Truth Magazine

By Guthrie Dean

Psychology and psychiatry are changing their hypothesis with reference to homosexuality. At one time it was difficult to convict a criminal because some psychiatrist was trying to either prove him sick or insane. One caught stealing was not a thief, he was bothered with kleptomania, so the doctor affirmed, One was not a drunkard, he was somewhat of an alcoholic, however. A sex maniac was not really a criminal, he was just a little sick. But now the hypothesis is changing. With reference to homosexuality, Dr. Richard Green, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of California Medical School, is quoted as saying: “The current thinking of psychology and psychiatry, (is that) homosexuality is considered only a variant of sexual behavior and not a sickness.” (Arkansas Gazette, Thursday, November 15, 1973). Well, so they’ve changed again. It moved from sin, to sickness, to only a variant of sexual behavior. And already tons of books are being printed and circulated trying to prove that homosexuality is not a variant but only the normal way for a minority of the people to behave. So all of this psychology and psychiatry business proves nothing when it comes to sin. Drunkenness is sin, stealing is sin, murder is sin, and sexual immorality is sin. No label and no changing hypothesis can change that fact. Psychology makes its first mistake when it tries to treat man’s needs while leaving man’s soul out of the picture. Sin is a soul-damning practice and must be dealt with as such. And “the soul that sinneth it shall die” (Ezek. 18:4).

Truth Magazine XX: 41, p. 653
October 14, 1976

By Arthur M. Ogden

The role of Christian women in the service of God has been one of concern to the people of God since the church began. We are still concerned today and I thank God for it, When the time comes that we cannot be aroused to study this issue, we will be in real trouble as far as other vital issues are concerned. A brother recently wrote, “I . . . note that this and related questions are being discussed more lately, and I believe it is a good thing.” I heartily agree. We should always be interested in this and all other Bible subjects and study them to the fullest.

I believe the interest in the subject of “women teachers” is the highest it has been for years. Perhaps the reasons for this are twofold: (1) A new generation of Christians need to have the long standing questions of yesteryear answered to their satisfaction as did past generations, and (2) an element of opposition to “women teachers” has arisen with strong voices challenging our liberty in Christ which permits women to be teachers within certain boundaries. Cries for answers and for help are coming from many quarters. These cries should be heeded.

. For the past thirteen years, I have lived in a section where the questions have been many and the opposition strong. Many long hours have been spent in search of the Truth on the subject, so that the questions could be answered and the opposition met. In this and coming issues of Truth Magazine, I shall discuss with you this issue as thoroughly as I possibly can. Attention is to be given to scriptural affirmations of women’s role in teaching, as well as to a full discussion of those passages which restrict them in teaching, You are asked to weigh carefully the views expressed in these articles by the scriptures. I believe them to be the Truth, and that they will stand the test of the fiercest storm. They have already been tested and tried by the meticulous scrutiny of the opposition’s strongest advocates, men who are capable of uncovering the slightest flaw in any argument, and they have stood the test without one single serious challenge being registered against them. The truth will always stand.

The Charge of the Great Commission

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:19-20). This is the commission given by the Lord to the Apostles after His resurrection and before His ascension to heaven. There are three parts to the commission and women are included in all three:

(1) The Apostles were commanded to “Go teach all nations, baptizing them.” Women were baptized (Acts 8:12), so therefore, women are included on the first part of the great commission.

(2) The Apostles were commanded to teach those who were baptized. Since women were included on the first part, to be baptized, they are likewise included on the second part, to be taught after being baptized.

(3) The Apostles were to teach those baptized “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” and since the Lord was in the process of giving them the commandment of the great commission, women were included on the third part, to “go teach all nations.” Women, therefore, by nature of their inclusion in the great commission are commanded to teach.

Paul’s Charge to Timothy

“And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Though it be in reverse, this charge is the same as that of the great commission. It too may be divided into three parts:

(1) What to teach. “The things heard of me” (Paul). There should be no question but that Paul referred to the completeness of God’s revelation to him (cf. 2 Tim. 1: 13; 3:14-17).

