Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In the April issue of Restoration Review, editor Leroy Garrett continued his series on “The Word Abused” by writing an article on “The Rebaptized Church of Christ.” In this article, he criticized the Lord’s church for two things: (1) over-emphasizing baptism and (2) re-baptizing people who are uncertain about their baptism. (Indeed, about the only religious group which Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside ever criticize is the Lord’s church; they rarely ever condemn any denomination. When and if they do, they are quite gentle in their criticisms. But, in criticizing the Lord’s body, they employ sarcasm, they belittle, they buffoon, and otherwise abuse the church of our Lord. I do not know how many blows the church must suffer from these men before its members recognize that the one inflicting them is an enemy.)

Under the first point, Garrett wrote:

“There is unfortunately, more than one way to abuse the scriptures . . . . Still another way is through underemphasis or overemphasis, which either makes too little or too much of what the scriptures say. One might accept a scriptural truth and give it the right interpretation, but err in a failure to give it proper significance. All scripture may well be true and of course the word of God, but not all truths are equally important. We can abuse the word in failing to recognize this.

“Our purpose in this installment, however, is to notice an instance of making too much of what is written. Anything can be warped by stretching as well as by shrinking. Any truth can be overworked to the point of distortion . . .

“It is becoming increasingly apparent that many of us in the Churches of Christ have abused the scriptures in this way in reference to baptism.”(1)

If a person can abuse the scriptures in the manner in which Garrett asserts, no one is more guilty of so abusing the scriptures than he and his colleague Carl Ketcherside are! I have been reading Mission Messenger for over five years. Every article which I can remember reading in one way or another related to unity-in-diversity-the fellowship apostasy. Brother Ketcherside does not write new articles; he only retitles the same old garbage. Brother Garrett is only a little behind Ketcherside in laboring one point. “You who teach another, do you not teach yourself?” (Rom. 2:21).

One must, however, admit that gospel preachers have emphasized baptism in their preaching and, I think, for perfectly legitimate reasons. As a young lad growing up around cattle, I soon learned that a person works on the fence in the place where the cows are getting out. Through the years, denominationalists generally taught the truth with reference to Jesus, faith, and repentance, but refused or failed to teach the truth about baptism and the church. Consequently, we have had to spend no little amount of our time expounding these Bible doctrines. I am certain that by emphasizing these doctrines, we have inadvertently neglected some other areas. (Of course, if these were weaknesses of the flesh or ignorant mistakes, the Lord would automatically forgive them, wouldn’t He, Brother Garrett?)

Nevertheless, I am not so sure that we have overemphasized baptism. If some of the writings which come from the pens of the false apostles of the unity movement are any reflection of general belief, we need to keep on emphasizing baptism! For example, Garrett wrote:

“Only recently I heard a reforming Methodist, laboring within his own context for that one, great, spiritual community of God on earth. Praise God that he is using this man where he is! He is talking to Methodists, in their language and out of their history, of a better and more spiritual way. It would be folly for me to try to take him from his own people, converting him to the Church of Christ. He should paddle for the old ship Zion where God has dropped him down. And I think it would be equal folly for me to become a Methodist, even if I didn’t really become one, and thus cut myself off from my own roots.

“I met with a group of Roman Catholics a few times recently, some of them being business associates of ours, who are really turned on to Jesus. In their own `sanctuary,’ with their priest sitting with us, I laid before them a long view of the scheme of redemption in scripture, God’s eternal purpose in Christ. These folk want their people to get with it and turn to Jesus, and they are working to that end in various mini-meetings. How foolish it would be for me to try to bring them into `the church of Christ,’ where they would become mere spectators of our own particular set of traditions.”(2)

“I also sat in on a mock drill for door-to-door evangelism. The man to be `converted’ described himself as a Baptist, but an immersed believer who had ‘enthroned Jesus as Lord in my heart.’ I later told some of the fellows that in that case there was no evangelism to do, for the man was already in Christ, that I would express my pleasure in meeting a new brother, and I would wish him well in helping bring his Baptist friends closer to Jesus and to the scriptures.”(3)

Notice that Garrett considers Baptists, Methodists and Catholics as Christians; he has the typical denominational concept of the church! Thus, whether or not men have been immersed is immaterial to whether or not they are Christians, according to him.

