Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

In our last article entitled “Who Should Be Baptized?”, we pointed out that infants were not subjects of baptism, for a subject or candidate of baptism must have the intellect capable of being taught, must be a believer in Christ, must repent of his sins, and must confess his faith with his mouth. An infant could not do any of these, and therefore, an infant is not a subject of baptism. This week we want to continue our study about the unscripturalness of baptizing babies.

There are several large denominations, representing literally millions of people, whose common practice it is, to take children, when they are eight days old, and baptize them for the remission of their sins. It is our purpose to focus the attention of the people in these denominations upon the fact that there is no scriptural authority whatever for such a practice.

The Practice Began in Error

The inception of the practice of baptizing infants was in error. The reason men began baptizing babies was for an unscriptural purpose. Incidentally, when I speak of “baptizing” babies, I am using the word “baptism” unscripturally. It is unscriptural because of two reasons: First, people usually sprinkle the babies when they “baptize” them, and sprinkling, in the light of the scripture is not baptism, and therefore it is a misuse of the word baptism to say that it is sprinkling; secondly, since babies are not subjects of baptism, it is improper to speak of “baptizing” them. But inasmuch as so many denominations speaks of baptizing infants, I am using the expression, with the reservations that we have just stated. It is unscriptural from beginning to end.

As we said, though, men have a very definite reason for baptizing babies. They believe the delusion that the infant is born into this world guilty of sin. They think that the baby is inherently totally depraved. In other words, these false teachers say that because Adam sinned, all infants are sinners. Therefore, they used to baptize an infant to free him of his Adamic sin. To teach this doctrine is to deny both what Christ and Paul said. In Rom. 5:12-21, Paul argued that whatever man lost unconditionally in Adam, he gained unconditionally in Christ. Paul said that the blood of Christ is as capable of limitless universality as the unrighteous act of Adam. Christ died to free us of the effects of Adam’s sins. Notice just one verse of this chapter to see that this is what Paul is teaching: “So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life” (verse 18). Christ further taught, “Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3). Does it seem that the Lord taught that children are born totally depraved? He said that unless these disciples become as little children they cannot enter into the kingdom of God Did Christ say that unless they become totally depraved they cannot enter the kingdom of God? That would be absurd! Christ was teaching the purity of the little children.

If there is any time that one is pure and holy in this life, it is when he is a little baby. Mothers, look at that little child of yours and think, “Is he pure, or is he totally sinful?” Certainly he is pure, and sinless. There is no point in baptizing an infant in order to have his sins remitted, for he has no sins to be forgiven. The baptizing of infants was begun upon an erroneous premise, and must be denounced, and repudiated, if one is ever to be saved.

The infant is sinless. That is why we said last week that an infant is neither saved nor lost, but that it is safe. One cannot be saved until he has been lost, and since the infant has never been lost, then he cannot be saved. He cannot be lost, for he has done no sin, and so the baby is safe and neither saved nor lost. Christ taught the purity of the child, and not its total depravity.

The Practice Continued in Error

Another reason why some baptize babies, is not in order to forgive their sins, but to admit them to the kingdom or the church. They baptize them in order to put them into the church. But just as babies cannot be baptized, neither can they be members of the church. The church is comprised of baptized individuals, or of the saved, but men and women are saved by obeying the gospel. Luke said, “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47). Luke already had told us what these people did in order to be saved as he recorded Peter’s command to them to “repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). They obeyed the gospel in order to be saved, and being saved, they were added to the church. A baby cannot be in the church for it cannot obey the gospel, as we saw in our study last week.

