell does respond to my argument on Acts 2:38 by saying that the phrase “for (eis) the remission of sins” in the verse means “with reference to the remission of sins already obtained.” His response (that eis means “with reference to”) is shown to be false by the following paragraph.

If eis means “with reference to” in Acts 2:38, then that makes repentance only “with reference to” the remission of sins also, because the verse connects both repentance and baptism to the remission of sins with the word “for” (eis). But we know better than that; Mr. Cockrell agrees with me that repentance is “order to obtain” the remission of sins. The fact is, eis is never translated “with reference to” in the New Testament, not one time. Try out Mr. Cockrell’s definition for eis in just a couple of familiar passages. Should Matthew 15:14 be translated “. . . And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall with reference to (eis) the ditch?” Is Matthew 26:28 only teaching that Jesus shed his blood “with reference to”(eis) the remission of sins, or is it teaching that Jesus shed his blood “in order to” the remission of sins? I challenge the reader to take whatever meaning he thinks eis carries in Matthew 26:28, and stick it into Acts 2:38. Let’s be consistent! The truth is that eis means “into” or “unto” the vast majority of times it is used in the N.T.; check the Greek concordance for yourself. Acts 2:38 teaches that baptism is “into” (or “unto”) the remission of sins; therefore proving my proposition.

Next, I ask you to read Mr. Cockrell’s “Evils of Baptismal Regeneration” alongside the following responses:

1. If my position makes the preacher the savior since he baptizes, then faith being necessary to salvation makes the preacher the savior, since the sinner hears the word of God from the preacher (Rom. 10:13-14).

2. The teaching that baptism is necessary to salvation may be out of character with what Mr. Cockrell thinks Christ came to teach, but it is in complete character with what Jesus actually did come to teach (Mk. 16:16). 1 Peter 3:21 does teach that baptism does not put away the filth (dirt, NASV) of the flesh; instead it is a spiritual washing (“the answer of a good conscience”).

3. The receiving of a miraculous measure of the Spirit does not evidence regeneration, else Saul was regenerated while laying down naked all night, plotting to kill David, God’s chosen (1 Sam. 19:15-24). The non-miraculous indwelling of the Spirit that people receive at baptism (Acts 2:38), and not before baptism, does evidence the approval of God (1 Jn. 3:24; Gal. 4:6; Acts 2:38; 5:32; 1 Jn. 4:13; Rom. 8:9; Eph. 1:13-14).

4. The NASV translates the phrase in 1 Peter 3:21, “an appeal to God for a good conscience.” Wigram-Green defines the word translated “answer” in the KJV as “question, inquiry, demand.” Thayer defines it as “an inquiry, … a demand, . . . earnest seeking, . . . a craving, an intense desire.”

5. This point does not prove that baptism is not necessary. It only proves that we don’t have to mention baptism in every letter, article, or sermon that we deliver, especially when we are talking to people who have already been baptized, as John is in his letter. However, John did teach the necessity of baptism in John 3:5.

6. Notice a parallel: Is a man led to belief by the Spirit of God, or the spirit of the Devil? If he is led by the devil, we must praise the Devil for his work of evangelism. If he is led by the Spirit of God, then he is saved before belief, for “as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom. 8:14). Mr. Cockrell obviously is making an argument he doesn’t even believe himself.

Conclusion

The Bible clearly teaches that salvation does not come at the point of faith, but that instead, it comes when one is baptized. The question becomes, are we willing to accept the plain meaning of the Bible passages?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 26-27
March 3, 1994

By Connie W. Adams

Ten Candles and Two Oil Lamps

On January 16 and 17, the Louisville area was surprised with sixteen inches of snow. In Bullitt County, where we live, we measured 18 inches. That was followed by plunging temperatures reaching minus 22 on Tuesday night. We had several days and nights where temperatures hovered around zero or below. At 12:30 a.m. on the coldest night, our power went off. It stayed off for 13 and ‘/2 hours. We have a heat pump and that meant, no power, no heat. Our fireplace did little to help under such conditions. We managed to stay warm the rest of the night but when morning came it was survival time. We were snowed in. There was no way to leave. We put on four layers of clothes, plus heavy coats, toboggans and gloves. We had two good flashlights, a battery radio and took refuge in our basement in the office where we did the book work for Searching The Scriptures. We lit 10 candles and two old-fashioned oil lamps. It is surprising how much warmth can be generated in a small area by that means. Our power came back on at 2:10 p.m. that day but it took until late that night before the house was warm. Others were not as fortunate as we. Some had to be evacuated by those with four-wheel drives. Some were without power and water for days.

