Truth Magazine

By Jeffery Kingry

“President Killed By Sniper In Dallas”

“Kennedy Shot In Hotel By Arab Extremist”

“Wallace Gunned Down In Maryland Crowd”

“King Murdered In Memphis”

“Manson Cult Follower Attempts To Take Ford’s Life”

“Hijacking Ends In Three Deaths”

“Husband Kills Family And Self”

How long could we go on with this bloody litany from the front pages of our daily newspapers? Assassinations, race riots, looting, burning, college student revolts, bombed churches, airports, banks, homes, and public buildings. From 1963 to 1968 there were at least 370 civil rights demonstrations involving more than a million people, and more than 80 counter-demonstrations in opposition to civil rights and school integration. There have been riots and civil disorder in every major city in America. The demonstrations against the war in Asia touched every state campus in the U.S., and involved hundreds of thousands of students across the nation. Mass murders, senseless violent crime, and rape have increased at an alarming rate. The annual sale of hand guns is up by 500 9i since ten years ago. There have been more deaths from handguns in the U.S. in its history than all the combined deaths of all involved combatants in all of the wars the U.S. has ever fought. All major violent crimes: murder, forcible rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault etc. are rising out of all proportion to our population.

The number of subversive and extremist organizations that advocate violence has increased dramatically in the past ten years. These organizations strive in every way possible to disrupt law and order. They breed hatred and bigotry which feed violence. The left wing political violence groups, like the SDS, have led violence on college campuses and into our political processes. Extremist reactionary groups like the Klan, SNCC, RAM and others have advocated and used violence to further their bigotry.

People have lost respect for law and authority because of corruption, and prejudicial enforcement of the law. The media has encouraged violence by its glorification of violence and those who resort to violence. At times it seems as though we are surrounded by violence.

Some Responses Made by Christians

Christians have made some bad choices when it comes to dealing with violence. Many have purchased weapons and have full intent to use them if threatened in any way. The homes of some followers of the Prince of Peace look like armed camps, festooned with firearms of all descriptions, and sufficient ammunition to fuel a short war. Guns beside the bed, under the pillow, in the glove compartment in the car, in a rack in the truck, in the desk at work reflect brethren desperately afraid of what men may do to them. Some, driven to the point of paranoia, have installed elaborate burglar alarm systems costing thousands of dollars, barred windows, hired killer dogs, and erected high fences. This close contact with violence has prompted some to lose their spiritual bearings. Did you ever hear the comments made by some brethren at the assassination of Kennedy and King? These brethren actually gave “God-speed” to the bloody murder of these men with young families as if it were a deed approved by God. God does not approve murder-even of sinners.

What Can I Do?

We live in the midst of a wicked and perverse world. Violence will be a part of our reality as long as we remain on this earth. Violence did not start with the race riots of the sixties. The history of the U.S. has been checkered since its beginning with violence-since the first slaughter of the innocent Indians and their enforced slavery by Columbus and those who followed him. The wilderness was taken from the aborigines by force, the beginnings of the U.S. were bred in violence, civil war, riots, the wild west, are all part of a long history of violence. The world of man began with the violent murder of the righteous by the wicked (Gen. 4).

The presence of violence has always been a spectre upon creation. As long as there is a devil and wicked men, there will be bloody hands. We will not preserve ourselves by might and weaponry, but by the care and providence of God. We may decry men’s wicked deeds; notwithstanding, our faith must not stand in ourselves, but in God. “O Lord God of vengeance; O Lord to whom vengeance belongeth, shine forth! Lift up thyself, thou judge of the earth: render a reward to the proud. Lord, how long shall the wicked triumph? How long shall they utter and speak hard things? And all the workers of iniquity boast themselves? They break in pieces thy people, O Lord, and afflict throe heritage. They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless. Yet they say, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it. Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools when will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see? He that chastiseth the heathen, shall he not correct? He that teachest man knowledge, shall he not know? The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity. Blessed is the man whom thou chasteneth, O Lord, and teachest him out of thy law; that thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be digged for the wicked. For the Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance. But judgment shall return unto righteousness: and all the upright of heart shall follow it. Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? Or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity? Unless the Lord had been my help, my soul had quickly dwelt in silence. When I said, My foot slippeth; thy mercy, O Lord, held me up. In the multitude of my thoughts within me thy comforts delight my soul. Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood. But the Lord is my defense; and my God is the rock of my refuge. And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness, yea, the Lord our God shall cut them off” (Psa. 94).

