Truth Magazine

By Dennis L. Shaver

“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit” (Joel 2:28,29). A few years ago a television show, Sixth Sense, used this passage of scripture to prove that E.S.P. was a gift from God, and a reality. Whatever E.S.P. might be, I know this passage does not refer to it, and to use it in this manner is to pervert God’s will. In Acts 2:16-21, the entire prophecy of Joel is quoted. The time is the day of Pentecost, the first gospel sermon, and the establishing of God’s kingdom. Some in the audience accused the apostles of being drunk. But Peter stood up and proclaimed: “For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel . . . ” (Acts 2:15). Peter states that Joel’s prophecy applied to that which was happening at this time. This in no way comes close to what people call E.S.P. today.

What About E.S.P.?

I cannot explain many things that take place in the human mind. Can you tell me why a man will plant himself on top of a building and murder 8 or 10 people? Can you explain why men have mental breakdowns? The workings of a man’s mind are complex and hard to understand or explain. I would not try to prove that extra-sensory perception is nonexistent. I have seen many things that I do not fully understand nor would I attempt to explain. Everyone is intrigued with the unknown, and especially so when they think they can look into the future. It is this attitude that helps E.S.P. and other mysteries gain such a large following. A Christian needs to be careful lest he allow this preoccupation with any subject lead him away from the Lord. Many children of God have been led away with preoccupation of one thing or. another. Therefore, concerning E.S.P., I feel that we should ask a few basic questions, and examine this “phenomenon” in the light of God’s word.

1. Will E.S.P. help me live a better life in service to God? I am afraid that if anything, it gives man a feeling lie can control anything. It gives him a feeling of self-importance and self-reliance. Anything that would cause man to trust less in the Lord cannot be helpful in living as God intends. Jeremiah said, “O, Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his own steps” (Jer. 10:23). If heaven is the home I desire, I must trust in God (Psa. 25), and be faithful to His will (Rev. 2:10). I don’t believe that E.S.P., or any other mysterious power can help me live a better life in service to God. If so, we would have to throw out such passages as 2 Pet. 1:3; 2 Tim. 3:16,17; Heb. 1:1,2; etc. Rather than giving much thought to E.S.P., “set your affections on things above, not on things on the earth” (Col. 3:2).

2. Can E.S.P. give me more knowledge of’ God’s will than Bible study? I am firmly convinced that the Bible is God’s inspired revealed will of God. The only way I can understand His desire and command is to study His word. Peter said “According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called you to glory and virtue” (2 Pet. 1:3). The prophet Hosea stated, “My people are destroyed. for lack of knowledge . . . ” (Hos. 4:6). Which is best, study or waiting for special powers to learn God’s will. Jesus stated that we must hear, be taught, and learn of the Father (Jn. 6:44,45). Waiting for F.S.P. to give me more knowledge will be a long wait.

3. Will E.S.P. help convert the lost to Christ? Each child of God has a responsibility to convert the lost (Jn. 15-1-8; Mk. 16:15,16; Ezek. 3:18-21, etc.). If E.S.P. were to help in converting the lost I would say it has a good use. However, in New Testament time the apostle Paul declared that the “gospel” was God’s power for salvation. I believe the same is true today.

What then should the christian do about E.S.P.? “Wherefore the rather brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall; For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:10,11).

Truth Magazine XX: 45, pp. 717-718
November 11, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Wisconsin: “Were the apostles baptized in water? During a recent rather lively Bible class, we all seemed to agree that what the Apostles did has no direct affect on our salvation. However, one non-Christian has challenged a member to prove that the Apostles were baptized in water, if water baptism is all that important.

“But back to the question, the class ended with two mutually exclusive positions on the Apostles. One, that they were set in the church miraculously and did not need to be baptized in water; and, two, that the only way anyone can receive the forgiveness of sins is after water baptism, including the Apostles. Your comments would be appreciated.”

