Truth Magazine

By Mark Mayberry

Hypocrisy is an unpleasant word that signals an empty and shallow life. A hypocrite is defined by Webster as “a person who pretends to be what he is not; one who pretends to be better than he really is, or to be pious, virtuous, etc., without really being so.”(1) The English word “hypocrisy” is a translation of the Greek word hupokrisis. Thayer defines this word as “the acting of a stage-player . . . dissimulation, hypocrisy.”(2) In Classical Greek, this word referred to a stage actor. He usually wore a mask, and in speech and action imitated the character whom he represented in the play. There was no inherent connotation of evil or deception involved in the early use of the term. However, with the passing of time, the word took on a bad meaning. It came to denote one who pretended to be what he was not, especially in the areas of religion and morality. The New Testament always uses the word in a evil sense.(3)

What does the New Testament have to say about hypocrisy? Jesus repeatedly condemned the Scribes and the Pharisees for this failure. He said, “Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy” (Lk. 12:1). Matthew 23 contains a scathing rebuke of their fraudulent faith. Seven times Jesus said, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” (Matt. 23:13,14,15,23,25,27,29) The language of this chapter is harsh, blunt, and severe. Our Lord had no patience whatever with their inconsistency and deception. Jesus said that Isaiah had prophesied of their hypocrisy, saying, “This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (Mk. 7:6).

For the hypocrite, religion is but an outward show; he only pays lip service to Christianity. Let us remember that Jesus condemned the scribes and Pharisees because “they say, and do not” (Matt. 23:3). A hypocrite is a fellow who isn’t himself on Sundays. He prays, “Lord, help me be an influence for good,” and then lives like the devil. He sings, “Have thine own way, Lord,” and then does as he pleases. The hypocrite prays, “Bring us back at the next appointed time,” and then sits home on Sunday evening to watch television. The hypocrite prays, “Grant that sinners may be saved,” but never talks to his friends and neighbors about their souls. The hypocrite prays, “Forgive us of our sins as we forgive our debtors,” but will hold a grudge till his dying day. The hypocrite prays, “Help us raise our children to be faithful to the Lord,” and then leads them astray through his bad example. He sings, “All to Jesus I surrender,” when in fact he is the servant of sin. Let us remember that the Lord has never been pleased with those who “say, and do not.” The same could be said of those who “pray, and do not.”

Paul said, “And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ” (Phil. 1:9-10). The Greek word translated “sincere” has an interesting history. In ancient times, certain dishonest merchants would take a damaged vessel, and smooth wax into the cracks to make it look unbroken. The word “sincere” describes that which is found to be whole when examined by the sun’s light.(4) In a moral sense, our lives must be “without wax”! Our outward appearance and our inner character must match.

However, some people attempt to hide behind a mask of pretended righteousness. They try to deceive others and also attempt to fool themselves. They think that as long as their sin is not discovered by men, God won’t notice it either. Hypocrisy is foolish and futile because we cannot hide anything from the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient One who will judge us in that final day. At the day of judgment, our character and manner of life will be exposed for all to see. Every idle word, every evil thought, and every hidden deed will be brought to light. Hebrews 4:12-13 says, “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the hearts. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.”

The wisdom that is from above is “without hypocrisy” (Jas. 3:17). Those who would grow as Christians must lay aside “all guile and hypocrisies” (1 Pet. 2:1-2). We must avoid hypocrisy both in worship (Matt. 6:1-5; 15:7-9) and in judgment (Matt. 7:1-5; Rom. 2:1-3,17ff). When the Final Judgment is pictured in Matthew 24 and 25, those who are condemned to hell are assigned a place with the hypocrites (Matt. 24:51). This reveals the ultimate destiny of those who feign righteousness.

