Truth Magazine

By Jady W. Copeland

In our first two articles we set the stage for the remaining lessons by showing that, (1) The mission of Christ in the world and his purpose for us while we live here is spiritual in nature — namely, the salvation of souls, and (2) God is the master of our lives and controls all that the Christian does. We are the “servant of him whom we obey” (Rom. 6:16).

At the very root of being “possessed by our possessions” is the sin of covetousness, which is idolatry. In Colossians 3:5 Paul writes, “Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” Idolatry is the worship of a false God, and the Hebrew word involved the idea of vanity or emptiness. An idol is nothing, except as one builds up a “god” in his own imagination. When Paul went to Athens, he found a “city given over to idols” (Acts 17:16). An idol is nothing; it deserves no worship from reasonable and sensible men. When Paul saw the idols he aught men of the true God, not an imagined one that had no power. He taught of the Creator. He spoke of One from whom all men of earth came; of One in whose image man is made.

Men make images and believe they represent the real “god” that has power — but in reality, there is nothing but the statue and the imagination in the idolator’s mind.

One of the Ten Commandments of the law was, “Thou shalt not covet” (Exod. 20:17). Covetousness is “to fix the desire upon” and it is right or wrong depending on the object of that desire. The desire to worship a god other than the Creator (Jehovah) and the exercise of that desire (worshipping the idol) is wrong.

One of the pre-requisites of discipleship is that “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon” (Matt. 6:24). Covetousness has its roots in selfishness, and unlawful desire for something that will serve me. In the parable of the rich fool (Lk. 12:130, Jesus refused to be a civil judge regarding the settling of the brothers’ inheritance but he warned them about covteousness. I believe it is very significant when he said, “a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses” (v. 15). Man’s life here is honoring and serving God our Maker, not making money. Our economy, our way of life and ease of living have caused us, perhaps, to rationalize that we need much more than we really do, and having convinced ourselves that we need a certain standard of living the man will get two jobs (and neglect his duty to God), and the woman will leave her place as ruler of the household to join the work force because “we need the money to make a living” when in reality it is to maintain the standard of living to which she has been accustomed. But now note verse 21 in this parable: “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.” Note the contrast — treasure for himself — not God. Yes, I believe covetousness is rooted in selfishness.

While we will not try to enumerate all of them here, think of the sins that come out of covetousness. But Paul spells out one very plainly: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (1 Tim. 6:10, NKJV). James MacKnight’s comments are noteworthy here: “I have spoken thus sharply against covetousness, because the love of money is the root of all the sinful passions and actions of men; as may be seen in the false teachers, some of whom eagerly desiring money, have wholly corrupted the doctrine of the gospel, and have pierced themselves all around with many sorrows, occasioned by the stings of conscience, and the fears of punishment” (MacKnight on the Epistles IV:261-262). A good question for each of us is, “Am I really satisfied with the material possessions which God has given me?” (1 Tim. 6:6)

Discontentment and anxiety over material things argues for little faith on one’s part. Let’s notice a few of the points Jesus made as recorded in Luke 12:22-34. First a simple command, “. . . do not worry about your life, what you will eat; nor about the body, what you will put on” (v. 22). To enforce this and make it understandable to all, he gave two illustrations with which the people were familiar. God said the ravens and the lilies are well taken care of by God (who would deny it?) and man is greater than either. Will not God take care of you? Why would one think otherwise? Jesus answers, “0 ye of little faith!” Does that concern you? It should concern us when we worry about the necessities when we know God takes care of the lilies and birds.

Then in verse 25 Jesus drives another point home: the utter uselessness of worrying about material things. It does no good. Now notice verse 26: “If you then are not able to do that thing which is least (add to your stature, JWC), why are you anxious for the rest?”

