Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Son of God

The Jehovah’s Witnesses press the term “Son of God” to prove their doctrine that Jesus is a created being. They argue,

“The title `father’ means a male parent, and a male parent means a progenitor, an author or source, one who begets or brings forth offspring. Since God was the Father of Jesus, was Jesus also dependent upon God for life?” (The “Word” — Who Is He? According to John, p. 43).

By pressing the terms “Father” and “Son,” the Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that there was a time when God existed by Himself but that He “fathered” Jesus to establish the Father-Son relationship frequently mentioned in the Bible. A similar emphasis is placed on the description of Jesus as the “only begotten” of God. Hence, we need to answer their arguments pertaining to these points.

The Witnesses have abused a figure of speech in order to justify their doctrine. Let us not forget that in order for Jehovah to reveal Himself to man that He had to use human language-language which was understandable to us. Hence, He compares Himself to many things in order to reveal Himself to us (Shepherd, Door, Bread, etc.). The Witnesses have made the mistake of taking one of the words used to reveal Jehovah to us and pressing it beyond the limits intended by the Lord. They argue that Jesus is God’s Son because Jehovah begat Jesus. We might just as appropriately argue that Jehovah is made out of wood because Jesus is the door to the house which is Jehovah; everyone knows that houses are made out of wood. If the Jehovah’s Witnesses are going to press the Father-Son terminology to such an extent as to say that Jehovah begat Jesus, I do not think that it would be inappropriate for us to ask who was the Mother of Jesus. Keep in mind that Jehovah begat Jesus before the world began and, therefore, this terminology is not referring to Jesus’ conception in the womb of Mary. Hence, we demand that the Witnesses tell us who was the Mother through whom Jehovah begat Jesus!

Such pressing of a figure of speech as I have just done is no more ridiculous than what the Witnesses do when they argue that Jesus was a created being because of the usage of “Father-Son” terminology. There are more points of comparison than just one which can come from the father-son relationship. The most obvious point of comparison is the one which the Jews understood when Jesus claimed that Jehovah was His Father. When Jesus claimed that God was His Father, the Jews understood that He was making Himself equal with God. John records, “For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God” (Jn. 5:18). The Jews understood that the title “Son of God” was equal to claiming deity for oneself (Jn. 19:7; 10:33).

That the “Father-Son” terminology which applied to Jesus and God is not to be so pressed as to imply that one derived his existence from the other is evident as the following comments demonstrate:

“An eternal relation subsisting between the Son and the Father in the Godhead is to be understood. That Is to say, the Son of God, in His eternal relationship with the Father, is not so entitled because He at any time began to derive His being from the Father (in which case He could not be co-eternal with the Father), but because He is and ever has been the expression of what the Father is; cp. John 14:9, ‘he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.’ The words of Heb. 1:3, `Who being the effulgence of His (God’s) glory, and the very Image of His (God’s) substance’ are a definition of what Is meant by `Son of God.’ Thus absolute Godhead, not Godhead in a secondary or derived sense, is intended in the Title.’ “. . . . The words, ‘Father’ and `Son’ are never in the N.T. so used as to suggest that the Father existed before the Son . . . .” (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. IV, pp. 48-49).