Carl Ketcherside reflects the same uncertain sounds about baptism. Even some in the Christian Church, with whom I have talked, are worried about Carl’s stance on baptism. In August, 1973, he wrote,

“Much as I deplore what may seem to many the manifestation of an uncharitable attitude toward a people renowned for their gentle goodness, I freely acknowledge that, upon the basis of my understanding of the teaching of God’s precious word, the Quakers are not in the fellowship of the called-out ones. They may have heard the invitation to become citizens of the kingdom, but they have not responded to it in the manner prescribed by the King. . .

“Regardless of what else may be said about it, sprinkling or pouring do not constitute baptism in the scriptural context. . . Therefore, as cruel as it may appear to a modern and vacillating world, I do not consider those who have used a form unauthorized by Jesus, unsanctioned by the Spirit, and unknown to the apostles, as being in the fellowship of the congregation of saints . . .

. . . But to regard those who are unimmersed as having been brought into the family relationship upon the same basis as those who have been immersed would make an empty face of immersion and the testimony of the scriptures on the matter both useless and meaningless.”(4)

Although these quotations reflect a position that sounds like the testimony of scripture, just one year later, Ketcherside wrote,

“Turning to church history we notice a number of people who loved God, repented of sin, trusted in Jesus as redeemer, and demonstrated in their lives the fruit and power of the Holy Spirit, although they were never immersed. (Don’t the Quakers do the same?, mw) Think of Luther, Whitefield, Wesley, Finney, Moody, Livingstone, and Hudson Taylor. These were mighty men of God. Think of John Newton, Horatius Bonar, Fanny Crosby, and others whose hymns of warm devotion we love to sing. For us to consign such followers of Christ to outer darkness because they were not immersed seems the equivalent to accusing Josiah of great wickedness because for years he kept no Passover. Will not God’s verdict contradict ours?

“In the light of these things, especially the two lines of Biblical teaching, I distinguish between what I practice and what I recognize. I practice immersing without delay those who repent and trust in Christ, upon their confession of faith in Him as divine Lord and Savior, for such is the Bible’s command and precedent. At the same time I recognize there are a number of unimmersed disciples of Jesus who are Christians, for they trust in him, seek to obey him and to the extent of their knowledge do obey him in everything.”(5)

Obviously, during this period Ketcherside must have changed his mind. In August, 1973, the unimmersed were outside the fellowship of God; in August, 1974, the unimmersed were Christians. One time or the other, he erred!

Earlier F. L. Lemley, one of the most radical left-wing writers whose articles have appeared in Mission Messenger., had written the following:

“Has anyone ever heard of a preacher giving a candidate the third degree to determine if he knew the full import of faith and repentance, and that these are for the remission of sins? If immersion of the body will remit sins-in spite of defective faith and imperfect repentance, then why not allow also that valid faith and repentance may remit in spite of imperfect immersion? Why make such an issue of being sure the subject knows that baptism is for the remission of sins and being sure that every hand, foot and lock of hair is immersed? We ought to be consistent! . . . .

“These observations raise other interesting questions. Do the commands involved in conversion fall within the sphere of God’s grace or must one make a grade of 100 % on all of them in order to reach the sphere of grace? If perfection is required to reach the domain of grace, who can be saved? Who can lay claim to perfect faith and perfect repentance, and thus, to perfect conversion? We have always allowed a lot of latitude in everything but baptism. Why? . . . .

“It is a serious thing to allow those to escape whom God has ordained to destruction (1 Kings 20:42), but it is equally serious to condemn those who are within the realm of God’s. grace but who have not yet caught up to us in obedience and understanding. We cannot afford to sit in God’s judgment seat to condemn all those who may have been ‘circumcised in heart’ but who for some extenuating circumstance have not completed their obedience in outward forms, total immersion of the body in water.”(6)

My brethren, be sure to consider carefully what has been written by these brethren. They are saying that men can be saved without immersion or without knowing the proper design of baptism. They have accepted, or are in the process of accepting, the position of salvation by ‘faith only.” So long as I continue to hear these uncertain sounds, I shall continue to emphasize the commandments regarding baptism.