I have thought much since of the lessons to be learned from such experiences. (1) We are reminded of our finite limitations. “My times are in thy hand” (Ps. 31:15). Thousands upon thousands were restrained from doing what seemed so urgent to do. (2) The storm was a common denominator. Stranded motorists were all in the same predicament. The interstates had to be closed to the poor as well as to the rich and famous. Cadillacs, 18-wheelers and compacts skidded into snow banks. (3) All were reminded of the importance of things taken for granted. What a blessing it is to have warmth, light, access to work, worship and to families.

But the greatest lesson of all for me was the strength of influence. I am amazed at how much heat radiates from one candle. We often lament the sad state of affairs in the country or the world and seem to feel powerless to do anything about it. “I am just one. What could I possibly do to make a difference?” My friend, for ten righteous people, God would have spared Sodom. “Ye are the light of the world. A city that it set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 5:14-16). “That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:15).

God reminded Job of the “treasures in the snow” (Job 38:22). One brother remarked that a good snowfall is the poor farmer’s fertilizer. Indeed! But there are other treasures to think about. I’ll always appreciate the treasured lessons of ten candles and two kerosene lamps.

Issues and Insults

Honorable, truth-loving men will always discuss issues which are of great importance to them. Out of such controversies truth emerges, error is exposed and great good results. Issues are prompted by people. They have faces and names. Sometimes an issue can be explored and the truth made to shine without identifying those who promote error. But the Lord and his apostles found it necessary at times to identify those whose error they opposed. Jesus freely referred to the Pharisees, Sadducees and others in positions of power among the Jews. The apostles identified the likes of Hymenaeus and Philetus, Diotrephes, and Paul called the name of Peter and Barnabas. But there is a difference in an objective identification of error with those who hold it and in competing for the most insulting epithets to fling at each other. In some of the recent controversies hateful and spiteful things have been said. The names of good men have been dragged through the mud, evil motives have been imputed and the Devil surely rejoices. There is a certain dignity and restraint which ought to characterize the people of God and that ought to include all of us who publish material for public consumption.

Meetings Schedule for 1994

The writer of this column will be engaged in gospel meetings at the following places in 1994 and would be pleased to greet any of our readers who might be able to attend.

March 6-11, Palmetto, FL: March 21-27, Aiken, South Carolina; April 3-8, Steele, KY; April 17-22, Houston, TX (Fry Rd.); May 1-6, Brawley, CA; May 8-13, Fresno, CA (Sierra Viesta); June 12-17, Houston, MS; June 26-July 1, Cambridge, OH; July 10-15, Etna (Ozark), AR; July 24-29, Lexington, AL; August 7-12, Grenada, MS; Sept. 11-16, Wilkesville, OH; Sept. 18-23, Knollwood, Xenia, OH; Oct. 2-7, W. Main, Barnesville, OH; Oct. 16-21, Crescent Park, Odessa, TX; Oct. 30-Nov. 4, E. Alton, IL; Nov. 13-18, Southwest, Lakeland, FL.

“Don’t Blame Me”

We are living in the age of “Don’t blame me, it is not my fault.” A man robs a service station. His case comes to court and the jury is treated to all sorts of whining about how he was brought up by a single parent and they were always poor. See, it is really not his fault at all. Two young men murder their own parents and the case turns on how badly they were treated. A woman mutilates her husband, but it was really his fault. A homosexual contracts AIDS but it is really the fault of the government for not allocating enough money to fight this scourge. Enough, already! Whatever else someone does to you, you are still responsible for your own conduct. Godly parents have agonized over the foolish choices of their own adult children and have engaged in much self-blame. Every parent has room for improvement, even the very best. But somewhere the buck has to stop and the truth has to be faced that people must be held account-able for their own actions. There is one judgment coming in which nobody can pass the blame. “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 6, p. 3-4
March 17, 1994

By Ken McLemore

Excuse me while I address an issue that preachers aren’t supposed to address because politicians have labelled it as part of a broader political question.