“It may be very natural to see in the designation ‘Son’ an intimation of subordination and derivation of Being, and it may not be difficult to ascribe a similar connotation to the term `Spirit.’ But It Is quite certain that this was not the denotation of either term in the Semitic consciousness, which underlies the phraseology of Scripture; and it may even be thought doubtful whether it was included even in their remoter suggestions. What underlies the conception of sonship In Scriptural speech is just ‘likeness’; whatever the father is that the son is also. The emphatic application of the term `Son’ to one of the Trinitarian Persons, accordingly, asserts rather His equality with the Father than His subordination to the Father; and if there is any Implication of derivation in it, it would appear to be very distant. The adjunction of the adjective `only begotten’ (Jn. 1:14; 3:16-18; 1 Jn. 4:9) need add only the idea of uniqueness, not of derivation (ps. 22:20; 25:16; 35:17; Wisd. 7:22 m.); and even such a phrase as `God only begotten’ (Jn. 1:18m.) may contain no implication of derivation, but only of absolutely unique consubstantiality; as also such a phrase as ‘the first-begotten of all creation’ (Col. 1:15) may convey no intimation of coming into being, but merely assert priority of existence …. The point lies, of course, in the adjective ‘own’. Jesus was, rightly, understood to call God ‘his own Father,’ that is, to use the terms `Father’ and ‘Son’ not In a merely figurative sense, as when Israel was called God’s son, but In the real sense. And this was understood to be claiming to be all that God Is. To be the Son of God In any sense was to be like God In that sense; to be God’s own Son was to be exactly like God, to be `equal with God'” (Benjamin Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, Vol. 1, p. 163-164).

Similar comments need to be made with reference to the “only-begotten” passages. The description of Jesus as God’s “only begotten Son” has nothing to do with derivation. Here is the idea denoted by it:

“. . . . But the word can also be used more generally without ref. to derivation in the sense of ‘unique,’ `unparalleled,’ Incomparable,’ though one should not confuse the refs. to class or species and to manner . . . In. emphasizes more strongly the ‘card distinction between Jesus and believers and the uniqueness of Jesus in His divine sonship . . . As the only-begotten Son Jesus is In the closest intimacy with God. There Is no other with whom God can have similar fellowship. He shares everything with this Son. For this reason Jesus can give what no man can give, namely, the fullest possible eye-witness account of God ….” Mittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. IV, pp. 737-741).

“We can only rightly understand the term ‘the only begotten’ when used of the Son, in the sense of unoriginated relationship. `The begetting is not an event of time, however remote, but a fact irrespective of time. The Christ did not become, but necessarily and eternally Is the Son. He, a Person, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood. This necessitates eternity, absolute being; in this respect He is not ‘after’ the Father . . .

“In Jn. 1:18 the clause “The Only Begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father” expresses both His eternal union with the Father in the Godhead and the ineffable intimacy and love between them, the Son sharing all the Father’s counsels and enjoying all His affections” (Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. III, p. 140).

“In the Johannine lit. m. Is used only of Jesus. The mngs. only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here” (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, p. 529).

“single of Its kind, only …. used of Christ, denotes the only son of God or one who in the sense in which he himself is the son of God has no brethren. He is so spoken of by John not because ho logos which was ensarkotheis in him was eternally generated by God the Father (the orthodox interpretation), or came forth from the being of God just before the beginning of the world (Subordinationism), but because by the incarnation (ensarkoosis) of the logos in him he is of nature or essentially Son of God, and so in a very different sense from that in which men are made by him tekna tou Theou (In. 1:13)” (Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament, pp. 417-418).

Hence, the “Father-Son” relationship does not prove that God created Jesus as the Witnesses claim.

Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Are Polytheists

When one has completely understood the doctrine of God taught by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, he realizes that their doctrine of God is nothing less than a mutilated polytheism possessing every characteristic of a pagan polytheism. The pagans of old believed in a chief deity to whom other deities were subordinated. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine of God believes in one God who is chief over other gods. Jehovah is the chief god; Jesus is a subordinate god. Regardless of what other conclusions may follow, no one can deny that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ believe in more than one god. The belief in more than one God is polytheism plainly and simply.

God is one (1 Cor. 8:4). The one God is composed of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are known as Jehovah. When we worship the one, we worship the sum total of them. The doctrine of the Trinity is the only way to harmonize the plain statements of Scripture which, on the one hand, assert the oneness of God and, on, the other hand, assert the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Because the Witnesses err so greatly in their basic concept of God, they are a false religion under the curse of Jehovah.

Truth Magazine XXI: 16, pp. 243-244
April 21, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Oregon: “Will you please help me in regards to the wearing of pants suits by the women. I don’t think it is right. So far, we have been able to keep them out, but now I need help badly. Will you please help?

