Truth Magazine

By Bill H. Reeves

The more brethren move farther away in their practices from New Testament authority, the more we hear aspersions cast on “necessary inference” as a way of establishing biblical authority. Some twelve years ago a brother wrote in his bulletin: “I’m afraid of these inferers. ” He said, “All inferences are human inferences.” And then a little over two years ago in the Nashville meeting, brother Reuel Lemmons asked, in reference to necessary inference, “Necessary to whom?”

The issue raised has to do with how God reveals his will to man in the Scriptures. Is it done by direct command or statement, approved apostolic example, and necessary inference, or not? This is the issue! And inasmuch as there is no apostolic example, or necessary inference, with which to justify some of their present-day practices, some liberal brethren are throwing out these two processes of establishing biblical authority. They stand in the way of their liberalism, and so they have to be destroyed! In essence, the position of these brethren is that God has to reveal his will only by direct statement or command. And, what it all amounts to is that they have presumed to tell God how he has to reveal his will!

Let’s take a case at hand. How did God reveal his will to Paul and his companions as to where to go preach, when they for the second time had left Antioch on a preaching journey and had revisited the newly established churches (Acts 16:6-10)?

They had traveled northwest in their visits, and now were to enter new fields. Where should they go? They decided to go westward to the province of Asia. God had other plans. The Holy Spirit revealed to them that they could not go to Asia, but did not tell them where to go. Their faith (reliance upon God’s will) was being tried. If not westward, since they had come from the southeast, then to the north and northwest, they thought. Traveling thus, again the Spirit of Jesus revealed to them that they could not do that, but did not tell them where to go! The only other direction left open to them (for new fields) was to travel down to Troas. “Where does God want us to go?” is the question on their minds. “We’ll wait for his revelation.”

Acts 16:9,10 brings the answer. A direct command or explicit statement from God? No. Paul was given a vision. In the vision a Macedonian was asking him to come help them. That’s all! God had revealed his will to them. They knew where to go next to preach.

Verse 10 tells us: “And when he had seen the vision, straightway we sought to go forth into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel unto them” (ASV). Let’s notice some facts concerning the case:

1. Paul and his companions had traveled a great distance, knowing only where they were not to go, for the Holy Spirit explicitly had told them. They used their best judgment, believing that God would reveal to them where he wanted them to go. So on they went, over a good period of time.

2. At Troas God gave Paul a vision. He recounted it, and all necessarily inferred the same thing! All came to the same conclusion, and that immediately. There was only one conclusion. What else could possibly be deduced from the implication of the vision?

3. Why had God not told them in a direct statement where he wanted them to go to preach? I don’t know; I don’t know the mind of God (except as he has revealed it, and that hasn’t been revealed to me). I do know that had I, or any man, been in charge, we would have given some specific orders, rather than let our men run around, being told at each turn, “don’t go here!” But God isn’t man, and man is not going to tell God how best to reveal his will!

4. In Acts 16:10, the Greek word for “concluding” (ASV), or “assuredly gathering” (KJV), is sumbibazo. On Acts 16: 10, Thayer says, “to put together in one’s mind . . . conclude,” and the Analytical Greek Lexicon of Harper/Bagster gives two words of definition, “infer” and “conclude,” in that order.

5. Versions are translations, and in the different translations the translators have often used different words in a given passage. We become accustomed to a particular rendition. In the English language the KJV and the ASV (including revisions) are the most customary. They do not use in Acts 16:10 the word “infer,” but there are versions which do use it. When I preach in Spanish, if I quote from the Latin American Version, 16: 10 says “inferring.” In English, the Amplified New Testament says, “confidently inferring.” So the quibble, “Where does the Bible say, ‘necessary inference’?” is based on the fact that the versions in English which are more customary do not use the word “inference,”

6. Note some different translations of Acts 16:10 “concluding,” ASV “assuredly gathering,” KJV “being sure,” Confraternity Version “confidently concluded,” Williams Version “drawing the conclusion,” New World “confidently inferring,” Amplified N.T.

7. The phrase “necessary inference” has been in use in the English-speaking brotherhood a long time. Let’s suppose that the idea had originated in another phrase. Suppose that the phrase had been “necessary conclusion,” and that the KJV and the ASV had chosen the word, “inferring” for the Acts 16:10 passage. Then the quibble would have been, “Where do you get that gnecessary conclusion’ bit?” Sophistry expresses itself in many different ways, among them in dealing in technicalities, and in play on words. But in substance, sophistry is hollow, a simple dodge or evasion of the facts.

