Truth Magazine

Introduction to Debate

Several months ago, I wrote an article on instrumental music in worship and how it affected the fellowship of the saints. Ron Tate, who is affiliated with the independent Christian Churches, wrote me a lengthy letter in disagreement with my material and argued the unity-in-diversity approach to unity on the subject of instrumental music. Inasmuch as he had given so much thought to this subject, I suggested that we have a three article exchange to be published in Guardian of Truth and one of their journals if he could secure one to carry the exchange. He was unable to secure a paper, but I consented to publish the exchange any way. I asked brother Donnie Rader to carry the negative in the exchange.

After receiving brother Rader’s response to his first affirmative, Ron Tate dropped out of the exchange and has not answered my last letter (although several months have passed since I wrote him). Therefore, I am publishing both articles and leaving it to the reader to conclude why Mr. Tate chose not to continue the discussion.

First Affirmative

Proposition: The Scriptures teach that we must have unity in doctrine on a core gospel but allows unity in diversity on doctrinal matters.

The first order of business at the outset of this discussion is to define what is meant by the terms “core gospel” and “doctrinal matters.” The term “core gospel” refers to those essentials of the faith which are based on clear, specific statements in the Scripture and, as such, are not negotiable.

“Doctrinal matters” are those areas that are not ad-dressed by specific commands and, as a result, disagreements have arisen within the Restoration movement over the appropriateness of their presence in the life of the body of Christ.

Great statements and slogans, which rallied many people to the restoration ideal, were articulated during the beginning of this movement. Some of those statements were:

“In matters of faith, unity;

In matters of opinion, liberty; In all things, love!”

“Let us speak where the Bible speaks,

and remain silent where the Bible is silent!”

The principles, embodied in these slogans and statements, challenged individuals and, sometimes, entire churches to consider a new and fresh approach to the unification of God’s people.

A thorough study of the Scripture reveals that there are those things which are essential matters of faith to which we must hold. We also find that these essential matters of faith are relatively few in number. When one thoroughly examines the Scriptures to find those areas which are absolutely necessary for one to be in Christ, the following essentials become apparent: acceptance of the authority and existence of God (Heb. 11:6); acceptance of the deity and the Lordship of Christ Jesus who is the only way to heaven (John 14:6); acceptance of the Scriptures as the infallible, inspired and complete Word of God (2 Tim 3:16-17); acceptance of the church as the entity for which Christ died, to which he adds those who are being saved (Acts 2:47) and in which we must be dwelling when he returns (Eph. 5:23); acceptance of the importance of immersion in effecting the new birth (John 3:5; Rom. 6:4; 2 Cor. 5:17); acceptance of faithfulness to him as a way of life (Matt. 16:24; 1 Cor. 4:2). To the degree that there is agreement regarding these essential matters of faith, unity is a reality.

But how do we handle matters of opinion? In fact, which things are matters of opinion? Which things are essential? In order to answer these and other legitimate questions, honest and devout men continued to search for a method which would provide them with the answers. As a result of their efforts to restore New Testament Christianity, the old methods of interpreting the Scriptures (hermeneutics) began to fail. It is important to note that the men who began what we know as the Restoration Movement disagreed quite strongly among themselves over certain issues. However, in spite of this disagreement they did not divide. These differences were the result of different hermeneutical approaches (i.e. our particular way of deciding what we believe and practice from the Bible).

The hermeneutic to which brethren in the churches of Christ have subscribed calls for a direct command, an approved example or necessary inference for a matter of faith or practice to be authorized by the Scriptures. Brethren from the Independent Christian Churches, who were just as desirous of following God and his Word, developed a different but equally valid hermeneutic which called for obedience to direct commands, an understanding of what is non-scriptural (things not mentioned in Scripture, e.g., church buildings, song books, communion sets, instrumental accompaniment, collection plates, etc.) and a recognition of what is anti-scriptural (i.e., is it prohibited by the Scripture?).

