Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Major Contribution or Characteristic in Approach to Unity: A recent Roman Catholic author said, “the supranational position” and infallible “authority of the papacy” has become “the most important factor in Church life” (Dvornik, p. 93). Occasional dissent arises and Modernism-Liberalism has attacked Bible, pope, Church, tradition, and anything else claiming infallibility. Basically, though, within Roman Catholicism the popes have achieved and are maintaining their role as “the centre of unity for the Christian world” (Rouse and Neill, p. 22; emphasis added, RH). Many today would find that hard to believe in view of all the publicity certain Roman Catholic dissidents have been receiving. But the quotations given above represent agreement on the modern role of papal dominence, coming from both Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars. True, there have been rumblings in the Roman Catholic empire; but there have always been! The existence of such rumblings of discontent do not determine how “the bottom line” reads. The careful observer will notice that the modern popes manuever and occasionally concede, but here is how “the bottom line” still reads: no firm counter-authority to the pope has been established to this day. Some of his subjects may be ignoring the Lawless One in certain matters; the fact remains that no strong, central spokesman, authority, or mechanism has arisen to replace the central authority of the pope. His role as “the centre of unity” has not been successfully challenged. His dominant role is the overriding theme on the question of unity during the Reformation Age. What the future holds remains to be seen, but there is no certain evidence of a change at this point.

Council of Trent, 1545-1563

This Council was called by Pope Paul III and concluded by Pius IV. The latter demonstrated papal supremacy over present and future councils by personally selecting “a special congregation of cardinals which still functions today” to give the official interpretation of the decrees of the Council of Trent (Dvornik, p. 91). Three hundred years after the Council of Trent, John F. Rowe observed, “the Roman Catholic Church of the present day is but a counterpart, theologically and morally, of the council of Trent” (Rowe, p. 276).

The Council of Trent was an all-out effort by Catholicism to turn back the tide of the Protestant Reformation. It specially condemned the teachings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other major Reformation figures. Tradition was declared equal to the Bible as a source of authority, in contradiction to Reformation doctrine. The Roman Catholic canon of the Bible was defined. The Latin or Vulgate Bible was made the official translation, in opposition to translations being made into the common language of the day by many Reformation leaders. Not only did the council state the pope was supreme in all matters,.but it demonstrated the fact by submitting all decisions to him for confirmation!

The Vatican Council, 1869-1870

Pope Pius IX convened the Vatican Council. He did much “preparatory work” through specially appointed commissions beginning in 1865. In other words, much of the outcome of this Vatican Council was predetermined by the Pope himself. The opening of this Council reflected how thoroughly the popes had come to fill the role of the old emperors. “The open Gospel” was placed on the altar just as Emperor Constantine, at the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325), set the Bible “in the place of the statue of Victory, which stood in the front of the presidential tribune in the Roman Senate.” As the Roman senate had once acclaimed the Emperor, and as the Council of Chalcedon (451) had acclaimed Emperor Marcian, so at the Vatican Council “all present rendered homage to the pope, presiding at the session” (Dvornik, pp. 95-96 note).

The Vatican Council proclaimed papal infallibility. His infallibility was declared to be a means of expressing the Church’s infallibility. Yet, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, his decree is not dependent upon “the consent of the Church” for validity. This extreme exaltation of a man into the very seat of God is so significant that we here will quote the canon verbatim:

“The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, namely when exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, Is, through the divine assistance promised to him in St. Peter, possessed of that infallibility with wlfich the divine Redeemer willed his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable” (Dvornik, p. 102).

We cannot pass from the Vatican Council without noticing the courageous yet pathetic figure, Bishop Joseph G. Strossmayer of Diakove, Croatia (inhabited by Slavic or Serbian people). At the 31st General Congregation, on March 22, 1870, he objected to a statement which identified Protestantism as the origin of all modern heresy. He believed many Protestants sincerely loved Christ and erred only “in good faith.” His objection was defeated and some cried out, “He is another Luther, let him be cast out” (Dvornik, p. 96).