In conclusion (and getting back to the principle point), we either serve one god (mammon) or another (Jehovah, our Maker). We cannot serve both. If I place my trust in mammon, what does that say about my faith in God? Does it not say I have more faith in materialism than in the one who created material things? Jesus gave the answer to this problem as recorded by Mark in chapter 10:17-31 — please turn and read this in context. But let’s make this final point: The rich young man “went away grieved” (NKJ) because he was rich. Jesus then gets to the very heart of the matter when he said, “Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (vv. 24-25). Neither is possible — one who trusts in riches can’t go to heaven — he has the wrong god — any more than a camel can go through a needle’s eye. One cannot be saved serving mammon — he must serve God — the very Creator of the things we use to honor him.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 4, p. 18-19
February 18, 1993

By James Johnson

Bruce Hudson and James John-son met in Moscow on 18 August 1992 for what was a preaching experience they will long remember. Our hosts met us at the airport and made arrangements for the train trip to Kharkov. That was another experience that will not be soon forgotten, but we arrived in Kharkov and our local hosts were there to meet us. We spent the mornings studying Russian and the afternoons preaching, studying and writing.

Since we requested that our hosts not separate us they put us in an apartment by ourselves where we had to shop, cook and clean for our-selves. We managed this for about two weeks when they moved us into an apartment with our host who had a large apartment that we could share. Our Russian hosts arranged to print some copies of lesson one for a Bible correspondence course that we had obtained masters of from Steve Wallace. They also got us advertisements in the newspaper and on two local TV stations. We used these media as a means to advertise for a gospel meeting.

When the night of the meeting arrived, I was quite apprehensive as there was no church at all in Kharkov, and I did not know if any would attend. We were pleased that the Lord provided about 15 people at our first meeting. I spoke through an interpreter for about an hour and answered questions for about another hour. This indicated the great interest that prevails throughout the former Soviet Union about things religious. We had good questions throughout our meetings.

We met one who appeared to be either from an indigenous church of the Lord or left from the Russian restoration movement that was forced underground following the 1917 revolution. We did not find any-thing that we disagreed on regarding the work and organization of the church. There were several Baptists that attended who approved of our teaching on morals and doctrine until we got to baptism, and they choked on that. We had no baptisms, but there were three to five who attended the meeting who would have probably been baptized if we had been able to stay longer. We also got an appointment to speak at a school which was held during the day as a result of our speaking at the meeting.

The school at which we spoke on the last day of our stay in Kharkov was one of the high points of the meeting and one that I will long remember. It turned out that the “school” was one for junior KGB trainees. It was ironic that only the year before their senior compatriots were arresting people for importing Bibles and teaching non-state approved religion, and we spoke to them and handed out Bibles freely. Truly the Lord opened a door for us in that city.

Another point of great interest to me occurred at one of our numerous speaking engagements at local schools. In the particular classroom in which we spoke that afternoon, I noted with great irony that the Bible was being taught in the same class-room in which a bust of Lenin hung over the preacher’s head. I took a photo of this startling contrast and it is one that I will always treasure. It reminded me that Satan has made it impossible to even read the Bible in American public schools and there we were in a former “forbidden” city preaching the gospel in a former atheist classroom. It was an irony comparable to the French Bible Society printing the Bible in the very home of the atheist Voltaire less than 50 years after his death.

During our stay we also had the chance to speak with Christians in Kiev. There is a small but active group there which has good potential. We spoke briefly at the services there. We also spoke to men in Dniepropetrovsk regarding the gospel, and they expressed interest in hearing more. One man rode a bus 8 hours to come and speak with us for 2 hours and then took a bus 8 hours back.

When we left Kharkov a number of people met with us at the train station. Even though we had been there only five short weeks there were tears shed as we left because they knew there would be none who would be able to teach them the sincere gospel of Christ in our absence. There were six to ten people who were excellent prospects for the gospel that we taught in our brief visit there and we just barely scratched the surface. From what I could gather talking to brethren and denominational missionaries visiting there, the whole former Soviet Union is like that.

We spent two days in Moscow where we had a chance to meet briefly with Phil Morgan, Greg Gwin, John Smith, Steve Brewer, and Tom-my Porch who were there preaching and teaching during that time. They also experienced great success in this vast land, and their results are reported elsewhere.