Garrett’s criticism reads like this:

“Not only have we hammered away at the ‘something you have to do’ bit, but we have made a big deal out of one’s proper understanding of the import of the act, which makes not only the act essential but a certain indoctrination as well …. It is evident that our theology of baptism has become terribly warped, for we have come to see it as something arbitrary and absolute rather than in reference to the Cross. We have so dogmatized the acts, rather than treating it as within the framework of grace and mercy, that we have led our people to suppose that this is the one thing that they must get right. Our warping has taken such extremes as to insist that one must have a certain education about baptism before the act is valid. One must understand what it is for and what it does, and this is pounded into our folk year in and year out, so that we have a lot of people that keep on being baptized in order to make sure they have done it right …. My position is that there is but one condition for baptism, and that is faith in Jesus. ‘He that believes and is baptized shall be saved,’ says Jesus. It was to believers that Peter said ‘repent and be baptized.’ No requirements are laid down about knowledge or comprehension. God will take care of all the benefits and blessings, for that is His part, not ours. Even when one supposes that some of blessings come before baptism, the fact remains that he has believed and been immersed. All who do that are my brothers, however well or poorly be their knowledge of the theology of baptism.”(7)

A more mixed up theology is unimaginable! Garrett said that baptism was based on faith and not on knowledge. But, what is faith? Is faith not the belief of a certain body of facts? And, how can one believe what he does not know? Yes, baptism is contingent upon knowledge as well as upon faith!

Either a person must believe that the purpose for which a man is being baptized is important or he must say that it is not. There is no middle ground. If knowledge and belief of why one is being baptized is unimportant, I could go down the street with a concealed .38 pistol and ask people if they believed in Jesus. If they answered in the affirmative, I could take out my .38 and proceed to take them to a baptistry where I could baptize them. That would be believer’s baptism! But, on the other hand, if the purpose for being baptized is important, a person must be baptized for the right reason. That reason is “in order to be saved,” or however you might chose to express it (e.g. “for the remission of sins,” Acts 2:38; “the appeal to God for a good conscience,” 1 Pet. 3:21; to get “into Christ,” Gal 3:27 etc.). Now which is it? Is the knowledge of the purpose of baptism essential or nonessential?

My brethren, if one can be saved by God in spite of his noncompliance with the purpose of baptism, why can he not also be saved by God in spite of his lack of compliance with the action of baptism? Or again, if the improper purpose of baptism does not affect its validity, why will the improper action affect its validity? Brethren Ketcherside and Garrett have succeeded in expressing that the action and subject of baptism are more important than its design. Or, have they thrown this out as a test to see if you brethren are ready to accept the conclusion that one can be saved without believer’s baptism? If a person can be saved without 100% knowledge of the purpose of baptism, why can he not also be saved without 100% knowledge of the action of baptism? If he can be saved without being totally immersed (Garrett ridiculed re-baptizing a person whose arm did not go completely under the water during his baptism), can he be saved if he is poured? Exactly what percentage of his body must get wet, Brother Garrett? 99%? 75%? 50%? 16%? 5%? 1%? Or again, if a person can be saved without 100% compliance with the purpose of baptism, can he be saved without believing the proper facts about Jesus? Exactly what percentage of the facts about Jesus must a man believe before he can be saved? Can he be saved while disbelieving the virgin birth, resurrection, or ascension (surely there must be some honestly mistaken modernists)? I have raised all of these questions to press this point: that argument which proves too much proves nothing. Garrett and Ketcherside know that they cannot produce any passage which promises salvation to the unimmersed. Consequently, like any other Baptist, they argue situation doctrine to reach the conclusion which they want to believe. Why the hypothetical argument will only work for the Baptists and not for the modernists as well has not been explained. I thought that we had already concluded that book, chapter, and verse were essential for the establishing of religious authority. Brother Garrett, if you know of a passage of scripture which proves that one can be saved without knowing the purpose of baptism, we will be glad to consider it. Heretofore, you have given us your “thinkso’s” but no scripture. We want the Bible! We know that the doctrine that a person can be saved without believing that baptism is essential to salvation is the teaching of Restoration Review 17:4, but Restoration Review has not reached the status of inspired literature to some of us; indeed, it is not even inspiring!