Reply:

Our querist has touched a controversial and sensitive area. It is hoped that none will be harmed by the consideration of this Timely issue. Regardless of what is said, someone will be displeased. Therefore, with fear and trembling we tender these remarks for your thought and study.

One’s dress and outward adornment of the lack thereof, often manifests his character, or the loss thereof. The word of God teaches that modesty, dignity, and sobriety are to sit on the throne of the heart (Titus 2). When these principles reign, the individual’s attire will reveal and reflect it. Styles and fashions ebb and flow. Personal preferences vary and waver, but the immutable rules girding and guiding the meek and quiet spirit must remain inviolate. If the inner man is what it ought to be, the outer man will be also (Cf. Col. 3:9, 10; Eph. 4:22-24).

The rules of God respecting character are unalterable. However, the types and kinds of clothing differ from community to community, from nation to nation. For example, what is viewed as the “attire of an harlot” (Prov. 7:10) in New York is not that of the prostitute in Ankara, Turkey. Styles and fashions have moved boldly and radically in American society. Our personal choices have been appalled by apparel that ranges from the obscene and absurd to the wild and worldly. One cannot allow fad; fashion, or personal taste alone to determine his wardrobe. As long as one is not immodest, indecent, or allied with the appearance of evil, he has the privilege to wear new designs in clothing. One should not dress or undress in such a manner as to cause the word of God to be blasphemed.

Pants Suits And Worship

One may not like it, but the fact is that ladies’ pants suits are an acknowledged part of this country’s fashion scene. Are pants suits immodest? If so, they are wrong to wear anywhere. Are all pants suits sexually provocative? If so, they are sinful. Are pants suits necessarily identified with worldly philosophy or ungodly elements? If so, they are to be shunned (Rom. 12:1, 2; 1 Jn. 2:15-17; Titus 2:11-14; 1 Pet. 1:13-17). However, I cannot give an unqualified “yes” answer to the questions above. I believe pants suits are basically modest and as such are acceptable feminine attire.

“But what about the woman who wears them to worship?” Personally, I do not like them to be worn to worship. I would object if my wife wanted to wear them when we come together in the church. Different occasions and events naturally demand different types of clothing. It is not wrong in one sense to wear bib overalls to worship, but native propriety in most communities now prohibits it. It is comparable to wearing a tuxedo to a sand-lot baseball game. While pants suits may not be sinful in the assembly, they do not suit my idea of proper apparel.

So, should a dress committee stand in the foyer and demand that every woman who wears a pant suit, “Go home and put on a dress?” I think not. The lady who wears a pants suit may insist that I go home and exchange my leisure suit for a regular suit, or at least put on a tie before I lead singing, wait on the Lord’s table, or preach. Preaching without a tie around my neck may not suit the lady’s view of what is proper, but should she bar me from the pulpit? If she will let me preach in a tie-less men’s leisure suit, I will let her listen in a ladies’ pants suit.

“Way back” in the late ‘S0’s, I would not have dared to wear sideburns down past the middle of my ear. It would have been wrong because of the elements of the world that were generally associated with such a hair style for young men in this country. Today, however, the preachers who disdained Elvis Presley’s long sideburns in the ‘S0’s now have exact replicas growing from their temple to their ear lobe. See a 1957 picture of Elvis if you do not believe it. There is a parallel in some particulars regarding women’s pants suits. They are a modest style that will become, it appears, more and more acceptable in formal dress situations. One may not presently prefer the trend, but it does not inherently undermine womanly modesty and virtue.

Caution And Conclusion

Ladies, in my judgment, should be hesitant to wear pants suits to worship. All brethren should refrain from contentiousness over this matter. Do not stir strife and fan the fires of factionalism over your private, personal preferences.

Nothing has been said to lend support to a rebellious disposition. One who has a meek and quiet spirit will not flagrantly flaunt his “rights.” “Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble” (1 Pet. 5:5). Some brethren can be childish and selfish in some areas. If it is suggested that those who serve the Lord’s supper wear a tie, some will spitefully roll up their sleeves, unbutton their shirt, and say, in effect, “You can’t make me wear a tie!” This is beneath pettiness and immaturity. If we are “clothed with humility,” we will not be promoters of hostility.