A hypocrite obstructs the work of God. After viewing hypocrisy in the church, the statement is sometimes made, “If that is what Christianity is all about, I don’t want any part of it.” In a way this response is understandable. A hypocrite is universally despised. There is no rogue like a godly rogue. He does the devil’s work in the house of God. Let us condemn this sin in all its forms. No excuse can be made for those whose lights have gone out. No defense can be made for salt that has lost its savor. No justification can be given for inconsistency between faith and practice. Christians should live so as to attract rather than repel. However, anyone who would use the hypocrisy of others to excuse himself is “copping out.”

The fellow who is always complaining about hypocrites in the church has the outlook of a buzzard: he overlooks all the live sheep and sees only the dead ones. The famous preacher, Billy Sunday, once said, “Hypocrites in the Church? Yes, and in the lodge, and at home. Don’t hunt through the Church for a hypocrite. Go home and look in the glass. Hypocrites? Yes. See that you make the number one less.”(5) As Arthur Adams once said, “Don’t stay away from church because there are so many hypocrites. There’s always room for one more.”(6)

No justification can be made for hypocrisy. This horrible sin has no place in the life of a Christian. However, don’t let the hypocrisy of others come between you and God. We don’t throw away good money because some bills are counterfeit. By the same token, we should not reject Christianity because there are some phony Christians.

Endnotes

1. Webster’s New World Dictionary, 2nd College ed. (1970), s.v. “Hypocrite.”

2. Joseph Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. “Hupokrisis (G5272).”

3. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised Ed. (1982), s.v. “Hypocrisy.”

4. Thayer, s.v. “Eilikrines (G1506).”

5. W.A. (“Billy”) Sunday, as quoted by Frank S. Mead, ed., The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1965), p. 242.

6. Arthur R. Adams, as quoted by Mead, p. 240.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 6, pp. 181-182
March 15, 1990

By Ray Madrigal

On September 4-5, 7-8, 1989 a religious debate was held in Paducah, Kentucky and in Metropolis, Illinois on the benevolent institutions issue. Plans for such a discussion in the Western Kentucky-Southern Illinois area began in 1987 as the result of several personal studies I conducted with brother Floyd Wiley, a retired preacher among the institutional brethren. Although we discussed the possibility of debating one another, we decided to solicit the services of brethren who would be “representative” of our respective positions. He contacted brother J. Noel Meredith, of Lawrenceburg, Tennessee while I asked brother Carrol R. Sutton, of Albertville, Alabama to debate the issue.

Proposition 1

During the first two nights, hosted by the 32nd Street church in Paducah, brother Sutton affirmed the following proposition:

The Scriptures teach that churches of Christ may not build and maintain benevolent organizations such as Boles Orphan Home, Tennessee Orphan Home, Childhaven, and Home For the Aged for the care of the needy.

In his first affirmative speech, brother Sutton built a solid foundation for the discussion by appealing to the need for biblical authority in all matters. He demonstrated how to establish scriptural authority (command, example, necessary implication) by citing various aspects of the Lord’s Supper. Using his patented cloth charts, he ably distinguished generic from specific authority. If God had told Noah to use “wood,” any kind of wood would work. But since God specified “gopher” wood, all other kinds were eliminated. Just as God commanded Naaman to wash in the Jordan (specific body of water), he also specified who is to preach, edify and relieve: the church! All other organizations are excluded when God specified the church (1 Tim. 5:16). Sutton then presented several charts showing the nature of the benevolent institutions named in the proposition. In his chart entitled “Is Boles Orphan Home A Benevolent Society?”, he pointed out that the board of directors make up “Boles Orphan Home” and that this board supervises and oversees the work of caring for orphans. The board provides a home, it is not a home! In this arrangement, the board stands between the churches (who merely send funds) and the work being done (place, facilities, necessities, personnel).

Brother Meredith began his first negative speech by stating that brother Sutton’s chart on authority was “a fine chart.” He agreed with 95 percent of its contents. Yet instead of dealing with the 5 percent difference, which represented the proposition of the debate, he simply ignored it. He proceeded to argue that “there are three divine institutions: the home, the church, and civil government.” Since all three of these can fail or “collapse,” they can each be “restored.” Orphan homes simply seek to restore what was lost (the natural home). He said these “legal homes are divine institutions.” Meredith shifted the focus of the debate by discussing the scope of benevolent work. Appealing to 2 Corinthians 9:13, he proclaimed that “churches can help saints and sinners.” In support of his position, brother Meredith cited quotations from Roy Cogdill, Fanning Yater Tant, Homer Hailey, A.C. Grider and W.E. Bingham.

