Truth Magazine

By Max Tice

Dear Mr. Stossel,

I wish, first of all, to commend 20/ 20 for its excellent investigative re-porting on so many topics of great interest to the general public. There are very few television programs about which many positive statements can be made. It is, therefore, refreshing to be able to offer such high commendation to yours. Please keep up the good work.

Since I do hold the staff at 20/20 with high regard, I regret that my first correspondence with you has been elicited by a report with which I must take exception. Your effort to explore the effect of spanking children is appreciated, but I believe that it is also incomplete. As you recall, several passages from the Bible which endorse corporal punishment were flashed across the screen. These statements were then contrasted with the views of modern “experts” on the topic, and the Bible was pronounced an outdated and barbaric guide on how to raise children properly.

As a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a student of child-hood development, I am compelled to take issue with this conclusion. In the interest of fairness, I am asking that another report on the subject be presented which gives consideration to an opposing view. The fact that such a presentation is needed is what I wish to show in the comments which follow.

I will begin by reinforcing the Bible’s commitment to the propriety of spanking children. As already noted by 20/20’s report, the book of Proverbs makes the following statements:

He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (Prov.13:24).

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him (Prov. 22:15).

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Prov. 23:13,14).

Since the term “beat” (selected by the translators of the King James Bible) evokes images of cold-hearted brutality, it is important to recognize that such an idea is not at all inherent in the term. Neither the intensity nor the duration of the act is conveyed. The Hebrew word from which this has been translated simply means “to strike.” Neither is there any implication of a hostile disposition within the one who ad-ministers this discipline. The verses clearly show that the intent of the action is to help, not harm the child. Thus, no sanction is given to the savage behavior of those who mercilessly abuse their children.

As a matter of fact, those who study the Bible realize that it exalts children as special gifts from God worthy of deep respect. See Psalm 127:3-5 and Proverbs 17:6. God’s care for children is further demonstrated in his compassion for orphans. He is called the “father of the fatherless” (Psa. 68:5) and promises to avenge those who oppress them (Exod. 22:23,24). Indeed, it is in the interest of preventing child abuse that mothers are told to love their children (Tit. 2:4), and fathers are warned against provoking their children to wrath (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21).

Now, at this point, one might say: “This is all very nice, but the Bible is still dead wrong in its approval of spanking children. It disagrees with the experts who have clearly proved that this form of punishment only encourages violent behavior.” Thus, we come to the question: Who is right? Are modern psychologists who oppose spanking right, or is the Bible right?

First of all, it should be pointed out that not every psychologist agrees with the anti-spanking campaign. It is unfortunate that this fact was never mentioned in 20/20’s report. Instead, the impression was left that all of the experts agree on the subject.

Secondly, thoughtful consideration should be given to the evidence that spanking is, in itself, harmful. How did the “experts” reach this verdict? The men who appeared in 20/20’s presentation failed to cite any case studies or any particular details concerning the procedure that was followed in such studies. Instead, a dogmatic assertion was offered as fact.

The truth is that causation of human behavior is not easily established. A fundamental flaw often ignored in such evaluations is that correlation is not causation. In other words, if a study of a certain population were to yield a positive correlation between spankings and aggressive behavior, this would not demonstrate that the spankings caused the aggressive behavior. For example, a strong correlation can be shown in some populations between race and the crime rate. Shall we conclude that a certain skin pigmentation causes crime? Of course not! Instead, most people readily understand that other variables play a role in delinquent behavior.

In the case of spanking children one cannot prove that this form of discipline encourages violence unless he can first isolate the act of spanking from all other potential influences. Specifically, it would be necessary to exclude the possible effect of parental hostility, modeling of aggression by a host of environmental figures, displays of partiality and other unfair attitudes on the part of parents, failure to clarify the purpose of the punishment, lack of general affection, etc. Unless these and other factors are taken into consideration, the claims of “experts” who attack the act of spanking cannot be taken seriously.

As a matter of fact, in a study involving 157 students at a midwestern university in 1989, variables similar to the ones just mentioned were taken into consideration while researching the effects of spanking. Although aggressive behavior was not specifically targeted, the general impact of corporal punishment upon self-esteem and other personality features was explored. The researchers concluded that “how parents are spanking their children appears to be more important than whether or how often spanking is employed” (Psychological Reports, “Relations of Spanking and Other Parenting Characteristics to Self-Esteem and Perceived Fairness of Parental Discipline,” by Robert Larzelere, Michael Klein, Walter Schumm, Samuel Alibrande, Jr., 1989, 64, 1140-1142).

