Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Under the title above, Bill Jackson recently wrote:

We had earlier written about a December 1988 “unity” meeting, wherein the rankest liberals were somehow selected to represent the rest of us, and did about as much damage as could be done over two days – with effects lasting perhaps for many, many years. A question or two has been asked about the fruitfulness of any such meetings. On that, let me state that prior to any more meetings there needs to be two questions asked of the “non-institutional” side: (1) “Is the church building/meeting house an expediency?” Surely they must say, “Yes.” Question (2): “Do you still make laws in the area of expediency, and bind them upon all brethren – laws, for example, having to do with forbidding eating of food/having a meal on church premises?” Surely they hold positions that would require a “Yes” answer.

Then, what would be the purpose of arranging meetings together, when it is clear that some are making laws for God, and binding them upon all brethren, and have continually done so to the damage of God’s kingdom worldwide? That really has been a barrier since this particular problem arose anew in the early 1950s – men not allowing liberties given by God, and men not allowing each congregation, under its elders, to handle its own affairs.

Bill Jackson is a preacher in Austin, Texas. He, as his first sentence indicates, is identified with the more conservative element of the churches that defend human societies and organizations to do the work God assigned to the churches. He accepts benevolent societies but rejects most missionary societies. He believes churches may build “fellowship halls” (dining rooms, cafeterias) but not “Family Life Centers” (gymnasiums, health clubs, spas).

His first sentence implies that Richard Rogers, Bill Swetmon, Calvin Warpula, the late Reuel Lemmons, Lewis G. Hale, Bill Long, Rubel Shelley, Jimmy Jividen, Mac Lynn and Randy Mayeux are “the rankest liberals,” which, I suppose, qualifies Bill as an unranked liberal. At any rate, I hope one of these “rankest liberals” will challenge brother Jackson for a debate or at least protest his appellation and characterization of them. Rank liberals are generally too nice to confront mainline, mainstream liberals, so Bill probably has nothing to worry about.

It would be interesting to hear Bill Jackson debate the gymnasium issue with either Calvin Warpula, F. Furman Kearley, or Lewis G. Hale (or all three). Reuel Lemmons is dead and cannot debate, and Guy N. Woods might as well be, for he will neither affirm nor deny the Family Life Center’s right to exist in a public debate. And Rubel Shelley would not be caught dead in such a debate. The reason such a debate would be interesting is because Bill espouses “fellowship halls” but divorces “gymnasiums.” I believe brethren Warpula and Hale, would make things a tad uncomfortable for Bill if he ever agreed to attack their gyms in debate.

The first two nights of a debate between Bill and one of “the rankest liberals” on the gym questions might be held in one of Bill’s fellowship halls while the last two nights could be set up in one of Nashville’s gymnasiums. This would certainly focus the issues between Bill and “the rankest liberals.” It would be like having a debate on church support of colleges on the campus of David Lipscomb College! Hey, now there is an idea whose time will never come!

Brother Jackson refers to the “December, 1988 ‘unity’ meeting.” Bill was not there, or he would not have called the Nashville meeting a ‘unity’ meeting.” Bill’s brethren (as has been documented in several reviews of the meeting which have appeared in this paper and in Searching the Scriptures) were hopelessly divided. See the reviews, or ask Roy Lanier, Jr., Stafford North or Johnny Ramsey. They will tell you.

Bill laments the idea that “the rankest liberals were somehow selected to represent the rest of us. ” Bill, “Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee?” (Jn. 18:34) Calvin Warpula, Richard Rogers, Lewis G. Hale, Bill Swetmon, Mac Lynn, Randy Mayeux, Stafford North, Johnny Ramsey and Roy Lanier, Jr. will resent such a charge. Ask those brethren if they were “selected to represent” you and your brethren. Bill, where did you obtain such an idea?

“Two Questions”

Before brother Jackson will give his blessing “to any more such meetings,” he says, “there needs to be two questions asked of the ‘non-institutional’ side: (1) ‘Is the church building/meeting house an expediency? (2) ‘Do you still make laws in the area of expediency, and bind them upon all brethren – laws, for example, having to do with forbidding eating of food/having a meal on church premises?