The fields are indeed white unto harvest. Pray ye the Lord of harvest that he will send forth reapers unto the harvest.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 4, p. 15
February 18, 1993

By Walton Weaver

The highest truth known by man is God. Man can learn of God’s “invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature” by observing “what has been made” (Rom. 1:20), but he cannot come to know some things about God apart from a special divine revelation. When Jesus said, “I am . . . the truth” (Jn. 14:6) he was claiming to be such a revelation. He continues in verse seven, “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; from now on you know him, and have seen him.” Philip responded by saying, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us” (v. 8). Jesus then said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how do you say, `Show us the Father’?” (v. 9)

How are we to understand this claim of Jesus, “I am the truth”?

Revealer and Redeemer

1. He reveals the Father. Jesus was not the Father; he was the “only begotten Son” (Jn. 3:16) of the Father. But to see him, he said, was to see the Father. How could this be? Hebrews 1:3 says the Son of God “is the radiance of his [the Father’s] glory and the exact representation of his nature” (NASB). The truth of God was being revealed and made know to men in the person of Christ. Jesus was the embodiment of truth. Because the Word had become flesh and now dwelt among men (Jn. 1:1-2,14), the Father was now being revealed through the Son. “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God [later manuscripts read, `Son’ here, ww], who is in the bosom of the Father, he has explained Him” (Jn. 1:18). Philip had failed to understand that this was what the Son was doing. When he said, “Show us the Father,” evidently he wanted to see God with his natural eyes, perhaps by some supernatural presence. Jesus was a supernatural presence from the Father, but Philip had not seen him as yet in that way. If only he had “known” the Son, he would have known the Father also (v. 7).

Jesus had been in the midst of his disciples for months now. They had heard his words and seen his deeds (cf. Jn. 5:19-21). But their close association with him had not yet led them to discover the divine perfection of the Father in the Son. Why had they not seen? Prejudice and sin had likely hindered them so that they had not seen as clearly as they should. Jesus seems to think that Philip should have known him better. He reassures Philip, however, by saying, “From now on you know him, and have seen him” (v. 7). The new knowledge they were to have of the Father was so near and so certain that he speaks of it as already present. Future events, such as the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, in addition to the great occasion of Pentecost, would have a tremendous impact upon the minds of his disciples. With their new spiritual insight they would have a much better understanding of both the Father and the Son. Then they will see that the Son was revealing the Father to them.

2. He is redeemer. Any careful student of Scripture knows that Jesus is more than just “a mighty act of God in history” who came to reveal the divine attributes of the Father, such as his holiness, goodness, compassion, etc. The central message in the New Testament is that Jesus of Nazareth is the Savior of men. He came “to seek and to save that which was lost” (Lk. 19:10). He did not come merely to bring God to men (by revealing his divine attributes), but to bring men to God by opening up “the way” to the Father. He was “Immanuel, which translated means, `God with us”‘ (Matt. 1:23), and as the very representation of the Father he did reveal and make known the Father to us. But more than this, as the God-man he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). The fact that he was “the truth” has an important bearing upon his claim to be the Savior of the 7:24-27). His words are “spirit, and are life” (Jn. 6:63), and by them men shall be judged in the last day (Jn. 12:48).

Full and Final Truth

The full truth. He who is “the truth,” and is “full of grace and truth” (Jn. 1:14), is full and complete truth. No one else “among us” could have promised to send the Helper, or the Holy Spirit, to guide the apostles “into all the truth” (Jn. 14:26; 15:26 16:13). Only Jesus who is “the truth” himself could have made such a promise. This “all truth” would not only be the truth, but it would be “the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”! In Jesus “are hid-den all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3); “in him all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form, and in him we have been made complete, and he is the head over all rule and authority” (Col. 2:9-10). It is in him that we gain “a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ himself” (Col. 2:2). Our assurance that we have the full truth rests in this fact: ” . . . his power has granted unto us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and excellence” (2 Pet. 1:3).