Since I consider 20/20’s report to be a direct assault upon the reliability of the Bible (whether intended as such or not), I ask that equal time be given to alternative views. There are competent psychologists and other professionals capable of defending spanking as a positive means of discipline. Will you allow their voices to be heard?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 2, p. 1
January 20, 1994

By H. E. Phillips

Law is necessary to obedience. Obedience is required to receive the blessings of God. The wrath of God is upon all who disobey him.

Man does not know the way of life. It must be revealed unto him. Jesus said he was “the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). “0 Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jere. 10:23). “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 16:25).

Some hold to the idea that to be free we must resist the shackles of “legalism” and reject that rigid code of law found in the New Testament. They pervert what Paul and other apostles said about law, obedience and salvation and replace it with words like “freedom,” “love,” “tolerance of others” and “unity in diversity.” They stress the prayer of Jesus for unity among his disciples and tell us that the rigid adherence to the New Testament will not accomplish unity. The “legalist” mind is without love and mercy and will never be in harmony with the mind of Christ. They tell us that the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17 is blocked by the legalism preached and practiced by the divisive branch of churches of Christ.

If No Law, No Sin

If there is no law, there is no sin. Sin is the transgression of the law. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). “. . . for where no law is, there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15). “. . . for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). “. . . but sin is not imputed when there is no law” (Rom. 5:13). Law defines sin (Rom. 7:7).

It is not true that obedience to “Law” is a system that tries to merit salvation. The forgiveness of one single sin is far beyond any human effort. We are saved by “grace through faith” (Eph. 2:8). Faith must be a live, obedient faith in order to justify. That is well established in the second chapter of James. “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?” (James 2:14) It is answered by demonstrating the futility of one saying to a brother or sister, naked and destitute of daily needs, “Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?” (James 2:16) The conclusion is definite: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone” (James 2:17). Again in verse 20 he says: “But wilt thou know, 0 vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:20) He who says that one is saved without works is ignorant of the Bible meaning of faith.

God gave a commandment to the first man whom he had created: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:15-17).

Did God intend for Adam to be a “legalist” to strictly interpret and obey that commandment? The question is answered by the consequences that fell upon Adam and Eve when they transgressed that law. They were driven from the garden and “died” according to the promise of God for their disobedience to his command. From the dawn of creation God intended for mankind to understand and obey his word. In every law and dispensation since Adam God has required the same obedience. Disobedience to the commands of God brought death to the first man and woman.

Under the law of Moses, God severely punished those of his own people who transgressed his laws to them. Twenty three thousand died in one day for the sin of fornication (1 Cor. 10:8). That was written to us as an example under the New Testament. Do not try to tell us that God does not rule by law; he does!

Some people do not like rules to regulate their lives. They want “freedom” to do as they please. These who want to be “free” from the rigid shackles of the law of the New Testament, want to be regarded as children of God with all the blessings that accompany that relationship, but they despise the law of the New Testament. Jesus said: “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). To know God and be in him, we must keep his commandments. “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him” (1 John 2:3-5).

Justified By Faith That Works

Abraham is given as the example of being justified by faith that worked. Romans four contains the nature of Abraham’s faith that justified him (Rom. 4:21-25). He offered his son Isaac upon the altar just as God had commanded him to do. Abraham would never have been justified if he had not obeyed the command of God to offer that son.

Romans 4:1-5 and James 2:21-24 both discuss the same subject: justification by faith. Both passages use Abraham’s faith as the example of justification. Both show Abraham’s faith to be essential to his justification. Romans 4:1-5 shows that Abraham was justified by faith without the works of the law of Moses, by which no flesh could be saved (Rom. 3:20).

James 2:21-24 says that Abraham was not justified by faith only (dead faith without works of obedience), but by works (faith that moved one to obey God). His active faith that obeyed God did count for righteousness. James 2:21-24 is discussing the nature of acceptable faith in God, and Abraham is given as an example of that obedient faith in God. We are to walk in the steps of Abraham (Rom. 4:12). The gospel is the system of faith that justifies.

James 2:23 says, “Abraham believed God , and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.” Romans 4:3 says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” Abraham is used in both passages to show justification by faith. In one “works” are prohibited; in the other “works” are demanded. The difference is that in Romans the “works” are merit works of the law of Moses. In James the “works” are works of obedience to the commands under the covenant that grants remission. That which makes both cases apply to Abraham was that “he believed God” and acted in obedience to the will of God. By faith Abraham obeyed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness (Heb.11:8). If Abraham had not obeyed God, he would not have been justified. But without the gospel no flesh can be justified. It is the power of God unto salvation, to everyone that believeth, both the Jew and Gentile (Rom. 1:16).