8. “All inferences are human inferences,” we’re told. Of course they are! God intended for them to so be. God’s statements which imply are given to man for him to do the inferring. We are made in God’s image; he expects us to use the mentality which he gave us. Of course infering is something man does, just like repenting is something which man does (or believing, or being baptized, or praying). Does that simple fact make these actions wrong, or of no worth? Did Paul and his companions, when they made that “human inference,” do wrong?

9. Note that the vision was given only to Paul (and that in it the Macedonian said to Paul, “you” singular, in the Greek -come over), yet inference was drawn by the entire group. “When he had seen the vision . . . we sought to go forth . . . concluding. ” Everybody (Paul, Silas, Timothy, Luke, and any others in the company) made the same inference. How could this be? Simple; it was a necessary inference. No other conclusion was admissible.

10. Do any of these brethren, who are “afraid of inferers,” really believe that Paul and his company would have been guiltless had they come to some other conclusion and had gone rather to Athens? Would they have been obeying the Lord in what he had revealed to them (not by direct command)?

11. Brother Lemmons’ question, “Necessary to whom?” is another display of sophistry, of human wisdom. It is designed to get one’s attention off the issue. That question does not touch the issue. It is not a question of “to whom,” but of “to what”! Whether or not an inference is a “necessary inference” depends upon that which is implied, and not upon the hearer or reader. If that which is implied admits of no other conclusion, or inference, then the inference is necesary, in the sense that it is the only inference admissible. Let me ask: to whom was the inference necessary in Acts 16:10? Could Luke have inferred that they were to go to Macedonia to preach, and Paul inferred that they were not necessarily obligated to go there, and so they could go rather to Athens (and that with impunity)? To whom was that inference necessary?

The problem consists in that some are wanting to tell God how he must reveal his will to us. In essence they are saying that he cannot do it in certain ways which they have decided are not acceptable. So, for them, out goes “approved apostolic example” and “necessary inference.”

But need I remind us all that God is not limited, how much less ordered, by man?

Post Script

“Necessary inference” is found on nearly every page of the New Testament. Some seventeen years ago I began marking in the margin of the pages of my Bible “Nec. Inf. ” at those pasasages coming to my attention where statements appear with certain implications, demanding that the reader make the necessary inference. Before, I never looked for them in particular, but since being challenged in the matter, and being conscious of the matter, I find them popping up everywhere!

I urge the reader to also be more conscious of the matter. Want a simple example? Well, of course at Acts 16:10 I marked “nec. inf.”, and on the opposite page I marked “nec.inf.” at 15:28. That verse states a fact which reveals a truth. That truth is deduced, or inferred. The Gentile brethren would necessarily infer that circumcision was not necessary to salvation, since “no greater burden” was to be laid on them beyond the things mentioned in verse 29. Now the statement of verses 28 and 29 did not specifically prohibit circumcision as being necessary to salvation, nor even mention circumcision. But the “necessary inference” drawn from the statement excluded circumcision as being necessary to salvation.

I can just hear the Judaizers saying, “Where do you get that ‘necessary inference bit?,”‘ or “Necessary to whom?” It certainly wasn’t “necessary” to them, but it should have been!

Everyone, and rightly so, uses the process called “necessary inference,” just like everyone uses adjectives, tenses and the subjunctive mood, although many may not know why such are so called. We all use necessary inference every time we properly understand a parable, or figurative language. In fact, even specific commands in the Bible require it, since they are not addressed directly to us (our names aren’t in the Bible!).

The younger generation among us needs to be well grounded in this matter, lest it be lead astray by the sophistry of men.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 7, pp. 200-201
April 4, 1991

By Jimmy Tuten

Few is the number of those who have not seen firsthand the potential danger of the Enabler. While their fruit is apparent, some may not have recognized its source. In this treatise an attempt to identify both the Enabler and his work will be carried out with the prayer that it will help the cause of Christ, even in a small way.

