Truth Magazine

By Harry R. Osborne

On the plane ride from Berlin to Vilnius, Steve Wallace, Kieran Murphy and I discussed what we needed to do in order to effectively teach the gospel in Lithuania. We all agreed that the most important thing we needed to do was avoid answering Bible questions with “I think” or “I believe” instead of turning to a Bible passage and letting it answer the question. In every study, all of us repeatedly pointed out that our opinions did not matter, but God’s word is what each of us needs to obey because it is always true.

People noticed the difference and mentioned it to us. They saw that our interest was in what the Bible says, not in man’s teaching. They also were able to see that the Bible clearly answers every question we may have in spiritual matters.

“Jehovah’s Witnesses” & Clarity of Truth

About the second week we were set up on the square in Vilnius, we had several so-called “Jehovah’s Witnesses” come by each day. As each one failed to sustain his doctrine, another was sent the next day. Finally, we had two Russian speaking women who were Jehovah’s Witnesses come to give it a try. We began by discussing the deity of Christ and as we did a crowd gathered around. I used a Russian interpreter to speak through and handed a Russian Bible to several in the crowd who read verses like John 1: 1-3, Philippians 2:5-8 and Hebrews 1. I asked people in the crowd what these verses said and they answered that the verses taught Jesus was deity as he existed in heaven and on earth, not an angel as the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach.

The two Jehovah’s Witnesses women tried to negate the clear force of the Bible teaching by saying, “The Bible is not for everyone because it cannot be understood.” Though very few American Jehovah’s Witnesses will admit it, this is their doctrine. The Watchtower teaches that one will come closer to God by following its teaching than by just studying the Bible. Why? They claim that the Bible cannot be understood.

When these two women came up with this rebuttal, I turned in the Russian Bible to Ephesians 5:17 and had one in the crowd read it. All of them nodded and whispered in agreement, obviously understanding that the verse clearly refuted these women’s doctrine. I asked another person to read aloud 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and the crowd responded the same way. The women left unwilling to change their view, but unable to answer the Bible’s clear teaching. We were able to invite all in the crowd to our Bible lectures and to study more with several as a result of them seeing that the Bible can and must be understood.

Russian Soldiers’ Questions on Divorce & Remarriage

Vilnius was home to the old Soviet Military Academy which was the counterpart to West Point in this country. We had an opportunity to meet and study the Bible with 16 of the cadets. At the beginning of each study, we would give a Bible to each cadet to use for the evening’s study. Our communication was always through an interpreter since none of us knew very much of the other’s language. During one of the studies, a cadet asked, “Suppose a man divorced his wife and married another woman. What does God think of this?” I responded by asking if he was speaking of a divorce because the wife committed fornication or because of some other reason. He replied that he was speaking of a divorce where no fornication was involved. Following our usual procedure, I asked the young men to read Matthew 19:3-9. The point at which each read the ninth verse was obvious as they said, “Oh,” and nodded their head.

The young cadet who had asked the question said through the interpreter, “Yes, that is very clear.” Before he could continue to another thought, I had the interpreter ask him to explain what the passage said in answer to his question. The young man replied, “It says that anyone who divorces his wife for any reason except her fornication cannot marry another woman.” I followed up by asking him what the man must do if he divorced his wife for a cause other than fornication and married another woman. He responded, “He must get out of that marriage.” Wanting a little more information, I asked under what circumstances would God approve of a man marrying another woman while his first wife still lived. He answered, “Only if the man divorced his wife because she committed fornication.” When I asked if all of them understood the same thing from their reading, they all said, “Da” (the Russian word for “yes”). I asked if it was clear and again they replied, “Da.”

Brethren, how is it that a group of young men who had obviously never read Matthew 19:3-9 could understand it so clearly while some of our brethren have a difficult time with it? Ed Harrell has repeatedly told us in Christianity Magazine that Christ’s doctrine on divorce and remarriage lacks clarity, thus we should accept those who teach various errors on the subject. Samuel Dawson in his new tract “Fellowship on Marriage, Divorce, & Remarriage” makes the same claim. A host of others, several in our Houston area, have taken the same position. Honestly, how hard is it to understand these words?

And I say unto you, Whosoever shallput away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she isput away committeth adultery (Matt. 19:9).