The final truth. The fact that Jesus is the truth is proof that God has no “latter day revelations.” God is not still making known truth independently of that “all truth” into which the apostles were guided in the first century. This “body of truth,” often called “the faith” in an objective sense, has been “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). “That which is written” is our sole authority in religion, and we are not permitted to add to it, or go beyond it, nor are we allowed to take away from it (1 Cor. 4:6; 2 Jn. 9; Rev. 22:18-20). Scripture “cannot be broken” (Jn. 10:35) because what has been written is “the commandment of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:39).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 4, p. 6
February 18, 1993

By Kevin Campbell

It was my good pleasure on December 4, 1992 to attend a Bible debate between brother Larry Ray Hafley, who preaches for the Pruett and Lobit congregation in Baytown, Texas, and Mr. Robert C. Brock, a Pauline Dispensationalist. The debate was held in Pinellas Park, Florida in the Union Hall building next to the building of the Skyview church of Christ. The brethren of the Skyview congregation made arrangements for the debate and continued in the proclamation of the gospel by having brother Hafley in a meeting the following week. The attendance was a moderate 140-150, which is not all that high considering that the Tampa-St. Petersburg area has a high concentration of the Lord’s people. Hopefully the problem is not a lack of interest in such discussions or the feeling that “debates just don’t do any good.” There were quite a few denominational people in attendance who certainly heard the pure preaching of the gospel for the first time. Those brethren who did attend were strengthened and edified as they saw the truth of the gospel defended and the theories of men assaulted. The disputants both conducted themselves as gentlemen in keeping with the gospel (Phil. 1:27).

I am not sure how many debates Larry has participated in at this debate, but this was the first that I have personally witnessed. Larry was thoroughly prepared even to the point of anticipating Mr. Brock’s arguments and answers by having overhead charts with the appropriate Scriptures cited. He dealt with Mr. Brock’s doctrine in a very firm and straightforward manner without ever attacking or abusing Mr. Brock’s character. Mr. Brock felt the force of Larry’s arguments from Scripture as he pressed them and I am sure Brock was happy he had only agreed to a one-night discussion. Brother Hafley attempted to have at least two nights on the subject but Mr. Brock refused. I can safely say that Larry is one of the best debaters among us, if not the best. It gives me great pleasure to work with and learn from him.

The Proposition

The subject discussed related to whether or not the gospel that Paul preached included water baptism. Mr. Brock was in the affirmative and affirmed that Paul’s gospel did not include water baptism. Dispensationalists teach that “the mystery” (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:3-6; Col. 2:2) was a new revelation given only to Paul for his ministry to the Gen-tiles. They will agree that passages like Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 teach the necessity of baptism for salvation but deny that those passages apply to us today. Passages such as Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:11-13 and Galatians 3:26-27 are said to refer to a Spirit baptism and not water baptism. “Peter’s gospel included the gospel of the kingdom and water baptism but Paul’s gospel was a gospel of grace and did not include water baptism” — or so they say.

The Arguments

Brock began his first speech by recounting the case of his “conversion” to Christ when, “I asked Jesus into my heart as my Savior.” Larry asked Mr. Brock for the passage that taught such a doctrine but he never could find it. Some things never change! Brock later said that, although baptism in water had been essential under Peter’s gospel, God’s plan had changed by the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. He then added that salvation “is now Christ plus nothing.” Larry wondered if Mr. Brock was affirming salvation by faith alone and presented a chart where Mr. Brock had said that “salvation is by accepting the risen Christ as one’s Savior and that’s all (Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:9-10)! No water baptism: no church membership: no good works: Just trusting Christ 100 percent for salvation is all that is necessary for today.” However, when Larry had tried to get Mr. Brock to affirm the proposition that “salvation is by grace though faith alone,” Brock had written: “That salvation is by grace through faith alone . . . is not an ac-curate description of the truth.” Larry asked Mr. Brock to reconcile these contradictory statements from his own lips but he never came back to it.