Jesus taught that the one who will enter the kingdom of heaven is “he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:23). Those who have the right to the tree of life and will enter into the city of God are those who do his commandments (Rev. 22:14).

The truth is that the obedience to any part of the law of God does not merit salvation to any degree. What we do is not done to merit salvation to any degree. It is only “by grace are ye saved through faith,” but that faith must work the obedience of God, who imputes our obedient faith for righteousness. Disobedient faith avails nothing!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 2, p. 3-4
January 20, 1994

By Sherrel A. Mercer

A Christian will endeavor to give cheerfully and responsibly to the local church of which he is a member. His conscience will be his sole guide, both in the gift he makes, and in his reporting of his annual contribution as a deduction. No other party is involved, since churches of Christ, in adhering to scriptural standards, normally have no direct accountability to the Internal Revenue Service concerning the contribution received from their members.

It is fitting and proper for a Christian to claim his correct itemized deduction for religious contributions. By so doing, the wages he earns will have its greatest value, since more of it will be available to do good works. But some individuals have abused the privilege of giving, and as a result, new IRS regulations effective in 1994 will require a change in the way churches handle the contribution received from members.

Effective January 1, any contribution of $250.00 or more to a church will be excluded from the IRS as a deduction unless a signed receipt is obtained from the receiving church. A cancelled check will no longer be sufficient to substantiate such contribution, and the testimony of knowledgeable individuals will not be accepted! In addition, if a group of checks, each of which is less than $250, is given on the same day, the deduction for those checks will be excluded if no receipt is obtained.

The vast majority of contributions in support of churches of Christ are under $250 each. But consider these scenarios that do regularly happen:

1. A family takes a four-week vacation, and provides the contribution for four Sundays on the last Sunday before they leave. The parents regularly contribute $75 each week. The contribution for the four weeks together amounts to $300. Their contribution will be disallowed by the IRS if a receipt is not obtained.

2. A sizeable gift is made to the congregation in memory of a departed member. If $250 or more, the contribution will be disallowed by the IRS if a receipt is not obtained.

The new law places no responsibility on churches, but rather on individuals who make gifts of $250 or more. But clearly, churches must make adjustments in how they handle the offering in order to assist members in preserving their privilege under the tax law. And the adjustments need to maintain the privacy of the offering in order to be consistent with the scripture.

The IRS is seeking to prevent, for example, a person from writing a check of $300 to a church, and then receiving $250 in change from the collection plate. Such a person in the past could declare the $300 as contribution, when in reality his gift was only $50. (This actually was happening!) Since churches are not accountable to the IRS, no one was the wiser.

In 1994, it will be important for churches to put in practice one or more of the following changes:

1. The persons who count the contribution must be pre-pared to issue a signed receipt to anyone who gives $250 or more on any occasion. The receipt must include the name of the church, the date received, and a statement that no goods or services other than intangible religious benefit was received by the giver in exchange for his offering. The receipt must be signed. Or,

2. The endorsement stamp used on the back of personal checks could be worded as above to make the endorsement a valid receipt when signed. For example, it could say: “This check was received by the Any town Church of Christ as contribution on (date) . The donor received no goods for services other than intangible religious benefit for his gift. Deposit to account number 123456 of the Hometown Bank. Signed

3. In addition, as additional protection of the rights of the giver, my advisors say that the one who signs the receipt or the receipt stamp should not be a close relative of the one who issues the check.

4. Finally, these changes need to be explained to the members of the congregation, so that there will be no surprises if someone is audited by the IRS.

The rules seem to indicate that the receipt could be given at a later time, so long as the receipt is in hand by the time a person files his personal income tax return.

A local congregation could choose to do nothing in preparation for these changes, and hope that the need for a receipt will not arise. That seems tantamount to hoping a large contribution will never arrive! Brethren, leadership demands that those in positions of responsibility initiate actions that serve to defend against undue criticism.

We are fortunate to live in a great country which allows churches to function without monitoring or interference from the government. There are forces at work that will, I am sure, make many more changes in the way churches function in the next twenty years. The 1994 changes seem to be reasonable, but churches must respond in order to assist their members to be the best possible stewards of the funds they possess.