The Enabler: A Clarification

In this writer’s circle of activity at least, the term “enabler” is something new. In the past it has not been included in my glossary of words. Standard dictionaries define the term “enabler” thus: “to make able, provide the means, opportunity, power, or authority, to make possible or effective. ” In this context an enabler is one who makes it possible for someone to do something responsibly or irresponsibly. By providing the circumstances, whether negative or positive, one is encouraged in whatever action is taken, right or wrong.

Parents, for example, make it possible for their offspring to grow into responsible beings, if they provide proper direction. On the other hand, by their failure to stress responsibleness, they enable the child to be shiftless and non-dependable. Parents must enable their children in the development of proper character. Through negligence, carelessness or lack of forethought it is possible for the parent to provide the circumvention of responsibility. Thus, a child reared in this type of environment is likely to develop a general disposition of shiftlessness and unreliableness. It is generally an accepted conclusion that the irresponsible disposition readily apparent in some of our young people can be traced to parents who provide the means for a convenient way of life, rather than the acceptance of moral obligations and responsibilities. The sense of moral responsibility is lacking in so many. Enablers do great harm, that knows no end.

The demands of God for the refinement and training of the mind do not allow the support of the irresponsible lifestyle so prevalently seen (Phil. 4:4-6). Yet there is an increase in the obvious display of adamant refusal to be directed (call it “indifference” if you wish) by intelligent understanding based on biblical concepts. When a mother of several children violates her convictions concerning adultery and has an on-going affair over the protest of her husband, family and brethren, rebellion to God exists. The sadness is compounded by the sowing of the seed of irresponsibility toward morality and the increase of disrespect for the will of God. She enables her children to follow in her steps. Her example provides the setting for duplication in their lives. She enables them to fail in contributing something positive to society.

Brethren we cannot be oblivious to the need of our steps being ordered by the Word of God so that iniquity will not have dominion over us (Psa. 119:133; Jer. 10:23). As we view our brethren displaying multiple definitions of sin in their attempt to sort out general conditions that are out of control in their personal lives, we see another display of the failure to follow the directives of the Word (1 Tim. 6:3-6). As is the case with contemporary society, the church is currently faced with a moral dilemma. It is obvious that too many of us have been enablers, when we should have been standard bearers.

Hopefully, before all is lost, there will be as in society “a rediscovery of the fact that there is something radically wrong with all of us” (Tony Campolo, Chairman: Dept. of Sociology, Eastern College in Penn. sylvania). Not just on the part of a few preachers and elders, but throughout the brotherhood. We need to return to the “old path” of a God directed life. Personal awareness of responsibility and accountability is essential to the welfare of each of us. We must enable others to do likewise. We need to recapture the language and meaning of these things and address ourselves to them in a meaningful way in body, mind and spirit. “That ye put off the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbor: for we are members one of another” (Eph. 4:22-25).

At the risk of sounding redundant let it be said again that we must not enable people to feel little restraint in the pursuit of selfish interests. We must help them develop a responsible philosophy of life that is Bible centered. This cannot be done until the necessary discipline is provided. Instead of enabling people to be irresponsible, let us provide what it takes for them to make a positive contribution to society. Let us return to teaching what God says about moral responsibility.

Perhaps a more practical approach to the problem will help if a question and answer is given: just what is an Enabler?

You Are An Enabler If

1. In your relationship with your children you pamper them, yield to their every whimsical desire, provide them with everything they want, provide no family chores, and do not teach them personal responsibility. Rest assured that the irresponsible control that society encourages will lead to tacit approval of sin in all its forms. It encourages the short-sighted pursuit of pleasure, the loss of the feeling of restraint, a lack of responsibleness to others and a destruction of the family ties. If you love your children then do for them what true love demands: “bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Teach them the value of work (1 Thess. 4:11), the importance of pride in what they do (Eccl. 5:10) and of the sin of slothfulness (Eccl. 10:18).

The following thoughts will help to analyze the problem:

(a) Your child is unruly in the home, he has disciplinary problems in school and when you take him to the services of the church he becomes almost impossible to handle. But it’s a stage he’s going through and so other than a threat here and there, a little slap on the wrist once in a while and some firmer action when you become exasperated, you do very little about the situation. You are an enabler! Your child needs firm discipline. Read Proverbs 13:24, with special notice given to “he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.”