To the Christian with little faith this answer does not provide an answer. But, it is the only answer God gives. The authority of law-its institution, interpretation, and application-belongs to government (Rom. 13). The government is God’s minister to us for good, to protect us from the evil-doer, and to reward our good behavior by permitting us to participate in the service government provides. But even if government fails-God is still faithful who promised us protection. God hasn’t promised complete freedom from violence, quite the contrary. As Christians we are told to expect persecution and unfair treatment, maybe even death (Matt. 10:16-28; Mk. 13:9-13; Luke 6:22, 23; Jno. 15:18,19). But, what has the Christian to fear from violence? “If so be that we suffer with him, that we may be glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us… Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” (Rom. 8:17, 18, 35). Jesus was a victim of violence, as were His apostles and saints. Throughout history “they had trials of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword. . .being destitute, afflicted, and tormented” (Heb. 11:36-40). What was the conclusion of the Holy Spirit? If those in times past persevered in faith, without the end that is so evident and appealing to us, what should our attitude be towards the violent deeds of men? We must lay aside all the garbage of faith in worldly power and protection, and follow Jesus Christ and His example. Even the Son of God endured violence, trusting God to raise him up. He did not carry a weapon, nor would he look to violent means to preserve his life (Matt. 26:51, 52, 53). This does not mean that we give ourselves over to complete pacifism to evildoers. Government “carrieth not the sword in vain” and it exists as our protector from the evildoer. Paul appealed to law and the protection of law in his battle against the forces of bloody minded men (Acts 22:25ff; 23:12-35; 25:11). “But if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf” (1 Pet. 4:16).

Combatting Violence

Christians combat violence by striking at the roots of violence-the emotions that lead to violence. Jesus told us that the man who committed no violence was not justified before God if he harbored hatred and violent thoughts in his spirit (Matt. 5:21-26). Violence stems from anger, and hatred. As Christians we must put away wrath, evil speaking, gossip, and backbiting. We must demand the positive virtues of love, affection, humility, and regard among our brethren and in ourselves (Eph. 4:29-32). We must not permit the sun to go down upon our wrath but seek reconciliation with those we have wronged, and those who have wronged us (Matt. 5:23, 24; Matt. 18:15-17). We must stem violent words by conciliatory, loving, and tender conversation (Prov. 15:1; 25:15). We must set forth a personal example of a peaceful, law-keeping citizenship (1 Pet. 2:12-17). We must maintain a healthy home life, free from the hatred, violence, and corruption of the world. This means turning off the T.V. set once in awhile, choosing proper reading matter in the home, and directing the musical and literary tastes of our children (Eph. 6:4). We must speak out individually or in social groups against those parts of our society that breed violence. Taking the Gospel seriously in our lives means that we will use it to change the world. We need to become the reconcilers, the peacemakers, the crusaders against social injustice and corruption (Matt. 5:13-16). We must insist on fair and effective law enforcement. Equal penalty under law, with equity and mercy to all is not an American virtue of law-it is a divine principle (Rom. 2:6-11).

Truth Magazine XXI: 2, pp. 26-27
January 13, 1977

By Jimmy Tuten

I recently received a note from Edgar Dye who feels that I misrepresented him in my recent article, “Withdrawing From the Withdrawn,” which appeared in the January 13th issue of Truth Magazine. I did not intend to do so and want to make it clear that he and I are in agreement on the issue discussed. As a matter of fact I used much of his material in my article. I hope this clears the matter up and no one else draws the same conclusion.

Note Appeared in Truth Magazine XXI: 12, p. 178 
March 24, 1977

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

Recently a set of Edgar Dye’s lecture series notes on “Church Discipline” came across my desk and under the heading of “Objections to Disfellowshipping Considered” he covered a point that has given me problems from time to time. It is a prevalent objection that is very common, and I am sure others have had to deal with it too. In this writing I would like to cover this one objection.