(2) Who to teach. “Commit . . . to faithful anthr6pois (men),” human beings, whether males or females (J.H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 46). Timothy was to teach faithful christians to teach. Paul did not say, “Commit . , . to faithful andras (males).” If he had said males he would have excluded women from the charge, and I suggest that if he had intended to exclude women from the charge, he would have said andras (males). But instead he used anthropois (human beings) and by so doing, included women in the charge to be taught to teach.

(3) Why to teach. “Who shall be able to teach others also.” Isn’t this identical to the great commission? Faithful christians are to be taught to teach others.

A careful study of the scriptures will show that women can teach some others. She can teach by singing (Col. 3:16); be a teacher of good things (Tit. 2:3-5); teach her children (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14-15); and even teach men under some circumstances (Acts 18:26). Are we to conclude that women can, or cannot be taught to do this teaching? Some would have us believe that women are excluded from 2 Timothy 2:2. If they are excluded, we must of necessity exclude them from Matthew 28:1920, and Titus 2:3-5 also. It would also drive them from every place where teaching is done, lest they learn what to teach. This is the end to which error drives one.

Women are Limited

It should be observed that if women are not limited in their work of teaching, they could teach any body, anytime, and under any condition. They would have been included in the two above charges to the same degree that men were. But the word of God limits them. (1) They are to “keep silence in the churches” (1 Cor. 14:34-35), and (2) they are not “to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man” (1 Tim. 2:12). While these two restrictions limit her in teaching, they do not stop her. She can teach anybody, anytime, anywhere, and under any condition that does not place her in the position of addressing the assemblies described in 1 Corinthians 14, and that does not cause her to violate her submission to man as described in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

The Charge Implemented

In Titus 2:1-10, the charge of Matthew 28:19-20, and 2 Timothy 2:2 is implemented by commandment to Titus. Read it carefully. You will notice that Paul identifies five classes of Christians, and makes provisions for them to be taught: aged men, aged women, young women, young men, and servants. It is right to classify people according to age status, etc. Titus was instructed to teach four of the five classes. Where? When? What method? What arrangement? Paul did not say, so therefore, these matters were left to human judgement. Who and what to teach were not matters of judgment however. They were commanded, but within the scope of the commands given, generic authority prevails and allows or permits the methods and arrangements, even the implementation of the principles of 2 Timothy 2:2.

The aged or older women were commanded to teach the younger women. Without question, women are commanded to teach. They are to be “teachers of good things; that they may teach the young women . . . ” (v. 3-4). When? Where? What method? What arrangement? Paul did not say, and therefore, these matters are again left to human judgment, and women may fulfill their commanded duty according to the fullness of their ability ai anytime, and in any place, and under any condition that does not place her in a position of violating either 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 or 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

Christian Women of the New Testament

A number of Christian women are mentioned in the New Testament and commended for their part in the spread of the gospel. It should be remembered that every one of these women were under the restrictions of the law of Christ, and if they so labored without violating the law of God, then Christian women today, at the same time, and in the same place, and under the same conditions can likewise work without violating the restrictions of God’s law.

(1) Christian women prophesied (Acts 2:17; 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:1-5). These women under the guidance of divine inspiration exhorted, edified, and comforted (1 Cor. 14:3), but they did not do it in the assemblies of the whole church (1 Cor. 14:34-35), but they did not do it where it caused them to violate their submission to man (1 Tim. 2:11-12). I maintain that christian women today can do the same things without violating any passage of scripture. You must conclude that, or be forced to the position that God endowed christian women to violate His law.

(2) Priscilla assisted her husband, Aquila, in teaching Apollos (Acts 18:26). She was not in the assembly of 1 Corinthians 14, and therefore was permitted to have a part in this teaching, as long as she did not ignore her place of submission as taught in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

(3) Phoebe was appointed by the church at Cenchrea to do a work, and Paul gave his approval by encouraging the brethren at Rome “to receive her,” and “assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you” (Rom. 16:1-2). While we do not know what her business was, we do know that it was right for the church to appoint her to do this work, and that she could do it without sin.