In his chart #7, Meredith asked brother Sutton if the following statement was true or false:

All passages which authorize the performance of religious acts, and which make specific reference to the Christian individual are passages which authorize the indicated acts to be performed by the individual exclusively.

This chart was repeatedly presented by Meredith and would prove to be quite damaging toward the end of the debate. He citied texts such as Jude 3, 2 John 9 and Colossians 3:17 in affirming the falsity of the above statement, since these passages apply to both the individual and the church. Meredith asked if “a church could pray for wisdom (Jas. 1:5), be a doer of the word, practice pure and undefiled religion, or keep itself unspotted from the world (Chart 14).”

In his second affirmative, brother Sutton observed that brother “Meredith got off on another subject, the objects of church relief.” Throughout the course of the four-night debate, Meredith diligently avoided the real issue of churches building and maintaining benevolent organizations and focused attention on the scope of relief work. Sutton reminded Meredith that they both had signed propositions on the scope of benevolent work and that he would be glad to discuss that subject for four nights at a later time. But this debate was on church support of benevolent institutions.

Meredith, in his second negative speech, maintained that boards are equivalent to church trustees who hold property and are simply meeting the legal requirements of organized “home work.” Churches, as such, cannot do such work. “Can the church go into a needy home and tell them what kind of beans to buy, what kind of milk, and when to spank? . . . No, we turn that over to parents’ trust, and so with the board of directors.”

Throughout the discussion, brother Sutton showed parallels between the missionary society arrangement and the set-up of these benevolent organizations. Both originated in the minds of men, are of human origin, are designed to do the work of the church, have a board of directors, and have their own constitutions and by-laws among other things. Meredith responded by asserting that they are not parallel. Missionary societies are an ecclesiasticism and have no right to exist. They are “an association of churches, while orphan homes are an association of children.”

Proposition 2

During the last two evenings of the debate, J. Noel Meredith affirmed the following proposition while Carrol R. Sutton denied:

The Scriptures teach that churches of Christ may build and maintain benevolent organizations such as Boles Orphan Home, Tennessee Orphan Home, Childhaven, and Home For the Aged for the care of the needy.

In his first affirmative, brother Meredith presented his basic argument, summarized in the chart below:

Chart 1

The Basic Argument

If it is the case that:

1. Needs of orphan children must be adequately met.

2. Care of orphan children is not the job of Christian individuals exclusively.

3. An orphan child’s needs cannot be adequately met without his being part of a home.

4. The church, without any further organization, cannot function as a home.

5. The Bible does not specify the kind of home that must be used to meet the needs of orphan children.

6. Homes structured like Childhaven are homes or benevolent institutions which may meet legal requirements.

7. A church may contribute from its treasury to a home for orphans.

Then it is the case that: (see proposition 2 above)

Meredith attempted to prove that each of his seven basic points was true. Yet while he offered many emotional appeals he did not give a scriptural reference for point #7. In support of point -3, Meredith cited Psalm 68:6. Sutton later thanked Meredith for quoting that passage: “That’s what I contend for; why put them in an institution? He (God) didn’t say benevolent societies, he said families!”

In almost all six of his affirmative speeches, brother Meredith followed the same outline of presentation. He began with his “Basic Argument” (Chart 1); following with a discussion of “The Principle of Love” (Chart 2). Meredith continued his presentation with a discussion of the Greek word for “visit” (episkeptomai) and its significance for the debate. In Chart 16, Meredith offered a syllogism:

Chart 16

Church & Individual

Major Premise: All passages which relate to peculiarly religious matters are passages which apply with equal force to the church and to the individual Christian.

Minor Premise: 2 John 9 is a passage which relates to peculiarly religious matters.