Reply:

This is a controversial question. It has, however, no bearing on the importance of baptism. The challenge raised by this “non-Christian” is similar in design and intent to the old question, “But what about the thief on the cross?” Suppose none of the apostles were baptized. How does that alter Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned?” The answer to whether or not the apostles were baptized does not prove anything relative to the significance of water baptism for penitent believers today.

“Set In The Church”

Many believe the apostles were “set in the church miraculously and did not need to be baptized in water.” Their proof text is 1 Cor. 12:28. “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings helps, governments, diversities of tongues. ” If this proves the apostles were “set in the church miraculously,” it proves the same for prophets and teachers. The text says they were “set in the church” as certainly as the apostles. Were they, too, “set in” without the need “to be baptized in water?”

Further, in 1 Cor. 12:18, Paul said, “But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.” If verse 28 proved the apostles were “set in the church miraculously and did not need to be baptized in water,” why does not this verse prove that all members are “set in the church” before and without water baptism?

1 Cor. 12:18,28 do not deal with the method or the “how” of gaining entrance into the church. Verse 13 does this. “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” All members of the body were indeed “set” by the Lord, but it is verse 13 that tells us how they were “set in” the body, the church. Verses 18 and 28 refer to God’s arrangement of the functions in the body as the entire context clearly reveals. The duties are prescribed of God. Some have one place in the body while others have another. It is the ranking or ordering of the Lord who sets or arranges them ” as it hath pleased him” (1 Cor. 12:11,18,28).

“Were The Apostles Baptized In Water?”

Peter and Andrew were disciples of John the Baptist (Jn. 1:35). As such, they had been baptized in water. Jesus also made and baptized disciples (Jn. 4:1,2). The apostles were disciples. “He called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles” (Lk. 6:13). Those who refused John’s baptism “rejected God’s purpose for themselves” (Lk. 7:30-NASB). So, surely, the apostles. were baptized in water. This answers the question so far as it goes, but the implications are more extensive.

The real issue here is, “Were the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Lk. 24:47; Acts 2:38)? One of them was. Paul was told to, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). “And he . . . arose, and was baptized” (Acts 9:18). But what of those baptized of John or Jesus before the cross? Were they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins? This is the knotty, controversial portion of this query. There are at least two views.

1) Those baptized by John before the cross did not need to be baptized as per Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16, If this outlook be correct, it does not negate or mitigate against the importance of baptism. This view states that John’s preaching of repentance and baptism were prepatory to entrance into the kingdom. John baptized “for the remission of sins” (Mk. 1:4), and those thus immersed were inducted into the kingdom on the day of Pentecost.

2) Those baptized by John before the cross also were baptized under the “great commission ” of Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16.

None should be overly dogmatic about either view.

“But What About Acts 19?”

The disciples in Acts 19:1-5 knew only the baptism of John. They were likely disciples taught by Apollos (Acts 18:2426). It appears they were baptized “unto John’s baptism” after the Pentecost of Acts 2. Hence, the need to be “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 119:5). If it is granted they received John’s baptism postPentecost, this text is not germane to the issue before us. Our question involves only those legitimately baptized under John’s baptism. However, it is noteworthy that Paul said John urged that his disciples should believe on Christ which should come after him (John). Does not belief on Christ include obedience to His gospel?

Questions For Study

“Some questions may serve to get before you what we mean: (1) Did the baptism of John constitute the new birth? (2) Did John’s disciples enter the kingdom without the nlew birth? (3) Did John’s baptism make Christians? (4) Did it put men into Christ? (5) Was it in the name of the crucified and risen Lord? Paul settles this question in Acts 19, rather Luke settles it, in these words: ‘When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.’ If John’s baptism had been ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus,’ it would have hardly been necessary to say that.

“John’s baptism was temporary and provisional. It lasted until the baptism of the Great Commission, and there it ended, just as definitely and certainly as has the law of Moses.