The Scripture further tells us who it is that may enter the kingdom of God in Jn. 3:5: “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” This omits the baby, for he is neither born of water nor the Spirit. As he reached the age of mental maturity, he may then be born of both the water and the Spirit. To be born of the Spirit means to be begotten by the Word of the Spirit. Peter gave us a commentary on the birth of the Spirit when he said, “having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which lives and abideth” (1 Pet. 1:23). To be begotten of the Spirit is to be begotten of the Word of the Spirit. So when one believes upon the testimony of the Word of God, he is begotten of the Spirit, and may then be born of water. Both of these requirements of entering the kingdom of God omits a baby. A baby has not the mentality to be begotten of the Spirit, for it cannot become a believer by hearing the Word, neither is it born of water. Sometimes people argue that a baby is born of water when he comes from its mother’s womb. They say that the fluid that accompanies a natural birth is water, and that this is the birth of water. But this is not true. The fluid accompanying a natural birth is not water, but amniotic fluid. Therefore a baby is born of neither the water or Spirit, and therefore cannot be the kingdom of God. To baptize a baby to put him into the kingdom is an impossibility, even though there are thousands that are trying it every year.

Infant Baptism has no Scriptural Authority

Let us establish a premise and approach the subject of infant baptism from another aspect. Anything that had its origin this side, or outside of the New Testament is not of New Testament sanction. Infant baptism has its origin both this side and outside the New Testament, and therefore the New Testament does not approve it.

Historically, let us notice that baptizing infants was begun later than the New Testament era. Any practice that did not begin until after the completion of the New Testament, that was not in existence until the death of the apostles, certainly could not be a part of New Testament Christianity. One may read the New Testament through, and nowhere in it will find a single instance of an infant’s being baptized, either for the forgiveness of “Adamic sin”, or to put him into the church. If you want to read the first statements made about the baptizing of infants, you must go to the end of the Second Century. The first mention one finds of baptizing infants is by Tertullian in 190 A. D. That is about 100 years too late for it to have the approval of the New Testament. Denominationalists now admit that the New Testament does not sanction the baptizing of infants, or at least the majority of them do. We might notice what one propagator of this doctrine of baptizing infants said about the practice. Mr. Henry Ward Beecher said that he had no authority from the Bible for the baptism of infants, and that he needed none; that he had better authority for it than if even the Bible commanded it; that he had tried it, and knew from actual experience that it was a good thing; he had the same divine authority for it that he had for making an ox-yoke – it worked well – and, therefore, it was from God. Now isn’t that some statement coming from a man who must some day stand before the God of heaven to be judged by the things written in the Bible? Historically, infant baptism has no support.

Justice would not be done to the arguments of those who contend that infants should be baptized, were we to fail to mention the scriptures that they suggest which they contend authorized baptizing infants. The only way anyone can ever use the Word of God to prove this contention is to read into the text what the Bible says absolutely nothing about. In Acts 16 we read a very interesting story of where Paul and obviously, Luke, the author of the book of Acts, met with a group of women down by the river side, or at the place of prayer, and instructed them in the way of the Lord. They had receptive hearts, and upon the hearing of the Word of God, they accepted it. Lydia is the main one mentioned in this instance, and the Scripture says “And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us” (Acts 16:15). Notice, and remember this passage, and what it says about the infants that were baptized for we want to refer to it again. It says that Lydia and her household were baptized. For this to be an argument for baptizing infants, one must assume that this household had infants in it. The passage does not say so. It is an assumption.

In this same sixteenth chapter, we read the story of Paul and Silas’ being cast into prison because they cast a spirit of divination out of a young maiden. When her masters saw that their hope of gain was gone, they caused Paul and Silas to be cast into prison. The jailer put them in the inner prison, put their hands and feet in bonds. About midnight they were singing and praying to God, when suddenly there was an earthquake and their bonds were loosed. The prison doors were also opened. The jailer was about to kill himself, fearing lest the prisoners had escaped, but Paul exclaimed, “Do thyself no harm, for we are all here.” The jailer asked what he must do, and Paul told him to believe on the Lord. He also repented for he took them and washed their stripes that he had been instrumental in inflicting. And then it is said that he “was baptized, he and all his, immediately” (Acts 16:33).