Let us answer Bill’s two questions with two questions (cf. Matt. 21:23f). (Remember, Bill Jackson believes “fellowship halls” are scriptural but gymnasiums are unscriptural.) Suppose, Bill, that you are to have a discussion with F. Furman Kearley, editor of the Gospel Advocate, one of “the rankest liberals,” on the gymnasium “craze,” as you have called it. Suppose brother Kearley, a defender of both “fellowship halls” and gymnasiums, says to you:

Prior to any more meetings with Bill Jackson, there needs to be two questions asked of the “non-gymnasium” side: (1) “Is the church building/meeting house an expediency?” Surely they must say, “Yes.” Question (2): “Do you still make laws in the area of expediency and bind them upon all brethren – laws, for example, having to do with forbidding playing of games/having fun on church premises?” Surely they hold positions that would require a “Yes” answer.

Then what would be the purpose of arranging a meeting together with Bill Jackson and his brethren, when it is clear that they are making laws for God, and binding them upon all brethren, and have continually done so to the damage of God’s kingdom worldwide? That really has been a barrier since this particular problem (opposition to gyms, Family Life Centers) arose anew in the early 1980s – men (like Bill Jackson) not allowing liberties given by God, and men not allowing liberties given by God, and men not allowing each congregation, under its elders, to handle its own affairs.

Brother Jackson, the material above is parallel to your article. How would you answer it? Would you believe that such a statement required an answer before “any more meetings” could be held? Should brother Kearley demand your reply before agreeing “to any more meetings” on the gymnasium question?

Bill, would you say that the authority for a church building is the authority for a gymnasium? Would you say that the authority for a church building is the authority for a “fellowship hall” (a.k.a. dining room, cafeteria)? Is the authority for a church building one thing, while authority for a gymnasium is another? Is the authority for a church building one thing, while authority for a “fellowship hall” is another? Or if the authority for the church building is the authority for the “fellowship hall,” how does authority for a church building justify a “fellowship hall” while denying a gymnasium? Somewhere along the line, there has to be a separation, a distinction made between a meeting house, an eating house and a play house.

As you stated, brother Bill, “damage” was done to your cause in Nashville, and I both rejoice and regret because of it. First, I rejoice because modernism, the fruit of liberalism and institutionalism, was exposed in all of its putridness. For the first time, many saw the results of the “we-do-many-things-for-which-there-is-no-authority” philosophy. The shame and nakedness of the “Where There Is No Pattern” doctrine was laid bare before all. Second, I regret because it existed, because it had to be done. There is no pleasure in refuting error. There is no joy in dealing with sin, apostasy and digression (Phil. 3:8; Psa. 119:53, 136, 158).

Surely, Bill, you can understand my regret. You get no joy in responding to the evolution in Abilene, the I denominational compromise of Herald of Truth, and the gyms in Nashville, do you?

Yes, your cause was damaged, but you and your brethren have sown the wind and you are reaping the whirlwind (Hos. 8:7). You have sown church sponsored recreation and you have reaped ball teams, ball fields and gymnasiums. You have sown “fellowship halls” and you have reaped the Madison church, where the late Ira North preached, near Nashville. You have sown Herald of Truth, wherein one church oversaw a portion of the funds and function of hundreds of churches, and you have reaped Crossroads and Boston. You have sown church sponsored skating parties and “retreats” (hauling the kids in “church vans and busses”) and you have reaped full fledged church camps, complete with cabins, fishing, horseback riding, archery, hiking trails, etc. You have sown church support of benevolent societies and you have reaped church support of colleges.

Now, Bill, I know you deny and decry your progeny, but the things above are not illegitimate (cf. Heb. 12:8) children. The family resemblance is too apparent for you to renounce parenthood. Perhaps you do not see the connection, the correlation that exists, but it is there whether you believe it or not.

The Jews of Jesus’ day built the tombs of the prophets, adorned the graves of the godly and said, “If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.” But Jesus said, “Ye are the children of them which killed the prophets” (Matt. 23:29-31). They did not, yea, would not see themselves as parallel to the earlier apostasies, but they were their offspring nonetheless (Acts 7:51,52).

Likewise, the liberals of the past century only wanted to sow their missionary society, but they reaped instrumental music, preachers called “Reverend,” acceptance (if , not outright observance) of Easter and Christmas, and, finally, the Christian Church denomination. Men like Moses Lard and J.W. McGarvey lived to see their descendants, and they did not like what they saw, but they were the fruits of their digression, of their acceptance of human societies to do the work God gave the churches to do. So, today.