The Objection Considered

The objection simply stated is this: “We cannot withdraw from those who have already withdrawn from the church because when one ceases to assemble with the saints, he has withdrawn himself and the church needs no further action.” I have tried to be respectful toward those who take this position even though I believe the position to be fallacious. I believe those who hold this position are sincere and are not. trying to offer a feeble excuse to escape an unpleasant responsibility. But the fact still remains, the church is commanded to withdraw from all who walk disorderly and it is the church that is to do the withdrawing, and not the sinner from the church.

There are several considerations behind this objection:

(1) It forces tine to take the position that cases of withdrawal are to be only coward those who are “still in the church”.

(2) When one stops attending the church, hence, withdraws himself, the church’s ,responsibility to him is over.

(3) Most who take this position feel that’ we should simply drop the names of the unfaithful from the roll of the church and avoid the thorny points of discipline.

This is simply not the case at all. Such positions show a lack of faith in’ God’s word and a lack of conviction regarding what God says about discipline. We must respect what God says and love those who are in sin. As James P. Needham has said: “It sanctions free-lance membership . . . One could decide he no longer wants to be a member of a local church, withdraw. his membership and become a free-lancer. I have not found any authority for free-lance membership. Christians in the New Testament were identified with some local church.”

Perhaps this illustration will help: Israel and Judah forgot Jehovah days without number (Jer. 2:32; 3:6-10). They had.,” forsaken the Lord” (Isa. 1:4). In doing so they did the same thing that brethren are doing today in forsaking public worship. In spite of what Israel and Judah had done, for many years God was patient and longsuffering. Yet, He afterward punished them through the Assyrians and Babylonians. Their withdrawal from God and the long lapse of time did not preclude Divine chastisement from being exercised. I suggest ‘that the absence of brethren today does not excuse them from” being withdrawn from as the Bible directs.

Illustrations Of What We Are To Do

According to John 10 and Luke 15, the good shepherd goes after his wayward sheep. Where there are elders, they stand in the same relation to the congregation that the shepherd does to his flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). Where there are no elders, the brethren must exercise the action of seeking the sheep that has gone astray (Gal. 6:1; Jas. 5:19-20). To say that fellowship cannot be withdrawn from those who have withdrawn . themselves, the purpose being to reclaim them, is to argue that the shepherd cannot seek his lost sheep because the sheep has withdrawn itself from the fold. Furthermore it is in the very context of the shepherd’s leaving the ninety and nine in the fold and seeking the one .that” had gone astray (Matt. 18:12-14), that Jesus commanded corrective discipline (Matt. 18:15-17).

Then again, military terms are used to describe the affairs of the Kingdom of God. Read carefully 2 Timothy 2:3-4; Ephesians 6:10-18; Philippians 2:25. Let us take a look at this relationship to illustrate the fallacy of the type of thinking we are dealing with in this writing.

If a soldier goes AWOL he is not free from any disciplinary action simply because he “withdrew” himself from his company. Likewise, the soldier in the Lord’s army is not free! Action must needs be taken against him.

Note several things that are not accomplished :when the church takes no action against the one who withdraws himself:

(1) The offender does not know that he has, been withdrawn from.

(2) He does not realize that he has been “delivered back to Satan”.

(3) The faithful members of the church do not know he has been withdrawn from and may even disobey. a diving command.

(4) The offended is not ashamed but is usually “puffed up.”

(5) The primary purpose of all discipline is not accomplished.

(6) The church is subject to corrupting influences.

(7) The world does not know that he has been withdrawn from either. So far as they know our silence equals condoning his behavior, and like David of old we have given occasion to the enemies .of God to blaspheme.

Such Failure Creates A Loophole

It has been suggested that if we cannot withdraw from the withdrawn (the one who withdraws himself from the church), the church could never withdraw from this type of disorderly person (2 Thess. 3:6). The reason being, the disorderly always beats the church to the draw! All they would have to do to avoid being withdrawn from is to say, “You can’t withdraw from me, I have already withdrawn from you”. The church would be helpless to carry out the command to withdraw from the disorderly (2 Thess. 3:6).

Brethren, think about it!

