Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

The corporation of our title is a siren through which Charles Holt wails and whines. As will be documented in this special series, brother Holt attacks the fact, foundation and function of the church you can read about in your New Testament. Before you become a megaphone or microphone to echo his economy or fund his corporation, you need to remember against whom you are fighting. To persecute the church is to persecute Christ (Acts 8:3; 9:1,4,5). To “withstand the kingdom of the Lord” is to “fight . . . against the Lord God” (2 Chron. 13:8,12), and those who do so “shall not prosper.”

Brother Holt’s organization may prosper; his organizational coffers may “increase and abound yet more and more,” but he shall not prosper. Neither will you if you join his corporation and support its confrontation against the firm foundation of God Almighty. I would as soon stand in the Judgment as the one who pierced the physical side of the Son of God with a spear as to stand there as one who prated against his spiritual body with malicious words.

There may be grievous abuses of truth (2 Tim. 2:16-18); there may be gross violations of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16); there may be corrupt churches and mercenary ministers (Rev. 2:18-3:5; 2 Pet. 2:1-3). Grant that it is true. Still, it does not warrant us to war against the King and kingdom of God. Paul was “shamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi,” but he did not prate against preachers, chide the churches or evict by edict the elders of the churches. Brethren, before you are taken in by the Truth & Freedom Ministry, Inc. in general and by Charles Holt in particular, beware of what and whom you are opposing (cf. Mat. 25:40,45).

We hear the blasting pestilence of brother Holt’s organization against the alleged abuses of the church of God. We read his accusations and insinuations, his slurs and slanders, against the church of the firstborn ones. If it were all true, it would not justify his cause or course. We read of Peter’s declarations and protestations of firm, fearless faith (Matt. 26:33; Mk. 14:29; Lk. 22:33; Jn. 13:37). We hear his base denial – “I know not the man.” We hear him defend his acceptance of Gentiles (Acts 11). We see his hypocrisy and subsequent condemnation because he feared the Jews (Gal. 2:11-14).

What shall we say to this? Do we start a foundation in apposition to the apostles? The hushed howls of Paul’s enemies whispered that he was preaching for ulterior motives begotten of an inferior apostleship. Do we campaign, then, against the apostolic office, work or function? Do we deny and decry all apostles of the Lamb? Do we take the word, “apostle,” and show that it is used in very broad and general ways in the New Testament (cf. Phil. 2:25), and thus negate the special role of the “holy apostles” (Eph. 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:12)? God forbid!

The Truth & Freedom Ministry, Inc. often uses scriptural concepts to taunt true truth and freedom. Its writers speak of “the traditions of the church”; they speak of the “‘powers that be,’ the authoritarian preachers and elders of ‘the Church.”‘ They rant and rail against “mercenary,” “hireling,” “professional preacher” of the “corporate Church of Christ” and insist that they are “free thinkers” who have rebelled against the “party-line” while the rest of us are left to “line-up,” or “goose-step” to the tune of Pied Piper preachers and elders who demand unquestioning obedience to the “status-quo.” Christians in a local congregation, under the oversight of elders (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2-4; Phil. 1:1), are seen as objects of pity, scorn and ridicule. They are pictured and portrayed as blind followers of the blind, as “lowly, voiceless members who must pay their dues to the organization,” and as those who are consigned and resigned forever to “obey and pay.”

Warning From an Elder

Before you parrot the party-line of the Truth & Freedom Ministry, Inc., remember these words from an elder in the church:

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. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: . . . them that walk after the flesh . . and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities . . . . But these . . . speak evil of the things they understand not . . . . These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure . . . those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is lie brought in bondage (2 Pet. 2:1-19).

Brethren, they promise you liberty, but it is the “liberty” of a master’s rope, not of the Master’s hope.

Church and His Corporation Equivalent?

Brother Holt believes his Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. and the Lord’s church are “equivalent human structurcs or organizations.” Note the quote below.