Furthermore, on the very day that the fateful vote was taken defining papal infallibility (85th General Congregation, July 13, 1870), he made a courageous speech opposing the definition. His whole argument was based upon THE SILENCE OF BOTH SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY! Had he been faithful to that principle, it would have “un-made” him as a Roman Catholic; had he been truly faithful to it, it would have made him a simple, New Testament Christian! He declared he had “asked these venerable monuments of truth (the Scriptures, RH) to make known to me if the holy pontiff, who presides here, is truly the .successor of St. Peter, vicar of Jesus Christ, and the infallible doctor of the church …. I have then opened these sacred pages. Well (shall I dare to say it?), I have found nothing either near or far. which sanctions the opinion” of papal infallibility. He continued,

“And still more, to my great surprise, I find in the apostolic days no question of a pope, successor to St. Peter, and vicar of Jesus Christ, any more than of Mahomet who did not then exist. You, Monsignor Manning, will say that I blaspheme; you, Monsignor Fie, that I am mad. Now, having read the whole New Testament, I declare before God, with my hand raised to that great crucifix, that I have found no trace of the papacy as it exists at this moment.”

Strossmayer repeatedly used statements like “I do not find one single chapter, or one little verse;” Christ is “silent on this point;” “certainly, if He had wished that it should be so, He would have said it;” in “counting up the offices of the church” would Paul “have forgotten the first of these offices, the papacy;” “the Apostle Paul makes no mention . . . of the primacy of Peter;” “the silence of Peter . . . .he surely would have know it.” At one point, he said,

“I go on. Neither in the writings of St. Paul, St. John, nor St. James, have I found a trace or germ of the papal power. St. Luke, the historian of the missionary labors of the apostles, Is silent on this a1l-important point. The silence of these holy men (MARK THOSE WORDS, READER! RH), whose writings make part of the canon of the divinely-inspired Scriptures, has appeared to me burdensome and impossible, if Peter had been pope ….”

Bishop Strossmayer summarized his findings in Scripture and history,

. . “Finding no trace of the papacy in the days of the apostles, I said to myself, I shall find what I am in search of in the annals of the church. Well, I say it frankly-I have sought for a pope in the fist four centuries and I have not found him.”

As may well be imagined, this speech was repeatedly interrupted by such cries as, “Silence, heretic, silence,” and, “Shut his mouth, shut his mouth; make him come down from the pulpit,” and, “Get down! Out with the Protestant, the Calvinist, the traitor of the church,” and, “Anathema, anathema, to the apostate.” (All quotations taken directly from Bishop Strossmayer’s Speech In the Vatician Coundil of 1870).

After all that effort, the vote in favor of the definition of papal infallibility carried 451 in favor (plus an additional 62 with reservations) and 88 (another source says 86) opposed (Dvornik, p. 99). Worse than that, a year and a half later Strossmayer notified his companions-in-protest that he intended to yield at least outwardly. As pointed out earlier, the existence of even the strongest protest does not disestablish the power of the pope. One must understand this when he views protest movements within the Roman Catholic fold. The protest of the goat may mean little in relation to the actual authority of the shepherd!

The Second Vatican Council, 1962-1965

This one was called by Pope John XIII and concluded by Paul VI. “When, during the Council’s proceedings, he saw the papal authority endangered, he frequently and sometimes a little anxiously issued reminders that this authority was not to be diminished” (Fey, p. 336). The Council expressed interest in the modern ecumenical movement; but Catholic authorities have long warned that such moves must be from the perspective of the faithful seeking reconciliation with the erring. Some Liberal Catholics might dissent from that view, but no significant spokesman has arisen to champion the view that the removal of the pope might be negotiable in discussions of unity! The Council also discussed internal problems such as liturgy reform, social action, and the work of the laity.

Conclusion to Study

Our study of the so-called Ecumenical Councils should better equip us to understand the working of error, the spirit of lawlessness. Once set in motion, that spirit knows no limits. Let us determine not to turn to the right nor to the left in the smallest particular, but to steadfastly adhere to the divinely approved order of things-the New Testament order. These things are written that we might know how to conduct the affairs of the church of the living God (1 Tim. 3:14-15). Let us not go beyond the things written there (1 Cor. 4:6; 2 Jn. 9).