My conviction is this: baptism involves three important aspects-the right subject, the right action, and the right design. If anyone of these is incorrect, the baptism is invalid. I have not seen any scripture to persuade me to believe otherwise. The very arguments employed by Garrett and Ketcherside to reach the unity-in-diversity fellowship apostasy ultimately led to universalism. Already it has led to fellowship of not only all of the liberals among us, but now of Baptists as well. When Garrett persuades you that one can be saved without 100% compliance with the purpose of baptism, you are set up for anyone who asks you, “Must one have 100% compliance with the action of baptism in order to be saved?” You cannot answer “yes” to one and “no” to the other. If Garrett has proved anything, he has proved that men of every denomination are in the body of Christ, regardless of whether or not they have been scripturally baptized. Are you ready to accept that?

Endnotes

1. Leroy Garrett, “The Word Abused: The Rebaptized Church of Christ,” Restoration Review (April, 1975), XVII, No. 4, p. 62.

2. Ibid., “Shall We ‘Hang In’ Or Leave?”, Restoration Review (November, 1974), XVI, No. 9, p. 367.

3. Ibid., p. 375.

4. Carl Ketcherside, “Questions About Baptism,” Mission Messenger (August, 1973), XXXV, No. 8, pp. 116, 118, 120.

5. Ibid., “Was King Josiah Saved?”, Mission Messenger (August, 1974), XXXVI, No. 8, p. 124.

6. F. L. Lemley, “Heart Circumcision,” Mission Messenger (May, 1972), XXXIV, No. 5, pp. 72-73, 74.

7. Garrett, op. cit., “The Word Abused: The Rebaptized Church of Christ,” Restoration Review (April, 1975), XVII, No. 4, pp. 62-63, 64, 65.

Truth Magazine XIX: 42, pp. 665-668
September 4, 1975

By Johnie Edwards

It is not the purpose of this article to limit what the Lord knows but to call to our attention some valuable lessons.

Christ Knew No Sin

Paul told the Corinthians, “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21). We read, in Matt. 4:1-11, of Jesus being tempted by Satan, “yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). Peter said that Christ left us a perfect example “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously” (1 Pet. 2:22-23). Jesus never did commit one single sin. What a record!

Christ Does Not Know When He Will Return

Down through the years there have been many time setters in regards to the Lord’s second coming. Up to this time, they have all proven to be false: The Bible teaches that Christ Himself does not know when He will return. In reference to the second coining, Mark said, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mark 13:32). Only God the Father knows when Christ will return and He has not told anyone! The emphasis is not placed on the time but being ready when it does come (Mk. 13:32-37).

Christ Does Not Know A Single Person He Did Not Die For

Contrary to the teaching of some, Christ did not die for just a pre-selected few. The Hebrew writer said, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Heb. 2:9). Christ died for the worst sinner. Paul said, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). The death of Christ has made the salvation of every man possible if he will . but obey Him (Heb. 5:8-9).

Christ Knows Nothing About Establishing Any Church But His Own

The Psalmist has warned us, “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. . .” (Psa. 127:1). The only church Jesus ever promised to build was His own. Jesus told Peter, “I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). Because the church belongs to Christ, we can read about “the churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16) in the New Testament. If Jesus had anything to do with the establishing any other church but His own, He does not know about it.

People have always tried to get to the Father without Christ. Jesus told Thomas, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (Jn. 14:6). Jesus is the door and He knows of no person who can reach the Father except by coming through the door. The process by which one comes to Christ is that he be drawn by the power of God to save, which is the gospel of Christ (Jn. 6:44-45; 2 Thess. 2:14). Thus when one hears, believes and obeys the gospel, he can, be saved from his past sins and be added to the Lord’s church. The Lord knows of no other plan by which men are saved.