Future Meetings?

Bill, of course, can do what he will concerning future meetings between brethren. That is his choice, his prerogative, as it is of everyone else. Frankly, I hope Bill and his brethren will study with us.

But, further, I propose that he take part in arranging meetings with “the rankest liberals.” Bill Jackson, Dub McClish, Garland Elkins, Tom Warren, Roy Deaver, Noel Meredith, Stafford North, Guy N. Woods, Alan Highers, Roy Lanier, Jr., Johnny Ramsey and others need to conduct (in my judgment) “Nashville type” meetings with Calvin Warpula, Lewis G. Hale, Bill Swetmon, Richard Rogers, Rubel Shelley, Randy Mayeux and others. They need to study the questions of Bible authority, how established, how applied, biblical hermeneutics, the work, worship and organization of the church, individual versus congregational action, church support of colleges and missionary societies, whether or not the New Testament is a pattern, church sponsored recreation and entertainment, the limits (if any) of sponsoring church oversight and control, and other relevant and related topics.

Bill and “the rankest liberals” are surely and sorely divided on these issues. Let them meet, study and reason together. What have they to lose? What have they to fear?

Meanwhile, we stand ready to study with both groups. Truth thrives with open minds and open Bibles. Error flinches and flees, “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God” (Jn. 3:20,21).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 11, pp. 336-338
June 1, 1989

By Donald P. Ames

For some time now we have been blasting away at the assumptions, guess work, fallacies, and unscientific conclusions of the teachers of the theory of evolution. Thus it is indeed interesting to note that “the scientific world” finally is ready to admit what has been evident to thoughtful observers all along: Evolution is any thing but scientific!

The U.S. News (2-27-89) carried an article on the new scientific view of the origin of man. While some of their conclusions reached are still off-base, it is interesting to note the things revealed about past conclusions. Note the following admission: “For years, scenes from the daily life of our ancient ancestors have been rendered with a dab of science and a bucketful of speculation. Based as much on wishful thinking or intellectual fashion as the scanty fossil evidence left by our ancestors. . . ” (Emp. mine – DPA). Now doesn’t that bolster your confidence to accept the arbitrary and dictatorial conclusions they then try to pass off as a “fact” that is so well established “no reputable scientist would question it” (though thousands deny it)?

But since honest confession is good for the soul, and the evolutionists are finally coming out with an honest confession, let’s note what else they are willing to admit. “Researchers realize that in the past they often reconstructed our ancestors’ lives by starting with assumptions about what early humans ought to be like, then searching for fossil evidence to support those assumptions” (Ibid., Emphasis mine – DPA). Then it wasn’t scientific at all! It was twisted proof(?) interpreted to make it fit their pre-conceived idea of what it “ought” to be! And they then have the audacity to mock those of us who disagree with their conclusions as being “unscientific”? In his tract God or Evolution?, Luther W. Blackmon says, “The late Sir Authur Keith, noted British anthropologist, said, ‘Evolution is unproved and unprovable, and the only reason we accept it is because it is the only alternative to special creation, and that is unthinkable.”‘ Evolutionists have gone all out to try to stop the teaching of special creation as an alternative theory in schools today on the basis it would promote religion and deny scientific investigation. From their own admission, the evolutionary theory is based on fanciful fantasy – not science!

But what new startling things are they finding to cause them to completely turn away from past ideas on evolution? They have finally decided to re-evaluate the things they have found, and instead of creating a complete human being (based on preconceived ideas of what he should look like) from a single tooth (no fooling!), they need to look more closely at the surrounding evidences as well – now that begins to sound scientific to me. And what are the new conclusions they are determining? “The first members of the human race were neither noble savages nor simple primitive versions of ourselves . . . like modern humans, they stood upright and spoke. They had feet that could have danced a waltz and hands with the dexterity to repair a pocket watch” (Ibid.). It wasn’t new evidence – just a more honest evaluation of what they had refused to consider before.

