Truth Magazine

By Keith Clayton

Vermont is a very dark area of the world in terms of the gospel and the truth about the church being very widely known. Vermont is largely a rural area. There are only approximately 500,000 people ,in the entire state. Until the 1960 census, cows out-numbered people and it was not until the 1970 census that people finally surpassed chickens in total population. Unfortunately, the average non-Christian has heard about as much about the church as the chickens and cows. Let me explain. Maybe it is my youth in Christ that causes me to expect too much too soon. I apologize if this article sounds like a testimonial or if it appears that I think these problems are unique to Vermont. I am just trying to portray, as accurately as I can, the state of the Lord’s church in Vermont, and a little bit of what the work is like here.

Of the seven or eight congregations I know about in this tiny state, there is only one sound congregation that I know of. That one happens to be the one I worship with regularly, Milton. The fact that this faithful congregation of the Lord’s children has remained strong in the face of the issues is incredible in itself. Brothers Gene Dumas and Gordon Gaynon have had a great deal to do with it. We have no “located” preacher, so these two men have done a commendable work here for the Lord. Unlike some other congregations in the state, we do not take contributions from other congregations. We are a small and struggling congregation financially. We are in the process of buying some land and building a structure to worship in. We are now meeting in the school at an exorbitant rental fee. Our treasury registers nearly zero for a sum total, except for the land that we now hold full title to. Back to the cows and chickens for a minute. Such ignorance is not the situation in Milton. The people of the community that will listen are being reached slowly but surely. We only wish there were made available to us a full time personal worker to expedite the work.

The rest of Vermont is quite a different story. The erring brethren from the other congregations may as well have been teaching the livestock of Vermont’s farms for the amount of truth they have been teaching in regards to the churches’ responsibilities. I have talked with some new converts in these congregations. Here is a very partial list of some of the things these babes in Christ have been taught that are good, wholesome, and necessary (scriptural) for the church to participate in: (1) Potluck suppers in the church building. (2) The Herald of Truth is a part of the gospel itself. (3) If a certain congregation of the Lord’s people do not support human institutions with the Lord’s money, the members of that congregation are “anti-Christs.” (4) Smoking is not a sin. (5) Television is a sin. In talking with one of these erring brothers, he said he thought the problem went much deeper than the issues, and I agreed with him. The problem, I told him, was a general decline in respect for the authority of God’s word and a lack of knowledge of it by a great number of people. He would not agree, but he would not say what he thought the problem was either. I think you can gather from some of the attitudes and teaching that it is no wonder the cows and chickens are in the running as far as a genuine knowledge of God’s word. It is rather hard at times to tell the liberal churches in Vermont, and elsewhere, from a social club or worldly denomination. It would not be quite so bad if some of these imported “Herald of Truthers” would stay where they belong. (Wherever that is!) For example, we have had, in the past, permission to use the baptistry of a near-by congregation. A young lady wanted to obey the gospel one evening, so we went to this congregation’s building. Unfortunately, they were having a gospel meeting and a preacher from Arab, Alabama was there. This guest preacher and a single member, who knows nothing about the issues, but knows that “anti’s” are “antiChrists,” tried to block this young lady from being baptized into Christ. After they had created a scene, the men of the two congregations got together to hash it out. And “hash” it was. The men of Milton listened, without interrupting, to a 45 minute monologue from the Arab, Alabama visitor that sounded like something out of a book entitled, “How to Persuade People Without Telling the Truth” (fictional title, mine). In the final analysis it came down to either we accepted the unscriptural practices of the church supporting human institutions or stay out of the building and especially the baptistry. Suffice it to say the men of Milton offered to study the issues out of God’s word with them, of course, as usual that was out of the question. (They could not do that without their debaters present.)