Brock then proceeded to teach that “Jesus did not institute Christianity” and that “Jesus never told any believers in the gospels that they would go to heaven.” Larry observed that “the law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (Jn. 1:17) and that Jesus is the “author and finisher of our faith” (Heb. 12:2). He then showed that Jesus did preach about heaven in passages such as Matthew 5:12 and 6:19-20. Brock then argued that Peter’s message “on Pentecost was Judaism: there was nothing Christian about Peter’s message.” He further contended that water baptism was part of Judaism, not Christianity, and that Jesus and Peter preached Judaism to the Jews while Paul preached the “gospel of grace” to the Gentiles. Larry showed that the message the Jews and Gentiles received was the same by showing a chart with the text of Acts 15:7-9,11 on it:

7. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth show hear the gospel and believe.

And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

11. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

This effectively showed that there was “no difference” between the gospel that Peter preached and the gospel that Paul preached. Larry then showed the contrast between the Bible and Dispensational doctrine by presenting a chart en-titled “Opponent’s Bible: Acts 15:7-9,11”:

Peter said, Men and brethren ye know that God made a choice that the Gentiles by Paul’s mouth should hear the gospel and believe.

And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, in a way he never did to us;

And made a big difference between us (Jews) and them (Gentiles), purifying their hearts by faith.

11. So we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ they will be saved, different from us.

The Questions

Larry had several written questions for Mr. Brock that especially highlighted the differences of their doctrine. Mr. Brock did not prepare any questions for Larry and agreed to answer the questions in writing before the discussion actually began so that Larry could address his answers in his first speech.

The first question that Larry asked was, “Is water baptism `in the name of Jesus Christ’ water baptism (Acts 2:38; 10:48)?” Mr. Brock answered “yes.” Larry then showed that Paul baptized both the Ephesians (Acts 19:1-5) and the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:13; 6:11; Acts 18:8) in the name of Christ, which Mr. Brock had admitted was water baptism. Thus, water baptism was a part of Paul’s gospel. Brock responded by saying that there was no re-baptism in Acts 19:1-5! Larry also had a chart to show that salvation by grace though faith (Eph. 2:8-9) included water baptism. This chart simply had the texts of Ephesians 1:13, Acts 19:5 and Ephesians 2:8-9 on it and showed that when the Ephesians heard the gospel and were told to “believe on Christ Jesus,” they responded by being baptized in water. This, Larry argued, is truly “salvation by grace through faith.”

The second question Larry asked was, “Was `the mystery,’ Paul’s gospel, spoken of in the Old Testament?” Brock checked “no.” Larry proceeded to show many Scriptures which teach that Paul’s gospel was spoken of in the Old Testament — Romans 1:1-2; 3:21; 16:25-26; Acts 24:14 and Acts 26:22-23. Brock replied by saying that Romans 1:1-2 probably wasn’t translated properly and was therefore a “debatable” passage. Such reasoning is common among false prophets when their doctrine is exposed to the light of truth. He then said that “the scriptures of the prophets” spoken of in Romans 16:25-26 were actually “Paul’s epistles.” Especially effective on this point was a chart that had the text of Acts 26:22 on it:

22. Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come.

Larry then demonstrated how this passage should read if Mr. Brock’s doctrine were true by presenting another chart entitled “Opponent’s Bible” which said:

22. Having therefore obtained help of God, I have started this day, saying many other things which the prophets and Moses never even heard about.

On the same point, Brock argued that Paul did not “preach the gospel of the kingdom” but instead preached the “gospel of grace.” Larry once again exposed Mr. Brock’s doctrine to the spotlight of truth by presenting passages that show that Paul did preach the kingdom (Acts 19:8; 20:24-25; 28:23,31). Brock then began to “crawfish” and said that Paul did, on occasion, preach the kingdom to the Jews but had ceased doing so by Acts 28. Larry then read Acts 28:30-31 which says that Paul was “preaching the kingdom” for at least two more years with “no man for-bidding him.” Larry wondered aloud if perhaps Mr. Brock, had he been there, would he have forbade Paul from preaching the kingdom?

