Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Halley

That “we preach too much doctrine” is one of the charges against the church. This criticism is as old as the doctrine of the Lord itself. “Ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine” (Acts 5:28). The Jews did not like it in the first century, and our critics do not like it today. Truly, “there is nothing new under the sun.”

The “doctrine of Christ” is the teaching of Christ (2 Jn. 9; Matt. 28:20). “The doctrine of the Pharisees” and “the doctrine of the Nicolaitans” was the teaching of those sects (Matt. 16:12; Rev. 2:15). Some say that “the doctrine of Christ” is simply teaching about Jesus, but “the doctrine of the Pharisees” was not “about” that group itself, but, rather, the teaching of the Pharisees, i.e., what they taught. Hence, “the doctrine of Christ” is the word of Christ, the “commandment” of Christ (Jn. 7:16; 12:48, 49; Col. 3:16).

Some have said that “we over emphasize doctrine in our preaching.” What doctrine (name one) is overly emphasized? They tell us that we need to give more stress to “spirituality.” It has been said that “Baptists have more spirituality in their little finger than we (Christians) have in our entire body.” The remedy for this is “less emphasis on doctrine.” “We are cold, formal, ritualistic. There is no joy in our service, but just look at the denominational people; they may not have all of our right answers, but they have the spirit, the joy, that we lack.”

Chart #6 (see next page) illustrates the complaint and the truth.

Is there “too much emphasis on doctrine”? (Our critics have a doctrine. It is this: We over emphasize doctrine. That is their doctrine. Do they over emphasize their doctrine, or are we the only ones guilty of doing so?) Let us note the Bible’s emphasis.

1. Romans 6:17, 18  “But God be thanked that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” Shall we limit the amount of “doctrine” that is to be “delivered” to lost sinners? If so, who is able to tell us the correct dosage? This “form of doctrine” included baptism “into Christ” (Rom. 6:3, 4). It was made known “for obedience to the, faith among all nations” (Rom. 1:5). Shall we hold back the flow of such “doctrine” lest it flood the hearts of men with the knowledge of God?

2. Romans 16:17  “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” Observe that “the doctrine” was “learned”; therefore, it had been taught. Does this passage indicate the importance of doctrine? Does it diminish doctrinal concerns? How serious are “divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine”? What does the text indicate?

3. 1 Timothy 1:3  “As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.” Paul, why did you tell Timothy to remain at Ephesus? I left him at Ephesus that he might command some that they teach “no other doctrine.” Was doctrine important at Ephesus but not at Houston, Memphis, Indianapolis, Louisville or Los Angeles? Should preachers today “charge some that they teach no other doctrine” ? Well, should they? “If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:6). Would Timothy have been “a good minister . . . nourished up in … good doctrine” if he had not put the brethren “in remembrance” of the doctrine of Christ in contrast to various departures “from the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1-3,13,16)?

4. 1 Timothy 4:16  “Take heed unto thyself, and unto thy doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” Should Timothy have lessened the emphasis that he gave in taking heed unto himself? Should he have neglected to take heed unto himself? No, of course not. Should he have softened the emphasis that he gave unto the doctrine? “Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:13). If Timothy should restrict time given to teaching matters of doctrine, should he also take time away from “reading”? Does this passage indicate that “the doctrine” is important or unimportant?

5. Titus 2:1  “But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine.” This “sound doctrine” was “his (God’s) word” (Titus 1:3); it was “the faithful word” (Titus 1:9), “the truth” (Titus 1:14). “Sound doctrine” is “the glorious gospel” (1 Tim. 1:10,11). Shall we de-emphasize “the glorious gospel of the blessed God”? Who will do it?

The teaching of “sound doctrine” includes teaching men how to live, how to conduct themselves (Titus 2). “The things which befit sound doctrine” are the same things that “becometh the gospel of Christ” (Titus 2:1; Phil. 1:27). Our lives reflect, either positively or negatively, upon the doctrine, the gospel of Christ  “The aged women . . . may teach the young women . . . that the word of God be not blasphemed. . . . Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters … that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things” (Titus 2:3-5, 10, 11).

But what if men do not approve of such preaching? What if they seek to have such matters removed? What if they oppose the speaking of “the things which become sound doctrine”? What shall we do? “These things (“the things which become sound doctrine”LRH) speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee” (Titus 2:15). If men “despise thee,” if men oppose your unrelenting emphasis on “sound doctrine,” you will either have to please men or please God. The choice is yours.

6. 2 Timothy 4:2-4  “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when men will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own

“TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON DOCTRINE”

1 Bible Emphasis – Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 1:3; 4:16; Titus 2:1; 2 Tim. 4:2-4; 2 Jn. 9; Jas. 5:19, 20

2 1 Tim. 6:3, 4 If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing;

3 Do Critics Emphasize Their “Doctrine” That We Emphasize Doctrine?

4 Make Critic Cite A Specific Doctrine That

Is Over Emphasized

lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” Does “in season, out of season . . . with all longsuffering and doctrine,” mean that we should not “go overboard” on doctrine or teaching?

The fact is that there are modern day complainers who have “itching ears.” They say, “Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things” (Isa. 30:10). They want their ears to be tickled because their spirits have been pickled by the “cares of this world.” They have been enamored by the wisdom of this world. They have a latent sympathy for the doctrines and commandments of men. They would rather suppress the truth of God than to express it, especially if it exposes their sins or offends their friends in error. They will not admit it to you, of course, but they do not like the pinch and punch of sound doctrine. It condemns their manner of life and combats the doctrines of denominationalism which they secretly love and espouse. Romans 1:18 tells us that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all. . . who hold (hinder or suppress) the truth in unrighteousness.”