(b) Your child is belligerent and quarrelsome, he tosses the head and talks back to you. But he’s just a high-spirited child who will grow out of it. You avoid upsetting him, you do not confront him and you do not say anything to trigger him. You are an enabler! Read Proverbs 19:18, with special notice to “let not thy soul spare for his crying.”

(c) Your child is now grown, he’s married, he quarrels with his spouse, they get physical sometime, he’s running home with criticism of his wife. You agree that his wife is self-centered, you let him know this and encourage him not to put up with it (he can come home anytime he wants to). Read Ephesians 5:25-31, paying close attention to “for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and they two shall be one flesh.”

(d) Your child, though grown and with a family is somewhat shiftless, will not work steadily, moves from job to job (it’s always someone else’s fault) and does not pay his debts with consistency. He spends recklessly and foolishly for the latest stripe package for his new four wheeler and the latest in stereo equipment; he increases his gun collection at the expense of sacrificing the needs of his wife and children. If he gets too far in debt he appeals for another loan to be added to what he already owes. He knows you will not let him down. You give in just one more time. You are an enabler! Read 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12, with special note given to “walk honestly toward them that are without.”

2. You are an enabler if in the local church you witness and/or become party to factionalism, strife, bickering and divisiveness and do not seek a biblical solution to the problem. Though we deplore strife and division, to defend non-confrontation of error and remain silent when we should be reproving and rebuking, is sin (2 Tim. 4:2-3). We must not enable the sinful and/or unconverted brethren (the troublers of spiritual Israel) to gain a stronger foothold in their war against standards of truth and righteousness. When a brother comes into one of the congregations of God’s people and shows that he is a false teacher by advocating everything from Calvinism to adulterous marriages, or that he is a heretic because he wants to bind his opinions and judgments upon the brethren even at the risk of destroying peace, they need to be dealt with forcefully, yet in a kind, loving, brotherly manner (Rom. 16:17). When there is a furtherance of the divisions and a refusal to repent then there must (given the seriousness of the situation) be some marking (Rom. 16:17), rejecting (Tit. 3:10) and withdrawing (2 Thess. 3:6). Those who scripturally react to the turmoil caused and damage done to the souls of the saints are not divisive in such actions, nor are they sowers of discord. The real enemy is the perpetrator of strife and divisiveness. How can one possibly profess to be faithful when, after having enlisted in the army of the Lord, he fails to thus fight the good fight of faith (Eph. 6:11-12)?

The Following Items Will Help Us To Analyze The Problem:

(a) A brother comes into the assembly from another congregation. At first he is passive somewhat and appears to be uninvolved. This is followed in time by positive input in various classes. As the familiarity of the situation increases, criticisms of procedures and methods begin. Brethren try kindly to deal with the criticizer, but since men come to personify matters and issues that inflame them, the factious man begins to identify his objectors as the embodiment of the issues that are intolerable to him. Though opinions, expediencies and personal judgments demand forbearance, a party spirit ensues and divisiveness develops. We know that this sinful condition should never have occurred. You know that it proceeds from a heart and mind destitute of truth. So what do you do? Do you show your disapproval, or do you stand around shaking your head? Know assuredly that anything short of a forthright defense of what is right will not be pleasing to God. To thus encourage the trouble-maker is to enable him to further his divisiveness. Such action will never bring one to repentance. In situations like this one cannot be an enabler.

(b) A brother with a self-righteous attitude constantly criticizes and condemns others who do not measure up to his self-imposed standards of righteousness. We are aware of the many expressions of disapproval expounded by this man. You know that a great deal of his criticisms constitute plain fastidiousness, pickiness and as the Lord put it, “beholding the mote that is in thy brother’s eye” (Matt. 7:3). You know that more often than not the ones thus criticized are not aware of what’s happening until the criticisms run full circle. By then great damage has been done. You wonder why this “sound” brother does not practice Matthew 18 in these personal matters, or why in the interest of peace his personal preferences are not controlled with an attitude of patience and longsuffering (Rom. 12:9-10,18). You know that they should be looking at others thusly as a reminder to change themselves. So what do you do? Do you try to be a fence sitter in no man’s land or remain silent for fear of starting another fight on another issue? If so then you are an enabler! To fail to restore those overtaken in sin (Gal. 6:1) constitutes sin itself (Jas. 4:17). To try to correct the situation by any other way than by God’s way of converting “the sinner from the error of his way” (Jas. 5:20) is to make a complete wreck out of the principles of brotherhood. (Read James 2:1; 3:2, 13-18; 4:7.) Do you try to apologize for the critical brother by telling visitors, etc. that “that’s the way he is,” “he’s getting senile in his old age,” or “he’s just a lefthanded screw”? Patience can only go so far. Then something needs to be done. To do nothing is to be an enabler!