It must be understood that each of these hermeneutics came into being as a result of the efforts of human beings. It must be recognized that neither hermeneutic has the status of Scripture nor is either infallible. To elevate our personal hermeneutic to the point where we equate it with Scripture itself is one of the most serious mistakes that Christians can make. The process is inductive in nature and comes from the study, prayer, beliefs and scholarship of human beings. It is a serious matter to draw lines of fellowship based not upon the Scriptures themselves but on human scholarship.

There is virtually universal agreement within the two remaining segments of the Restoration Movement (Churches of Christ and the Independent Christian Churches) that commands are given to be obeyed and are not optional. (Note: The group which identifies itself as “Christian Church  Disciples” has long since abandoned the notion that biblical commands are important.) To continue to associate the Independent Christian Church with the highly organized, denominationally structured “Christian Church  Disciples” indicates that some 40 years of recent Restoration history has been ignored.

What about “approved examples”? The question “Are they binding on Christians today?” can be re-stated as follows: “Are people today required to imitate the actions of individuals or churches recorded in the New Testament?” Is the lack of a “direct command” or an “approved example” sufficient to prohibit particular actions?

Thomas Campbell set the stage for this discussion in the American Restoration in his Declaration and Ad-dress and his thoughts have been repeated by some restorationists since that time. He said:

 

We dare, therefore, neither do or receive anything as of Divine obligation for which there cannot be expressly produced a “Thus saith the Lord” either in express terms or by approved precedent.”`

 

(Note: While slogans and statements are inspiring, they are, nonetheless, the products of human effort and study and are not to be equated with Scripture.)

These slogans, statements and hermeneutics began to generate controversy in the Restoration Movement over the authority of examples. For example, those who oppose located preachers believe that there is no authority for such because there is no example in the New Testament of a preacher located with a church that had elders being supported for his work. Those who oppose Sunday Bible classes say that there is no example of a church with apostolic sanction that con-ducted Sunday Bible study and used women as teachers.

On the other hand, since there is no command, example or inference which would prohibit these (and many other) practices, some have concluded that these are not violations of Scripture and, as a result, are not prohibited by the Scriptures.

Firm Foundation Publishing Company publishes a directory of the non-instrumental churches of Christ in America. This directory lists over 20 different codes for identifying “particular characteristics” of the churches of Christ listed in it.’ A cursory reading of various “brotherhood” publications indicates that there is little or no fellowship between many of these groups. Sweeping charges that this or that group is either “liberal,0 0progressive,” “digressive,” or “institutional,” etc. are thrown about almost at will.

The sad part is that all of these 20 or so groups claim to be a part of the Restoration Movement and, in fact, each claims to use the very same hermeneutic. Each of them demands a command, an example, or a necessary inference as Bible authority for matters of faith and practice.

With all of this division, one might suggest that the hermeneutic being used is faulty. But there is nothing wrong with it. It is a pretty good one. What is wrong is the judgmentalism and sectarian spirit it produces!

Mindless cloning is out of the question. It is ludicrous to suggest that in order to have unity everyone must give up those things where there is disagreement in order to please the most legalistic church or person in each of our brotherhoods. This is not the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17. Having differences with someone else does not mean division is required or appropriate.

The solution to this and other similar difficulties is to simply recognize that others in the Restoration Movement may have as great a desire to be New Testament Christians as we do and that they adhere to a hermeneutic as valid as ours. The simple fact is that they have reached different conclusions about non-essentials than we have. The reality is that promoting unity while allowing “diversity” is the most reasonable, rational and Scriptural response. In acknowledging this, however, it must be understood that it need not result in a compromise of the truth of God because it is not the truth that is under attack. Truth has not caused our divisions. Insisting that everyone agree with us on every opinion and issue is the great divider!

Footnotes

‘Thomas Campbell, Declaration and Address (Brown and Sample, 1809 [reprint]), p. 41.

‘Where the Saints Meet, Firm Foundation Publishing Company, Mack Lynn, editor.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 16-17
October 7, 1993

By Lowell Blasingame

No religious topic generates more controversy than water baptism. The problem isn’t that the Bible hasn’t spoken clearly and plainly. The real cause for the difficulty is because so many have drawn conclusions from their own feelings and opinions without consulting the Bible to see what it says.