If Ed Harrell, Sam Dawson and the others who have problems cannot understand that, I think I have the solution. Maybe they should switch to the Russian Synodal version – it seems easy enough for 16 young men who had never read the verse to understand without any problem!

Actually, the problem is obviously not the translation. The English is also easy to understand. The problem is that too many of our brethren have been reading and listening to the erroneous teaching of Homer Hailey, Jerry Bassett, Don Bassett, W.L. Wharton, Jim Puterbaugh, Lowell Williams, Don Givens and others rather than the Word of God. Those young cadets had not listened to the confused and contradictory teachings of those in error – they just read the verse! For those who love the truth and are content to follow it, the Bible text is clear. For those who will justify error and go beyond the teaching of Christ, an abundance of words will be needed to show why the Bible does not really mean what it says. I am glad those young cadets had not read the volumes of error recently published by those who would promote false doctrine.

I am also glad they had not read Christianity Magazine with its justification and continued recommendation of those who teach such errors. The publication has carried repeated articles denying the clarity of Christ’s teaching regarding divorce and remarriage. If anyone on the staff currently disagrees, they have done an excellent job in keeping such quiet. It is past time for brethren to stand solidly upon the foundation of Christ’s clear teaching on the subject and cease defending mere men who oppose and pervert that teaching! May God help us once more to place our trust in his plainly revealed will and not in men.

What About Creativity?

Another of the Russian cadets asked, “Maybe God wanted us to be creative with the Bible rather than just following it exactly. What do you think?” I asked them to turn to Revelation 22:18-19 and read it. After reading it, the rest of the young men looked at the questioner and laughed as they said, “Nyet” (the Russian word for “no”). They had no trouble seeing that God’s word is an exact pattern for us to follow (2 Tim. 1:13). They did not argue that we are free to act where the Bible is silent, that we should do many things for which there is no Bible authority or ask for a “new hermeneutic.” The Bible answered their question because they were content with its teaching (1 Pet 4:11).

Our liberal brethren would do well to figure out that God did not mean us to be creative with his pattern for the church either. In the fifties, they began to create sponsoring churches and institutions and added them on to God’s divine pattern. In the sixties, they added their social gospel extras. In the seventies, they made all of the above bigger and better as their creativity abounded. Now they have gymnasiums to rival the best of the denominations, sponsoring churches to subject every church in America under the centralized scheme of “One Nation Under God,” a modern missionary society which they call “World Bible School,” and many more of their creative wonders. After seeing the monster built by their growing creativity, some among them like Wayne Jackson and the Spiritual Sword crowd are now crying that it has gone too far. They are right! It went too far when they swallowed and justified the first creative addition with the Herald of Truth. Their protests have a hollow ring in the fancy gymnasiums to which they served as the creative forefathers.

Conclusion

The truth was not made too difficult for anyone to understand. Simple people can read the Bible and readily comprehend the answers to their spiritual questions. The more we taught people in Lithuania who had never studied the Bible, the more apparent that fact became. When we read the words of the apostles delivered by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we can understand the truth just as the apostles did (Eph. 3:1-4). After all, the work of the Spirit was to reveal the truth, not conceal it. God has done his part in revealing truth and man must do his part in understanding that truth (Eph. 5:17).

Similarly, it does not take a PhD to figure out the will of God regarding issues which separate brethren (though it may take one to miss it). The problem among brethren today is not a lack of clarity in God’s truth, but a lack of obedience to it by people. We are in a dangerous time where some brethren are perverting the truth, others are practicing ungodliness and still others are trying to justify one or both of those groups by blaming God’s word for lacking clarity. Those who preach such will one day stand before the God they so accuse and will find that the problem was not his lack of clarity. Brethren, let us back up and see the real problem and resolve it in the way God clearly prescribes (2 Jn. 9-11; Rom. 16:17).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 19, pp. 582-583
October 1, 1992