The church/building and the local church/institution are both from the wisdom and will of men. This fact in itself does not mean that they are necessarily wrong or sinful. As an example, Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. is a religious corporation, a legal entity under law, that originated in the will and wisdom of men. I believe it is an expedient method for disciples to combine individual efforts to teach and preach the word of God, as well as do other related “religious” activities. But – and get this fact, please! we do not in anyway whatever think that this human corporation is from God or that the Lord built it or even gave a “pattern” for such.

The facts are, biblically and according to civil law, that Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. and the local C of CC (church of Christ Church – LRH) are equivalent human structures or organizations. The difference is that we know this truth and admit it; but your clergy are “selling” you a human organization as a divine institution, just exactly as the Roman Catholic Church claims for itself (Charles Holt, The Examiner, May 1988, pp. 2,3).

Please read the citation above very carefully. Observe that the local church, as per 1 Corinthians 1:2 and Galatians 1:2, is a “human organization. ” As such, it is “equivalent” to brother Holt’s corporation. If Christians began to preach that the church is not a divine organization and that is does not have a divine “pattern” of operation, one wonders if that would make it acceptable unto God? Brother Holt’s “Ministry” has all the rights and privileges that are appointed to the church in the New Testament. The quotations above and their “Forums” exemplify that fact.

Brother Holt is correct – his “Ministry” is a “human organization.” “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it” (Psa. 127:1). “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up” (Matt. 15:13), and brother Holt assures us that the Lord did not plant his.

Appeals for Money

The Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. chastens Christians who “lay by in store” as the Bible teaches (1 Cor. 16:2) , as “The lowly, voiceless members (who) must pay their dues to the organization. Obey and pay, that’s the whole duty of the faithful church member” (The Examiner, January 1990, p. 32)! “C of C church members have been brainwashed into believing that giving into the church treasury is their duty, as one of the imagined Yive acts of worship,’ and must be done every Sunday. This is set forth as a ‘sacred duty’ and failure to do so means condemnation by God. Therefore, they ‘fear’ the threats of men and dutifully obey men rather than God. You do not owe the C of C church anything” (Charles Holt, The Examiner, March, 1989, p. 29).

Now, the hook is set. Once you are convinced to cease doing what the New Testament teaches you to do, what should you do with your money? Well, here is brother Holt’s advice on the same page of the last quote above.

Has this paper helped you toward a better understanding of God’s word? Has it made you more aware of the departure from the simple way of the Lord? . . . Have you come to recognize that the C of C churches have become a fullfledged denomination the same as others? . . . Has it helped you to accept the truth that there is no “Lord’s treasury” or divinely authorized “church treasury” into which you are required to pay? . .

If these probing questions can be answered in the affirmative, . . . then YOU have been helped by this paper. . . . Surely YOU do understand this: Freely YOU have received, freely give. Are YOU willing to do this, even as others have done for you?

HELP US FINANCIALLY WITH THIS PAPER! This is very important . . . . YOUR FINANCIAL HELP is NEEDED . . . . It is needed NOW. It is needed on a regular basis.

Note this appeal from brother Holt, “Be a part of this effort, after the manner of the early disciples: ‘. . . and in proportion that any disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the . . .’ publication of THE EXAMINER (cf. Acts 11:29) . . . . We need your financial help” (The Examiner, January, 1990, p. 17). An elder of the church once said, “And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you” (2 Pet. 2:3). Once you are talked out of laying by in store on the first day of the week, once you become convinced that is a mere human contrivance of “the clergy” in the “church of Christ church denomination,” what should you do with your money? Why, do like they did in Acts I I send it to brother Holt and The Examiner. He that hath an ear, let him hear.

Conclusion

Brother Holt is obviously a brilliant and talented man. I assume that his motives, so far as they are known to him, are pure. Both this article and special issue are distasteful to me. They give me no pleasure. However, as long as one believes that brother Holt and his organization are teaching error, he must oppose his views. To all who have known and loved him over the years, I urge you to pray for him and to use whatever friendship you have had with him in t e past to encourage him to repent and to preach again the truth and freedom for which he once so boldly contended.