All religious people agree that baptism is a command but there are differences over who are subjects of the command and for what purpose it is to be obeyed. Maybe we can remove some of the difficulty if we approach the study of the topic from the negative standpoint and point out some of the things that baptism isn’t for.

1. Baptism isn’t for the untaught. Jesus told his disciples to go and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). Teaching was to precede the baptizing and each case of conversion related in the book of Acts shows that persons were taught before they were baptized. Since baptism isn’t for the untaught, it follows that babies and irresponsible persons are not subjects for baptism.

2. Baptism isn’t for unbelievers. While Philip was teaching the eunuch, they came to a certain water and the eunuch asked whathindered him frombeing baptized. Philip’s response was, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest” (Acts 8:35-37). Jesus placed believing before baptism (Mk. 16:16). Since baptism isn’t for unbelievers, it isn’t for atheists or agnostics.

3. Baptism isn’t for the impenitent. Sometimes I hear people say, “If I thought one had to be baptized to be saved, I’d force that person to be baptized.” But, wait, friend, you’ve missed a point in Bible teaching. One must repent before he is baptized (Acts 2:38) and if you were to compel one to be baptized who has not repented, you would have forced him to submit to an act that isn’t for him.

4. Baptism isn’t for saved people. I know that many think that one is first saved, then baptized as a symbol or sign of his salvation but I want you to read carefully the following passages of scripture and take note of where baptism is placed in relationship to the blessing that is promised in each of them.

a. Mk. 16:16 Baptized  saved.

b. Acts 2:38 Baptized  remission of sins.

c. Acts 22:16 Baptized  washing away of sins.

In fact, in every passage of Scripture in which baptism and a word corresponding to forgiveness appears, baptism always comes before that word, never after it. There is but one conclusion that can possibly be drawn and that is baptism isn’t for saved people.

5. Baptism isn’t for Christians. Some talk about baptism being a “Christian rite” or the “Christian ordinance” of baptism. Baptism is a command so in this sense it is a rite or ordinance but it isn’t one for a Christian to obey. Let me show you that this is so. One does not become a Christian before he enters Christ for it is in him that he becomes a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). But he does not into enter Christ until he is baptized into him (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27). Therefore, it follows that one is not baptized as a Christian, one already in Christ, but in order to get into that One in whom he becomes a Christian.

6. Baptism isn’t for the sins of a child of God. Often when I point out that baptism is for the remission of sins, I am asked, “Does this mean that a child of God must be baptized each time that he sins?” The answer is, “No, baptism isn’t for the sins of the child of God.”

Look at a Bible example that proves this. In Samaria, Simon heard Philip’s preaching and was baptized (Acts 8:13). Later, Simon sinned in trying to buy the power to impart miraculous gifts of the Spirit but he wasn’t told to be baptized again. He was told to repent and pray that the thought of his heart might be forgiven (Acts 8:18-23). Baptism isn’t a command given to children of God for remission of their sins.

7. Baptism wasn’t for Old Testament Characters. “If Abraham, David and Moses were saved without baptism, does not that prove that I can be saved without it?” is another question that I have had asked. Again, the answer is, “No, Christ gave the command to baptize just before he returned to heaven.” Old Testament characters who had lived and died before it was given were not subject to obeying it. The same is true of the thief on the cross. He had been dead more than forty days when Christ gave this command (Acts 1:1-3).

Baptism is a command now for us and we must obey Christ if we are to be saved (Heb. 5:9). It is for those who gladly receive the word (Acts 2:42) and show such by believing in Christ (In. 8:24), repenting of their sins (Lk. 13:3) and confessing their faith in him as the Son of God (Matt. 10:32-33). If you are willing to do this, baptism is for you. If you aren’t willing to do this, baptism isn’t for you!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 14-15
October 7, 1993

By Billy Ashworth

“The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God” (Psa. 9:17). “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).

I feel that it is necessary in the very beginning to give the readers some facts that will let them know why I am writing this article. I am not writing it to boast about my experience and the knowledge I have gained in my many years in federal service in official capacities, both civil and military. Also, I have preached the gospel of Christ for over forty years. Neither am I writing for partisan political reasons. If I were, one might be justified in refusing to read and consider what I say, even though it would reveal a closed mind in this matter.