(4) Rhoda, Dorcas, Syntyche, Euodias, and others could be mentioned, none of which were rebuked for the work performed. Women may therefore, work diligently in the service of God, even by teaching others, and do it within the framework of the law of Christ without violating the restrictions placed upon them. Do not neglect your duty to God, dear sisters, just because some false teacher keeps shouting, “women are forbidden to teach.” “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

In our next article, we shall discuss, “1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Is It Binding Today?”

Truth Magazine XX: 41, pp. 651-652
October 14, 1976

By Mike Willis

In the May, 1976 issue of Restoration Review, editor Leroy Garrett considered another one of the passages which are supposedly abused by the brethren. Of course, the only ones who abuse the Bible in the manner described by Garrett are those of us who oppose unauthorized innovations; the Christian Church people who introduced the innovations were never guilty of abusing the word of God. At least, Brother Garrett never cites any of their abuses; instead, he concentrates on the abuses of those who oppose unauthorized perversions of the worship and work of the church. His purpose is blatantly obvious: he is trying to disarm every passage which we use to ward off the false teacher. So, he turns again to consider another passage; for this month, he chose 1 Cor. 1:10. Here is the verse:

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the, same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye he perfectly joined together in the same mind and In the same judgment.

Here is Garrett’s understanding of how we abuse this passage:

Does this passage enjoin believers to see everything in the Bible alike? Does it teach that we must see eye to eye on all points of doctrine, that there can be no honest differences of opinion?

This is what we are told. We must all speak the same thing! If we study prophecy in the Old Covenant scriptures, we must come up with identical positions . . . .

On and on it goes, almost endlessly. We have to speak “the same thing” on whether congregations may cooperate and on what basis (A division has occurred In last two decades over the support of Herald of Truth TV/ Radio). We have to speak “the same thing” on instrumental music, otherwise the division must continue another century.(1)

If in your study of this passage, you understand that Christ demands Christians to speak the same thing, your interpretation of that passage is an abuse of it, according to Garrett.

1 Corinthians 1:10

Before going any further with a review of Garrett’s material, let us carefully examine what 1 Cor. 1:10 actually teaches.

Now I beseech you, brethren (parakalo de humas, adelphoi). The particle de is adversative to contrast the things for which Paul was thankful (1:4-9) with the problems with which he must now contend. Parakalo (I beseech) does not connote “to beg” as much as it does “to exhort.” Paul frequently introduced his exhortations with parakalo (Rom. 12:1; 2 Cor. 10:1; 1 Thess. 4:1; etc.). The apostle does not forget that, though guilty of promoting separations, all of the body are brethren.(2) In using this word, Paul is appealing to their better senses; the Corinthians recognize that they are all born again of the same Father. Why, then, should they be divided?

By the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (din tou onomatos . . . Christou). Every morsel of respect which the Corinthians had for Jesus is summoned by Paul to call upon them to listen to what he had to say. His authority over them as an apostle was through Jesus Christ. The basis on which he appeals for their unity is Jesus Himself. They should want to be reconciled to one another because Jesus wants them to be united. He prayed, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (Jn. 17:20-21). Thus, Paul related this earthly problem to their spiritual relationship with Jesus; the Corinthians could not maintain their allegiance to Christ and allow the congregation at Corinth to be divided.

That ye all speak the same thing (hina to auto legete pantes’). “We have here a strictly classical expression. It is used of political communities which are free from factions, or of different states which entertain friendly relations with each other. Thus to auto legein is ‘to be at peace,’ or ‘to make up differences.’ . . . Here the second idea to make up differences is the prominent one, and is carried out in katertismenol below, where the same political metaphor is used . . . The marked classical coloring of such passages as this leaves a much stronger impression of St. Paul’s acquaintance with classical writers than the rare occasional quotations which occur in his writings.”(3)Obviously, the appeal for the brethren to “speak the same thing” is to be contrasted with the existing state of affairs in Corinth: “I am of Paul; I of Apollos; I of Cephas; and I of Christ.” The confused state of affairs could not be tolerated; brethren must learn to “speak the same the same thing.”