Truth Magazine XXI: 2, 25-26
January 13, 1977

By Olen Holderby

Of course, where there is Bible unity there is Bible fellowship. Fellowship is much more than relationship, though it includes the proper relationship. Fellowship in the Bible applies to spiritual matters-God, Christ, Holy Spirit, and fellow-Christians (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Jn. 1:3, 6, 7). The fellowship of Christians derives from what they have in common with God, through His Word (1 Jn. 1:3). The Word is always the basis of union with God (obtained or maintained). Carl Ketcherside once said, “The body of truth is like the human body, in that it has many members. Not all these are essential to being, some are essential only to well being.” I would like to see these two lists! Which ones are essential to being and which ones are essential to well-being? Who is the potentate that shall supply these lists?

Further, fellowship in Christ is the same as being one in Christ (1 Cor. 1:9-10). This being one in Christ involves speaking the same things (1 Cor. 1:10; 1 Pet. 4:11), and practicing the same things (2 Jn. 9-11). Fellowship between fellow Christians is a direct result of walking in the light (1 Jn. 1:7) of God’s Word. Ignore this perfect system of Divine truth and neither unity nor fellowship (in the Bible sense) will be achieved.

Jesus ushered into the world a system of truth designed to save souls (Jn. 1:17; 17:17; 1 Pet. 1:22). A failure to follow this system of truth results in being lost (Jn. 7:17; Lk. 6:46; Mt. 7:21). We are under obligation to proclaim that truth (2 Tim. 2:2; Mt. 28:18-20), to defend that truth (Jude 3; Phil. 1:16), and to call in question the teachers of error (1 Jn. 4:1). Let us not forget that this same truth may be misused, to our eternal sorrow (Mt. 7:21-23). Notice 1 Jn. 2:5-How much of God’s Word is meant in this statement? If not all, then what part is left out?

It may be argued that unity is not to be equated with uniformity; which is an apparent effort at saying we can have unity is spite of our differences. However, outside the doctrine of Christ one is without God and without Christ (2 Jn. 9; Mt. 10:16; Lk. 10:16, NAS). To attempt “unity in diversity” in matters of faith is to compromise or forsake God’s truth; and this invites the marking and avoiding of Rom. 16:17.

When man agrees with God (Amos 3:3) by believing and obeying God’s Word, he will be in fellowship with all other men who do the same. Unity or fellowship on any other basis is dead wrong. To walk by faith is to walk in the light of God’s Word (Rom. 10:17; 1 Jn. 1:7).

God’s Grace

God’s grace teaches both the alien and the erring (1 Cor. 1:21; Tit. 2:11-12). Just as the alien must have faith (Mk. 16:16), the Christian is to walk by faith (Rom. 1:17). Both have a choice as to whom they obey (Rom. 6:16). God’s grace teaches the alien to believe, repent, and be baptized to come into a covenant relationship with God. Why is it not just as important for the erring to repent and pray (Acts 8:22) to maintain his favorable relationship with God? Christ’s blood cleanses both, but on the condition they obey (Rom. 6:3-5; 1 Jn. 1:7). 1 am aware that salvation is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8), but only in the same way that God’s Son is a gift (Jn. 3:16). All did not receive Christ (Jn. 1:11), thus He was not a gift to them. Hence, salvation is no gift until it is received. Receiving this salvation is done by obeying His Will (Heb. 5:9).

Where has God promised to save the erring short of his repenting and praying? In the absence of such scripture, will someone play God and affirm that He does? The conclusion is inescapable-if man wants God’s grace to cover his sins, he must obey God’s instructions. Since a previous article dealt more fully with this topic, we leave it here.Fruits of “Unity In Diversity”

Brother Ron Halbrook, in Truth Magazine, quoted Bro. Ed Fudge as saying, “I believe it is—sinful, to travel around disrupting the peace of the brethren, to create suspicions and hinder the work of the Lord.” Amen, Bro. Fudge! I do wish all these “unity in diversity” preachers would apply this to themselves.