(Information is from the RIA Analysis of the 1993 Federal Law Changes.) GI

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 14
January 6, 1994

By Jeff Asher

On the nights of August 9, 10, 12 and 13 brother James L. Zachary met Mr. Russell Henson in Mountain View, Arkansas on four propositions regarding miracles and the number of persons in the Godhead. The debate was well attended by both Christians and Pentecostals. Each of the disputants was well prepared and behavior during the debate by all was exemplary. This debate was conducted on the highest plain all week and made a favorable impression in the community by the Eastside church for truth among denominations other than the Pentecostals.

Monday Evening

The proposition Monday night was:

The Scriptures teach miracles are being performed today in the same way they were performed in the New Testament.

Mr. Henson set out to prove the proposition by affirming that God had performed miracles in ages past and was capable of performing miracles now. Then he undertook to enlist the assistance of the audience by asking that those who had received miraculous healing to stand. He also gave his own personal testimony concerning healing. Brother Zachary was quick to point out that the proposition did not have anything to do with what God had done in the past or with the unsubstantiated subjective testimony of the audience or himself. Rather, Mr. Henson was under obligation to prove that the Scriptures teach that miracles are being done today in the same way as God did them in the past.

The principle argument offered by Mr. Henson regarding miraculous healing today concerned Isaiah 53:4-5,

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our inequities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Henson argued that the atonement of Christ purchased for all Christians the healing of diseases, as well as the forgiveness of sins. He cited Matthew 8:17 as proof that the passage has reference to physical healing.

Zachary first pointed out that Henson’s proof text did not sustain his argument because in Matthew the miracles of healing under consideration were those of Jews under the law before the atonement was offered, not Christians under the gospel after the atonement was made. Thus, Matthew 8:17 could not possibly mean that Isaiah 53:4-5 has anything to do with the physical healing of Christians today.

Brother Zachary went on to give the inspired commentary on Isaiah 53:4-5 and Matthew 8:17 from 1 Peter 2:24,

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

It was shown that the “healing” in Isaiah 53 was the forgiveness of sins and not the removal of physical infirmity. Thus, Matthew 8:17 had in view the personal ministry of Christ which included miracle working as a part of the proof that He was the Son of God and the one who would bear our sins to the cross (see: Matt. 9:2-8). This truth was further demonstrated from New Testament examples of faithful Christians who had sickness (2 Cor. 12:7-10; 2 Tim. 4:20; Phil. 2:25-30; 1 Tim. 5:23).

Tuesday Night

The next proposition discussed was:

The Scriptures teach that miraculous gifts have ceased.

This proposition is a little unusual, since Pentecostals are generally unwilling to sign a proposition framed so closely to biblical language (cf. 1 Cor. 13:8). However, it states precisely the issue that exists between Christians and Pentecostals.

Throughout the first two nights Zachary pressed the issue of “in the same way.” Henson was presented miracles of healings, tongues, resurrections, snakes, poison, curses and nature along with the question: “Are they being performed today in the same way?” He was asked for a demonstration on Monday night; yet, on Tuesday evening the request was rescinded because “the Scriptures teach miraculous gifts have ceased.” Zachary made his case from two passages 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 and Ephesians 4:11-13.

1 Corinthians 13:8-13 was shown to teach that miraculous gifts would cease when the revelation of the mystery of the gospel was completed. This was done by making it clear that the thing which is “perfect” in this text is that which brings our knowledge to perfection (cf. 13:12). There is one perfect thing, the completed revelation of Jesus Christ (Jas. 1;25; John 16:13; 2 Tim. 3:16,17; Jude 3). Mr. Henson was pressed on whether or not he believed the Bible was perfect.

The emphasis in Ephesians 4:11-13 was upon the proposition “till.” It was shown that the word demanded duration. Thus, the argument was made that all the gifts were to last as long as any of the gifts, and that duration was conditioned upon four things. These were: (1) unity of the faith, (2) knowledge of the Son, (3) perfection of the body, (4) the measure of Christ. Zachary showed quite well that it is the Word of God that satisfies each of these conditions (Jude 3; 2 Pet. 1:2,3; 2 Tim. 3:16).

The best argument that Mr. Henson could make in response to the affirmative material was to say, “If you have been born again, then you have experienced a miracle.” In response to Zachary pointed out that Mr. Henson and his people had not had the same experience that was manifested on Pentecost and Cornelius’ house which he claimed was the new birth, nor did Pentecostals practice what he was preaching relative to the new birth in that some water baptized members of his church had not received the experience of tongues. Zachary went on to point out how the Spirit works in conversion and why this is not a miracle. This was just another of Henson’s many blunders.

Wednesday Night

On Wednesday the debate was recessed. The brethren at Eastside have an assembly in the evening, and it was a very edifying time. The singing was wonderful.