The Bible has nothing to fear from true science! The facts of science are in complete agreement with the Bible statements. The theories of men change almost every century, and it is looking more and more like the theory of evolution has run its course! Who knows, given a little more time, and they may even come to the startling conclusion, “In the beginning, God. . . . “

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 11, p. 338
June 1, 1989

By Everett Hardin

Respect for authority is fundamental in rearing children. It must be the first lesson, for without it nothing worthwhile will ever be instilled in our children. Children who aren’t taught obedience in the home usually have a hard time submitting to authority of any kind. Many parents, failing to recognize this, have absolutely ruined their children. Thus, we see children who run the home, disrupt the school, and take over the Bible class. Later in life, these children are a problem on the job, get into trouble with the law, and are a menace to society. Finally, they lose their souls. Why? Too often the answer is in the fact that their parents never taught the first lesson.

Society is greatly benefitted by due subordination of family life. We are suffering today because of a crop of permissive children who never learned obedience to their parents or superiors. Young people proudly wear their badges of rebellion. They will not conform to society nor subordinate to anything or anybody. The spirit of resentment for any authority is both impractical and unscriptural. You will always have someone over you. There are some rules and regulations you are going to have to respect, and some authority to which you will have to answer. If you don’t learn it in this life and die a renegade, you will most assuredly learn it in the judgment.

The home should be a place where members show respect for parental authority, civil authority, and the law of God. Respect for authority begins in the home, carries over into the school, the city streets, and the church.

Parental Authority

Children must be taught respect for parents. “Children obey your parents in the Lord”; “Honor thy father and thy mother” (Eph. 6:1,2). Children who hear the instruction of fathers and abide in the law of mothers find parents are “fair garlands for their heads” and “pendants about their necks” (Prov. 1:8,9; 6:20). This obedience should flow not only from the feeling of love, gratitude and esteem for their parents, but especially from reverence for the Lord. Obedience is the duty and honor is the disposition of which true obedience is born. This is an obligation that rests on the very nature of things and cannot change with our changing world. It is not enough for children to simply obey in act. Love and reverence should be found in the heart of the child.

We have been living for some time in a child-oriented society which has been profitable to neither children nor parents. The father in many homes today is only a breadwinner, possessed of no say-so in the affairs of his offspring. The mother is a glorified maid and is expected to desist from meddling in the business of her youngsters. The result is this: the young people rule and parents become slaves to their children. Age is demeaned, inexperience is exalted, wisdom is ignored, discipline is ridiculed, and controls scoffed at. Parents sit back afraid to challenge this movement brought about by their own mismanagement. The basic problem is not in the young themselves, but in the misdirection they are receiving.

Parents must establish their authority over the child. Children are to obey their parents “in all things” (Col. 3:20). The father is to rule (Eph. 5:22,33; 6:4). He should establish fundamental rules with which the family lives. Be consistent in your attitudes and expectations. It is irresponsible to allow a child to get by with challenging your authority, whether it be a small child who throws a temper tantrum when told to put up his toys and get ready for bed, or a teenager who says he is going to do something you have forbidden. You have the obligation to God and to the child to check that type of behavior. “He that spareth the rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes” (Prov. 13:24).

The rebellious son of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 was stoned to death because he was incorrigible. Many fit this description today simply because their conduct was seen by parents as being cute, merely a part of a phase, or unworthy of attention. Therefore, in the formative years, rebellion had the stamp of approval. The product of such “rearing” then proceeds through life shaking his first at society, government and God.

In every society parental authority has been accepted as an indispensable prerequisite of social stability. Any tendency that swerves from this principle is a mark of a decadent society (Rom. 1:30; 2 Tim. 3:1,2). If responsible citizenship and godliness are not taught in the home, the foundation of society will crumble and disaster will ensue.

Civil Authority

Children must be taught to obey the laws of the land (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-15). Civil government exists as a divine ordinance, and we must recognize this. God doesn’t place every ruler in office or approve each judicial function, but leaders of human society represent the authority of God on earth. Though earthly governments become corrupt and tyrannical, this doesn’t disprove their divine origin.

“Every soul,” every intelligent member of society, is under obligation to obey governmental authority. The Ceasars, who were generally corrupt and evil, were reigning in Rome; yet by inspiration, Paul wrote, “Be subject to the higher powers.” The only exception to this is when authority conflicts with spiritual law (Acts 5:29).