7. 2 John 9  “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” Shall we slow down the proclamation of that which causes men to have “both the Father and the Son”? How important is it to abide and continue “in the doctrine of Christ” ? Can one have God if he does not obey and walk in the doctrine of Christ? What does the text teach?

The first disciples “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42). The “apostles’ doctrine” was “the doctrine of Christ” (Lk. 10:16; 1 Cor. 14:37). Will people continue “steadfastly” in that which we cease to emphasize? It is hard to believe that there are those among us who do not want “the doctrine of Christ” to be impressed on the hearts of men. Some do not like the “doctrine of Christ” regarding divorce and remarriage (Matt. 19:9). Some do not like the “doctrine of Christ” which teaches “modest apparel” (1 Tim. 2:9). Some do not like the “doctrine of Christ” which opposes social drinking (1 Pet. 4:3,4).

Again, they will not tell you that, but they will quietly try to turn you against such preaching because it is “so negative” and “so out of touch with today’s society.” They will seek to convince you that “constant harping” on “how right we are, and how wrong they are” is only a recipe for “disaster.” They will cite a case of someone who was made angry by a “brow beating, doctrinal sermon.” They will tell you that the man was “run off ” by preaching that “attacked his denomination.” Now, they will reassure you that they believe the truth “just like you do,” but they wonder out loud if you do not agree with them that there must be a better way to reach people than by “beating them over the head every time they attend one of our services.” While you are trying to sort out what they have said, you will be told that they do not believe in compromising the truth; oh, no, not that; they just think there should be a “little more balance in our preaching.” Who opposes a “balanced diet” of preaching? No one!

Brethren, their goal is to subvert the doctrine of Christ. They are paving the way for the introduction of their unscriptural doctrines of men. They want a congregation that accepts those who are living in adultery. They want a congregation that will accept them as they engage in social drinking. Some of them want a congregation that will accept a Baptist with his Baptist baptism and extend to him “the right hand of fellowship” with a wink and a smile. Some of them want “humming” in addition to “singing” in worship  yes, humming! They do not oppose the Lord’s day contribution, but they believe it is scriptural to take up a collection on Wednesday night, too. There are even those who are “wrestling” with the idea that one may be saved by faith, before and without water baptism. “If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing” (1 Tim. 6:3,4). They are all members of the church. Their influence is spreading, “and their word will eat as doth” cancerous gangrene (2 Tim. 2:17).

They are not ready to tell you what they really believe. You would be repulsed if you knew it. So, for now, they will bring you along slowly. They will say all the right things. They will express their reservations with such love and concern that you could never doubt their sincerity and good will. “By their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the innocent” (Rom. 16:18  ASV). “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8). “Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness” (2 Pet. 3:17).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 2, p. 9-11
January 20, 1994

By Ron Halbrook

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. … So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:1,27). “In the beginning there was no God, but after a while man imagined and invented God.” Which account is accurate?

A former nun who says man created God is none too smart. Karen Armstrong recently wrote A History of God which claims that God, in the words of a reviewer, “is a product of humankind’s creative imagination” (Time Magazine, 27 September 1993, pp. 77-78). Such nonsense is the product of Armstrong’s not so creative imagination. Solomon wrote about such vain imaginations when he said, “God hath made man upright; but they have sought many inventions” (Eccl. 7:29).

There is no history of God because he dwells in eternity, not in the limitations of time. God rules over history (Acts 17:26). History is the story of man living on earth in the presence of God, at times imagining that God is imaginary.

The charge that man created God banishes man to utter darkness about God, himself, and proper conduct. According to Armstrong’s reviewer, she grants that “the one and only God” found in the Bible gives “meaning and value” to human life and establishes “the dignity of the individual.” Truly, man’s whole meaning and purpose in life is grounded in the reality that he was created by God and in God’s image, and was told by God, “Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man”

(Eccl. 12:13). Man’s meaning, value, and dignity are reduced by Armstrong to the byproduct of his own imagination. In other words, when God is dead, man is dead.

Armstrong is a monotheist who prays “with Jews and Muslims.” Why worship the product of one’s own imagination? How does this differ from worshipping oneself? If there is no God, then man is the highest order of creation and thus assumes the place of God. Satan told Eve, “Ye shall be as gods,” and we are still suffering the consequences (Gen. 3:5). Past generations “who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator,” turned to rampant immorality, violence, and ungodly conduct of every kind (Rom. 1:18-32).

To reveal and confirm his existence, God autographed the universe. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork” (Ps. 19:1-6). The intricate design and harmonious functioning of the universe remind us of its Creator and Sustainer. “For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God” (Heb. 3:4).

God revealed and confirmed his will to man in the Bible. He left his autograph upon its pages.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Like the universe, the Bible is made up of many parts which function in perfect harmony to accomplish God’s purpose. Its sixty-six books were written by forty authors over a period of fifteen hundred years and it tells the story of God’s plan to redeem man from sin through His Son Jesus Christ (Jn. 20:30-31). Of all books, it alone reveals man’s origin, nature, duty, happiness, and destiny as ordained by God. The reality of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the divine inspiration of the Bible are con-firmed by its fulfilled prophecies and other miracles recorded upon its pages.

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps. 14:1). Such claims are the result of the deceitfulness of sin, and of men turning from God. Thank God, we can turn back to God and be forgiven of our sins through the blood of his Son. We receive God’s grace when we believe the gospel, repent of our sins, confess Christ as his Son, and are baptized in water for the remission of our sins (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 10:10; Acts 2:38). We cannot “imagine” our sins away by imagining that man created God. “When they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom. 1:21). GI

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 15
January 6, 1994

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