Now friends, these two instances are the strongest proof from the scriptures that men have ever offered for infant baptism. When it mentions that these two households, the Jailer’s and Lydia’s, were baptized, they imagine and assume that in these households, there were infants, and that they were baptized. You remember that the Scriptures offered no proof for infant baptism, but that the passages that men used to prove their doctrine were no proof at all, unless men read into the text that there were infants in these households. What do these passages say about the baptizing of infants? Not a thing in the word. And I repeat, these are the strongest arguments that they can make from the Scriptures for baptizing infants. If you think you can make a stronger one, I would be glad to have you write me telling about it. If I know my heart, I am open minded, and would appreciate being corrected in this matter if I am in error. If you know of a passage in which babies were baptized, let me know about it. If you are a member of a church that baptizes infants, and never gave thought to the scripturalness of it, search the Scriptures for just one passage authorizing it. If you cannot find it, then ask your preacher to help you. If he cannot find it, ask anyone else you might know that could help you, If no one can find it, give up the error and leave that error-teaching group.

If infant baptism is not in the Bible, then you have had to go outside the Bible to get it. We stated a premise earlier that still holds true: Anything that has had its origin this side or outside the New Testament is not to be done by the Christian. The Bible and the Bible alone is adequate for men and women who want to please God. Infant baptism had its inception this side of (in fact, it began no earlier than 190 A.D., almost a hundred years too late), and outside the New Testament. The historical part of it is of but little significance. If you were to find accounts in history of infant baptisms, going back to the First Century, that still would not be enough. What you need to find is an instance in the New Testament where an infant was baptized. It is not to be found, and no denominational preacher will ever pretend to find it.

The Bible is our complete and final guide. Paul said, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16,17). Peter also said that his “divine power hath granted unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that called us by his own glory and virtue” (2 Pet. 1:3). If the Bible can furnish us to every good work, and it says nothing about baptizing of infants, what must God think about it? Certainly He does not approve it!

Seeing that infants cannot render intelligent obedience to the gospel of Christ; that they cannot be members of the kingdom of God for they cannot be born of either water or Spirit; that there is no reason for baptizing them for they are not tainted with Adamic sin; that there was no baptizing of infants until one hundred years after the New Testament era; and most important of all, that the New Testament does not authorize infant baptism either in command, example, or necessary inference, we plead with you to remove yourself from any body of people that is teaching this error. Christ said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:12). This doctrine which we have been discussing is not truth, but error, and only the truth can make you free. Error is not a substitute for truth. We are hoping that you will leave your error, not because we say to, but because it is foreign to God’s Holy Word, and because you want to do exactly what He says do-nothing more or less.

Truth Magazine XX: 36, pp. 563-565
September 9, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Ohio: “Enclosed is a question that was answered in ‘The Christian Echo.’ I disagreed with the answer. Would you please comment on it in Truth Magazine?”

REPLY:

Immediately following is the excerpt from the April, 1976, issue of The Christian Echo.

“Ques.: While in the world, I married a woman who had a living husband; they did not-separate because of fornication. Later, we decided to obey the gospel. Did we have to repent for the act, or under what conditions were we to enter the church?

“Ans.: If a divorce was secured by the woman you married while in the world, the laws of the land were complied with, hence you were not under condemnation by marrying. Romans 13:3. If you were legally married, when you obeyed the gospel, there is no repentance required for your marriage; go on and live the Christian life.”

Comments As Requested

It would have been far better if The Christian Echo had merely cited a few plain passages of Scripture. “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matt. 5:32). “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9). “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery” (Mk. 10:11,12). “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (Lk. 16-18). “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man” (Rom. 7:3).

Nothing in the verses above sounds like the answer in The Christian Echo. Of course, one must abide by the laws of the land, but, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). The man who married a woman with a living husband is living in adultery. The woman who was divorced for a cause other than fornication and who has married another is living in adultery. Constitutional law does not negate or nullify divine law.