Back to the work in Milton. The Lord has blessed the efforts of the saints in Milton many times. Evangelists such as Jay Guyer, Ralph Smart, Tom Moody, and Kent Persall have been a great help to the brethren in Milton. It was with the help of these dedicated people that the church in Milton has grown. Just a short time ago, the church in Milton consisted of Brother Gene Dumas and his wife around their kitchen table. Today the congregation’s number is up to around 35 souls. By the way, that is our attendance figure Wednesday and Lord’s day, if we do not have any visitors. We just finished a gospel meeting July 28th. Brothers Kent Persall and Tom Moody from Alabama did an excellent job in working with us. We have been averaging two or three baptisms per meeting. In some cases the meeting only played a minor part in the conversions, but none the less contributed. In closing, if there are preachers (mainly personal workers) looking for a hard but rewarding work, and you can bring support with you, come to Milton, Vermont. You do not need passports to get to this mission field.

Truth Magazine, XX:8, p. 5-6
February 12, 1976

By Cecil Willis

The subject of the Law and the Gospel encompasses a broad field of study. For the past several weeks we have studied categorical statements of the New Testament that the Old Covenant was taken away in the body of Christ. With the wealth of material in the New Testament on this subject, and the vast multitudes who misunderstand it, I deem it wise that we continue our study of this important theme for a few weeks yet. This week we want to be very specific in our study. We want to study a fundamental error of most Sabbath-keeping religious groups. When we study passages showing that the Law of Moses was done away by the death of Christ, this is enough to persuade most people. But some religious groups have peculiar ideas about the Law, and therefore they construe these New Testament teachings to coincide with their pre-conceived religious views. Therefore it is necessary that we devote some time to these misconceptions of truth.

What Is Meant By “Moral” and “Ceremonial” Laws

First; we need to understand the teaching of most Sabbath-keeping denominational bodies. They teach that the Old Testament Law actually consisted of two laws. Sometimes these are classified as three laws, namely: moral, ceremonial, and civil. But ordinarily they refer to the “double-law” of the Old Testament. They mean by this that this law consists of the moral and ceremonial law. It is rather odd how people can coin terms, and then as freely use them as though the Bible were filled with such expressions. For example, the Modernist dissects the Bible in such a way that he very commonly speaks of the “P” or “J” document, and many other such documents even though there is no hint of such documents existing from the Scriptures. Or they quote as casually from “Second Isaiah” (another Modernistic dissection of God’s Word) as though they were personally acquainted with him. Sabbitarians make the same mistake by persistently referring to the “moral” and “ceremonial” laws; as though such a distinction occurred on every page of the Scriptures.

A deeper explanation of this error is in order, before we begin studying a refutation of this basic error. The “moral” law is synonymous with God’s law. It is said that God’s law is the Ten Commandments, the Decalogue. It consists of the Ten Laws that God delivered to Moses, and that God wrote with His own finger. According to this view the moral law, or the Ten Commandments was never destroyed, but is yet binding upon us today. Since the law to keep the Sabbath was a part of the moral law, and it is perpetuated upon this dispensation, some denominationalists meet on the Sabbath (Saturday) to worship, and say that we are doing wrong when we meet on the First Day of the week. But’ what about all the Scriptures we. have previously studied that show that the Law of Moses was done away? This is precisely where the significance of their error is seen.

The ceremonial law is the Law of Moses. It consists of all the laws given in the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, except the Ten Commandment Law. Remember, the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20; Dent. 5) are, for these people, a part of the moral law, and were never done away. They say the New Testament scriptures which teach that the Law was done away, apply exclusively to the ceremonial law.. So they profess to believe what the New Testament says about the law (which for them means nothing more than the ceremonial law). So for the Sabbath-keepers that might have been studying with us for the past several weeks, our studies have presented no problems. For each time the Word said the Law was done away, they mentally say, “Yes, but that only refers to the ceremonial law. The Law of God, the Ten Commandment Law, is yet binding upon all men.” We want to study what the Bible says concerning such a distinction. In advance we might say that not only does the Bible fail to make such a distinction between the moral and ceremonial laws, but it contradicts the-making of such a man-made distinction.