The Lord Will Not Know Some at the Judgment

Jesus said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord; shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done- many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:2123). In the judgment, the Lord will have those standing before Him who have been lawless while they lived and He will declare that He never did approve of them. Such a person Jesus will not know. at the judgment.

Truth Magazine XIX: 42, p. 664
September 4, 1975

By James W. Adams

The “Sweet Singer of Israel” forever established the tone which should characterize the mourning of Christians for departed children of God when he said, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints” (Psalms 116:15). What is “precious” to the Lord, we should never allow to become inconsolable grief to us. It would be less than human not to mourn the passing of those whom we love, but our faith should enable us to turn our pain into joy arid our tears into laughter. Hence it is that I type this article with tears in my eyes, yet with joy in my heart.

A saint has died. A little before midnight of July 13, the Lord’s day, the noble spirit of Antonino Buta of Messina, Sicily, Italy, silently took its departure to be with Christ. Brother Buta had preached that day, after a period of two weeks during which he had suffered a severe spell with his heart. He was visiting, accompanied by Sister Buta, an ailing brother and his wife when he had another heart seizure. He was taken to the hospital but died within a short period of time.

I was privileged to know Brother Buta personally having spent some time with him and Sister Buta when they visited the United States several years ago. In March of this year in the company of Brother Foy Vinson of Dallas, Texas (Allen), I spent twelve days with him, almost constantly, in Rome, Lavinio, and Messina, Italy. Three of these days were spent in the Buta’s home in Messina. At that time, I was told by those who knew him best that his physical condition was extremely bad, but I did not expect death to come so soon to him. He is survived by his wife Cettina and three lovely daughters: Lydia (20), Deborah (13), and Claudia (9).

Antonino Buta was an unusual man. He was well educated having spent seven years in the University of Rome acquiring a degree in Philosophy and Letters, equivalent to a doctor’s degree from an American University. He was an accomplished musician even to the point of composing his own music which I have heard him play beautifully on the piano. He lacked only one year of being a medical doctor. He was converted very early in the efforts of our brethren in Italy after World War II by Cline Paden, At the time, he was the editor of a paper in Rome and an atheist. He detested Catholicism and all for which it stood, I suppose even before he became a Christian and certainly afterwards. He was one of the most capable Italian preachers in the whole of Italy and often defended the truth in debate. In addition to his work in Messina during the past twenty-five years as a preacher, he also edited a religious journal called, Risveglio (Awake), with much learning and ability. While I was in Italy in March, he received the news that he had been elected to the Academia Tibernina, an honorary society under the auspices of the Italian government whose membership consisted of the leading men of arts and letters throughout Italy, artists, sculptors, writers, etc, For the past twenty-three years, Brother Buta has been supported by the Pruett and Lobit Church in Baytown, Texas-longer than any man has been supported by any church in Italy.

It is heart breaking to report that because of Brother Buta’s opposition to liberal trends in the Italian work, he was anathematized, lied upon, and otherwise maltreated by American missionaries and other liberals in the Italian work. This almost broke his heart. In his last hours, I am told he kept saying that Earl Edwards, titular head of the so-called “Florence Bible School,” was “killing him.” May the “Lord reward these people according to their works.”

I loved Antonino Buta. He was a good man and a faithful Christian. In my judgment, he was probably too trusting and was victimized by liberals without conscience. However, one of the last things he said to me in March was that he saw that he was going to have to fight so-called “brethren” as distasteful as such was to him. He realized that he could not hold his peace and win the battle for truth. Sad it is that he did not live to carry out his resolution. I shall carry with me as long as I live the pleasant memory of this good man. May the Lord bless his memory and multiply the fruits of his labors.