Many brethren had come from all over the state and from out of state. Thus, the house was full of visitors. Among these was brother Ed Dye from Pine Bluff, Zachary’s moderator, and brother Keith Sharp who joined us at the table. These brethren were indispensable during the week in the study sessions. Brother Dye did a magnificent job in keeping order. This is one of the few debates with Pentecostals where there have been no points of order called. I attribute this in large part to brother Dye.

I had the pleasure and honor of addressing the assembly that evening on the subject “Divine Encouragement for Holy Living” taken from 1 Peter 1:13-2:5. This was my first time to preach at Mountain View though I have known several in the church for many years. It was certainly good to be with such a fine church who showed not only love for the brethren by their hospitality, but for the truth as well by their stedfast support of Jim during the debate.

Thursday Night

The subject changed on Thursday evening to the Godhead, and so did the order of speakers, Zachary moved to the affirmative with this proposition 

The Scriptures teach the Godhead is three persons, namely the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Zachary made it clear that he was not affirming that there were three Gods, but only that the one God exists in three persons. Frankly, this is a difficult concept even for our own brethren to grasp at times. However, Zachary got to the real issue at stake when the pointed out that the Pentecostal position denies the Son and brings the condemnation of 1 John 2:22-24,

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

The Bible teaches one must believe in the Father and the Son, not the Father who is the Son. This is why this issue merits being debated. Souls are at stake (John 8:24).

Zachary made several arguments that were very effective in showing the truth of the nature of the Godhead. First, he introduced John 8:16-18, which reads,

And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Mr. Henson was asked, “Do you believe Jesus when he said that he was not alone and that there was a second witness?” The response was, “The flesh of Jesus was one witness and the Spirit of Jesus was the other witness.” Now, this left Mr. Henson with quite a dilemma for he was called upon to explain whether or not Jesus had two spirits, one human and the other divine. And, if having two spirits, that is, the Holy Spirit indwelling the man Jesus, why Henson himself was not “God” since he claimed to have the Holy Spirit dwelling in himself. Zachary then answered the question for the audience showing that Luke 23:46 teaches that Jesus had only one spirit, and necessarily, Mr. Henson’s problem was not resolved.

When Zachary introduced Ephesians 4:1-5 into the discussion to show that there was one Spirit, one Lord and one Father which necessarily indicates three persons, Mr. Henson replied that the text did not say “and” which would indicate addition would be proper. Brother Zachary thanked Mr. Henson for that and produced the following passages which had the “and” as required:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 28:19).

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God (Acts 7:55).

And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me (John 8:16).

Friday Night

The last night of the debate had Mr. Henson affirming:

The Scriptures teach that the Godhead is Jesus only, and the words “in Jesus’ name” must be recited at baptism.

This night was the best attended, I thank that the Pentecostals may have outnumbered the brethren this night. However, we had heard that they regarded this to be the proposition with which Mr.. Henson would do his best.

However, Mr. Henson did not escape the careful examination of his position in the negative. Brother Zachary was well prepared introducing again in every speech as he had done the night before, and that several times, a chart in which the “facts are overwhelming” in support of three persons in the Godhead. There were 43 passages which clearly distinguish between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These passages can only be understood when one accepts that there is one God who exists in three Persons.

Mr. Henson introduced twelve “one God” passages as he called them from the Old Testament. Zachary showed that in each case the text referred to one Deity and in eleven instances the context dealt with the worship of the true God over pagan deities.

Henson also had the obligation to show that a certain baptismal formula was to be used. He cited the various cases of conversion in Acts where men were said to be baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (e.g. Acts 19:5). Brother Zachary pointed out that no one can produce a passage that tells what the baptizer said at baptism. The passages produced by Mr. Henson only tell what was done, they were baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17). Furthermore, only one time are we told what was said at a baptism by the baptized in Acts 8:37,38 

And Philip said, if thou believest with all thing heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

The person being baptized confessed the name of Jesus Christ and not the person doing the baptizing. This is exactly what Christians practice. Mr. Henson’s proposition failed.

Brother Zachary did a wonderful work the week of the debate. His success was directly attributable to the fact that the was obviously well prepared by careful study of the Word. I commend brother Zachary for his work and heartily recommend that the churches use him in future discussions with the Pentecostals or in meeting work. He is certainly doing the work of an evangelist in Mountain View. I also commend the good Eastside church for their faithful sup-port of God’s servants during the debate. It is encouraging to see brethren rally to the defense of the Lord, his church and the Word in an effort to save souls.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 2, p. 6-8
January 20, 1994