We are told that each time the words “the Law of Moses” occur, it means the ceremonial law, and that each time “the Law of God” occurs, it refers to the moral law. But the Bible makes no such distinction. In fact, in several instances in the Scriptures these two terms are used interchangeably. But before we study these instances, let us observe one quotation from an outstanding Sabbatarian. In speaking of this “double law,” he says, “No question, therefore, more vital to the interest of Sabbath-keepers can be proposed” (Synopsis of Present Truth, p. 258). He says this is the most important issue for Sabbath-keeping people, and I concur in this statement, for if this distinction will not stand the test of Bible investigation, neither will their entire religious system. For remove this premise, and the entire foundation for Sabbath (Saturday) day religion is destroyed.

The Terms Are Not Used Interchangeably

So we now want to investigate this all-important premise. First of all, let us study a passage in which the so-called distinctive terms are supposedly used interchangeably. The Law of Moses or the ceremonial law, is said to have been given by God, and the Law of God is said to have been given by Moses. This would once for all destroy such a fundamental premise as this one of the Sabbath religion. At the time of the return of the Israelites from Babylonian captivity, a copy of the Law was discovered, and Neh. 8, tells of the public reading of the Law. The distinctive Sabbatarian terms are used interchangeably. Verse 1 says, “And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel.” Verse 2 says, “And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation.” Verse 3 says, “And the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.” We read about those that helped in the understanding of “the law” in verse 7, and verse 8 says, “So they read in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” Verse 14 reads, And they found written in the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month.” Verse 18 reads, “Also day by day, from the first day into the last day, he read in the book of the law of God.”

Now let us summarize the names by which the Old Covenant is referred to in this chapter. (1) It is called the book of the law of Moses (v. 1); the law, (v. 2); the book of the law (v. 3); the law, (v. 7; the law of God (v. 8); the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses (v. 14); the book of the law of God (v. 18). So the one Law is called both the Law of God, and the Law of Moses. It is the Law of God as given by Moses, and it is he Law of Moses as given by God. No Sabbatarian lives that can harmonize this passage with their so-called “double-law” theory. Remember they say the Law of God refers only to the Ten Commandments, and the Law of Moses refers to the “ceremonial” portions of the old Testament. But in Neh. 8, the Law of God and the Law of Moses are one and the same Law.

The Law Has Been Done Away

The New Testament passages we recently have been studying that state that the Law of Moses was done away, do so by referring to the Law of Moses merely as the Law. For example, in Eph. 2:15, Paul said the Law of commandments was done away in the cross of Christ. In this, he referred to the Old Testament Law. Such is the usage of the word “law” in the book of Romans. But Paul was not using the word “law” to designate either the Law of Moses, nor the Law of God in the nomenclature of denominationalism. He simply is using t to refer to the whole of the Old Covenant.

What does he say about the Old Covenant? We studied last week on the subject of “Spiritual Adultery” as discussed by Paul in Romans 7. The adulterous union was that of trying to be married to the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ at the same time. So he concluded his remarks by saying, “But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter” (Rom. 7:6). So Paul said that we are no longer under the Law. Notice the usage of the simple expression “the law” in describing our release from it. What is meant by “the law”? Whatever it refers to, it was done away. Not only do we want to learn from this chapter that the law was done away, but we also want to see that “the law” refers to the Ten Commandments.

Paul said, “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: but sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin is dead” (Rom. 7:7, 8). Paul said that sin was defined by the Law. Later we will study the purpose of the Law, and will learn that one of its purposes was to define adequately the limits of right and wrong. Now the Law, said Paul, states that one is not to covet. Remember it is the Law from which we have been discharged. What is the Law that says one is not to covet? Turn back to the Old Testament and you will find that “Thou shalt not covet” is the tenth commandment in the Ten Commandment Law. So here Paul said that the Ten Commandment Law is called “the law.” Sabbatarians would say that Paul must have used the term “law of God” in order to speak properly of the Ten Commandments. But friend, whose prerogative is it to coin the terms of Scripture? Is it some man’s who has a pet doctrine to defend? Paul knew what he was talking about. He was speaking of the Ten Commandment Law, and he said, from it we have been discharged. There is not a Sabbatarian living that can answer this argument. It is no argument devised by me nor any other man, but it is an argument devised by inspiration by the Apostle Paul. It destroys the only foundation of Sabbatarianism. Paul, in no uncertain terms, said, ‘I am talking about the Ten Commandment Law, and we are now dead to it, or have been discharged from it.’