The Solution To The Sin

Man’s freedom from sin is conditioned upon knowing the truth and continuing in it (Jn. 8:31-32). We must let the Word of Truth become our dwelling so that we can abide and continue in it. There will be two results of such action: (1) we will know the truth, (2) we will be made free. The only thing that will free us from the prejudice and hate, division and isolation, bitterness and hostility, abuses and selfishness, is the saving, working, living truth of God.

Truth is not simply something known, it is something to be done (Jn. 8:31). The knowledge and the experience of truth permits no compromise with evil, not even the appearance of it (1 Thess. 5:22). We cannot be an enabler and have proper regard for truth. Truth, if it is to be effective has to be regarded in every respect: in belief, reverence, speech, action, etc. When truth produces this type of behavior in our lives then are we free from the bondage and impediments of life. Jesus is “the way, the truth” (Jn. 14:6). He did not come to enable men to the furtherance of sin, but to save them. We cannot hope to see all men save by the gospel until we confront them. Do not be an enabler by providing the means or occasion for the furtherance of their sinful cause.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 6, pp. 182-184
March 21, 1991

By Eric Norford

We live in an age in which technology is tremendous, money can be earned abundantly, a person can be anything he wants to be, and can do practically anything that he wants. In a society where problems abound on every hand, the Christian is exposed to practically everything the world has to offer. It seems as the years go by, it will get worse, and Christians will become more loose in their attitude toward sin. In fact, should present trends continue, the so-called Christian will altogether remove the word “sin” from the Bible. Whether or not that happens, God still calls sin, sin. There is no such thing as a little sin or a big sin. Sin is still sin and God says through James (1: 15), that sin, when it is finished brings forth death. Yet, some Christians have the idea that it is not sin, but a “mistake.” Sin is disobedience of God’s law. It is a transgression (1 Jn. 3:4); sin is unrighteousness (1 Jn. 5:17); sin is an omission of doing what is right (Jas. 4:17); sin is an action not “of faith” (Rom. 14:23). God’s word is very plain about sin. Sin will send a person to Hell – even one sin will. One sin kept Moses from entering the land of Canaan (Num. 20:12; Deut. 34:4), one sin killed Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1, 2), and one sin killed Uzzah, who thought he was doing right by steadying the ark of God (2 Sam. 6:6-7). When God says something, we better not go against it!

However, there are Christians who have the idea that they can commit any type of sin and get by with it. This shows the world’s impact on people’s minds. It is no wonder that the divorce rate is ridiculous, fornication is out of control, murder for an unwanted pregnancy (abortion), filthy language, homosexuality abound, etc. God’s word is still very plain about these, they are sin. Divorce is wrong, if it is not for the cause of fornication. Divorcing for every reason, then remarrying someone is wrong; those living in this condition will go to Hell, unless they change and make it right with God according to the Scriptures (Matt. 19:9). God still says pre-marital sex (fornication) and sex with someone who is not your husband or wife, while you’re married (adultery), is sin (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Language that is disgusting and dirty is wrong, for a Christian is to speak wholesome, godly words (Eph. 4:29). Abortion is murder, regardless of what every pro-choice person in the world says about this; he is not God. Man has no right to take a life that has been formed by God himself and kill it (Isa. 44:2,24; 49:5; Gal. 5:19-21). These passages show that God made the womb and murder is a work of the flesh. Homosexuality was an abomination to God in the Old and New Testaments and it still is today. Despite the gay movements and despite what some church leaders say about it, it is sin (Rom. 1:24-27, 32). God destroyed two cities for this same sin in Genesis 19:1-29. There are many other sins that we have not touched on: stealing, telling a lie, hatred, drinking, drunkenness and such like: those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:21)!