“Whatever relationships existed under the law of Moses ended with the abrogation of the law. Would not the same hold true in respect to those blessings brought about by the baptism of John? The baptism of the Great Commission is for the remission of sins, but it also establishes us in a relationship where we may continue to receive pardon for sins committed after baptism. John also baptized for remission of sins. Did that baptism put them into a relationship through which they could continue to receive forgiveness of sins after the new covenant began? and after the baptism of John had ceased?” (Luther Blackmon, Gospel Advocate, “The Baptism of John,” April 22, 1948, p. 389). I think not.

This question may never be settled to the satisfaction of everyone. It is a moot question. It has no bearing on our salvation. Let no one be unduly disturbed about it. Surely, Christians will not be alienated by pushing it to the point of strife, contention and division. Regardless of one’s view, he must continue to press and preach the necessity of baptism for sinners today (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38, 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21).

Truth Magazine XX: 45, pp. 716-717
November 11, 1976

By Roy E. Cogdill

Men bear fruit by their lives, in their teaching, and even from their attitudes comes forth fruit that is often discernible and distinct. The liberal movement among brethren about which we frequently have something to say is the result of an attitude toward the Word of God. This is the real essence of the institutional movement. As long as men have respect for the Word of God and reverence for the authority of Christ they will not make every excuse in the entire catalog of human imagination for departures from the simplicity of the Gospel.

“Shortly before the turn of the present century, a movement originated in the church of Christ that resulted in what is commonly known as the Christian Church. The idea is quite generally wide-spread that the cause of this schism and resultant division was Instrumental music in the worship and societies in the work of the church. Technically speaking, this is incorrect. True, these were major differences between those who adhered to the original pattern of things and those who went out from us: yet Instrumental music and the societies were effects rather than causes.

“Dr. A. W. Fortune, some time professor of the College of the Bible, and ‘Pastor’ of the ‘Central Christian Church,’ of Lexington, Kentucky, in his book, ‘The Disciples in Kentucky,’ sets forth as grounds for the division, the following: ‘The controversies through which the Disciples have passed from the beginning to the present time have been the result of two different interpretations of their mission. There have been those who believed it is the spirit of the New Testament church that should be restored and in our method of working the church must adapt itself to changing conditions. There have been those who regarded the New Testament church as a fixed pattern for all time, and our business is to hold rigidly to that pattern regardless of consequences. Because of these two attitudes, conflicts were inevitable (Page 383).

“This, we believe, is a fair and impartial statement of the divergence of views that obtained then, and are now characteristic of the two groups. Because of these differences in attitude, it was, as Dr. Fortune suggests, inevitable that division should come; and it came shortly before the turn of the present century. Those who had worked and worshiped together in the effort to plant again the Cause of Primitive Christianity in a land torn by division and cursed by denominationalism, divided themselves, and the result was that another denomination came into existence! Ironically enough, those whose avowed mission in life was the utter destruction of all denominationalism, became but another denomination, and thus built again the things they had once destroyed! Today the Christian Church admits its denominational status, and glories in the fact!

“Instrumental music and the societies were simply symptoms of the disease that lurked unseen; outward manifestations of an inward attitude wholly foreign to that which had characterized the Restoration movement in its inception. Nor did this difference in attitude originate with this movement. It is the same as that which occasioned the famous controversy between Luther and Zwingli-whether we are at liberty to do anything not expressly forbidden, as Luther contended, or are bound by what is written and must therefore do no(hing for which there is not a ‘thus saith the Lord,’ or ail approved apostolic precedent, as Zwingli contended. This, too, is the point of issue between those who insist that the Bible and the Bible alone is a sufficient rule of faith and practice, and those who consider it a book of principles only, and therefore to be made adaptable to changing times and conditions. The former have always repudiated creeds, confessions of faith and church manuals, while the latter have not hesitated to advocate them, indeed, to urge them as legitimate instruments to adapt the truth to present day conditions. This is the door through which instrumental music, missionary societies, creeds, infant baptism, sprinkling and pouring as substitutes for baptism, and many other things adinittedly not taught in the New Testament, were brought in. While all have not been so frank as Mr. Beecher, the eminent denominational preacher of an earlier generation, who said that he practiced infant baptism for the same reason that he used an ox yoke-he had tried them and both worked-it is yet a fact that this is the real reason why so many things unauthorized by the Scriptures are practiced without question, today.