Conclusion

There is one other misunderstanding that needs to be clarified. Sometimes the people who say the Law of Moses is taken away are called “antinomians,” a term which the people who use it, probably do not understand. It simply means that we are people who are against law, which is a false accusation. We are not against law, but we believe what the Law of Christ says about the Law of Moses being taken out of the way, and nailed to our Savior’s cross. We believe in strict adherence to the Law of Christ, so to apply the term “antinomian” to one who believes thus, is a misnomer. Believing that we are bound by, and will be judged by the Law of Christ, we strive to the extent of our ability to live upright in the sight of God, humbly asking God’s forgiveness when we fall. We exhort people to study and obey the Law of Christ. Believe on Him as the Son of God, repent of your sins, confess your faith in Him, and obey His command to be baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (This topic will be further discussed in our next article.)

Truth Magazine, XX:8, p. 3-5
February 19, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question: From Oklahoma: “Des Paul in Acts 20:21 teach the whole plan: of salvation, and do we err in teaching faith must come before repentance?”

Reply: Acts 20:21 is part of Paul’s farewell address to “the elders of the church” in Ephesus (Acts 20:17-38). “I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed, you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:20,21).

“Does Acts 20:21 teach the whole plan of: salvation?”

Acts 20:21 says nothing about the divine work which effected the system of salvation. It mentions man’s part, repentance and faith, but it does not allude to God’s love and grace nor to Christ’s selfless sacrifice. Generally speaking, John 3:16 (“For God so loved the world , . .”) comes; nearer to containing “the whole plan of salvation.” It refers to the motivation of God (His love), to the effecting cause of salvation (the gift –death – of Christ), to man’s appropriating response (belief), and to the ultimate reward (everlasting life). It is a spiritual microcosm of the, entire scheme of redemption. Acts 20:21 fails of general consideration in that it does not reckon with the work of God in procuring remission of sins.

No single text lists in detail all the provisions of God or every term of acceptance required of man. This is too obvious to argue. Surely, only a fool would contend that any one passage specifically contains “the whole plan of salvation.” One verse wherein all of God’s acts and the sinner’s requirements are enumerated is not to be found.

Even the Baptists who prompted our inquirer will not say Acts 20:21 specifically includes, “the whole plan of salvation.” What is said of the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart? It is not, in Acts 20:21, but Baptists believe it is as essential to salvation as repentance and faith. So, according to them Acts 20:21 does not incorporate all that is involved in salvation, either generally or specifically. “But,” comes the objection, “repentance and faith assume that the Holy Spirit has done His work in the heart.” True enough, and saving faith assumes obedience (Jas. 2:14-26). Thus, if one can “read” the work of the Holy Spirit into Acts 20:21, he can also “read in” other acts of faith that are necessary to receive remission of sins. See Acts 2:38; 16:30-34; 22:16.

Does Faith Precede Repentance?

From Debate Notes On Baptist Doctrine, by James R. Cope, p. 41, we extract the following comments on Acts 20:21: “If my opponent were preaching to heathen like Paul did in Athens (Acts 17) – heathen who knew not the true God, he would first . . . try to make his listeners believe that there is one true and living God before he began persuading them to repent; so when God alone is mentioned and people who know not God are under consideration they are called upon to believe in God before repenting. On the other hand, where people have known God and sinned against Him they are told to repent toward God for it is literally impossible … for any man who does not believe in God to repent toward God. Likewise when people believe in Jesus Christ as did the Jews on Pentecost as indicated by their question, ‘Men and brethren, what shall we do?’ the only sensible reply was the one Peter made when he gave the next step in the gospel order; Repent, and be baptized.’ There is not a passage in the Bible indicating anybody-ever repented or was told to repent toward Jesus Christ before believing in Jesus Christ. In the passages mentioning God and Christ and also repentance and faith, the repentance is always toward one while the faith is toward the other.”