By Lewis Willis

I’ve been traveling again, and something happened which gave me the idea for this article. On my flight from Charlotte, North Carolina to Akron, I was served my lunch. You never expect much from one of those meals, but this one even managed to fall far below my expectations. Let me try to describe what I was served. On a long wooden skewer stick, I received four large chunks of boiled chicken (you surely know what boiled chicken looks like!), with four pieces of green pepper and a cherry tomato in between the pieces of chicken. To further enhance the chicken, I was given one small sweet pickle, a black and green olive. Besides this main course, there was a tossed salad which consisted of several kinds of exotic lettuce that you and I have never seen before. I was given a packet of barbecue sauce for the chicken, and a packet of Italian dressing for my salad. If you do not realize what this combination tastes like, try it some time. I was given a one inch chunk of soft cheese in shiny alumium foil with a name I could not even pronounce. I did recognize the two Nabisco crackers they served with my cheese, though. For dessert I was given two cylinder shaped sticks of cookie, about the size of a fountain pen. However, there was no filling in it; it was hollow in the middle. It was flavored with chocolate, vanilla and cinnamon. I scarcely knew I had even eaten dessert; I just had a pleasant taste in my mouth. Well folks, that was my lunch. US AIR must have spent many dollars to provide it as a convenience for me during my flight. I am certain all of you men are ready to ask your wives to prepare just such a meal for you. The sad part is, I ate the whole thing. And, as you might suspect, it tasted awful!

That was my experience, and I am sure you are wondering what possible application I can make of it in this article. Here it is. I am convinced that people will swallow about anything, whether it be food or religious ideas. In a given circumstance, most people will accept anything. If my wife placed such a meal on the table in front of me, I would suddenly suggest that I take her out to lunch. I cannot explain why I decided to cat the meal US AIR served to me. I wasn’t even hungry! Since it didn’t even look appetizing, it had to be the novelty of the situation.

The Bible speaks of food for the Christian. For babes in Christ, Peter prescribed “the sincere milk of the word” (1 Pet. 2:2). The Hebrew writer noted that “strong meat” was for those of maturity (Heb. 5:14). The Word of God is given to us to nourish us in the ways of the Lord. This good food is appetizing to those who love God and recognize that the Bible is his Word. Again, the Hebrew writer talks of those who “have tasted of the heavenly gift,” and of those who “have tasted the good word of God” (Heb. 6:4-5). If Christians are what they are supposed to be, they will be satisfied and delightfully nourished with the food God provides. After sitting at the table that God spreads before us, we will be satisfied with his goodness.

After God has provided us with nourishment for the soul, along comes the false prophet with his meal. Isn’t it interesting the things a false teacher can get folks to eat? I have heard many people say things like, “I can’t believe I swallowed that,” after they have learned the Truth. I have seen many who were Christians accept things that I never dreamed they would accept. It seems that with religion, like food, about anything will do.

The false prophet says there is no God, and people accept that (Psa. 53:1). He says Jesus is not God’s Son, and people accept that (Jn. 8:24). He says the Bible is not from God, and people accept that too (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 2:12-13). He says you don’t have to be baptized to be saved, and people accept that (Mk. 16:16). He says it is alright for the church to use instrumental music in its worship, and people accept that (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). The false prophet says build a facility so that the church can serve common meals to itself, and people accept that (1 Cor. 11:34).

You can serve people any combination of religious doctrines, theories or ideas, no matter how outrageous they might be, and people will sit down and “eat it up” with great delight. We had better open the Bible and “check the menu” before we decide to eat. Some food, you know, will kill you!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 19, p. 590
October 1, 1992

By Mike Willis

Suppose that one of our young men enlisted in the military and was sent to a foreign country. Perhaps he was stationed in a country in which there was no faithful church. What would he do? How many of our young men would make the effort to worship the Lord on the first day of every week, even starting a church to enable them to do so? And, would we excuse their not worshiping the Lord on the basis of their youth and circumstances? We see a youth placed in very similar circumstances in the book of Daniel.

Daniel’s Example

In approximately 606 B.C., in the third year of King Jehoiakim of Judah, Daniel was taken into Babylonian captivity. He was in the first of three deportations. Daniel was one of the young aristocrats taken into captivity and given special training to serve the king of Babylon (1:3,4). Among those taken were also Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego.

In preparation to serve the king, these young men were given a daily portion of the king’s dainties for three years. There was something about these dainties that defiled a man. Perhaps the dainties were sacrificed to an idol, included unclean foods, or included intoxicating beverages. For whatever reason, a Jew could not be faithful to God and cat them. Therefore, “Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself” (1:8).