Brother Buta’s passing poses some serious problems relative to the progress of truth in Italy and the erection of barriers against the encroachment of destructive liberalism, but there are other men who.will stand in the breach. One of these is Alessandro (Sandro) Corazza of the Via Sanio Church in Rome, another is Rodolfo Berdini of Rome and preacher for the church in Aprilia. Brother Berdini conducted the funeral services for Brother Buta. It is worthy of note that, despite Buta’s many years of service to the Lord in Italy, not a single liberal preacher, American or Italian, dignified (?) his funeral service with his presence. Prejudice, thy name is the liberal brethren, God help us! The following is a short memorial article written by Sandro Corazza which is supposed to be published in an issue of Risveglio soon.

In Memory of Nino

“Antonino Buta, Editor of Risveglio and evangelist for the Messina congregation, fell asleep in the Lord just before midnight of Sunday, July 13, 1975, overcome by illness.

“Nino will be missed by many, but especially by his wife and his three young daughters. He will also be missed by the Messina brethren whom he had loved and for whose spiritual interests he had tenderly cared for twenty-five years. They will remember him with happiness in those times when his heart was warm and exultant because ‘the church had rest and was edified.’ They will remember him with sadness when they recall those things in the Lord’s work which caused him to be downcast-things that caused the work not to proceed well and him to be filled with anxiety. For twenty centuries, these have been the ups and downs of anyone trying to do ‘the work of an evangelist:’ of anyone who has ‘chosen rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;’ of anyone who does not expect many blessings from the Lord here, rather many troubles and bitterness, and offers all to Him with devotion because he knows that the promise of the Lord is everlasting life;’ of anyone who very often must fight alone and for others while very seldom and by very few persons being only partially appreciated.

“With his degree in Letters and Philosophy; he chose not the comfortable and secure life of a college professor or some other lucrative profession but the life of hardship of one who spends his life telling `how great things the Lord has done for thee, and hath compassion on thee.’ Evangelist for twenty-five years, from the beginning of the church in Italy in modern times, he ‘lived on the gospel.’ I suppose he is the first evangelist of the church in Italy to ‘die in the Lord.’ His career ends honorably. Tonino died on the battlefield, on the Lord’s day, after having preached his last sermon.

“The death of a preacher is the beginning of very serious problems for those who remain. There is no pension for his wife, no benefits which automatically accrue to her, only memories. There are remembrances and regrets. Yes, Tonino leaves memories and regrets, but also three orphan daughters and a widow ‘in their affliction.’

“If there is dignity among brethren; if there is love ‘not in word, neither in tongue;’ there must be also down here some reward for those who have ‘fought a good fight.’ Let us take part with our warmth and generosity in the work of soothing the affliction of his own dear ones, deprived of their only source of maintenance. In this life, Tonino did his good in silence. Many know this perfectly. In these moments it would be a sad thing, indeed, if we manifest any lack of feeling.”

The good brethren that compose the church at Pruett and Lobit in Baytown, Texas, are now seeking to determine just what they can do to help the Buta family financially through this period of adjustment. If any church or individual desires to make a contribution to this end, contact the elders of that church concerning how this might be done. This is not an appeal; it is simply a suggestion and is done without the knowledge of the Baytown congregation.

Truth Magazine XIX: 42, pp. 662-663
September 4, 1975

By Donald Willis

Ralph Bunche was up to bat, score tied, last of the ninth. Bunches batting has been below par in this game. It’s time for a hit. Bunche is set, and the pitcher begins his pitch. Out of the corner of his eye, Bunche is again attracted to that little red hat in the stands. “Strike one.” Bunche talks with himself, “Forget about the red hat and concentrate on the ball game.” The pitcher is again set, and there is the red hat “strike two!” Bunche rearranges his feet, sets himself to face the pitcher, clears his mind of the little red hat. The pitcher begins his wind-up, and Bunche takes a last-second glance at the little red hat . . . “strike three, you’re out!”

Christians often have too many little red hats to distract them from the performance that Christ demands of them. Comes time for worship, and the little red hat comes into their vision. Time for visitation, another little red hat. Time for sacrifice, a great red hat!

“Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus the author and perfecter of faith. . .” (Hebrews 12:1-2). “Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth” (Colossians 3:2).

Truth Magazine XIX: 42, p. 662
September 4, 1975