Both Jews and Greeks believed in God, but they had kicked Him out of their lives (Rom. 1:18-32). Paul, therefore, urged repentance toward the God they had disavowed. Then he pressed upon them “faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” That is logical. Observe the order: (1) Belief in God, but denial of Him; (2) “Repentance toward God” whom they have rejected; (3) “Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Further, the order of appearance does not necessarily indicate the sequence of occurrences. In Romans 10:9, Paul lists confession of Christ before faith in Him. Shall we argue that confession of Jesus precedes faith in Him? In the next verse, Paul reverses the order, placing faith before confession (Rom. 10:10). In Ezekiel 3:10 we find, “Son of man, all my words that I shall speak unto thee receive in thine heart, and hear with thine ears.” Is this the order of events? How could he receive words into his heart before he heard them with his ears? Our topic sentence is sustained.

The Order of Baptism And Salvation

Baptists allege that repentance precedes faith because wherever the two are named, repentance is listed first. Take that principle and apply it to baptism and salvation. Wherever baptism and forgiveness of sins or its equivalent are mentioned, baptism always comes before salvation. (1) Mk. 16:16-baptism and salvation. (2) Acts 2:38-baptism and remission of sins. (3) Acts 22:16-Baptism and forgiveness. (4) Rom. 6:3, 4-baptized into Christ, raised to walk in newness of life. (5) Gal. 3:27-baptized into Christ. (6) 1 Pet. 3:21-baptism saves us. Will the Baptists accept their own law, of order? If the reference to repentance before faith proves that’ repentance “comes before” faith, does the mention of baptism before salvation prove that baptism comes before salvation? Why not? It is a poor rule that will not work both ways.

Truth Magazine, XX:8, p. 2
February 19, 1976

By Mike Willis

When God called us out of darkness and into His marvelous light, He used rewards to give us incentive to leave the darkness and to come to Him. One of the rewards is evident from the following quotation:

“Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate, says the Lord.

And do not touch what is unclean;

And I will welcome you.

And I will be a Father to you,

And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,

Says the Lord Almighty” (1 Cor. 6:17-18).

The promise of sustaining a Father-child relationship to God is sufficient to motivate us to leave the world and turn to God. Growing out of this relationship to God as children is our relationship to one another as brethren. The term “brethren” is used numerous times in the Scriptures to designate fellow-Christians. Thus, in any study of the descriptive terms applied to Christians, we must consider the terms “children” and “brethren.”

Child: A Vertical Relationship

John said, “See how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God; and such we are” (1 Jn. 3:1). When one considers all of the possible relationships which one could sustain to God (e.g. the relationship of enemies, a relationship similar to that of deistic theology, etc), he should marvel that God has so richly blessed us in allowing us to sustain the intimate relationship of Father-child to Him. Our relationship to Him as His children comes from our new birth. His seed abides in us; we are born of God (1 Jn. 3:9). The words of inspiration use the terms descriptive of physical birth to refer to our spiritual descent from God. The seed which is used to beget us is the word of God (1 Pet. 1:23f; 1 Cor. 4:15). Paul referred to this process when he wrote, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ” (Gal. 3:26,27). Every person who has been born again is a child of God.