To Those Without These Problems

As we said before, so say I now again, now is the time to prevent marriage problems. If you are unmarried, realize the seriousness and the sacredness of the marriage relationship. Do not enter into it lightly. It is a sacred status that must be consecrated by God and governed by His will. If you are married, remain that way if it is at all possible-both husband and wife should learn to love one another if they do not. If you have children, teach them from their youth regarding marriage. Tell them of its beauty, of its privileges, and of its sacred laws.

Truth Magazine XX: 36, p. 562
September 9, 1976

By Mike Willis

In 1 Pet. 2:5,9, the apostle wrote, “you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. . . . you are a . . . royal priesthood.” Thus, in our consideration of descriptive terms of Christians, we need to consider the significance of being called a priest. Like the term saint, the term priest is not usually ascribed to all Christians; instead, it is usually reserved for a sacerdotal class in contrast to the laity.

Catholic Usage

In Catholic theology, a priest is a person, distinct from the ordinary Christian, who administers the sacraments and pronounces absolution. Here are some quotations that might be useful in clarifying the Catholic concept of a priest:

“The Church has a sacrifice; so she needs priests to offer that sacrifice. The Mass is a continuation of the sacrifice offered by Jesus Christ, the great High Priest on Calvary. . . . The Church must teach the Gospel of Christ to all men; so she needs priests to continue the preaching of the Master.

“The Church has the sacraments, Instruments of sanctity, the means of bringing the graces of Christ to all men. So she needs priests to administer these sacraments, to serve as agents of the Savior” (Monsignor J. D. Conway, Facts of the Faith, p. 236).

Despite the existence of this highly developed clergy system, the New Testament knows nothing of a clergy-laity distinction. Instead, Jesus condemned the wearing of special religious clothing to be seen of men and the usage of special titles (Mt. 23:5-10). There is absolutely no hint that a special class of Christians are needed to administer the Lord’s Supper nor that the Lord’s Supper is a continuation of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross (cf. Heb. 7:26-27). Forgiveness of sins is not administered through any individual other than Christ.

One of the basic tenets of the Protestant Reformation was the priesthood of all believers. This principle asserts that every individual has direct access to God and, therefore, does not need to approach God through a priest because every individual Christian is himself a priest. The principle is amply supported by the Scriptures (see Rev. 1:6; 5:9-10; 20:6; 1 Pet. 2:5,9).

A Study of Priesthood

In the Patriarchal period, men were able to approach God directly (cf. Gen. 4; 6:20; etc.). There were also some priests who officiated in religious worship (e.g. Melchizedek, Gen. 14:18-24). With the giving of the Mosaical Law, God regulated the priesthood. The background from which the New Testament draws when discussing the priesthood is the background of the Levitical priesthood. Therefore, in considering the priesthood of the Christian, one needs to start with a background in the Mosaical Law.

The Mosaical Law said this regarding the Levitical priests: “They shall be holy to their God and not profane the name of their God, for they present the offerings by fire to the Lord, the bread of their God; so they shall be holy” (Lev. 21:6). The primary work of the priest was the work of offering worship to God. Before a person could offer worship, he had to meet certain requirements. (1) He had to be a desceadent of Levi (Num. 3:6). (2) He must have no physical defects (Lev. 21:7ff). (3) He must be married in accordance with special priestly requirements (Lev. 21:7-9,13-14). Providing that a person met these requirements, he could be consecrated to serve as a priest. A special ceremony set him apart to serve as a priest. In that ceremony, the priest came before the altar in full ceremonial attire. His head was annointed with oil,, A bull and a ram were offered to God. A second ram was slain; part of the blood from this second ram was smeared on the ear lobe of the right ear, the thumb of the right hand, and the big toe of the right foot. After the consecration ceremony was completed, the Levite was qualified to serve as priest. However, if he later became unclean (e.g. through contact with a dead person), he was disqualified from serving God until he was again pronounced ceremonially clean.