Daniel’s faithfulness to the Lord is all the more remarkable when his circumstances are remembered: (a) He was away from home. Many young people who are faithful when under parental direction reject the Lord when they get out on their own. (b) He risked his position to be faithful to God. His decision not to eat the king’s dainties endangered his position as a court servant; he could be killed or demoted to a common field laborer. (c) He risked the lives of others to be faithful to God. The man in charge of Daniel feared for his life because Daniel refused the food given him (1:10). (d) His faithfulness was in matters which most would consider mere trivialities.

Nevertheless, Daniel had purposed in his heart to be faithful to the Lord. He knew that faithfulness to God does not occur by accident; it requires commitment and sacrifice. He was willing to make it. Therefore, he requested that the overseer give him and his three friends pulse to eat and water to drink, rather than defile himself with the king’s dainties. The overseer consented to try them for ten days. At the end of the ten days, Daniel and his friends looked better than the other youths. The Lord had blessed Daniel and his friends.

Daniel was faithful to the Lord because he purposed in his heart to be faithful. In other verses as well, the Scriptures tell us that men need to purpose in their hearts to be faithful. Let’s consider some of them:

1. One must purpose in his heart to cleave to the Lord. Luke records that when Barnabas was sent to Antioch to investigate the preaching of the gospel to the Grecians, he “exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord” (Acts 11:23). “Cleaving to the Lord” requires purpose of heart – a resolution to abide faithful to God.

There are some times when young people especially need to make such resolutions. When our grade school children go into junior high, they meet fresh temptations. Some school officials have told me that the temptation for drugs is greater among junior high children than high school; by high school age, the youths have already decided which group they will run with. This is a time when we particularly need to exhort that our children “cleave to the Lord.” As they move into high school, again they need to resolve to “cleave to the Lord.” There are so many distractions for our children such as sporting events, extra-curricular activities at school, part-time jobs, etc. Young people need to make a commitment not to allow any of these activities to take precedence over the worship services. Like young Daniel, they need to go to their supervisors or teachers to make clear that they will not be missing worship to attend ball games, extra-curricular activities, work a part-time job, and such like things. Usually those who oversee them will respect their conscience and work around their schedule, as was done for Daniel.

When our youth leave for college, again they need to resolve with “purpose of heart” to cleave to the Lord. Many young people quit worshipping God when they move away to college. As a young person leaves home, he must “purpose” in his heart to find a faithful church and make the effort to be present at worship.

When families are moved from one city to another by their employer, they need to “purpose in their hearts” to cleave to the Lord. They should resolve to become active in the local church where they will live after they move. Far too many drop out of faithful service when they move from one location to another.

2. One must purpose in his heart to control his tongue. David said, “I am purposed that my mouth shall not transgress” (Psa. 17:3). As our young people enter their teenage years, they need to make such resolutions. There is a temptation for our children to curse, tell filthy stories, take the name of the Lord in vain, lie, and gossip (see Jas. 3:6-8; Exod. 20:7; Eph. 4:25,29). The resolution not to sin with the tongue should be made, not only by our children, but by all of us. Christians need to “purpose” in their hearts not to sin with their tongues in the heat of anger (Eph. 4:26). One does not accidently control his tongue; he controls it by “purposing” in his heart what kind of conduct he will do.

3. One must purpose in his heart what he will give to the Lord. Paul wrote, “But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver”(2 Cor. 9:6-7). Bible giving does not occur accidentally; it has to be planned.

Far too often, Christians wait until the collection basket is being passed before they think about how much they are going to give. Then they open their wallets and pick out one of the smaller bills to contribute to the Lord. Perhaps they even justify themselves saying, “I had $20 and gave $2; I gave 10 percent.” What they gave was 10 percent of their leftovers. They got paid on Friday, paid their bills on Saturday, went shopping, and then gave out of what they had leftover.

Let me suggest to you that waiting until the collection basket is being passed is too late to plan your giving. A person should plan his giving when he receives his paycheck. Even as he has learned to set aside so much every week for the house payment, car payment, credit cards, etc., he needs to set aside what he is going to give to the Lord. This is planned or purposed giving.