These problems have crept into Christians’ lives and in the church and they are getting worse. Christians just shrug them off and think they will pass. Paul says that we are not to be conformed to the world but “transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God” (Rom. 12:2). We need to stand up against sin and drive it from our minds! If we have the idea that sin is not a big deal, God help us. God says sin is still sin and we have cited passages which teach that a person who commits sin will not inherit the kingdom of God. The fact is, God will not send you to Hell, you will send yourself there. We need to be living our lives according to God’s Word and not by the world’s offerings. If we sin, we have an advocate with the Father (1 Jn. 2:1-2). This must be true repentance, not the idea that “I got that sin off my shoulders and now I can go do the same thing later today.”

This writer likes the words that Peter expressed in 2 Peter 3:11, after he discussed that the Lord has promised that there will be a judgment day (v. 10) and knowing this will happen. He said, “What manner of persons ought you to be?” How should we be living – God’s way or the world’s way? God’s way will lead you to eternal life (Matt. 7:21; 2 Jn. 9); the world’s way will lead you straight to Hell (Jn. 12:48). In Hell, there is complete darkness (Jude 13), eternal fire (Rev. 20:10; Mk. 9:45), eternal separation from God (2 Thess. 1:7-9); it is the second death (Rev. 20:14; 21:8). Do you still think sin is some minor thing? One sin will send you to eternal damnation. Some can attach another name to sin to make it look innocent or disguise it; however, God says sin is still sin.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 6, p. 175
March 21, 1991

By Andy Alexander

The Lord strictly teaches that his children are not to fellowship with those who teach and practice false doctrines (2 Jn. 9-11). Those who violate God’s standard are to be marked and avoided by faithful Christians, yet most people blindly follow false teachers in the denominational world and support them with their attendance and contributions (Rom. 16:17; Tit. 3:10).

A task force for the Methodist Church has just completed its second meeting on homosexuality. Why was a task force needed? God has spoken on this subject and declared that it is a sin that will keep one out of heaven (Rom. 1:27). The task force is needed because there is a move in the Methodist Church to accept homosexuals into full fellowship. Where does that leave the members who do not approve? They are guilty of condoning this and all the other errors that the Methodist Church is engaged in. The answer for the Methodist member who does not approve: find the right church!

Many denominations are allowing women to preach and teach the whole assembly. For years Pentecostal churches have allowed women to preach, but this practice is now accepted in many other denominations as the feminist movement in the past two decades has gown stronger. Has anyone ever considered to search the Scriptures to learn what God’s will is in this matter? Paul commanded, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:11-12). What does a person do who is caught up in a church that is teaching and practicing this sin? Find the right church!

The Baptist Church teaches that man’s sins are forgiven the moment he believes in Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches that belief is necessary and no one who has read and studied the Bible will argue about the need for a man to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he has been raised from the dead. There are a vast number of Bible passages that affirm this teaching (Jn. 3:16; 8:24; Mk. 16:16; Rom. 10:10). However, we must take all of the passages that deal with our salvation and not just the ones that tell us to believe. A sinner must also repent of his sins if he is to avoid eternal punishment (Lk. 13:3). The Bible also teaches in Romans 10: 10 that confession with the mouth that Jesus is the Christ is necessary. Can we leave out confession and repentance as the Baptist would have us to do and please God? The Bible also teaches that baptism is the place where man’s sins are washed away (Acts 22:16). Jesus placed belief and baptism prior to salvation in Mark 16:16. Can we omit any part of the plan that Jesus has given. What does a person do if he finds himself in a denomination that practices these things which are contrary to God’s will? Find the right church!

There are many other practices which are being done in the name of Christ in the denominational world, but they do not have his approval. Things which may appear small in the eyes of man, are still departures from God’s word and those who teach, practice, and support them will perish, because they are not obeying the gospel (2 Thess. 1:7-9). Where do we find support in God’s word for quarterly observance of the Lord’s Supper, instrumental music in worship, men to wear titles such as Father, Reverend, Monsignor, etc., social activities as a means to induce people to obey the gospel, women preachers, and taking up collections during the week? Search the Scriptures and see if these acts are authorized (1 Jn. 4:1; Acts 20:7; Matt. 23: 8- 10; 1 Cor. 11:34; 1 Tim. 2:12; 1 Cor. 16:2).

What’s the answer? Find the right church! And, if you cannot find the church that you read about in the Bible, then start one and try to lead as many people out of error as you can.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 6, p. 171
March 21, 1991