Truth Magazine XXI: 16, p. 242
April 21, 1977

By Jeffery Kingry

Few of our Lord’s words are more abused than “Judge not, that ye be not judged. (Matt. 7:1). Actually, Jesus was not condemning judgment by his saints (to separate, select, choose, to determine, decide, judge, pronounce right or wrong). He was condemning a certain type of judgment. “Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (Jn. 7:24). There are two kinds of judgment: That which is according to appearance, and that which is according to God’s standard of right.

Yes, But I Know Why He Did It

Men often judge another’s intents and motives while observing their actions. I once knew a brother who made a special trip to help reconcile brethren he knew in a church feud. Those who did not want reconciliation at tempted to minimize his efforts by such comments as, “He is doing it because they have bribed him some way!” Men who produce voluminous amounts of energy and work in preaching and writing are sometimes accused of “trying to make a big name for themselves.” This is a dangerous business when men look at good done – preaching the gospel, reconciling brethren, etc., and call it evil for having judged the other’s motives and intents as unworthy. “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man which is within him” (1 Cor. 2:11).

Those who do not consent to merely follow our Lord in relationship to their brethren are characterized by an over-high opinion of themselves, and hardly, if ever know anything rightly. Always misunderstood and misunderstanding they are filled with a morbid appetite for raising questions and controversies over simple matters, and are involved in endless speculations over mere words. They are a constant mill grinding out such emotions as jealousy, quarreling, insulting innuendoes, and unfair and hurtful insinuations (evil surmisings, KJV). We are told that from such men come constant friction because their spirits have become atrophied in their small hearts. So deprived of the truth are they that they often think godliness akin to their own personal acquisition. If they are able to profit personally in any quarrel they choose the side most beneficial to themselves. From such men we are commanded to turn away from in disgust (1 Tim. 6:4ff).

Not According To Appearance

We must be careful therefore)when we begin to make up our mind on issues and personalities that we do it on a just and equitable basis. We cannot pass judgment upon others through our criticism, if we ourselves do not want the same manner of judgment in return. Our Lord told us to treat others as we would be treated. God will treat us as we have treated others (Matt. 7:1, 2). It is an enigma how some expect they can stand before God to receive mercy, grace and judgment while they have always insisted on their dues from others, and ignored the rights of their brethren if it was the least bit uncomfortable for them. These have great perception and can discern the thoughts and intents of other’s minds. They are aware of the tiniest fleck of dust in the eye of their neighbor and are swift to seek to remove it, while their own eyes are half blinded and evilly sore with their own splinter. How is it they feel competent to tell others of the mud on their cuff while they themselves wallow in the mire? A godly rebuke to such people is akin to entering a Texas razorback’s pen to interest him in fine jewelry. You will be lucky to escape with your life by approaching such a mean Texas pig. Such a foolhardy soul might find his tender young hide hung on a barb wire fence for all his trouble (Matt. 7:36).

Friends Can Do No Wrong

Have you ever noticed our mutual propensity for those we love, and our swiftness to “think evil” of those we do not care for? One reason is that we seldom judge, but react. Godly judgment is according to righteousness and not according to appearance. It reminds me of “our” propaganda during the Vietnamese war. The Viet Communists’ efforts at caring for the people was “brain washing” and “propaganda.” “They” did it only to further their political cause and speed their military conquest. “They” were not really interested in the people except as pawns in their scheme. Now, “we’-‘ were different. Our “Pacification Program” was designed to “win the hearts and minds of the people.” Our “Chien Hoi” program was to help the people. One was politically motivated to win a military end, and the other was a sincere effort to help the people? Hardly. They both had the same end. It just depended which “side” you happened to be on.