Another question that was posed to Mr. Brock was, “Is Spirit baptism a command to be obeyed or a promise to be received?” Brock replied “a promise to be received.” Larry then used Romans 6:3-4,17-18 to show that the baptism of Romans 6 was water baptism. He argued that the baptism of Romans 6:3-4 was the “form of doctrine” that the Romans had “obeyed from the heart” in verses 17-18. Since Brock had already admitted that Spirit baptism was not a command to be obeyed but a promise to be received, the baptism in Romans 6 could only be water baptism since it was “obeyed from the heart.” In connection with this, Larry also used a chart with the texts of Romans 6:3-4, Acts 22:16 and 2 Timothy 1:9 on it. From this chart he demonstrated that:

Paul was baptized in water to wash away his sins (Acts 22:16).

The Romans had received the same baptism as Paul had as evidenced by Paul’s use of the pronouns “we” and “us” in Romans 6:3-4.

This is how they had been saved by grace in Christ (2 Tim. 1:9).

Mr. Brock simply “observed the passover” on this argument and never even referred to it.

One very interesting statement came from Mr. Brock’s lips when Larry made an argument on Galatians 1:23, which says:

But they had heard only, that he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

Larry asked Mr. Brock if he could tell us what faith it was that Paul had destroyed. Since Paul persecuted those that Peter converted, and since Brock believes that Peter preached the faith of Judaism, then he would have Paul preaching the faith of Judaism, according to this passage. But Brock had contended that Paul did not preach Judaism but Christianity. Mr. Brock saw the implications of the argument and attempted to dodge it by saying that Galatians 1:23 was only a rumor. Yes, he actually said it. He said that Paul preaching “the faith which once he destroyed” was only an unfounded rumor. Imagine that! An inspired utterance of God reduced to nothing but an “unfounded rumor”! Larry observed that Mr. Brock’s predicament was due, not to a lack of intelligence, but to a doctrine that was based upon the speculations of men.

On Ephesians 3:3, Larry asked Mr. Brock why Paul didn’t say that the mystery had been revealed to “me only.” Brock spoke from his seat at this point and said that that is what Paul meant, i.e., — that the mystery or gospel of grace was revealed only to Paul. Larry then read verse 5 which says that the mystery had been revealed to the “apostles and prophets” (plural). Brock later replied that the other apostles had received their knowledge of the mystery through or by “Paul’s writings.” Larry then demonstrated that verse 5 says it was done “by the Spirit” and not by Paul’s letters. The more Brock said about the matter, the deeper the hole became that he was digging for himself. He finally recognized that it was best not to speak anymore from his seat regarding the matter.

Debates such as these do worlds of good even though we might not have immediate tangible evidence of such. Sometimes, if there are no conversions as an immediate result of a debate some will lament, “Debates just don’t do any good.” No so! When the truth is spoken and defended, brethren are strengthened and edified if nothing else results. That in itself makes the effort worthwhile.

In a day and time when some want to “eliminate the negative” from preaching, we need more men who are willing to “hold fast the form of sound words” in both a positive and a negative way (2 Tim. 1:13). Some may be of-fended and ashamed of bold, confrontational, and controversial preaching, but they are not of the same mold as Paul (Rom. 1:16). Several times his preaching resulted in madness and mayhem (Acts 19:29; 22:22-23) but he continued to “expound and persuade” the people concerning the Christ (Acts 28:23). Those who preach the gospel have the responsibility to “declare . . . all the counsel of God” without addition or subtraction (acts 20:26-27). Although some may think otherwise, discussing matters such as the place of baptism in God’s plan of salvation is a part of “preaching the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18).

There has been some correspondence regarding another debate between brother Halley and a representative of the dispensational doctrine. Let us remember men such as brother Hafley in our prayers as he continues to “expound and persuade” sinners “concerning the Christ.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 4, p. 12-14
February 18, 1993