There are some important blessings which come from being a child of God. (1) An Intimate Relationship to God. Paul wrote, “And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ ” (Gal. 4:6). Again, “For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, ‘Abba! Father!'” (Rom. 8:15). The emphasis of these verses is our attitude toward God; we do not approach Him as a slave does his master but as a son does his father. “Abba” is “an Aramaic word. . . . It approximates to a personal name, in contrast to ‘Father,’ with which it is always joined in the N.T. . . . ‘Abba’ is the word framed by the lips of infants, and betokens unreasoning trust; ‘father’ expresses an intelligent apprehension of the relationship. The two together express the love and intelligent confidence of the child” (W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. I, p. 9). “Abba” corresponds more nearly to “Da-da,” the first word framed by infants in English, than to any other English word. Our relationship to God is described by this intimate human relationship.

(2) His Concern Over Our Prayers. Because of our relationship to God, we can approach Him in prayer as “Our Father who art in heaven” (Mt. 6:9). (This blessing is not available to any non-children.) Because of this relationship, we know that God listens to and answers our prayers. Jesus said, “Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. For every one who asks receives; and he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks it shall be opened. Or what man is there among you, when his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he shall ask for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!” (Mt. 7:7-11). Reflecting this confidence, John wrote, “And this is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him” (1 Jn. 5:14,15). The spirit of fear is removed because of our new relationship to God.

(3) Our Heirship. As children of God, we are also heirs of God. Paul said, “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow-heirs with Christ . . .” (Rom. 8:16-17). I do not know everything involved in the idea of being an heir of God, but it is certainly a blessing far superior to being the heir of a rich father on earth!

Because we are descendants of God, we should do our best to imitate our Father. Paul said, “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children” (Eph. 5:1). I can remember, as a child, helping my Daddy plant a garden. We always borrowed a mule which was blind in one eye from my Uncle Jim to plow our garden. I used to walk behind my Daddy trying my best to follow in his tracks. I sometimes had to jump from one footprint to the next but I always tried to imitate him. I can also remember the times when I wanted to be a log-hauler just like Daddy. Similarly, we who are children of God ought to imitate our Father. As children, we best imitate God by walking in the light as He is in the light (1 Jn. 3:9-10). The child who imitates God will strive to be as morally pure as is possible.

Brother: A Horizontal Relationship

Whereas the word “child” refers to our relationship to God, “brother” refers to our relationship to each other. Every person who is born of God is my brother or sister; where God has a child, I have a brother. Every person who obeys the Father is a brother or sister of Jesus and of every other obedient person (Mt. 12:46-50). The word “brother” is thrown around so frequently and commonly around the church building that we seldom stop to think what is conveyed by that term. It asserts that we sustain a relationship to one another similar to that which one sustains toward his fleshly siblings. We are brothers and sisters to one another. Regardless of the fact that you were born in the Philippines and I was born in Texas, that you might be black and I am white, that you might speak Italian and I speak English, that you might be rich and I am a middle-income person, we are brothers to one another. We are both descendants of the same Father.

This fact should effect our relationship to one another. Brethren are expected to conduct themselves differently toward each other than unrelated persons do (cf. 1 Cor. 6:8; 1 Tim. 6:2). Because we are brethren, we ought to come to the assistance of each other whenever help is needed. John wrote, “Every one who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has the world’s goods and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (1 Jn. 3:15-17). Sometimes, the assistance we give is in time of a spiritual, rather than a financial, crisis. Paul admonished, “Brethren, even if a man ii caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted” (Gal. 6:1).

These facts are so frequently overlooked by Christians that it is not unusual to hear someone referring to “Brother ___________” while he figuratively is knifing him in the back. We must treat one another as brethren. A little less referring to one another as “brother” and a little more treating one another as brethren would not hurt the body of Christ.

Conclusion

Are you a child of the Father? If you have never been born again, you are not a child of God and do not enjoy the benefits pertaining thereto. You do not even have the right to petition God as your “Father who is in heaven.” If you are a child of God, do you treat His other children as your brethren? Do you conduct yourself as brothers and sisters should? If not, you may fancy yourself to be a Christian but you are not worthy to wear that precious name because all Christians are brethren. If you do not act as a child, in imitating your Father, and as a brother, in your conduct toward His other children, you are not a faithful Christian.

Truth Magzine, XX:7, p. 12-14
February 12, 1976