“Such an attitude is, of course, wholly foreign to that which characterized those who launched the restoration movement. The pioneers of the faith were determined to do nothing for which there is no expressed command, or approved precedent; and they were willing to speak only when the Scriptures speak and be silent when the Scriptures are silent. So long as these principles were adhered to, unity prevailed, and the Cause of Primitive Christianity spread with a rapidity equaled only by that of the apostolic age. The Christian Church of today is, therefore, a total apostasy from the teaching of Campbell, Stone, Scott and others. This, we believe, will not be seriously questioned by those who belong to that institution. Certainly, they who boast of their denominational status will not insist on maintaining harmonious views with a man who made a daily paper in New Orleans publish a correction of a former s(atenient in which he was declared to be the ‘head and founder of a great denomination,’ as Mr. Campbell did. Said Mr. Campbell: ‘You do me too much honor, I have always repudiated all human names and heads for the people of the Lord.’ Contrast this with the following statement front ‘Dr. Harwood Miller,’ recently installed as ‘permanent pastor’ of the National City Christian Church: ‘Deno in inat ions and sects are not wholly or even largely the product of human pride and prejudice and unbrotherliness-a thing entirely wrong could not long endure by the devotion of men-it is unthinkable to condemn all sectarianism as sinful.

“The real cause of division in the body of Christ was therefore, an abandonment of the principles that had hitherto motivated us. Those who no longer looked upon the New Testament as an all-sufficient guide and rule of faith and practice did not scruple to demand things unauthorized therein; while those who clung tenaciously to the allsufficiency of the Scriptures, as stoutly resisted them; and division was, therefore, inevitable. This, indeed, has been the cause of all departures since the apostolic age. Those who regard the Bible as a complete revelation for all time cannot, in conscience add to, or take from, its teaching, in the smallest particular; while those who view it only as a mass of raw principles to be worked into shape to fit changing conditions, are not restrained by the injunctions it contains against adding to or taking from the Word.”

The above quoted paragraphs are taken from a tract entitled “Causes of Digression” published by the Gospel Broadcast of Dallas, Texas. This tract was written by-of all things-Guy N. Woods, now chief hatchet man for the “Gospel Advocate”-the chief medium for the promotion of human institutions among the brethren of this generation. The case against the position Woods now occupies and the Advocate now advocates could not be made out better. Another denomination is emerging or has already emerged and division has “inevitably” come again. The causes are the same as they were in the division that gave rise to the denomination “The Christian Church” at the “turn of the century.” Once again it is true that “benevolent societies,” “Christian Educational Societies,” human federations like the “Herald of Truth” and “Campaigns for Christ,” and a multitude of other departures from New Testament pattern and authority are only symptoms of the disease and not the real cause. The real cause lies this time also in a difference in attitude toward the Word of God and divine authority.

Those who reject all of these human institutional arrangements in the work of the Lord’s Church stand now where Guy N. Woods and others allied with him in this digression stood before-clinging “Tenaciously to the all sufficiency of the Scriptures”-and still willing to “speak only when the Scriptures speak and be silent when the Scriptures are silent.” Brother Woods and multitudes of brethren who once stood where we stand have accepted the doctrine of the Christian Church and are now among those “who consider it a book of principles only, and therefore to be made adaptable to changing times and conditions.” To put it in Brother Woods’ words again, “The real cause of division in the body of Christ was (is) therefore, an abandonment of the principles that had hitherto motivated us.”

Truth Magazine XX: 45, pp. 714-715
November 11, 1976

By Arthur M. Ogden

This is the fifth Article in a series on “Women Teachers.” In the four previous Articles, I have sought to show that the truth on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 permits Christian women to teach classes of other women and children. These two passages do not forbid it.