The moral standards of our society are being defined in the will of the majority, and automatically makes “right” whatever is the will of the majority. That idea is being used to define life and death issues, as reflected in the present health care debate, evidenced by the following point:

“The Clintons’ true goal is the most ambitious of all, a change in the culture of dying. `That’s why Hillary’s talking up living wills and advance directives,’ says an Administration official, `She hopes to spur others to get COMFORTABLE WITH PULLING THE PLUG”‘ (“Pulling the Plug,” Time, Oct. 4, 1993, p.36; emphasis mine, KDM).

Death as a matter of social “choice” rather than moral concern has evolved from the abortion de-bate to its logical consequence in “pulling the plug” as a socio-economic “choice” rather than a moral concern. What is the difference between the “medically-assisted” death of an unborn baby and that of a terminally ill, but not brain dead,adult? Nothing: both are dead. The acceptance of both based upon the fallacy of “choice” is only the first logical consequence in the equation which has planned euthanasia as its ultimate consequence. Whatever can be “chosen” today can be planned for you tomorrow. What began in the minds of many as a social “choice” never has been anything but playing God. If that is not the case, then why all the moral outrage by supporters of “assisted suicide” over the tactics of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, as expressed by columnist Ellen Goodman:

“I regard him too as the failure story of the legal system. If a patient cannot call on a family doctor, he or she must depend on the `kindness’ of strangers. If we don’t wrestle down a reasonable law, people will go to outlaws,” (“Dr. Death should become obsolete,” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Nov. 15, 1993, p. 6B)

The problem with the premise of both abortion and “assisted suicide” is the same problem with the premise of “pulling the plug,” that once society rationalizes the morality of the end it seeks to accomplish, the morality of the means to effect that end becomes irrelevant. Regardless of which practice society “chooses” to make legal, somebody innocent of any moral wrong is just as dead. The logical consequence of Ms. Goodman’s point is that she is not outraged so much by “assisted death” as she is outraged by sloppy “assisted death.” She is comfort-able with “pulling the plug.”

The argument for “a change in the culture of dying” seeks to make what one might call the “greater good” the standard for life and death, and demands that the individual be given the right to authorize his/her death for the sake of making life cheaper for the rest of us. The “greater good” is a dollars and cents approach that leaves God out of the point altogether, and that is its contradiction. Society cannot excuse itself from moral accountability to God when government encourages society to “get comfortable with pulling the plug” (Rom. 13:3-4).

“Pulling the plug” is not a moral right even if it becomes a civil right. “Pulling the plug” as a right relies upon two false assumptions: First, it assumes that there are no moral absolutes; and, secondly, it assumes that moral standards may be defined by the majority will. “Choice” as the standard of authority in a society takes the place of moral absolutes when that society accepts the notion that nothing is absolute. For instance, in education, outcome is now considered more important than understanding or achievement, therefore, the student who thinks 2+2=5 is not wrong; he/she is merely “in process” of learning. He/she has “chosen” to arrive at his/ her conclusion despite objective evidence to the contrary, and is not considered “wrong” in that conclusion, but merely on a different learning path to the same objective. (Consider that when the same student mows your yard for 2 hours at $2 per hour and asks for $5.00.) When nothing is wrong for the situation in which it exists, neither euthanasia nor murder is precluded, objective evidence aside. The moral vacuum in which the new concept of “pulling the plug” operates shows an open disdain for the right of God as creator. The design of creation argues for the existence of a creator, and it also gives the designer the argument in Psalms 24:1, when he writes, “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.” God declared the same point by the prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel 18:4, saying, “Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” When man recognizes the right of the creator to his creation, he is compelled to recognize the authority of the creator’s will. Consequently, in order to become “comfort-able with pulling the plug,” society has to first be convinced to “pull the plug” on God.