The rebel against civil law is a rebel against divine law. Government is an ordinance of God, and rulers are ministers of God. This business of lawlessness in the name of justice, immorality in the name of individuality, and disobedience in the name of progress is not true to God’s word. To disobey civil law indicates an undisciplined life that leads to vice and dissipation.

The young person who has geared his set of values to approve conduct which is harmful to himself and others is certainly not developing a set of values which will improve his character. By continually accepting such standards and values, he has weakened his conscience and taught himself that it is good to do wrong. More and more he forms habits that connect him with evil and a lack of restraint. Further and further he plunges into the darkness and away from the light. He is gambling with his soul with high odds against him.

Divine Authority

Parents are commanded to “nurture” their children, cause them to grow and develop in the “chastening and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). This is a sadly neglected duty. It brings irreparable and immeasurable injury to children. Parents can commit no greater sin against their children than to fail to lead them to love and obey the Lord.

Instruction from parent to child is not passive, nor transferrable, and is an obligation that cannot be overdone in regard to spiritual matters. The child’s character lies in our hands, as clay in the hand of the potter. As the child is molded and shaped, so will be the adult. We have the power to shape their eternal destiny. The responsibility is often taken too lightly, and we are faced with the national problem of child neglect, abuse, delinquency, moral degeneration and spiritual reprobates. To neglect children is criminal in nature and usually disasterous in results.

Parents must firmly anchor their children in the faith, if they are to stand against social pressures, regarding activities and dress, in this materialistic and sexually-oriented society (2 Cor. 6:14-18). If a parent loves his child’s soul, he will teach the child that he must be different from those around him and must not compromise that difference. Emphasis should not be placed on recreation or material values, but salvation. Children should be taught that life is real, life is earnest, and the grave is not the end (Eccl. 12:1; Rom. 14:12).

Under the Law of Moses parents were instructed to teach incessantly, “And these words which I command thee this day shall be in thine heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shall talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way and when thou liest down, and when thou riseth up” (Deut. 6:6-7). Notice, first, that these words were to be, not simply in a book, but “in thine heart.” God’s word must dwell in the heart of parents for them to be able to teach them effectively to their children! Secondly, they were to “teach it diligently unto thy children.” They were not to teach them carelessly or indifferently, but they were to teach them with painstaking care.

Youth’s education is not complete without a knowledge of the Bible. With all the knowledge of the world (science, human philosophy, the fine arts, mathematics, history and literature) man, without self-control and submission to God, is only a refined animal. Education is without a true foundation unless based upon a knowledge of God and the principles of the Bible. We must seek to instill in our children a basic knowledge and understanding of God’s will (Prov. 4:5,7), a love for the truth (2 Thess. 2: 10), and an attitude of complete submission to God.

When parents give their children good instruction and, at the same time set a bad example, they could be compared to bringing food in one hand and poison in the other. Such a parent is a hypocrite, and no one will spot the hypocrisy quicker than the child who lives under the same roof. He is practically guaranteeing that his child will one day repudiate him and all he stands for.

Train your children to respect God’s word while they are young. We have them such a short time and the opportunities are limited, and they pass so quickly. Today they are babes in arms, and tomorrow they are gone out to meet the world. Begin while they are in the cradle. The patterns of life are so soon set. We must develop and refine standards of social behavior and a moral value system, so that the child will be able to accept the restraints he will be living under as an adult and, of course, as a Christian.

Conclusion

It’s high time we parents, Christians, and children take a hard look at this whole business of authority and how it affects the welfare of our homes, schools, churches, the nation and our individual lives. Let all of us as parents humbly lift our voices to God, seeking wisdom from above in the rearing of our children.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 12, pp. 355-356
June 15, 1989

By Danny Graham

On Monday, January 9, 1989, the Florence Times Daily ran an Ann Landers column which contained a letter from a lady in Chicago. What she had to say about herself and her situation are very enlightening. Her letter reveals very well what most people in the world think about such topics as morality and wisdom. It can serve as a vivid reminder to those of us who endeavor to serve Christ that we must always follow the wisdom of God’s word and forsake the wisdom of this world. Consider what she said.