In this the final study in this series, I am turning my attention to a consideration of some positions taken by some of our brethren on the subject before us, which I feel are out of harmony with the truth. These arguments are “Wells Without Water” and hinder the cause of truth. I assure you, that the things presented for consideration in this article are not intended just to find fault. They are presented that you might prayerfully consider them for their merit, with the hope that by logic and reason, we can come to present an impregnable front to the force of error. I beg you to consider them carefully in the same spirit with which they are written. If they are in error, feel free to call them to my attention.

Public and Private

I once attended a debate on the subject of “Women Teachers,” in which about half of the time was spent trying to prove that the real point at issue was whether Bible Classes are public or private. The disputants argued for hours on the point. Both must have been under the impression that Paul said, “I suffer not a woman to teach in public,” and “Let your women keep silence in public.” The Bible does not read that way, however, and I suggest that until it does, there is absolutely no reason to discuss the point.

Call Bible Classes public or private, it does not matter. It has nothing to do with the issue. The truth is, Christian women are not permitted to violate their submission to man anywhere, whether public or private, and she can teach anywhere, whether public or private, that does not place her in the position of addressing the assembly of the whole church (1 Cor. 14:34-35), and that does not place her in a position of ignoring her submission to man (1 Tim. 2:11-12).

Arguing the issue over public and private with those who are opposed to “Women Teachers” is a serious mistake. First of all, you join hands with the false teachers, saying, “in public” is what qualifies 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and 1 Timothy 2:11-12. That is an error within itself. It is a disaster to try and qualify these passages with “in public” as we have already seen. Secondly, you find yourself in an endless battle of meaningless words which prove nothing. The words public and private are relative words and their meaning cannot be pinpointed to be absolute. So, what may be in one sense public, may in another sense be private. According to Webster’s definitions of public and private, Bible Classes may be considered as both. I have found in my experience that the admission of the fact that Bible Classes are public is a thorn in the flesh to the opposition. Since most of their arguments are based upon Bible Classes being public, they are at a loss for words when you admit that they are public.

The Prophet’s Wives

Many brethren have been arguing for years that in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul is talking about the “prophet’s wives,” and since we have no prophets today, the passage is not binding. The argument is based upon the premise that Paul had been addressing the prophets (v. 29-33), and since he says, “let your women” in verse 34, it is felt that he is speaking of the prophet’s wives. Support is also found for this position in Paul’s statement, “let them ask their husbands at home” (v. 35).

I find great dissatisfaction in this argument. First, because it is built upon false premises, and second, because it ignores plain statements. The premise that Paul is addressing the prophets is false. Nowhere in these verses does Paul direct his remarks to the prophets. We must go all the way back to verse 26 to find those addressed. “How is it then, brethren?” The remarks following are directed to the brethren regarding the tongue-speakers, the prophets, and the women. The brethren were to “let the prophets speak” (v. 29), and “let your women keep silence” (v. 34). The brethren were to regulate order in this assembly (v. 40). This involved bringing their (“your”) women “under obedience” to “keep silence in the churches.” “Your women” were the women of the church, and it included all Christian women, for Paul said, “It is a shame for women to speak in the church” (v. 35). To limit this passage to the prophet’s wives is to ignore the fact that the command covers every Christian woman.

Let us suppose for a moment that the application of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was just to the prophet’s wives. Would that not mean that all other Christian women were not under the restrictions of the passage? Could all other women speak in the church? If not, why not? And if not, what is the point of the prophet’s wives argument? Can christian women today speak in the churches? If not, why not? And again, what is the point of the prophet’s wives argument?

1 Timothy 2:11-12 is usually cited as the passage that will not permit christian women to speak in the assembly today. This passage does not silence women. We all recognize that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 permits women to teach, as long as she does not violate her submission to man. I maintain that a woman can ask a question, answer a question, read scripture, and make a comment, even in a Bible Class where men are present as long as she is not ignoring her place of submission to man. Most of you agree with that too, but how many of you would let a woman read a scripture from her seat just before we oberve the Lord’s supper? How many would allow her to make a comment from her seat after reading the scripture? Would you permit a woman the same liberty in the assembly of the whole church, that you permit her in the classroom? Before you throw 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 out the window on the shoulders of the prophet’s wives, I believe it would be wise to consider the consequences of your position.