Conclusion: Therefore, 2 John 9 is a passage which applies with equal force both to the church and to the individual Christian.

He asked the audience to consider other passages such as Jude 3 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17. “Are these just for the individual?”, Meredith asked. By the same logic, James 1:27 applies to the church as well as to the individual.

Brother Meredith went on to discuss the various and sundry needs of children; and if churches may help natural, original homes, they can also assist “restored” legal homes. He then presented a make-shift transparency entitled “Sutton’s Home.” While brother Sutton maintained that a place, necessities, facilities, and personnel could be provided, he would limit such a “home” to “poor orphan saints.” His next chart showed that while Sutton would agree to a church buying $10,000 worth of fertilizer for the preacher’s yard, Sutton would oppose the church spending a dime for milk to feed a starving orphan. Sutton mentioned that Meredith “got a little carried away on the fertilizer (amount).”

While brother Sutton consistently and forcefully met each argument and every question presented by his opponent, Meredith stedfastly refused to do the same. On Tuesday night, Sutton asked Meredith if “the church may give money to a natural Baptist home or to a natural non-religious home?” Meredith said that “the church can give to what an individual can give to.” Sutton pressed further: “May an individual give to a natural Baptist home or to a natural nonreligious home?” Meredith replied: “The church can give to what the individual can give to.”

Although the truth was ably defended and error effectively exposed each night, the final session on Friday night proved to be most devastating to the institutional position. In his first speech that evening (his fourth affirmative in the debate) brother Meredith asked Sutton the following question: “Do you believe that a woman must wear a covering on her head in worship services?” In his next speech, brother Sutton responded: “You’ve got to be kidding? On this proposition, brother Meredith? . . . Is this introduced for prejudicial reasons?” Meredith later tried to explain his query by appealing to the use of the plural pronoun humas used in 1 Corinthians 11. “He (Sutton) understands that a plural number applies to the church in 1 Corinthians 11 but he has trouble with it in Galatians 6:10.”

During his first speech on Friday (fourth negative in series), Sutton presented two transparencies which summarized Meredith’s unscriptural and inconsistent concept of both the home and church.

Meredith’s Home

1. Parents do not live with children.

2. Chidlren do not know who their “parents” are.

3. Children may not ever see their “parents.”

4. “Parents” do not administer discipline (spank).

5. “Parents” do not administer actual care – cook, clean, give shots, etc. NOTE: in these matters the “parents” hire others.

6. The “parents” beg from churches, other organizations, and individuals to supply money (including the United Way, et. al.).

NOTE: Meredith’s home is not a real home. It’s not even close to being a real home! It’s just a 24-hour-a-day day care center.

In his next chart (Transparency 92), Sutton presented a hypothetical conversation between two members of “Meredith’s Church” after they discover an abandoned infant child in front of the meeting house:

Meredith’s Church

(1) Two men find a young child. “What will we do?”

(2) “Individually, we visit the fatherless thru the church treasury.”

(1) “We’ve discharged our responsibility when we gave into the church treasury.”

(2) “The church can’t care for the child. That’s home work. The church is not a home.”

(1) “The church could send a donation to a benevolent society, such as Potter Orphan Home & School – but our treasurer is out of town and can’t write a check.”

(2) “The church could send the child to Potter – but it’s not equipped to care for children under three years old.”

(1) “1 guess we’ll just have to let her starve.”

(2) “Woe be unto us! Why did we ever join the liberals?”

(1) “I have an idea! Let’s call Carrol Sutton. He’ll come and personally care for the child out of his own pocket or he’ll get some of the other anti’s to help.”

Sutton continued to expose Meredith’s inconsistencies and errors as well as reveal the abuses and wastefulness of these benevolent institutions. He maintained that even if such institutions were scriptural, they would not be expedient on the grounds of waste, abuse, and impersonal care.