There are those who say that they disagree with brother Holt’s doctrines. They say they agree that his ideas are foreign to the Bible. Yet, they sympathize with him and criticize those who oppose his teachings. Is that scriptural love (Gal. 4:16; Jn. 8:40)? I think not. If we did not love brother Holt and his soul, these pointed efforts would never have been made.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 589-590
October 4, 1990

By Ron Halbrook

We are to teach and admonish one another, but each one of us must constantly examine and re-examine himself to be sure that he is abiding in the gospel of Christ. Some brethren at Corinth who were under the influence of false teaching set themselves up to challenge the apostle Paul and to test him by the standard of a carnal mind. The false teachers judged Paul harshly for such things as changing his travel plans, not accepting financial support from Corinth while preaching there, and an apparent lack of polish in his personal appearance or presentation as a speaker.

Those who tested Paul by means of such tangents and side issues conveniently overlooked the decisive facts which proved Paul was a genuine apostle of Christ. It was Paul who had revealed the gospel to the Corinthians and taught them from the beginning (1 Cor. 4:15). He proved the message was not his own but was sent from God by producing signs, wonders, and miracles (2 Cor. 12:12). In contrast to the sleight-of-hand methods, dishonest maneuvers, and carnal manipulations practiced by the false teachers, Paul had been scrupulously honest and sincere, open and above aboard, both in his method of teaching and manner of life (2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2; 8:21). The false teachers were great braggarts and trusted in their own shrewdness, whereas Paul openly acknowledged his weakness in the flesh and his utter dependence on the strength of the Lord (2 Cor. 10:12; 12:7-10).

Paul turned the tables on those who so meticulously questioned and tested him when he suggested that it was high time they tested themselves. No matter how awkward and unsophisticated they might think Paul to be, they had best be sure they could pass the test of truth in the sight of the Lord.

Ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me.

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates. For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth (2 Cor. 13:3,5,7-8).

If we fail the test of truth, we destroy ourselves rather than the truth, and Christ is not in us. To demand of other a thorough investigation when we ourselves are failing the test of truth and right is to be counterfeit or reprobate in the faith.

Testing the Tester, Examining the Examiner

The Examiner edited by Charles Holt has been long and loud in challenging and testing brethren on a wide range of issues. While we are willing to be tested concerning anything we preach and practice, it is high time the peculiar views advocated by The Examiner be tested. This special issue of the Guardian of Truth is devoted to the theme “Examining the Examiner.”

We have repeatedly received requests that we make some material available analyzing the doctrines of Charles Holt and The Examiner. A brother in Missouri called to say this error was causing serious trouble in his area. A young preacher in Florida asked for some material because members of the church there are being infected with these errors. Recently a church in Texas was suddenly flooded with copies of The Examiner. Those who are pushing and pressing the peculiar positions of The Examiner are creating doubt and confusion rather than strength and stability.

The first issue of The Examiner said, “The Examiner is scheduled for a five-year life-span. . . . If it should last that long, it will then cease” (Jan. 1986, p. 2). As the paper nears the end of its fifth year, Charles Holt pleads with “the readers to provide the finances necessary to keep it going and growing in circulation. . . . We ask and we hope to receive adequate funds to continue and enlarge this valuable work” (July 1990, p. 28). While we do not want to overreact to this menace, neither do we believe that dangerous error will just go away if we ignore it. Our aim is to examine The Examiner in the light of Scripture. We want to be fair and objective, to speak the truth in love, and to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).

We have every confidence that the power of truth will overcome the doubt and confusion generated by The Examiner. Competent preachers have been chosen to outline key truths taught in God’s Word in contrast to key errors propagated by The Examiner. We shall emphasize the importance of speaking the truth in love and the imperative of Bible teaching on the local church, including the eldership, the assembly, and the treasury. The Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. will be examined, along with the false concept of unity-in-diversity advocated in The Examiner. The claim of non-sectarian faith and the charge of institutional religion will be considered. The pernicious effects of The Examiner will be discussed, including worldliness, ship-wrecks of the faith, misguided writers, and the fruits of unsound teaching.