As the subject of church unity has been prominent since about the beginning of this century, it will continue to be a dominant theme of American Religion throughout this century. But he is a poor observer who has not learned that whatever concepts are stirring in society around us pour over into the church. Just as the pagan “imperial idea” was in the air in the Second and Third Centuries and worked havoc among the people of God, so the modern, lawless “unity ideas” in the air will continue to affect the thinking of brethren. Let us understand what is going on around us so that we may better understand what is going on among us. The search for unity through councils and conventions of one sort or another has no prospect of passing off the scene. It has been here a long, long time. It will continue to be here. This is one of the current ideas of how to effect unity which God’s people must understand and reject. True unity is in Christ, upon his word. Let us “hear his voice” (in the New Testament) and flee “the voice of strangers” (Jn. 10:1-5).

Truth Magazine XXI: 44, pp. 695-696
November 10, 1977

By Keith Sharp

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are In the house.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven (Matt. 5:14-16).

The most difficult task a coach undertakes is to so challenge his team that each player measures up to his full potential each game. Perhaps the most effective way to challenge an athlete is to honestly compliment him on what he can be if he gives his all. When Jesus declared, “Ye are the light of the world,” He presented His disciples with the greatest challenge, as well as the highest compliment, that could ever be honestly extended to mortals.

Jesus Himself is “the light of the world” (Jn. 9:5). Thus, when He called us “the light of the world,” He uttered the most generous compliment ever extended to men. Christians, in a sense, actually sustain the same relationship to the world that the Savior does. This stirring declaration is at the same time the paramount test as well, for it challenges us to live in the world in the same manner as He did. How are Christians “the light of the world”?

Light is eminently good in several ways. Christians must possess the same excellent qualities exhibited by light. The goodness of light is first displayed in that fact it provides visibility. Without light, we can see nothing. Without Christ and the Gospel, the world lies in spiritual darkness (2 Cor. 4:3-4; Jn. 1:5). The only glimpse of Christ that most of the world sees is His reflection in the lives of His disciples (cf. 2 Cor. 3:2-3). As the poet well sang:

“We are the only Bible

The careless world will read,

We are the sinner’s gospel

We are the scoffers creed;

“We are the Lord’s last message

Given in deed and word,

What if the type is crooked?

What if the print is blurred?”

(Annie J. Flint, “The World’s Bible”)

Light comforting it is to one lost in the wilderness to have a lamp to guide him to safety through the blackness of a storm-filled night. How comforting it is to a soul lost in the wilderness of sin to have the example of a faithful disciple to lead him to Christ through the darkness of the sin-cursed world (cf. Phil. 3:17).

We further behold the innate excellence of light in its capacity to heal. Sun light has the ability to help heal wounds and strengthen feeble bodies. Malachi prophesied of Christ, “But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun righteousness arise with healing in his wings” (Mal. 4:2). Christians reflect that healing light upon sin-sickened and wounded souls.

Light protects from evil. One of the crime-deterring programs proposed by our government is the installation of more and better lights on city streets, for darkness is the cover for crime (cf. Jn. 3:20). The example of mature Christians protects spiritual babes from the pitfalls of sin.

Light makes life possible. Without the light of the sun, no life would exist on this earth. Without the light of the Son, whose light is seen in His disciples, no spiritual life would exist in this world (Jn. 1:4).

Light exposes things hidden in darkness. Did you ever experience the frustration of searching for something in a dark house at night when the lights were off? Light alleviates the problem. The light of the example of our lives as Christians exposes the deeds of darkness of the sinful people of the world (Eph. 5:11-13).

Thus, the sinful world lies in the terrifying condition of spiritual darkness (cf. Jn. 3:19). Jesus, the light of the world, is the source of all spiritual light to guide the lost to salvation (2 Cor. 4:3-6). He is our sun. But, we, His disciples, reflect His light to the people of the world, who might not know Him save through our example (2 Cor. 3:18). We are the moon, deriving all light from the sun. To reflect His light, we must live as He did (1 Pet. 2:21). The ultimate test by which a Christian should decide whether anything is right or wrong in his life is the simple question: “What would Jesus do?”