She described herself as a heterosexual woman, divorced, mid-40’s, white, upper middle class, living a modestly fast lifestyle not unlike many of her friends. She claims that she carefully screened the 4 or 5 bed partners that she might have each year because she wants nothing to do “with drugs or drug users or men I think are promiscuous or bisexual.” Although she sometimes insisted on her partners using condoms, she just found out the previous week that she had tested positive for the AIDS virus. She goes on to say that she was stunned, and that other people better pay attention. However, the conclusions she drew from her experience are worth discussing.

First, consider that she lived a “modestly fast lifestyle not unlike many of my friends.” It shows how times have changed when a woman who has 4 or 5 sexual partners a year is considered modestly fast. Thirty years ago such a woman would have been considered in the same class with a prostitute. We know this is not the case today because many of her friends do the same thing, and indeed many of us know of people who do the same thing. Times might have changed, but God’s law has certainly not changed. Sex outside of marriage is still fornication or adultery, and it is always wrong. It is never right under any circumstances, no matter what society happens to believe at the moment. Read 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:19-21. It is almost laughable that she did not want to be with”Promiscuous” men as if she were not herself promiscuous. Even sinners have their scruples. They just aren’t the right ones.

Second, let us consider the lesson she learned from her experience on how such can be prevented or at least the likelihood lessened. She immediately urges all of Ann’s readers to use condoms 100 percent of the time. She realizes they are not 100 percent protection, but she says 90 percent is better than zero. At the same time, she will not take a chance at infecting anyone. It seems to me that the self-control she is now willing to practice should have been practiced sometime ago. Rather than urge the readers simply to continue their promiscuous lifestyles and simply be a little more careful, why didn’t she urge them to practice the same self-control she was about to start practicing? When a child touches a hot stove, we tell him to stop doing it so he won’t get burned; we don’t give him a glove and tell him to use it every time. He can still get burned! Exactly the same is true with the case she describes. We don’t give alcoholics smaller glasses; they must quit!

Third, consider that she also encourages the readers to be tested themselves and donate money to further research. We live in an age when many who are filled with the pride so encouraged by Humanism seem to think that all we have to do to solve any and every problem is to pour money into research and science will be our savior. Such is not the case. Yes, AIDS does kill a lot of people, and yes, if a cure or preventative is going to be found, it must be done through research, but there is a much greater problem than a syndrome that is taking human lives. It is the problem of sin which is destroying even more souls. Not one word is mentioned in her letter about living lives on a higher moral plane. Not one word of regret is found about her promiscuous ways. Sin separates from God (Isa. 59:1-2). The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), which many will find out in the day of judgment. A cure for AIDS will not help anyone get to heaven. The emphasis in her letter is on the physical and earthly, but we must emphasize the heavenly and spiritual (Col. 3:1-2).

Finally, consider this letter in terms of what it shows about earthly wisdom and heavenly wisdom. Wisdom is defined as the power of judging rightly and following the soundest course of action, based on knowledge, experience, understanding, etc. Earthly wisdom, then, is in a limited sense wisdom. People find a course of action that works in a given situation and then follow it. That is why so many think that the use of condoms is a wise thing. In terms of earthly wisdom, it is the proven method. However, James 3:13-18 reminds us, this wisdom is earthly, for it is not from God when men say that adultery and fornication are all right as long as you prevent anyone from getting AIDS. It is certainly sensual, for it encourages the fulfillment of natural desires without any constraint whatsoever except the spread of disease. It certainly is devilish, for such a plot was concocted by the devil. As he has done throughout time, he has shifted’ our focus from what is right and wrong to something else. As he did with Eve, he has people thinking only about not spreading the diseV6n the other hand, the wisdom from above is first pure. The primary concern of the child of God who is using the wisdom God gave is to do right. Therefore, he does not have to worry about contracting AIDS from promiscuity because he will not engage in such. It is also without hypocrisy, so he won’t pretend he is not engaging in it when he really is if he is following heavenly wisdom. Finally, he will be sowing and reaping the fruit of righteousness because he will be busy doing the Lord’s will and will not become involved in such sinful activities as these. If on occasion he does sin, he will quickly repent and resume serving the Lord. Let us not be led astray by the world’s wisdom. Yes, the use of condoms might work, but so will biblical morality. In fact, it will prevent a lot more than just a disease. Using heavenly wisdom will eventually help us obtain eternal life.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 11, p. 334
June 1, 1989