The setting apart of the Levitical priest was necessary because of his function in the worship of Israel. The priest offered the worship to God. He was charged with taking,care of holy things, the tabernacle and all of its furniture.

The New Testament Priest

Every New Testament Christian is a priest; his primary function is, like that of the Levitical priest, to offer spiritual worship to God. The act which makes us a Christian sets us apart to serve God-it consecrates us as a priest to Him. Like the Levitical priest, we become “holy unto the Lord.” Even as the Levitical priest could become disqualified because of uncleanness, so might the priest today become disqualified to offer acceptable worship to God through uncleanness. The defilements which affect us today are the contaminations of sin (Mt. 15:17-20) and not ceremonial defilements. The man who is walking in darkness cannot offer spiritual worship to God; he must put aside his wickedness and seek the Lord’s forgiveness before he is qualified to offer worship again.

The main point of comparison between the Levitical priest and the priesthood of all believers is, not his consecration and defilement, the fact that both offered worship to God, Peter said that we are “to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:5). Our sacrifices are different from those offered under the Mosaical system; we do not administer at the literal altar, burn incense, etc. He-e are some channels through which we can offer sacrifice to God:

(1) The fruit of our lips, “Through Him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name” (Heb. 13:15). The fruit of our lips is called a sacrifice to God, Thus, whenever a Christian sings, prays, or teaches God’s word, he is offering to God a sacrifice of his lips.

(2) Good works. “And do not neglect doing good and sharing; for with such sacrifices God is pleased” (Heb. 13:16). The good works which a Christian does are called a sacrifice to God. Everytime that we engage in an act of benevolence or some other good work, we are sacrificing to the Lord.

(3) Supporting a preacher. As Paul wrote concerning the financial support which lie had received from the congregation at Philippi, he said, “But I have received everything in full, and have ail abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God” (Phil. 4.18).

(4) Our living bodies. Paul said, “I urge you therefore, brethien, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship” (Rom. 12:1). Thus, the entire life of a Chrisfian is a sacrifice to God; it is not a life lived to the fulfillment of every fleshly desire but one which is dedicated to pleasing God. Ours is a sacrifice which is not offered once for all, as was the nature of the slain animal, but a sacrifice which is offered day by day to His service.

(5) Our martyred bodies. Another type of sacrifice which a Christian is sometimes called upon to make is the sacrifice of his life because of his faith in Christ. Paul called this an act of sacrificial worship.

As he wrote from prison to the church at Philippi, he said, “But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with you all” (Phil. 2:17). Shortly before his death, he wrote to Timothy as follows: “For I am already being poured out as a drink offering and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith-, in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who love His appearing” (2 Tim. 4:6-8). As John witnessed the opening of the fifth seal, he saw “underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God” (Rev. 5:9). The picture of the souls under the altar emphasizes that their death was a sacrifice to God.

Conclusion

Perhaps there are other aspects relevant to our priesthood which should have been considered but these suffice to emphasize that, as New Testament priests, we are to be constantly engaged in offering spiritual sacrifice to God. Every Christian is a priest, therefore, every Christian must be engaged in these acts of worship. Are you offering the sacrifices to God which we have described above? If not, you are not a Christian!

Truth Magazine XX: 35, pp. 554-556
September 2, 1976

By Keith Sharp

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (Matt. 5:9).

“Like a river glorious is God’s perfect peace;

Over all victorious in its bright increase;

Perfect, yet it floweth fuller every day,

Perfect, yet it groweth deeper all the way.”

(Frances Ridley Havergal)

The world in restless turmoil craves peace. “Peace” is “tranquility,” an “absence of turmoil.” People vexed with troubled and anxious minds relentlessly but often erroneously pursue calm of spirit. In a world of war and fighting, killing and quarreling, men search for the formula for peace.