Truth In Love, Not Traditionalism

Satan tries to intimidate and silence those who fight error with such charges as “nothing but a preacher’s fight,” “traditionalism,” “a political machine,” and “trying to run the brotherhood.” Error flatters itself with the false claim of “independent thought,” implying that faithful men are blind tradition-mongers. Each writer who has participated in this issue of the Guardian of Truth is an independent student of God’s Word and makes his appeal to that Word rather than to human traditions. There has been no effort on the part of any of these men to create or exercise a brotherhoodwide power, mechanism, or machine of any kind.

Brother James W. Adams closes his keynote article on “Speaking the Truth in Love” with these worcis, ‘What I have written are solely my sentiments . . . . I wisit to be held accountable for only that which I personally say.” Every faithful teacher, every contributor to this series shares that ground. Each writer stands before God alone with an open Bible in an effort to learn and to teach accurately what the Bible says. Wherein they stand united, it is not because of human collaboration or traditionalism but because we can and must understand the Bible alike. As our readers study this material, let them in like manner present themselves before God with wa open Bible in a sincere desire to learn the truth without allegiance to any man, paper, or human brotherhood.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 577, 607
October 4, 1990

By James W. Adams

“Speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ” (Eph. 4:15).

It is evident, even to a casual reader of our text, that the increase of the body of Christ numerically by persons being saved and added to it by the Lord, as well as the spiritual perfection of those thus saved and added, are to be accomplished instrumentally through “speaking the truth in love.” It is quite as evident that the “truth” thus referred to is “the gospel” (Eph. 1:13). It is also clear that this “truth” or “gospel” included the ethical behavior of Christians as well as a revelation of the acts of God in redemption, hence is to be equated with the “doctrine of Christ” (Tit. 2:10). Therefore, all efforts to make arbitrary distinctions between gospel and doctrine are purely gratuitous and have no foundation in the Scriptures. This is manifest from the amount of ethical instruction contained in the letter to the Ephesians (chapters 4,5,6).

The text also reveals that it is not enough to “speak the truth,” as important as that is, but that it must be spoken “in love.” We dare not disregard either aspect of this inspired edict. The expression “the truth” has to do with the content of our teaching. The expression “in love” has to do with motive and manner.

I have been asked to write on this topic in an issue of the Guardian of Truth dedicated to an examination of the teaching and practice of my long-time friend, co-worker in days gone by, and brother in the Lord, Charles A. Holt. I do so reluctantly, for I have long ago given up any hope of effecting a change in our brother’s teaching and practice. I have for almost twenty-five years deplored, dealt with (in the “pulpit” and the “press” and face to face conversations) brother Holt’s vagaries along with those of others who have been aligned with him, but to no avail. I have for a long time now only dealt with the views and practices of these brethren where their influence seems to be creating, or has the possibility of creating, strife and division among brethren and churches. In my judgment, they are more of a sometimes troublesome nuisance rather than a real threat to the churches and the truth.

I am convinced that their views relative to the Lord’s ekk1esia (“church”) contain within their bosom the germ of their own demise. Someone has correctly (when properly defined) noted: “No movement in history has ever succeeded until it has become institutionalized.” This is but to say that no movement which does not result in an organic manifestation of some sort is ephemeral. It is nebulous. It clouds the atmosphere for a moment and disappears as suddenly as and as certainly as it appears. Holt’s errors are not new, as is the case with most false doctrine. Others have held similar views in days past. They were tested and discarded because they are neither rational nor scriptural. Holt’s, Jennings’, and the views of others of like nature will suffer the same fate.

“Speaking In Love”

“Love” in this text is from the Greek agape. To practice this grace, one must always seek the highest good of its object. What is the object in our text, It is the truth? If so, we should speak the truth so as to promote its highest interests. Is it Christ? If so, we must speak the truth always in a manner that pleases him and best promotes his purposes. Is it the person being taught? If so, we must teach the truth so as to promote his highest good. I am persuaded that we must do all three. We must speak the truth in love of Christ, the truth, and the persons whom we address, and we must speak the truth in a manner calculated to promote the highest interests of all three.