Or, the illustration of the mother who speaking to her friend about her children declared, “My daughter has married the most wonderful man. He serves her breakfast in bed, takes off work to take her shopping or to have lunch with her. He even helps around, the apartment with the housework. My son? Oh, he, married a really lazy and incompetent woman! She lays in bed after he gets up and he must feed her in bed. He is always being interrupted at his job and is supposed to attend her every whim. She is so extravagant they are reduced to living in a small apartment and he must do most of the housework because of her ineptness!” It just depends on how you look at it.

Paul told us by the Holy Spirit how we are to “look at it.” “Love is slow to lose patience and looks for ways to be helpful. Love never boils with jealousy. Neither is love anxious to impress or arrogant. Love is never rude, it does not insist on its own rights, is not quick to take offense, and keeps no score of wrongs. Love takes no pleasure over other men’s failings, but always joyfully sides with right. Love is always slow to expose, always eager to believe the best, hopes under all circumstances, and endures without limit” (1 Cor. 13:4-7). What a wonderful experience it would be if brethren everywhere loved one another as much as they loved their own children, wives, or husband! Indeed, we are God’s family, and one another’s brethren, yet who would know? Who would know? “In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil: Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother” (1 Jn. 3:10).

The Peanut Gallery

There is indeed a “nut gallery” made up of all those spectator Christians who are of the type who shout abuse at ball games and political rallies. They are extremely critical and vocal in their criticism, yet equally extremely exempt from any action. These are the true “Antis.” They are plainly “agin,” everything and everybody. They are disdainful of all those “hypocrites in the church.” They are quick to tell of other’s sins, but not willing to confront them and help them change. In fact they are often afraid of change. Then they might have to forgive, and could no longer hold comtempt with a “clear conscience.” Other people’s sins are mere topics of conversation with them, not a reason for action. They are not willing to teach, preach, serve, work, visit, or study, but they are extremely critical of those who do.

Righteous Living

When one does good, we can only conclude if there is no other evidence, that the fruit comes from a good tree. This is what was so perverse with the Jews. They preferred Jesus an evil man, and they could not countenance his good with their prejudiced picture of him: So, “He cast out devils by the power of the Devil.” Today, we often make up our mind about someone, and must engage in evil surmising to square our concept with his actions. Righteous judgment requires we judge men according to God’s word not by how we would like them to be. “He that doeth good is of God; But he that doeth not good hath not seen God” (3 Jn. 11). “Let love be without dissimulation. Hate what is wrong while clinging to that which is right” (Rom. 12:9). The Jews even went so far as to change the simple meaning of the Scriptures to provide self-justification for their actions rather than accept the truth (Matt. 15:1-9).

It is a little matter to be judged by men’s standards unjustly. God is the only judge we have to ultimately deal with. If we seek to follow the right and encourage others to remain within the light, then we will not suffer from judgment, either in this world or the one to come (Jn. 12:44-45; 1 Jn. 1:6, 7).

Truth Magazine XXI: 15, pp. 235-237
April 14, 1977

By Daniel H. King

When God gave commandment to the children of Israel with regard to their treatment of the pagan inhabitants of Canaan, his orders were not at all compromising. He charged: “I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; arid thou shaft drive them out before thee. Thou shaft make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me; for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee” (Ex. 23:32-33); and again: “When the Lord thy God shall deliver them up before thee, and thou shaft smite them; then thou shaft utterly destroy them: thou shaft make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; neither shaft thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shaft not give unto his son, nor his daughter shaft thou take unto thy son. For he will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and he will destroy thee quickly. But thus shall ye deal with them: ye shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Asherirn, and burn their graven images with fire” (Deut. 7:2-5). The people of the Lord were told to destroy completely the people of the land and the shrines where their false worship was carried on. They were to refrain from compromise in any form. Peace treaties were riot to be made. Intermarriage also posed a threat and was therefore to be avoided. Indeed, God’s attitude was unbending and unyielding. Because they were worshipping lies and offering a false hope, the God of all mercy felt no mercy for these nations. And, his people were to reflect his feelings. This same posture applied in every case where God spoke of them. In fact, whereas Israel made peace when God said not to, God sent his angel from Gilgal to Bochim with the stern rebuke: “I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, `I will never break my covenant with you; , and ye shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall break down their altars.’ But ye have not hearkened unto my voice: why have ye done this”? Wherefore I also said, `I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you’ ” (Judges 2:1-3). God rebuked compromise. He did not want it. He had no intention for his people to exercise it. When they did so against his wishes, he punished them for it.