In ancient times cities were commonly surrounded by walls and built upon high places overlooking the surrounding terrain. Jerusalem was such a city. This made it doubly hard for an attacker to penetrate the city’s fortifications, for the defenders could easily see approaching enemies and could shoot down at them. But one thing about such a city. It was open to the view of all. It could not be hidden.

Disciples of Christ are like “A city that is set on a hill.” In this figure, Christians are viewed collectively, as the Lord’s church (cf. Heb. 12:22-23). All the world around us sees us and usually pays close attention to our example as a church, because they are (or, at least should be) aware of ‘our claims to be peculiarly God’s chosen people (1 Pet. 2:9-10). As an attacking enemy would view a fortified city from afar, looking for a weakness in its defense, the world views the church, looking for an excuse to call us hypocrites (cf. 1 Pet. 2:11-15; Phil. 2;15). Are there any holes in the walls?

Christians are again likened to “a candle.” This illustrates our relationship as individual Christians to the world. Actually, the words “candle” and “candlestick’ are correctly rendered “lamp” and “stand” in the American Standard Version.

“The houses in Palestine were very dark with one little circular window perhaps not more than eighteen inches across. The lamp was like a sauce-boat filled with oil with the wick floating in it. It was not so easy to rekindle a lamp in the days before matches existed. Normally the lamp stood on the lampstand which would be no more than a roughly shaped branch of wood; but when people went out, for safety’s sake, they took the lamp from its stand, and put it under an earthen bushel measure, so that it might burn without risk until they came back. The primary duty of the light of the lamp was to be seen.

“. . . there can be no such thing as secret discipleship, for either the secrecy destroys the discipleship, or the discipleship destroys the secrecy” (William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Vol. I, p. 119).

To hide your discipleship is to render yourself useless as a light (1 Cor. 10:31-33). Christian, young or old, never. be ashamed to be a disciple to Christ before your friends. It~ is often unpopular, both at school and on the job, to live above the sins of the world, but a lamp must give light.

What, then, is the Christian’s responsibility to the sinful world around him? “Let your light shine before men . . . .” Notice the Master did not teach, “Shine your light.” He exhorted, “Let your light shine.” We should not do good works just to be seen of men (Matt. 6:1). We should .live for Christ whether people see or not. How does one let his light shine? Jesus explained, “that they may see your good works . . . .” Simply live as Christ would have us to live, follow His Will and example in all things, and people will notice the difference (Eph. 5:8; Phil. 2:15).

Why should Christians live before the world in this way? “That they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” God is glorified as men submit to His will (Eph. 1:3-12). Our good deeds should not be done to draw men’s attention to our own piety, but to lead them to God who enables us to live for Him (Phil. 2:13). We should not seek glory for the church, but should glorify God in the church (Eph. 3:20-21). All that we do before the ‘world as Christians, whether in word or action, should tend to lead others to God that He might be glorified (1 Cor. 9:19-22: 10:31-33).

Christian, “Ye are the light of the world.” Do you reflect Christ to the people around you in all that you say and do? Do you lead others to Christ by your example? Do you cause men to glorify God?

“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 44, pp. 693-695
November 10, 1977

By Mike Willis

All of us like to think that we are honest, as indeed we should be in reality. Honesty is a virtue which God commands of every man. We are to be men who “laying aside falsehood, speak truth, each one of you, with his neighbor” (Eph. 4:25). We are supposed to be men who pay our bills and strive to lead an honest and pure life. Yet, not all men in America have the desire to live this way.

We have each been exposed to some person who is less than honest. We have even witnessed people shop-lifting or taking tools from their employer. I remember talking to one used car salesman who told of how he was “taken” one day. It seems that a man pulled up in a car and wanted to sell it to the car salesman. The man asked him what condition it was in and he assured him that everything was okay on it. Inasmuch as the man requested a price which seemed like a fair bargain, the salesman apparently did not examine the car very carefully. After the man left with his money, the salesman got into the car and started to pull it around to the back for servicing. When he turned the key on, nothing happened. So, he called for a man to bring jumper cables. When the man arrived with the jumper cables, he raised the hood to jump the battery and found to his surprise that there was no motor under the hood. Apparently what had happened was that a friend had pushed the man’s car until he was able to coast into the dealership. The man sold his car and took off with the money.