I am writing this article as a concerned citizen of my beloved United States of America, and of the kingdom of God. I am writing from a standpoint of history in which I have been involved personally, and am setting forth facts that are painfully obvious in the light of God’s divine revelation. Hopefully I can awaken many of my brethren and sisters to the alarming decay in this nation that affects all citizens of the nation and of the kingdom of God.

I was born into a theistically-oriented family in a free country which had as its foundation a belief in God and in the Bible as his revealed will. In the days of my youth, this country was in its ascendancy, on its way to become the greatest nation that has ever existed on the face of the earth. God-fearing, family-loving, hard-working, honest people labored to build a country in which they could be free to live their lives as they believed to be right and good, and to be free religiously to worship and serve God as they saw fit, or to refrain from doing so as they desired.

Having obeyed the gospel in March, 1950, I studied the Scriptures diligently and have preached the gospel of Christ for over forty years. God’s Word reveals that he ordained “the powers that be” (Rom. 13:1), and “that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and giveth to whomsoever He wills” (Dan. 4:17,25,32). Peter wrote: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praises of them that do well” (1 Pet. 2:13, 14). Paul wrote: “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (I Tim. 1:1, 2).

The Scriptures give only one exception to the command to obey civil rulers. In Acts 4:18, 19, we read: “And they (their rulers, elders, scribes, the high priest, BA) called them and commanded them not to speak in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them. Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Cf. Dan. 1:8).

From these scriptures references, it is evident that: (1) God ordained (ordered) the powers that be, including civil rulers. (2) God’s people are to be subject to (obey) them. We are to obey “every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.” We have no right to pick and choose what laws we will obey, and those we refuse to obey. (3) God’s purpose in ordaining civil government was to have an orderly society under law in which rulers were to “punish the evildoer and to protect and praise them who do well.” God’s wisdom is seen when we realize that there are duties that his people sustain that the church, as such, cannot perform. (4) “Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil” (Rom. 13:a). It is obvious that God’s people could not have flourished without the stability afforded by civil law, even under the heathen Romans. (5) God’s people are to pray for all that are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and holiness.

It is true that civil rulers have a profound effect upon the morals of its subjects. How foolish is the assertion often made by misinformed people that, “The government cannot regulate morals.” That is precisely what God intended that civil rulers do! These same people speak of a “person’s right” to do whatever he pleases  even to a woman’s decision to have her unborn baby aborted (murdered). Question: Where do they get the “right” to do what they please? Answer: not from God! If civil rulers fail in their mission as ordained of God, people live in an uncivilized jungle, a situation that prevails in many areas of this once-great nation today.

The “Founding Fathers” (a term rejected by radical feminists today) wrote a Constitution with a Bill of Rights to guarantee freedom to the citizens of this country under law. They knew that freedom without law is not possible. They established a government in which the people had the right to elect their own rulers, and to remove them when they were guilty of malfeasance in office of public trust. This constitutes democracy.

The people of this new nation, who fled Europe to escape the tyranny of religious bigots, hewed themselves out an existence in a wilderness and endured disease, severe weather, and strong opposition by the inhabitants of this land. The nation they founded became great  a tower of strength and bastion of free people under God  and the object of fond hopes of people in foreign lands.

This nation has existed for over two hundred years, the longest of any democracy that history records. Why did so noble an effort by our forefathers succeed beyond their wildest dreams? I believe that Psalms 33:12 sets forth an answer: “Blessed is the nation whose God is Jehovah, the people whomhe has chosen for his own inheritance “I hasten to observe that this passage refers primarily to Israel of old, but I believe that the faith most of the pioneers had in God was a vital factor of the wonderful growth. It was during the early years of this nation that the restoration of the Lord’s church had its greatest success.

Why is this once-great nation now in chaos and decay? I call the readers’ attention to an article that appeared in the U.S. News and World Report (February 1, 1993). It was titled, “The Fueding Fathers.” The article reviewed the battle between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson at length. The difference between the two was the attitude each had toward the kind of government the new nation would have. Jefferson favored democracy (government of the People) while Adams held a more aristocratic position, seen by many as a “hereditary aristocracy.”