One of the chief complaints of brother Holt and his colleagues is that they are never understood and always misrepresented. This charge challenges the intelligence and sincerity of all those who disagree with the published concepts of these brethren and dare to publish their protestations. It is a charge that is arrogant, sinfully judgmental, and palpably false. If one desires for others to speak in love concerning him and his views, he is obligated thus to speak himself. It is a fact easily documented that brother Holt presents his views invariably with scathing denunciations of churches, his brethren generally, and particularly, elders and other preachers. He deliberately magnifies abuses, espouses moot and questionable exegeses of Scripture, scornfully denounces what he calls “traditional Church of Christ positions,” attributes base monetary motivation to preachers who are fully supported by the churches in their work, and scornfully ridicules the professed undenominational status of “churches of Christ.” My files abound with documentation of such. It would take a master magician to equate his approach to these matters with “speaking the truth in love.”

I have no difficulty with brother Holt and those who travel his road doctrinally, so long as they hold their views as personal convictions and do not press them to the disruption and division of the churches. It is the sad truth however that they have never learned the difference between “express” and “press.” The mere expression of their convictions (assuming them to be honestly held) is not the problem. It is the agitation of their views, their pressing for their acceptance, their sense of mission and evangelistic fervor with regard to their propagation, and the consequent strife, division, and broken fellowship which they engender. I have had the sad expreience of following brother Holt where he has labored and propagated his views. The strife, heartache, open division, and totally “unChristlike” dispositions of his supporters and converts to his views which I found in these places are of themselves sufficient evidence of the error of his concepts and the manner of their promulgation. In a word, the attitudes of his converts to his position are the best commentary on the character of his position. J. C. Hare perceptively observes: “To form a correct judgment concerning the tendency of any doctrine we should look rather at the forms it bears in the disciples, than in the teacher, for he only made it, they are made by it.”

Some General Observations

It probably was only a male chauvinist who said, “A woman never believes she loses an argument, because she always knows she is misunderstood.” Brother Holt seemingly believes he is victorious in every confrontation over his views, because he knows he is, as before noted, never understood and always misrepresented.

Brother Holt has an iconoclastic fixation. He is forever tilting at spiritual windmills which he mistakes for giant aberrations from Divine truth. Sad to say, like Cervantes’ ” Don Quixote, ” he has a lot of good ” Sancho Panzas ” who do not see things as he does, but who loyally try to protect him from his indiscretions. They excuse his activities on the ground that “he is saying a lot of things that need to be said” (they do not specify). In the words of an old proverb, we answer, “He buys honey too dearly who licks it from thorns.”

That our brother possesses many fine qualities, much ability, and preaches needed truth on many subjects is not denied. However, I agree with Charming who wrote: “The consistency of great error with great virtue, is one of the lessons of universal history. But error is not made harmless by such associations. False theories though held by the greatest and best of men, and though not thoroughly believed, have wrought much evil.” It remains true, as Thoreau wrote: “No imposition is too great for the credulity of men.” Therefore, we cannot safely tolerate the pressing of erroneous concepts and practices, however innocuous they may seem at the time, for the most insignificant aberrations have in time become the occasion of great evil.

Our brother has overshot Jerusalem and landed in Babylon doctrinally. If he practices his teaching, his movement will either die or become an organic monster. Movements launched on a plea for the freedom of absolute individualism and repudiation of all organization, as is Holt’s invariably cease to be individual and become organically autocratic and tyrannical the moment they are soundly established. Yet, as Franklin P. Jones said relative to matters political, “There’s nothing wrong with extremists that trying to reason with them won’t aggravate.” Hence, I close pessimistically relative to any hope that what we say will affect for good him who is the object of our remarks.