Inspired Women

Others have been contending that the women of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 were “inspired women,” and since we have no inspired women today, the passage is not applicable. This position is based upon the premise that all of those regulated in the chapter were inspired.

I have previously referred to this position in Article 2, “1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Is It Binding Today?” I pointed out in that article that this conclusion is based upon an assumption, which is not inferred, much less necessarily inferred. In fact, Paul’s statement in verse 35 precludes this position, for he said, “it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” He did not say, “inspired women.”

Inconsistencies

In Article 3, “1 Corinthians 14: Truth, The Roadblock to Errors,” I made mention of the fact that we do not have the right to take the regulations given to govern commanded things, and use them to regulate the realm of expediency. This is to extend a thing beyond its legitimate bounderies. To illustrate my point, the Lord commanded the use of the cup (Matt. 26:27-29). There can be only one element, the fruit of the vine. It is specified, and must be observed. The container is not specified. It comes within the realm of expediency. Which kind, and how many are left to human judgment. We understand that it is wrong to apply the rule for determining the element to the realm of expediency.

Applying these principles to 1 Corinthians 14, we find that the regulations of the chapter are commanded, and are designed to control a divine arrangement. Bible Classes are a human arrangement. They are not commanded. They are simply an expedient method of grouping people in order to teach them the Word of God. The only rules governing them are those rules which govern the realm of expediency (1 Cor. 10:23), and those commands which have generic application. For that reason, there is not one single rule in 1 Corinthians 14 that applies to the Bible Class arrangement. Some brethren wish to apply the rules of verses 28-30 to the Bible Classes, but will not apply verses 34-35. That is an inconsistency. The truth of the matter is, none of those regulations apply to the Bible Class arrangement.

“As Also Saith The Law”

Paul says that the women are to keep silence because they “are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law” (1 Cor. 14:34). Many rightly contend that the principles of “obedience” as taught by Paul in this verse, is the same principle taught in the law from the beginning. Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21), Deborah (Judges 4:46; 5:7), Huldah (2 Chron. 34; 2 Kings 22), and Anna (Lk. 2:36-38) are cited as examples of women who taught (even men) without violating this principle.

I hesitate mentioning this argument because it has some merit. My main objection to the argument is that I consider any appeal to the Old Testament to prove anything under the New Testament, a weak argument (Gal. 5:4). Even if we proved that women could teach under the Old Testament without violating the principle of “obedience” we still would not have proved they could do it today. It is also weak, because it places one in the position of having to justify other things done hy those Old Testament women which are not permitted of christian women. Never give a man a board with which to beat you.

New Testament Women

Rhoda, Lydia, Euodias, and Syntyche are often cited as proof that Christian women can teach. These examples actually teach nothing about the scripturalness of women teaching. What Lydia did after she became a Christian, I do not know, and what she did before she became one, certainly could not help me to understand what christian women can do. Rhoda “constantly affirmed” (Acts 12:15) before a group of christians that Peter was at the door, but I do not know who was present, nor whether she sinned or not. I do know that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 teach that if Rhoda did not sin, it was because she was not in the assembly of the church, and did not exercise authority over any man. But that is all I know. Euodias and Syntyche “labored with me (Paul) in the gospel” (Phil. 4:2), but I do not know what they did. What they did was approved, but I do not know what it was. So, you see, I cannot use them to prove that christian women can teach classes of other women or children. We must go elsewhere to prove that women can teach.

Conclusion

Other examples of “Wells Without Water” could be cited, but these are sufficient. It is my honest opinion that in dealing with false teachers, we should make arguments that are strong and that cannot be answered by [he opposition. We must use reasoning that proves the point, and that does not prove too much. “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). May God help us to study, understand, and rightly use His Word.

Truth Magazine XX: 45, pp. 712-714
November 11, 1976