And that there may be no divisions among you (kai me e en humin schismata). Schisma (division) was originally used to designate a tear in a piece of material such as might be caused by putting new wine into old wine skins (Mt. 9:16; Mk. 2:21). Then, the word was used to refer to the state of a community which occurs when different opinions which threaten its unity exist in it as, for example, existed in Judaism when different opinions were entertained concerning Jesus (Jn. 7:43; 9:16; 10:19). Thus, the Corinthian church was not formally divided although the differing doctrines and attitudes constituted definite tears in the community which could easily lead to an open breach of fellowship. The existence of the differing ideas in the church which threaten to disrupt the fellowship of the church cannot be ignored or tolerated. They are dangerous and must be curtailed. The manner in which Paul mentioned the schisms in this verse (e-pres. subj. of eimi) does not definitely state whether the schisms were actually present in Corinth; he waits until v. 11 to emphatically charge them with division.

But that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (ete de katerismenoi en to auto noi kai en te aute gnome). Paul continued his metaphor of the torn garment, a classical political metaphor, to describe the church at Corinth. The word “perfectly joined together” (katerismenos) is used to describe the repairing of torn fishing nets (Mt. 4:21; Mk. 1:19). Thus, Paul is instructing the Corinthians to re-sew the torn cloth that it may be restored to its original beauty, i.e. to mend the tears in the congregation caused by the differing opinions existing among them. Twentieth century Christians have been exposed to a divided Christianity so long that they not only accept it but also praise it. Some see virtues arising out of denominationalism (e.g. competition in evangelizing, a religious group fitted to every man, etc.). God does not appreciate rifts in Christianity anymore today than He did in 58 A.D. The church must never forget that preserving and restoring the unity of the body of Christ is still a part of its divine mission.

Several current theories for overcoming the divisions among Christianity completely ignore the divine instructions given in this verse regarding how to have unity in the body of Christ. The ecumenical movement, for example, encourages a “unity in diversity” basis of unity. The diversity to be tolerated ranges from evangelical churches to non-Christian religions. Others have sought union on the basis of some type of super organization such as the Catholic Church. Inside the Churches of Christ, some are presently promoting an ecumenical movement to reconcile the divisions among us. Like their denominational counterpart, these men are tolerant of doctrinal differences which range from the Disciples of Christ (the body which has within its fellowship modernists who deny the deity of Christ, the inspiration of the Scriptures, miracles, etc.) to the radical right-wing churches (such as the no Bible class, no located preacher, and no literature groups, etc.). This type of unity is one which ignores the issues which divided us and ignores Paul’s instructions for unity given in this verse.

Although noos (mind) and gn6mi (judgment) are synonyms,(4) they have distinctive meanings. Some understand mind to refer to theoretical understanding and judgment to be practical life. This distinction, though not totally inaccurate, is not sufficiently precise. The noos refers to the Christian way of thinking. The same word is used in 2:16 (the noos of Christ) to refer to the revelation delivered to the apostles by the Holy Spirit. Thus, when Paul urges the Christians to be of the same mind, he is urging them to have the mind of Christ, i.e. to accept the Christian revelation as the final authority in settling religious questions. The gn6me(judgment) refers to the manner of deciding a particular issue in question.(5)

Let me illustrate how the unity of the church can be maintained on the basis of Paul’s advice given in this verse. The question we shall consider is this: What is the action of baptism (baptisma)? Everybody must approach the matter with the same mind (noos); the inspired scriptures will be the final authority in answering the question. Approaching the matter in this way, the people studying the question turn to the Bible for guidance. Inasmuch as the Bible does not teach a multitude of doctrines on the subject and it is able to be understood, the different people will reach the one conclusion: Baptisma is immersion in water. Having reached the same conclusion (gnome), the body will all give the same answer (speak the same). In this manner, the unity of the church can be attained. So long as matters not authorized in the scriptures are not brought into the work and worship of the church there will be no divisions in the body of Christ. Scriptural unity can be attained or maintained only so long as brethren follow Paul’s instructions presented in this verse. Our first work is not to arrive at unity, but to conform ourselves to the standard of Divine Truth. Just as the unity of a choir is not gained by each singer striving to keep in harmony with his neighbor but by all following the prescribed notes of music, so also the unity of the Lord’s church can be attained only by all of us conforming to the revelation which He has given to us.