Among the many errors of king Saul, one that stands out in the biblical account is his attitude of compromise in his treatment of Agag in 1 Samuel the fifteenth chapter. God had plainly told Saul, “Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” (vs. 2). Among other things Saul disobeyed God by sparing the life of Agag the king of the Amalekites. Samuel, on the other hand, took the attitude of intolerant obedience to God and “hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal” (vs. 33). It was not God’s intention that his command was to be compromised. When Saul did so God rejected him because he had rejected God.

Ahab compromised the stringent legislation of God against intermarriage with the people of the land by taking to wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians. As a result he “went and served Baal and worshipped him. And he reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he built in Samaria. And Ahab made the Asherah; and Ahab did yet more to provoke the Lord, the God of Israel, to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him” (1 Kgs. 16:3133). His pagan wife “stirred him up” to do mischief before God in a multitude of ways (1 Kgs. 21:25-26). In his latter end he perished in disgrace and the dogs licked up his blood by the pool of Samaria (1 Kgs. 22:38). His wife Jezebel was trampled to death and eaten by the dogs at Jezreel (2 Kgs. 9:33-37). Ahab compromised the command of God to his own hurt. The nations about Israel were enemies of truth and righteousness-riot potential wives and allies. Ahab paid the price for spurning the law of God.

It appears to me to be obvious that there is a lesson in these Old Testament examples (and in a host of others that could be offered), that all of us would do well to learn (Rom. 15:4). Especially is this so in light of the fact that the true Israel of God, the church, is pictured in the New Testament to be at war with the devil, the world, and sin in general, whatever form it may choose to take. The Christian is told in scripture to “Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil” (Eph. 6:11). Why? Because we have a battle to fight! Not a battle involving physical nations, carnal fighting and implements of warfare that avail for nought in such a contest. Instead, “Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the worldrulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12). Every one of us must prove himself a “good soldier of Jesus Christ” (2 Tim. 2:3). We are not to compromise and “give ground”, instead we are to “Stand!” (Eph. 6:11, 13, 14). Only by this means can we “war a good warfare” (1 Tim. 1:18), “fight the good fight of faith” (1 Tim. 6:12), and say when our time to leave the field of battle has come “I have fought the good fight” (2 Tim. 4:7).

I wonder sometimes how our brethren who are turning the mighty army that is the church of Jesus Christ into a “Make Love, Not War” battalion, visualize the battle that God gave the Christian and the church to fight. If the battle is synonymous with the “war on poverty” as some brethren have tried to make it, then the nation of India alone proves that the war is being lost. But the Bible makes it clear that this is not where the battle is to be fought. Is it solely in the arena of morality? If so, then moral laxity instead of purity is the result of their warfare. In their escape from “puritanism” they have run headlong into the enemy’s camp and have found out that the enemy “isn’t so bad after all.” Again, in connection with sectarianism they are merely beginning to justify the existence of the sects and of the “Church of Christ” as one of them, and raising the umbrella of fellowship to cover them too. Thus, the battle is certainly not being won on that front either, because it is not even being fought! As Israel saw many years ago, it is easier to “covenant” with our enemies than to fight them. And that is exactly what is, being done.

The spirit of Christian warfare is disappearing in very many places. That may seem to be a good thing to the spiritual “conscientous objectors” among us, but it does not appear so to God. God’s people are soldiers, good soldiers. And good soldiers are fighters, not compromiseres. The flag of truce is not among their battlegear. But the sword of the spirit is-the word of God. Let’s make good use of it!

Truth Magazine XXI: 15, pp. 234-235
April 14, 1977