Example # 1, Polson, Montana: I refer the reader to Truth Magazine, Sept. 26, 1974, for the details of this example. I mention it here simply because I had some familiarity with these brethren while they were at peace and long before the “unity in diversity” ideas were found in the congregation. Now, just who caused division in this case? It would really take some conscience salving for the innovaters to excuse themselves from blame in this case. This is a good example of the type of “unity” that “unity in diversity” offers.

Example # 2, Concord, California: One Saturday night in October, 1973, I received a telephone call from one of the brethren from the small but “sound” congregation meeting in that city. Difficulties had developed over the ideas involved in the “unity in diversity” movement. Some had already been lost to liberalism. I was asked to teach a series of Saturday night lessons to the congregation, and I began such lessons Oct. 27, 1973 and continued them, with little interruption, until Jan. 19, 1974. The local preacher had espoused some of the erroneous ideas and had been preaching them. About two-thirds the way through this series of lessons, I was informed that a member of the large liberal group in Concord was to follow me with a series of his own. My series dealt mostly with the subjects of authority, the original New Testament church, limitations of the Gospel, work and worship of the church, the subject of fellowship, and the fact that truth is absolute and attainable. Questions upon which there was considerable discussion dealt with the imagined difference in Gospel and doctrine, authority (especially as how to establish it), worship, and fellowship (the who of fellowship). Jn. 4:24 was called in question as offering the standard of worship; and, 2 Jn. 9 was used only in reference to the Deity of Christ.

Hal Hougey, of the liberal group in Concord, was the one to follow me, but for a much shorter period of time. I have a copy of the material which he discussed, in outline form. Considerable space is taken up in an effort to show that 2 Jn. 9 makes reference only to the Deity of Christ. On page two of that outline it is said, “Since no one has perfect knowledge, and therefore may almost certainly have ignorantly committed sins of omission or commission, and not even know what to repent of, we are all dependent on God’s grace to save us.” Does this sound familiar? Under the title, “Whom Should We Not Fellowship,” are given unbelievers, those guilty of moral sins, and those guilty of factious behavior. It is argued that 1 Tim. 6:3-5, “Does not condemn the one who holds views different from or in addition to that which was taught by Christ and inspired men, but the one who persists in causing division by advocating such views to the point of causing quarreling, suspicions, and constant friction.” It is said that Rom. 16:17-18, refers “to the teaching regarding the unity of the body of Christ, not to the whole body of Christian teaching which is found in the New Testament.”

The local preacher was fired, but it was slightly too late for the small congregation to absorb this shock and survive. After a few weeks they simply dissolved and went elsewhere. To my knowledge there were no further loses to the liberals, but the over-all loss is obvious. I have purposely refrained from naming the local preacher involved, because I have been more recently informed that he is moving in the right direction, working with a sound Gospel preacher, and may someday be able to preach the pure Gospel once more. It is commendable that he recognized that he had a problem, and is not now spending any time in the pulpit. Now, what caused this division and dissolution of the small church? Is anyone so blind as to affirm that the “unity in diversity” doctrine had nothing to do with it? Again, this is the type of “unity” which such doctrine has to offer.

Example # 3, Arlington, Texas (Pioneer Parkway): A little background is in order. Shortly before Brother Hubert Moss moved to the Pioneer Parkway church, I held a Gospel meeting there. In general I would say the congregation was eagerly looking forward to his corning and anticipating a good work with him. However, less than a year after his arrival I began to receive comments from some that were listening to him, to the effect that they understood him to be doing some “loose” teaching, but could not at that time put their finger on just what it was. My response was that my informants should not be so critical and try to work more closely with Brother Moss. I had absolutely no idea that their observations had any foundation in fact whatsoever. I simply thought that they were mistaken. A few months later, however, quotes from his peaching and class teaching : made a different .impression. I ask that some tapes be made and sent to me that I might hear; but unfortunately this was not achieved. I urged those concerned to boldly stand for the truth and continue at Pioneer Parkway as long as there was any hope at all of saving the church from what they understood to be error. I also had a few talks with some that had known Brother Moss in college and since, and I urged them to get in touch with Brother Moss and try to find out what was really going on. Whether they ever did this or not I do not know.