We have come to expect better things of the majority of American citizens and, hopefully, we shall not be greatly disappointed. However, there is a form of dishonesty which is becoming more and more acceptable even among members of the church which I want to call to your attention. It is what is called “intellectual dishonesty.”

I first confronted intellectual dishonesty, as best as I can remember, when I entered a university. The form which it took was such that it took me several weeks to figure out just exactly what was going on. I was sitting in a class in which the professor was discussing the miracles of Jesus and other recorded miracles in the Bible. He stated his belief that these miracles did not actually occur and that what we read in the Bible is the record of early myths which have grown up around the character of Jesus in the same way that certain myths have been told about George Washington. I was prepared for handling this; I knew that some men were unbelievers. Hence, I raised my hand and asked, “You do not believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures, do you?” The professor replied, “Yes, I believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures.” That floored me! How could this man believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures and yet disbelieve the miracles recorded in them? As the school term continued, I began to see what he was doing. The professor was changing the definitions of the words which he was using in order that he could use those words accommodatively to cover up his infidelity. He believed that the Scriptures were inspired in the same way that any great literature is inspired and not in the sense that God “breathed” the very words which appear in the book. Hence, when I asked, “Do you believe in the inspiration (i.e., that God breathed the Scriptures) of the Bible?’.’., he replied, “Yes, I believe the Scriptures are inspired (i.e., in the same way that all great literature is inspired).” That, my friends, is intellectual dishonesty.

As the years went on, I saw more and more of this kind of intentional veiling of the truth. I heard a man deny that Jesus was raised from the dead and then speak of the “resurrection of the body.” As I pressed him for exactly what he meant, I soon found that the establishment of the church, which is the body of Christ, was the resurrection of which he spoke. This is a type of dishonesty which is very subtle but, nonetheless, sinful.

Intellectual Dishonesty in the Church

I am saddened by the fact that I am seeing certain evidences of this type of intellectual dishonesty raising its head in the church. I would like to cite certain examples of this:

1. “I am sound.” Several years ago, there was a brother who was accused of being “unsound” because he did not believe that it was sinful to use instrumental music in worship. This man protested that he was as sound as any of the rest of the preachers were. About a month later, he wrote an article in which he stated that he had been studying the Greek word hamartia (the word which is translated “sin” in the New Testament) and had reached the conclusion that he could now say that using instruments of music in worship was sinful (it missed the mark of what God wanted). Without going into a discussion of the issues involved, notice the instance of intellectual dishonesty. The man was questioned regarding his soundness. He perfectly well understood that the word would involve where he stood on the issues of instrumental music in worship, the sponsoring church, and church support of human institutions. Yet, he said that he was sound when he did not believe that any of these were sinful and would break the fellowship of the saints. That, my friend, is exactly the same kind of theological double-talk with which I was confronted during my years at school. Frankly, I had come to expect better things from my brethren.

2. Redefining of words. As we are presently in the throes of another great conflict of brethren over another important issue, it is interesting to watch this kind of intellectual dishonesty going on in the papers. I see no better example of it than when I read the word “legalism” being used.

The word “legalism” has a definite theological meaning. The doctrine of “legalism” is the doctrine of salvation through good works. What it teaches is that a man can be saved on the basis of doing enough good things to go to heaven. The Catholic doctrine of salvation is a doctrine of “legalism” because of its ideas of accumulation of merits for works done. I know of no one among us who is teaching that salvation can be earned.

Yet, there are some who are trying to say that men can be saved without obeying the commandments of God. Rather than coming . right out and saying that we can be saved without, obedience- a concept most brethren would readily reject-they cover up this doctrine. They charge that those who teach that salvation by God’s grace is conditional upon one’s response to the gospel are teaching “legalism.” That I am not the only one who has noticed this trend to redefine certain theological words is evident from the following quotation:

“The term legalism in theology used to designate a theory of justification by works. Liberals have now redefined it so as to exclude rules, laws, and obedience from moral living. Amorphous love replaces definite commands. This enables the liberals to transfer the odium of legalism in its historic sense to the evangelical view that Is not subject to such a criticism” (Gordon H. Clark, “Concerning Justification,” Christianity Today, Vol. XVII, No. 12 (March 16, 1973), p. 5).