Having carefully worked our way through every phase of 1 Cor. 1:10, I think that we can appreciate and understand what the apostle taught and also see that what Garrett said regarding the abuse of the Scripture is no abuse at all.

Consistency

Garrett’s second charge regarding 1 Cor. 1:10 is that no one applies the passage consistently. He wrote,

The truth is that 1 Cor. 1:10, as abused in this manner, never has been, is not now, nor will it every be consistently practiced by any believer. The reason is simple: it is impossible. You may as well talk about our cells or genes all being alike, or our fingerprints all being alike (the FBI would be disappointed). Men do not think exactly alike about anything, much less the Bible, and it is asinine to argue that the scriptures enjoin what is so obviously impossible. In their saner moments all our party leaders will grant that there may be some differences of opinion and that some allowance should be made for diversity. Such an admission is a repudiation of their interpretation of 1 Cor. 1:10, for If that verse means what they say, on what basis can they make exceptions to its application? If we have to see eye to eye on instrumental music In order to be united, why not on every other point as well?(6)

Hence, he charged us, first of all, with an inconsistent application of our principles. He who lives in glas houses should not be throwing stones. I remind you that Garrett-the man who does not believe that we have to see all doctrinal matters alike-is the very same ma who has written approvingly of the church divisions in Cleburne, Texas and other areas which divisions occurred because the brethren could not agree to say th same thing about unity! Hence, Garrett believes that one must speak the same thing when it comes to unity that is, all brethren must agree to unity in diversity or else he will divide the church over it. At least, he has written approvingly of several such divisions in the past.

To further illustrate Garrett’s own inconsistency please read the following:

If you accept Jesus as Lord and obey him in baptism, I am to receive you, warts and all. It matters not at all of how right or wrong you may be on instrumental music or whatever your hang up might be on Herald of Truth.

Thanks be to God that we do not have to see eye to eye on all these issues that we have used as excuses for being torn asunder into separate camps. But we are to speak the same thing in reference to the Lordship of Jesus-the one faith, the one Lord, the one baptism.(7)

Notice that Garrett demands that all men believe in the Lordship of Jesus and baptism before they can be united. I have never seen any of these “unity-in-diversity” men who consistently applied their own principles. If unity in diversity is true, why must we agree that Jesus is the Son of God? Why can’t we go ahead and be one in spite of our differences over this matter? After all, it is impossible for all men to see everything just alike. “You might as well talk about our cells or genes being alike, or our fingerprints all being alike (the FBI would be disappointed). Men do not think exactly alike about anything (not even about whether Jesus is the Son of God-mw), much less the Bible, and it is asinine to argue that the scriptures enjoin what is so obviously impossible.” My brethren, the principles which must be conceded to accept unity in diversity will ultimately lead to universalism!

Garrett also charged us with another inconsistency; he charged us with making Paul contradict himself.

That very letter of 1 Corinthians shows that Paul could not have had sameness of viewpoint in mind. In chapter 8 he recognizes that some of them had “knowledge” about idols while others did not. In the early verses he states that he and other believers realize that an idol is nothing, and so whether meat has been sacrificed to an idol doesn’t matter. Then he says In verse 7: “However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak is defiled.”

Why doesn’t he tell those who did not have this “knowledge” to get with it and line up? He recognizes that such differences can and will exist. People are different, not only In temperament and background, but in their ability to make distinctions. He finally says, “if food is a cause of my brother’s falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall.” Here he recognizes an understandable difference In doctrine. He does not insist upon conformity. He rather Insists that It Is love, not knowledge, that builds up, and In that love brothers are to bear with each other. Unity in diversity! There Is of course no other kind of unity, whether it be in a marriage, in a legislative body, or in a congregation.(8)

Hence, he said that Paul himself did not believe in unity in doctrine. However, I remind you that Paul demanded uniformity in belief concerning the resurrection and even demanded disassociation from those who disagree (15:33-34) and that he demanded that all agree with what he wrote concerning the order of worship demanding that all who would not accept his authority on the matter were not to be recognized (14:37-38.) If what Garrett said about 1 Cor. 1:10 and unity in diversity is true, Paul did a poor job of following his own advice!