My next direct contact of the situation Yin Arlington came Jan. 24, 1975. I arrived at the airport before daylight that Friday morning, to be informed, “we have a new church in Arlington.” Of course they were making reference to a new congregation. “Since when?” was: my reply, and, “last Sunday” was the answer. I did the preaching at both services Jan. 26, for this new group, I have written statements and quotes from these brethren, which explain why they determined to leave Pioneer Parkway.

A little information on the new group may here be of interest. They had twenty-eight people present for their first service, with the promise of more to follow soon. They began with six to eight men on whom they can depend. I was informed that the new work was a result of error being taught in the Pioneer Parkway church. There had been several things to which they objected, but the “straw that broke the camel’s back” “was the “grace-fellowship” and “unity in diversity” error. The ,new group meets at 1203 E. Abram, in Arlington; and they are presently looking for a “full-time” man to work with them.. Several preachers in the general area have spoken for the new group, thus familiar with their efforts. Contacts with this new church may be made through Brother Billy Dollar, 1817 Larkspur Dr., Arlington, Texas.

Back to the trouble itself. During the summer of 1974, Ronnie Compton was with the Pioneer Parkway church, and was used in their teaching program. My niece presented me a copy of the book which Brother Compton used in a young people’s class-Stott’s “Basic Christianity.” From what I have read in various papers I conclude it is not necessary to comment on this book. It is, nonetheless, filled with ideas that are foreign to God’s Word; and, if followed would destroy faith in God’s Word. During the fall (Oct.), 1974, Brother Edward Fudge was in a meeting at Pioneer Parkway. During this meeting Bro. “Fudge used Heb. 10:5-10 in an effort to prove that Christ lived a perfect life (kept the law perfectly) for us and that takes care of ,our deficiencies” (From a letter from Bro. C. Floyd George). During this same meeting Bro. Moss called on a Brother from a liberal church to lead in prayer. When asked to explain this; “he claimed that they had talked to each other and thought alike, (Bro. George’s letter). Here is another statement from Bro. George’s letter “Bro. Moss preached a number of sermons on works, grace, and fellowship, based mostly on Rom. 3, 4, 5, and 8. He uses Rom. 3:20 in such a way as to reach the conclusion that law keeping is unimportant. only trust in Christ is important-he applies it to the law of Christ.” One more, “Bro. Moss and Edward Fudge have the Bible teaching that God’s grace permits him to substitute the perfect life of Christ for obedience on our part, and without his doing so we could not be saved.”

Here are some quotes that Bro. Billy Dollar attributes to Bro. Moss. In discussing 1 Cor. 1:10-“Not dealing with Gospel uniformity, though ideal. Demands purpose, oneness of mind, intent and aim.” On 2 Jn. 9-11, “involves Deity of Christ, not the doctrine of Christ.” “It is not true every time I commit a mistake I fall from grace.” And, Bro. Dollar adds, he “preached Jesus the man, not a plan.”

I have additional statements along this same line from Bro. O.C. Chick and Bro. Virgil Holderby. I shall not take up space to quote them; nor, have I quoted all written by Brethren Dollar and George. Now, if Brother Moss does not believe what these statements suggest, I would be most happy to hear him say so, a pleasure that I am sure would be shared by the brethren mentioned above. 1 do not know Bro. Moss personally; and so far as I can recall have never met him. I have no “axe to grind” with him, nor anyone else. I am concerned only with the purity of the Great Cause that I trust we mutually espouse.

What, brethren, caused the division in Arlington. The brethren that left say it was the ideas connected with the “unity in diversity” doctrine. Once again, we have an example of the kind of “unity” offered by such doctrine.

A Final PleaBrethren, let us not be deceived by fair words and speeches! Obedience is the only route to heaven, even if no meritorious works are involved. To achieve heaven by our obedience is one thing, to earn it is quite another. All of us know we cannot merit or earn that great reward; but we can obtain it by walking obediently with the Lord. When we cast our lot with those in error, we are casting a vote against the plan of the Almighty. When Christ was raised from the dead to sit at God’s right hand (Acts 2:29-33), and when we confessed that precious name before men, we were swearing allegiance to the “King of kings and Lord of Lords.” Let us lay aside those things that can so easily detour us (Heb. 12:1), and, “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).

Truth Magazine XXI: 2, pp. 22-24
January 13, 1977