A most interesting statement by Adams was placed in a box, which reads: “There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.” I do believe that democracy of and by the people is the greatest form of government any human beings ever conceived. Remember, God did not ordain any one particular form of government, although he gave the Israelites a kingdom (monarchy) whose kings he selected. Of course the kingdom of Christ is a spiritual monarchy, ruled over with absolute power by the King, Jesus. When Paul wrote the book of Romans and Peter wrote his epistle on the subject at hand, they were living under the control of the heathen Roman Empire under the rule of the Caesars.

I believe, in light of history, that Adams was right in his statement that democracies commit suicide. Rulers elected by popular vote of the people, tend to believe that they must rule according to the desires of their constituents. As the incumbents bend to increasing demands of the people, which are usually selfish, eventually all drown themselves in selfishness and greed.

President Roosevelt introduced socialism into this country in his efforts to break the economic depression that began with the Market Crash in 1929 and extended into the forties.

This “Great Depression” held the United States, as well as the rest of the world, in its vice-like grip. It was imperative that Roosevelt try earnestly to rescue the nation from total economic collapse, the very thing he was elected to do in 1932.

But it is a well-known fact of history that once socialism is introduced into a democracy it will escalate; as many people prefer the government solve their problems. This eliminates much personal/individual responsibility that democracy requires. (Consider how soon the Israelites forgot the burdens of slavery in Egypt when they were subjected to hardships in the wilderness under the leadership of Moses.) Personal responsibility, the basis of democracy, chafes the unthinking, lazy masses who prefer the government take care of them. Consider the millions of citizens in America on the government dole today. It has been well said: “The government that is big enough to give its citizens everything they want, is powerful enough to take everything they have.”

The escalation of socialism continued until General Dwight D. Eisenhower ran for president in 1952 and was elected. His administration lasted from 1953-1961, and slowed the acceleration of socialism. His eight years as President gave America its best years in my lifetime. (I have lived under fourteen Presidents, not including the present one.)

During President Eisenhower’s eight-year reign. America enjoyed prosperity and relative peace within, as well as around the world. The “Cold War” with Russia occurred during this time. Military intelligence recognized Russia’s overall military might, but found that their leaders apparently feared to attack us because we had the atom bomb.

The Psalmist wrote: “The wicked shall be turned into hell and all the nations that forget God” (Psa. 9:17). Proverbs 14:34 reads: “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” As God is no respector of persons (Rom. 2:11), this nation began to decline from greatness when she turned away from her spiritual values and “forgot God” and began to indulge in “socially acceptable” sins.

I believe that the turning point from greatness to decay began in the late forties just as America reached the zenith of her greatness. At the close of World War II, the old saying that “prosperous times are dangerous times,” came to pass.

The introduction of television into our world changed our lives and country forever. No one in his wildest imagination could have foreseen the havoc that such an invention could bring to this nation as well as to all the industrialized countries.

The invention of television was not bad within itself. It is a fascinating but addictive thing. Estimates of the average hours a person watches TV in America is about six hours a day. In our affluence, many families have several TV sets in our homes: one in the den, in the kitchen, and in each bedroom.

But the wasted time before the silver screen is not the main problem. The main problem involves what is being shown and who determines programming. The sad facts are that programming is being done in all too many cases by ultra-liberal humanists (atheists). These evil people have gained control of the widest, most effective means of communication the world has ever known.

By controlling TV programming, these atheistic humanists control most news media, the educational systems of this country, including what textbooks are to be used, and alarmingly, the Federal Judiciary which they manipulate through their legal arm  the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Because of the propagation of their rotten concepts of atheism through the means described above, I predict that the on-coming generation will be, to a large degree, agnostic! A few years ago, there was an article in Humanist magazine in which the author exhorted school teachers to use the classrooms as pulpits for humanism. I know of no more effective way to brainwash a generation  in this case, our children and grandchildren. Beware my brethren.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 12-14
October 7, 1993

By Andy Alexander

There are issues which children of God are faced with in every age and our age is no different. The sins remain the same, but the particular ones that must be dealt with more specifically vary from time to time. It is good to analyze the specific issues of our time so that we can be on the alert and defend the truth against any attack (1 Pet. 5:8).