Religious denominationalism cannot stem the tide of the new “culture of dying” or any of the other assaults upon morality by the “choice” driven society because religious denominationalism is itself based upon an argument of “choice.” Religious denominationalism argues that gospel truth is denominational rather than absolute, and any voice to the contrary is deemed to be “bigoted.” But, God’s voice is as absolute as is God (Matt. 7:13-14, 21-23; Luke 6:46; John 17:17; Eph. 4:4-6; Gal. 1:6-9; 2 John 9). There are as many truths as there are gods, and there is only one God (Isa. 44:6-8). God has declared his right as creator and his will for his creation, the standard by which God will judge (2 Cor. 5:10; John 5:26-30).

“Choice” is becoming the norm, the rule, the god that its secularist priests and priestesses worship at the altars of abortion, “assisted suicide,” and “pulling the plug.” God’s judgment of them will be just; but, in the mean time, they must be opposed (2 Cor. 10:4-6). And, man cannot oppose them if man has already agreed that divine truth is a matter of “choice” (Jer. 16:10-13; 17:5-8; Isa. 55:8-11).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 6, p. 1
March 17, 1994

By Mike Willis

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18).

We frequently hear sermons that emphasize the love and mercy of God, but today rarely do we hear anything about God’s wrath. Modem denominationalism has either totally eliminated the doctrine of hell from its theology or hidden it in some remote corner. Several books, including one by Edward Fudge (The Fire That Consumes), have been published in recent years that take the position that the punishment of hell is annihilation, not endless torment. In a recent ad in the church news section of our local paper, a denomination advertised that it did not preach sermons on hell fire and brimstone. These things point us to the sad truth that some men want to hear nothing about the wrath of God. Nevertheless, Paul spoke about the wrath of God being revealed from heaven and we need to study what he says about it.

The Wrath of God

The Scriptures repeatedly speak about the wrath of God in such passages as the following:

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him (John 3:36).

For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience (Col. 3:6).

The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb (Rev. 14:10).

And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God (Rev. 14:19).

See also Revelation 15:1,7;16:1 or consult any concordance and look under entries about the wrath of God. We cannot faithfully proclaim the totality of God’s revelation without speaking about his wrath.

God’s Wrath Is Revealed

Not only does the Bible teach that wrath is a part of God’s nature, it also tells us that God’s wrath has been revealed from heaven against ungodliness and unrighteousness in men. Here are a number of ways that it has been revealed:

1. In the doctrine of Hell. The Lord Jesus spoke more about hell than any other person in the New Testament. He told us about a place of eternal torment (see Luke 16:19-31; Mark 9:43-48). Hell is a place of the righteous retribution of divine justice against wickedness (Rom. 2:8-9; 2 Thess. 1:7-9). It is a place of everlasting separation from the presence of God (see Luke 16:19-31). Surely, we can see the wrath of God revealed from heaven in the Bible doctrine of Hell.

2. In God’s moral government of the world. The Bible records the Lord’s dealing with men through the centuries. The basis of his moral government of the world is concisely stated in Proverbs 14:34  “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). The prophet Jeremiah expressed it more completely in the following passage:

At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them (Jer. 18:7-10).

The execution of God’s moral government of the world is witnessed in the flood (Gen. 6-8), the destruction of the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18-19), the sending of Israel into Assyrian captivity (2 Kings 17:13-18) and Judah into Babylonian captivity, and the destruction of Jerusalem at the hand of the Romans in A.D. 70 (Matt. 21:33-43). All of these examples of God’s destruction of cities and nations display God’s wrath against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.

3. In the consequences and temporal results of sin. God’s wrath against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men is also seen in sin’s consequences. In the context of Romans 1, God’s wrath is specifically shown in his “giving them up” (Rom. 1:24,28). In these verses, the Lord’s “giving them up” was an abandonment of man to follow his sin to its ultimate conclusion  to receive the pain and suffering that sin produces. This age old principle is witnessed in the Proverbs  “the way of transgressors is hard” (13:15). God manifested his wrath toward ungodliness and unrighteousness by hedging in the way of sin with thorns and thistles.

Conclusion

We do men a grave injustice when we so emphasize the love and mercy of God that we neglect to preach about the wrath of God. Just as certainly as the Bible reveals the gospel of Jesus Christ, it also reveals the wrath of God.continued from cover

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 6, p. 2
March 17, 1994