Conclusion

What I have written are solely my sentiments. Others who write in this issue are not expected necessarily to endorse all said, nor should they be held accountable, but I want it said, and I will defend it if necessary. Furthermore, though I know not what others will say in this issue, I wish to be held accountable for only that which I personally say.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 578, 606-607
October 4, 1990

By Steve Springer

In Acts 26, Luke records a familiar scene of Paul testifying before King Agrippa regarding the accusations made against him by the Jews. There are many lessons that can be drawn from this section of Scripture but I would like to examine the characteristics of those who are present.

1. King Agrippa is described as one who is a pompous dresser (25:23). He was one who was familiar with Jewish customs and beliefs (26:3). He seemed to be a fair man in his judgment of Paul’s case. He let Paul speak on his own behalf. He also did not “play the crowd” with his rulings. Agrippa did not appear to be a man of wickedness and deceit as have been many of those in authority throughout history.

2. Festus was a newly appointed public official; he appears to be a true politician. He was willing to do the Jews a pleasure (25:9), even if an innocent man had to die. He wanted to take Paul to Jerusalem to be judged. Jerusalem was where the “heart and core” of Paul’s accusers dwelt. Festus was a scheming politician.

3. Paul was a man appointed by Christ to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (26:17). He had zeal in doing God’s work. He told of his experiences in persecuting Christians, bringing them into bondage. He told of his determination to put Christians in prison, not only in Jerusalem, but also in other cities as well. He also implied that he had been in high standings with the chief priests (26:12). When Paul saw the risen Christ, he realized he was wrong in his works (26:19), and had a repentant heart.

As Paul testified in his defense, he told of his past and why the Jews now were against him. He simply believed what had been taught about the coming Messiah by the prophets of old. As he spoke, Festus, the politician, interrupted and told Paul that he was crazy for believing in the resurrection of Jesus. Paul was the only one in the room who believed in Jesus, which was filled mostly with Jews and/or those of Jewish persuasion. Note the reply from Paul (Acts 26:25-27), “But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; But speak forth words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom I also speak freely; For I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in corner.” Showing his conviction and zeal, Paul states that he is not crazy and knew what he is saying. Paul then asked Agrippa to answer whether or not he believed the prophets. Not waiting for Agrippa’s reply, Paul said, “I know you do.” Agrippa’s well known response was, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian” (26:28).

What if, when Festus told Paul he was “beside himself” and did not know what he was saying, Paul had not replied? What if Paul just thought to himself that Agrippa will not believe me just as everyone else in this room does not? What if Paul had decided to say only the things necessary to save his own life? What if Paul had thought that Agrippa was already religious enough or that he was involved with a false religion as were the others in the room and deserved their spiritual fate?

If Paul had not said what he did in verses 1-27, Agrippa would not have been “almost persuaded.” Paul’s deep faith in God and burning desire to convert the lost motivated him to convert the lost, even trying to convert the lost officials who were judging his case. The intensity of his faith in Christ was felt by King Agrippa who was “almost persuaded” on that occasion.

If a person tries to set a piece of wood on fire, he needs to have a strong enough flame that a sprinkle or two of rain will not put it out. If the fire burns strongly enough, it will not only withstand the rain but also catch the wood on fire. What about our fire of faith? Is it strong enough that we do not have to bring it in when it begins to sprinkle a little bit? Can it withstand the “sprinkle” of criticism by fellow workers, rejection by those strangers to whom we speak about Jesus, and abuse by those unbelieving scorners? If not we need to strengthen our fire for the Lord.

Paul exhorted Christians to persevere with these words: “Finally brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil, for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand” (Eph. 6:10-13).

On many occasions, Paul’s preaching resulted in someone’s salvation. Although his preaching did not convert King Agrippa, it did not release Paul from responsibility for his soul (see Ezek. 3:17-19). King Agrippa faces judgment as one who heard, but rejected, the word of God’s grace. Paul faces judgment free from the blood of King Agrippa. But, what would Paul’s condition have been if he had said nothing? And, what is our condition when we say nothing to our family, friends, and work associates whom we see every day?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 18, p. 558
September 20, 1990