4. One must purpose in his heart to become an elder or deacon. Becoming an elder or deacon requires planning and purpose. It will begin when a man chooses a mate. Not every woman can be an elder’s wife; only a godly woman who meets the qualifications listed in 1 Timothy 3:11. Consequently, the man who plans to be an elder or deacon needs to look for a wife who will grow into the woman mentioned in that passage. To be an elder or deacon requires that a young man bring up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). Rearing faithful children (Tit. 1:6) and having his own house under control (1 Tim. 3:2,4-5) are qualifications of elders. Hence, as a young man, he must purpose in his heart to train his children to live in obedience to the Lord. He must also be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:9). This requires that a man study his Bible to learn the revealed will of God. All of these qualifications require years of service and training.

To wait until the congregation decides to have elders and deacons and then decide that you want to be one is to wait too late. By this time, too many years have passed, the children have grown up outside the Lord, and this person can never serve as an elder. To be an elder or deacon requires that a man “purpose in his heart” early in life that this is what he wishes to be.

5. One must purpose in his heart to maintain his sexual purity. Fornication is a planned sin. A person plans with whom he is going to commit it, when, and where it will occur. About the only thing not planned about fornication is getting caught. Consequently, a person can purpose in his heart to maintain his sexual purity.

Young ladies should purpose in their hearts before they go on their first date just what is acceptable conduct and what is not. They should resolve not to allow a young man to put his hands all over them and to keep their clothes on. They should decide what is modest dress. They should decide what kinds of movies they are willing to attend. They should resolve that going parking is not the kind of date they are willing to go on.

Our young men must also be reminded that they are just as responsible for stopping fornication as are the young ladies. Young Joseph refused a willing woman (Gen. 39); young men faithful to God still do. Before they go on their dates, young men should purpose in their hearts what kind of behavior is acceptable. They should resolve what kinds of movies they will take their dates to, not to use a drive-in movie as a place to “make out,” and not to go just as far as the girl will let them.

Young people need to understand that waiting until they are in the passion of petting is too late to make decisions about proper conduct. They need to “purpose in their hearts” beforehand what is acceptable conduct and abide by those decisions.

A word of advice needs to given to the preacher as well. The preacher needs to purpose in his heart to maintain his sexual purity. That means that he must set some restraints in place to protect himself. Here are some suggestions: (a) Do not go to a woman’s house alone; (b) Do not counsel a woman in a troubled marriage, after the loss of her husband, or some other situation without another person present. Too many preachers have stumbled into fornication because they thought they were strong enough to resist these temptations. They have put a blot on their reputations, hurt or destroyed their families, and done untold damage to the cause of Christ thereby.

6. One must purpose in his heart to avoid intoxicating beverages and drugs. One does not accidentally get drunk. Consequently, a person can purpose in his heart to avoid those things which lead to intoxication. A young man can resolve, in obedience to the words of Solomon, to “look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his color in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder” (Prov. 23:31-32). He should plan what his conduct will be in the event of temptation. If he is with a group of guys who stop to get a six-pack, he can get out of the car, call his parents to come get him, and resolve not to associate with that group again. Waiting until the temptation comes may be too late to decide not to drink.

Conclusion

Dare to be a Daniel! Make your resolutions to be faithful to the Lord in every circumstance and situation, not allowing the pressure of the moment to keep you from obedience to God. The same God who sustained and exalted Daniel will be with you.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 19, pp. 578, 598-599
October 1, 1992

By Tom Roberts

In our text (Eph. 4:27), Christians are warned not to “give place” to the Devil. “Place” is from topos (Gk.), meaning “1. prop. any portion of space marked off, as it were, from surrounding space” (Thayer, p. 628). This use is applied variously to any inhabited or uninhabited place, of a spot where one may settle or abide, the place which a person or thing occupies or has a right to. Metaphorically, it carries the idea of “opportunity, power, occasion for acting.”

As used by Paul in Ephesians 4:27, it carries the effect of warning against allowing the Devil an “Opportunity, power, or occasion for acting.” Surely, the idea is that we are not to allow Satan a “place in our space.” We are not to allow him to gain an advantage against us by permitting either space or opportunity for him to work his evil, for we are “not ignorant of his devices” (2 Cor. 2:11). We understand this with thieves and robbers. We don’t leave our doors open and invite them into our house. No one would go to bed at night with a rapist or mass murderer in his guest room, much less as invited company! But we often provide a safe haven within our midst to Satan whereby he can work his evil from within and actually provide him a place or opportunity to work against the truth, against fellowship, against local autonomy, against weak brethren, against faithful preaching. Let me explain.