This is exactly the situation as it appears in certain periodicals among us today. As evidence that this is so, please read the following quotation:

“Man cannot establish his own righteousness, and anyone who thinks that he can and seeks to do so is really ‘ignorant of God’s righteousness’ as the apostle Paul says.

“But this is exactly what we who are heirs of the American Restoration Movement have done and are still doing to a large extent. We have reduced Christianity to a legalistic relationship contrary to the teachings of the new covenant scriptures ….We who are heirs of the American Restoration Movement are steeped in legalism” (Jimmy Albert, “A Zeal Without Knowledge-Legalism,” Outreach, Vol. VIII, No. 3 (May and June, 19771, pp. 5,7).

If I had the time to go through the various journals which are being written to promote this unity-in-diversity apostasy, I could reproduce many similar quotations which use legalism to describe those of us who stand opposed to the unity-in-diversity basis of unity. All I can say about the charge is that it is not true and those who are making it are guilty of intellectual dishonesty.

Conclusion

Those who are pushing this unity-in-diversity idea have stated that God will forgive automatically sins which are committed in ignorance but will hold man accountable for sins committed knowingly. Though I do not accept the idea that God does not hold man accountable for his sins of ignorance, it offers no comfort for those who are guilty of intellectual dishonesty. Those who are charging us with teaching “legalism” know what the word means and know that what we are teaching is not a forty-second cousin to what the word “legalism” means. What they are trying to do is push off the opprobrium which is rightfully attached to the system of doctrine which says that man can earn his salvation through his own good works to those who oppose their ideas of unity-in-diversity. They are doing this knowingly and are guilty of the same kind of intellectual dishonesty which the modernists use to cover up their infidelity.

The Bible still says that “all liars” will have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone (Rev. 21:8). That applies to “intellectual liars” just the same as it applies to ordinary, unintellectual liars. Tile fact ‘that some can dress their lies up in prettier clothes than others can, does not lessen God’s punishment for the liars who put the pretty clothes on their lies. Lying is lying.

Truth Magazine XXI: 44, pp. 691-693
November 10, 1977

By Johnie Edwards

By the time a lot of women get to be grandmothers, they begin to feel as if they are of little importance. Let me help you change your attitude if this be the case. The importance of a grandmother can be seen in a number of ways.

A Child’s Training Begins With His Grandmother

A lot of people wait until a child is almost grown to begin proper training and teaching. Waiting until a child is a teenager to begin teaching and training is far too late! If you want to have a good child, his training should have begun with his grandmother. Paul told Timothy, “When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded in thee also” (2 Tim. 1:5). When looking for a wife or a husband, what better person to look at and check out than the grandmother?

Grandmother’s Have Influence

The God-fearing grandmother has good children. Grandmother Lois had a good child in the person of Eunice. The making of a good child takes lots of hard work and good influence. Ezekiel said, ” . . . as is the mother, so is her daughter” (Ezek. 16:44). If a mother wants to know what kind of daughter she will have, she just needs to look at herself!

Grandmothers And Grandchildren

Grandmothers are used for a lot of things from baby sitting and on. Perhaps the greatest thing which a grandmother can give is faith. I know that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17), but this faith has to be instilled in us by someone. Timothy’s mother, Eunice had been trained and taught properly and, in turn, her son Timothy was a godly boy. Timothy was a .young gospel preacher who had been brought up right and consequently he had “unfeigned faith.” An unfeigned faith is a sincere faith. Paul had confidence in Timothy because he knew his mother and his grandmother. Paul seemed to be proud of Timothy and referred to him as his “son in the gospel” (1 Tim. 1:18).

God be thanked for godly grandmothers!

Truth Magazine XXI: 44, p. 690
November 10, 1977