Christ is “The Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6). He rules a kingdom of peace (Rom. 14:17). The Master’s legacy to His disciples is peace (John 14:27). What is the peace of the kingdom of Heaven? Who are the “peacemakers”? Why shall they “be called the children of God”?

We have all sinned (Isa. 53:6; Rom. 3:9, 23; 1 John 1:8-10). Sin, being the transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4), is ultimately a wrong against God Himself (Ps. 51:4). God, being infinitely Holy, i.e., separate from sin and perfectly undefiled (Rev. 4:8), hates and abhors sin (Prov. 6:16-19). He will not fellowship the sinner (1 John 1:6). By His holy nature, He cannot. Our own sins separate us from God (Isa. 59:1-2). Because of our own sins, we, as sinners, became the enemies of God (James 4:4). Sinners have no peace with God.

God gave through Christ a plan of reconciliation (Rom. 5:10). i.e., a means by which we, though sinners, might be made the friends of God again and might enjoy peace with Him. This “peace initiative” on God’s part is the offer to us of the remission of the guilt of our sins through the blood the Son of God shed on the cross (Acts 10:36, 43; Matt. 26:28). We gain this pardon by knowledge of, faith in and obedience to the Gospel of Christ (2 Pet. 1:2; Rom. 5:1; Phil. 4:9).

Therefore, the primary peace offered by the Gospel and in the kingdom is peace with God as the result of the forgiveness of our sins. All other peace is secondary to this. Christ came to bring peace between sinful man and his holy Creator (Eph. 2:13-18; Col. 1:20).

We, as Christians, should have peace of mind (Phil. 4:4-7; Col. 3:15). But this is the result of peace with God and is therefore secondary to reconciliation to the Father.

Furthermore, we are enjoined: “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men” (Rom. 12:18; cf. Heb. 12:14). But this peace with men is less important than purity (James 3:17) and must sometimes be sacrificed in favor of steadfast adherence to Christ and His Word (Matt. 10:34-37; Jer. 6:14).

Since the primary peace of the kingdom of Heaven, from which all other peace flows, is fellowship with God, the “peacemakers” of God’s kingdom are not those who patch up disagreements between men nor those who ease the, troubled minds of anxious people. Rather, the peacemakers are those who, like Jesus, seek to reconcile men to God. Peacemakers are those “that preach the gospel of peace” (Rom. 10:15; cf. Eph. 6:15). They are the disciples who, through “the word of reconciliation,” seek to bring men back into friendship with God (2 Cor. 5:18-20).

To be called something in the New Testament is tantamount to saying one actually is that thing (cf. Matt. 5:19; 21:13; Luke 1:32, 35; James 2:23). In the Scriptures, people are often called children of something to indicate they resemble that object. For example, Bamabas’ name meant “son of consolation” (Acts 4:36) in that he was a consoling man. The Jews who opposed the Lord had the devil as their father (John 8:44) because they resembled the devil. We often describe a boy as being “a chip off the old block,” i.e., he resembles his father. We expect children to be like their father. Our Father is the author of peace (1 Cor. 14:33). He seeks to reconcile all men to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19; 1 Tim. 2:34). Those who promote peace between men and God actually resemble God in their character.

The peace of the kingdom of Heaven is primarily harmony between God and men, the fruit of reconciliation through the Gospel. “Peacemakers” are those who “preach the gospel of peace.” They “shall be called the children of God” in that they actually resemble the Father Himself.

What a blessing, the peace that Christ brought to man!

“Thro’ Christ on the cross peace was made,

My debt by His death was all paid,

No other foundation is laid,

For peace, the gift of God’s love.

“Peace, peace, sweet peace,

Wonderful peace from above,

Oh, wonderful, wonderful peace,

Sweet peace, the gift of God’s love.”

(Peter P. Bilhorn)

Are you a peacemaker, my brother? Let us take the blessed Word of reconciliation, the Gospel of peace, to all. So even we shall be called the children of God.

Truth Magazine XX: 35, pp. 553-554
September 2, 1976