The preaching of Jesus and the apostles sounded an alarm. They tried to alert people to the dangers about them. Jesus warned his listeners of false teachers in the Sermon on the Mount and Paul warned the elders at Ephesus about corruption from within the eldership and attacks from without (Matt. 7:15-20; Acts 20:28-32). Thus, one of the works a gospel preacher should be engaged in is the work of warning the brethren of dangers. This brings us to an issue we face in the church today. There seems to be less and less warning coming from preachers today and when some do sound a clear warning signal, they are derided for being alarmists and divisive.

Sermons that call the names of false teachers and their heresies are not wanted in many churches today. They are considered out of place in our refined society. That may be one reason why some churches have problems, because the problems seep in and fester for a few years and then finally erupt. Had adequate warning been given, the problems may have been recognized much earlier and taken care of before much damage could be done.

Soft, compromising preaching is an issue that faces us today in the church of our Lord. Preaching that would make a member of a denominational church comfortable at our services may be truth, but not the truth that is needed. Some preachers avoid sermons that specifically deal with the works of the flesh. They are aware that members are present who are involved in those sins and are afraid that direct preaching from the pulpit on such might scare them off. This lack of strength is conditioned by fear of losing one’s source of income, which may result in a cramped lifestyle. Gospel preachers must always remember that we are accountable to God and not to man for the message we preach (1 Thess. 2:4).

Another issue facing the church today is worldliness. Christians who blend in with the world are not friends with God (Jas. 4:4). More and more we hear sins of worldliness being defended by Christians. Mixed swimming, attending the high school prom, drinking of intoxicants, the wearing of shorts and other scanty attire, and watching filthy entertainment on television or at the movies are some of the activities that are being practiced and defended by some Christians today. The influence of Christians is disintegrating as they condone more and more of these sins. Many churches have members in them who participate in one or more of these sins and other members who would oppose these sins sit silently by and slowly deteriorate. They have not the faith in God or his word to firmly stand against the error among the members of the local congregation.

Worldliness is an ever-present danger and we must be reminded about its deceptiveness and taught about its various forms. Elders who chaperone dances and preachers who defend their right to do so are examples of how far into worldliness some have gone. The frog that slowly boils to death a degree at a time is just as dead as if he had been run over by a car. Many Christians are slowly but surely headed down the road of spiritual death.

The cares of this world is another danger in the church today. Jesus warned about this in Luke 8:14 when he said, “And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are chocked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring o fruit to perfection.” Sometimes our wants turn into our needs and we spend countless hours working for that which will perish one day (Jn 6:27). During those hours of working for the perishable, our spiritual side diminishes until it finally dies altogether. A life that at one time was filled with zeal for the Lord gradually smothers to death. What a horrible and tragic waste. Rarely does one go down this road without taking some with him; the wife, the children, or others in the Lords body.

Another issue we face today is the issue of fellowship. We are being encouraged, by once faithful gospel preachers, to fellowship false teachers. These false teachers are defended because they only teach a “little” bit of error. How much error does one have to teach or practices before he displeases God?

Rat poison is 98% grain and only 2% poison. Does the fact that a rat only eats a small amount of poison in relation to the amount of good grain change the rend result? He is just as dead as if he had eaten 100% poison. Those teaching error on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, the deity of Christ, or any other soul-damning heresy are to be marked and avoided (Rom 16:17). Those advocating that faithful Christians fellowship them should also be marked and avoided as they, too, have stepped outside the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn 9-11; Eph. 5:11). This is a growing problem among churches today and brethren need to be taught Gods truth on these matters.

These are some of the issues we face today. They have faced brethren before and some have stood and others have fallen. Le us be like the Bereans who “received that word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). And then, after receiving that word, “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong” (I Cor. 16:13).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 15
October 7, 1993