But, why could Paul tolerate differences in opinion regarding eating meats sacrificed to idols? First of all, he did not always tolerate these differences. Paul absolutely forbade (hence, unity in doctrine) any Christian to eat meats sacrificed to idols in an idol’s temple (cf. 10:14-22. However, in cases where the eating of meats sacrificed to idols was morally neutral (i.e. it made no difference in one’s relationship to God whether one ate or did not eat), he allowed a brother either to eat or not to eat. Hence, in matters of indifference brethren do not have to agree. Before this passage can be of any benefit to Garrett, he must prove that instrumental music, missionary societies (whether under a sponsoring church or independent), church support of benevolent and educational institutions, etc. are matters of indifference.

Conclusion

Once again the editor of Restoration Review has attempted to remove another passage from our arsenal of defense to be used against false teachers. Brethren, wake up to what he and others are doing. The time to arm ourselves for the fight is now!

Endnotes

1. Leroy Garrett, “The Word Abused . . . That You All Speak The Same Thing,” Restoration Review, Vol. 18, No. 5 (May, 1976), p. 282.

2. Many troubles and faults were to be found among the Corinthians and yet these do not sever the fraternal tie that binds them to Paul. While this is true and dare not be minimized, a deduction such as the following would be wholly contrary to Paul’s intention: that congregations may settle down permanently into evil conditions like those which existed in Corinth without impairing their fraternal relations with Paul and with those who are true to the word of God. For this entire letter is directed to remove the faults and the evils that had begun to show themselves in Corinth.

3. J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles of St. Paul (London: Macmillan and Co., 1904), p. 151.

4. The writer in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament sees no difference in their meanings in this verse.

5. Cf. Godet, Meyer, Vincent, and others.

6. Garrett, cit., p. 283.

7. Ibid. p. 286.

8. Ibid., p. 284.

Truth Magazine XX: 41, pp. 647-650
October 14, 1976

By Ed Welch

A light shines in my eye.

I turn and see a pure, multi-faceted diamond laying on a black velvet cloth. The light that glitters from this precious jewel is from the sun.

I reach and grasp this jewel in my hand and draw it close to my eyes. There are many fine cuts arranged in order. For each cut (facet) there is an adjacent cut (52 in all). These act as mirrors to the bright light. As I look through one of these mirrors I can see the facets on the other side, all arranged in perfect order.

I draw back and marvel at this precious stone. It is complete, perfect, and precious. It is its own perfect description. Any attempt to describe how each facet related to all the rest would require many volumes, especially if a description of each cut was included. A complete written description would be long and boring, and it could not compare with the original jewel.

The written word of God can be compared to a perfect, multi-faceted diamond. Let’s appreciate this gem for what it is and thank our Lord for giving it to us.

As a cut diamond proves there is a diamond cutter; because of its pattern, the word of God proves there is a Writer because of its written pattern. From Genesis to Revelation the pattern is God’s plan of salvation for man. Man falls in Genesis because of the serpent. Man is saved through Christ and the serpent is defeated in Revelation. The pattern is obvious.

A diamond has many facets and they all relate to each other to form the whole pattern. The individual lessons of the Bible relate to each other to reveal God’s pattern for man. When we study a lesson we can always see fringes of other lessons touching it. As we look closer at a lesson, many lessons can be seen that do not touch directly on the lesson we are looking at. The lesson of the Ethiopian conversion is an example of this. Books could be written on other Bible conversions, yet volumes could be written on how the Ethiopian might have used what he learned from Philip to convert others in Ethiopia.

As we grasp this Bible and move it away from us, we see this jewel with its many lessons glittering back at us from the utter darkness of the world. This light does not glitter in our eyes but, in our hearts. The light from God reflects from His lessons. Nothing is as complete, precious, pure or indestructible as His word (except God).

This precious jewel is freely given to all (rich or poor). Let us grasp this volume, treasure it, apply its lessons in our lives and thus be saved through Christ.

Truth Magazine XX: 41, p. 647
October 14, 1976