The debate was well attended all four nights. 175 were present for the first session Monday night in Paducah, with an average nightly attendance of 145. Institutional-affiliated brethren made up about 25 percent of the audience in Paducah and about 40 percent of the audience in Metropolis (unscientific estimates). Every audience was courteous, quiet, and interested in the two-hour sessions each night. Discussions and one-on-one studies are in progress in the wake of the debate, although no immediate “conversions” are apparent. Yet the truth was defended and presented, and will certainly accomplish what God desires.

If anyone is interested in audio or video tapes, just contact me at the above address. May God bless you in your study and in your efforts to reach the confused and those in error.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 6, pp. 177-179
March 15, 1990

By Irvin Himmel

He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed (Prov. 13:20).

Man is a social creature strongly influenced by the thinking, speech, and actions of other people. We have a measure of power over one another. No one can dispossess himself of this influence, but he can direct it.

The moral character of a person is shaped to a large extent by the company he keeps.

Two Classes of Companions

Basically, there are two classes in society – the wise and the foolish. The Bible contrasts these two distinct groups.

Jesus spoke of the wise builder versus the foolish builder (Matt. 7:24-27). The wise builder illustrates the individual who hears the sayings of Jesus and does them. The foolish builder reminds us of the one who hears but does not obey. To be wise is to heed the will of God revealed through his Son. Anyone who disregards the will of God is acting foolishly. Each one of us is building his house either on the rock or on the sand.

In another parable Jesus spoke of the wise virgins versus the foolish virgins (Matt. 25:1-13). All these virgins went forth to meet the bridegroom. The wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps, thus preparing adequately. The foolish took no oil to use in case that which was in their lamps was exhausted. Lack of preparation was their problem. To fully prepare for the Lord’s coming is to be wise. Failure to prepare adequately is folly.

Paul wrote of walking as wise versus walking as fools (Eph. 5:15). To be wise is to walk circumspectly, redeeming the time. Fools do not walk circumspectly. “Essentially, wisdom is a derivative of faith in God” (Willard H. Taylor).

Walking With the Wise

“He that walketh with wise men shall be wise.” It takes more than talking with wise men. It takes more than being casually acquainted with a few wise men. To imbibe the wisdom of the wise one must make them his close companions.

The wise project the fear of God in their lives. They make practical application of knowledge. They are skilled in the art of right living. They discriminate between good and evil. They keep the precepts of the Lord. The psalmist said, “I am a companion of all them that fear thee, and of them that keep thy precepts” (Psa. 119:63).

To walk with the wise is to have habitual and close friendship with them. “The man who walks with wiser men than himself imbibes their thoughts, and those thoughts become part of himself. As the health of the body depends upon the kind of food which it assimilates and its power of assimilation, so the health of the mind depends upon the character of the thoughts which it receives and its power of making them its own” (W. Harris). Good habits and sound principles are learned by constant association with good and righteous people.

Companion of Fools

“A companion of fools shall be destroyed,” “will suffer harm” (NASB), “shall smart for it” (ASV), or “be misled” (NEB).

Keeping company with fools does not yield wisdom. A fool is morally undesirable, or spiritually detrimental, lacking both wisdom and discipline. He stubbornly refuses counsel. He is obstinate in the course which he follows.

Joash, king of Judah, did right in the sight of the Lord all the days of Jehoiada the priest. Walking with this wise man helped to keep Joash on the right course. But when Jehoiada died, the king became a friend of the wicked princes of Judah, and that was his downfall. He ordered Jehoiada’s son killed, countenanced idolatry, and finally was slain by some of his servants (2 Chron. 24).

There is an old adage, “He who lies down with dogs shall rise up with fleas.” To become a companion of fools is to suffer the fate of fools.

Choosing of Associates

All contact with foolish people cannot be avoided. A child who is born to foolish parents cannot help being “a companion of fools” in early life. There may be many unavoidable circumstances in which we are placed in the company of fools. But we are free to choose our close friends. There is no valid reason for one’s choosing as his most intimate companions people who are fools.

Paul reminds us, “Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company corrupts good morals'” (1 Cor. 15:33, NASB). He was referring to the Corinthian Christians keeping company with people who denied the resurrection. Wrong beliefs generate wrong attitudes and wrong actions.