I recently was given a copy of a taped class conducted by a well known preacher. At the time this copy was given to me, I was warned that the class was “private” and that copies were not to be made, The well known preacher has conducted gospel meetings throughout the country but has his membership in a local church in a southern Texas city. This “private class,” however, was not conducted with members of the congregation wherein he holds membership. This class was with members of another congregation in the same city. In the course of the “private class,” error was taught concerning the divorce issue which would result in divorce being permitted for every cause (“if one is loosed, both are loosed”). Herein lies the dilemma. A teacher of false doctrine uses the cover of a “private class” to teach error and then draws the curtain of secrecy about his actions, claiming privacy and confidentiality. This class is conducted with members of another congregation, without the invitation or knowledge of the local elders. But the teacher is “safe.” Anyone who would dare to make the tape public has defied the code of silence and is worthy of rebuke. In the meantime, a “place” or “opportunity” has been given to the Devil so that unwary souls may be (and have been!) taught doctrines that will cause them to lose their souls.

It is understood that gospel preaching is not bound by congregational lines and that an eldership does not have to censor what local members read or study. However, another dimension is added to this when the cloak of confidentiality is invoked whereby the teaching members receive is kept from view, carefully screened from open investigation and free discussion. The teacher creeps in surreptitiously, does his damage, asks for the special privilege of secrecy and goes on his way. Sadly, the evil effects remain behind only to surface at a later time when those infected spread the error to others within the congregation.

Apostolic Warning Against This Practice

We have been warned against this device of the Devil, that of private teachers of error who creep among brethren to spread their error under the cover of darkness. Note Paul’s warning in Galatians 2:4: “And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage. . . ” Peter also sounded the alarm in 2 Peter 2:1: “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

Someone might well bring up the objection that it is necessary for gospel preachers and Bible students to have classes in privacy on various occasions. All of this is true and acceptable. However, the element that makes it wrong and increases danger is that the teacher is not willing to face the consequences of his teaching. He comes and goes quiet ly and secretly. He covers his doctrine with the special plea of keeping it confidential. He may be well known or nameless, a legend in his own time or in his own mind. Nevertheless, the danger is not in his right to teach but in the pleading for special privilege that is made. “Give me a place” to teach what I believe but don’t tell anyone what I have done. Under this guise, false teachers of all generations have done their dirty work and we have an unwritten code that condemns their exposure.

“But Brother ________ doesn’t teach his error publicly,” we are told. “He only teaches it in private.”

I ask: Where is the principle that allows error to have a place among us, either in public or private? Yes, anyone has a right to teach what he believes. Yes, that is true of public teaching or private teaching. But we have a right to withstand it, especially if that doctrine is going to be planted within the congregation where I live and if I believe that doctrine endangers the souls of my brethren. And that right of opposition is taken from us when we give place to false teaching. What I object to is the practice that has been urged upon us in recent years of allowing a teacher to spread his doctrine without open discussion and confrontation.

We are told that certain ones have been preaching longer than some of their critics have been alive.

We are told that the many years of faithful service gives one a right (place) to privately teach his error.

We are told that anyone who dares to expose to public view a teaching (class, etc.) that was confined to a private arrangement is guilty of chicanery and treachery.

We are told, in other words, that error has “a certain place” among us.

Would to God that we had more the attitude of Paul when he came to Jerusalem to lay before the Judaizing teachers the gospel that was entrusted to him. He said: “But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat, in conference added nothing to me” (Gal. 2:6). Those “who were reputed to be pillars” (v. 9) retreated in the face of truth.

We need more like Hezekiah who, when faced with the idolatrous worship of the brazen serpent made by Moses in the Wilderness, broke it into pieces without ceremony, calling it “Nehushtan,” or “that brazen thing” (2 Kgs. 18:4).

In other words, we need brethren who will give “no place to the Devil” so that he may invade hearts with error. Brethren, let us examine anew our unwritten practice that error has a place among us so long as it is taught in secret, with confidentiality. Do we really want to give Satan this advantage?

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 19, pp. 579-580
October 1, 1992