If one has chosen the wrong kind of friends, he should break off that relationship and establish ties with people who love the Lord. Our selection of friends helps to make or break us spiritually.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 6, p. 175
March 15, 1990

By Randy Cavender

Many times when one takes a test, questions are asked that require a true or false answer! I have entitled this article “True or False” because I would like for you to search the Scriptures and answer the questions that I ask. The subject is salvation. This topic needs to be studied because of all the disagreements which surround it. I have often said that you could listen to five different denominational preachers speak about salvation, and you would hear five different ways to be saved. Kind reader, there is only one way to be saved! God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33,40). He expects us all to obey the commands he has given, no more and no less! Therefore, please take your Bibles and read the evidence I present on salvation and decide if it is true or false!

First of all, let us notice the last words of Jesus while upon this earth! Beginning with Matthew’s account we read, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen. ” Mark’s account is similar, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. ” Luke’s account is as follows, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things” (Matt. 28:1820; Mk. 16:15,16; Lk. 24:46-48). As we read these passages of Scripture, we must conclude that Jesus gave some conditions for salvation. We must also conclude that in order for one to receive the salvation of his soul, he must obey these commands! We must accept what the Lord has said on the matter, for the word of the Lord is truth (Jn. 17:17). Now let us look at some examples of the great commission at work! In Acts 2, the apostles, on the Day of Pentecost were preaching the word of the Lord to those Jews who had killed Christ! We read that the apostles told the people, “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21). Thus, the subject of salvation was being preached! As the writer focuses on the words of Peter, we see that the people were convicted of sin, and asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (v. 37) Peter told them plainly, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v. 38). We read that about 3000 were baptized. May I ask, did the apostles speak the words of the Lord as he had instructed them? (Look at the Scriptures we have given.) Is it true that the people would receive the forgiveness (remission) of sins when they would obeyed? Is it true that the Lord added the saved to his church (v. 47)? Please be honest and answer these questions. Are these things true or are they false! If false, where am I mistaken?

Let us look at Acts 8! Philip, the evangelist, went down to Samaria to preach Christ (Acts 8:5). We see that Philip preached concerning the kingdom of God, and the people believed those things (v. 12). It is evident by the response that the people believed those things (v. 12). It is evident by the response that the people were told to “believe and be baptized. ” We come to this conclusion because the people did exactly that! Now if Philip had not told them, who did? And if he did, where did he get such a message? This was the teaching of Christ, for it was he who said, “He that believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mk. 16:16). 1 know these people received salvation because they did exactly what the Lord tells us to do! Now why would anyone deny these plain passages of Scripture? May I ask you, is it true that the Samaritans obeyed the commandments of the Lord, the same commands he instructed his apostles to teach to the whole world? Is it true that these people had faith in what Philip preached concerning Christ, the Son of God, and this faith led them to obey? Again, if this is false, where am I mistaken?

We have yet another example of salvation in Acts 9. Saul of Tarsus was on the way to Damascus to persecute Christians. As he came near the city, Jesus appeared and spoke to him (vv. 4-9). There are some who will say that Saul was saved right there and then. But I deny it! Why? After asking, “What do you want me to do?” Jesus told him to “go into the city and you will be told what you must do” (v. 6). Thus, we must conclude that Saul was not a saved man when he left to go into the city. In fact, the preacher Ananias did not come to Saul for three days! We also see during those three days, Saul of Tarsus was praying, yet he still had not been told what to do (vv. 9,11). When Ananias entered the house where Saul was, he then told him to “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). The Bible says, “and he arose and was baptized” (Acts 9:18). Again, did Saul do what the Lord commanded? Is it true that if he had refused, he would not have been saved?

Kind reader, are the words of Jesus true or false? I happen to believe they are true! If you come to this conclusion, will you not obey the Lord’s commandments and be saved from your sins? Please think seriously about these matters!

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 6, p. 174
March 15, 1990