Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

One of the most tenaciously held tenets of many religious organizations is called the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy. This doctrine simply teaches that once a person has become a child of God, his eternal salvation is guaranteed. It declares that no child of God can be disinherited. It is commonly expressed by such expressions as “once saved, always saved,” or “once in grace, always in grace,” or the “security of the believer.” This doctrine is taught by Baptist and Presbyterian Churches, as well as by several others.

Sometimes the falsity of a position is best seen by drawing some logical conclusions from it. Denominational preachers have themselves reduced this false doctrine to an absurdity in their effort to defend it. Gospel preachers have often encountered these denominational preachers in religious debate. One proposition discussed reads as follows: “The Scriptures teach that a child of God, one cleansed by the blood of Christ, cannot so live as to be finally lost in hell.” A Baptist preacher affirmed this statement. It teaches that a child of God could not go to hell if he wanted to. It takes away a man’s freedom.

It furthermore teaches that regardless of what kind of a life one lives after becoming a child of God, he will go to heaven anyway. That you may see the extremes to which these false teachers go trying to defend this false doctrine, note the following statements from Baptist preachers. “Rev.” Sam Morris, who at the time was preacher at the First Baptist Church in Stanford, Texas, said “We take the position that a Christian’s sins do not damn his soul. The way a Christian lives, what he says, his character, his conduct, or his attitude toward other people has nothing whatever to do with the salvation of his soul. All the prayers a man can pray, all the Bibles he may read, all the churches he may belong to, all the services he may attend, all the sermons he may practice, and all the debts he may pay, all the ordinances he may observe, all the laws he may keep, all the benevolent acts he may perform, will not make his soul one bit safer. And all the sins he may commit from idolatry to murder, will not make his soul in any more danger.” Can anyone really believe this? Yet this is a very logical consequence of the doctrine of the impossibility of falling away.

Other Baptist preachers have made equally as ridiculous statements. Mr. Vernon L. Barr, one of their outstanding debaters of this subject, says “Baptists teach that a child of God can do anything he wants to do, and go to heaven anyhow.” The reason why many people are Baptists is because they simply do not know what the Baptist Church teaches. Baptist friends, do you really believe the above statements? If not, you should not be in the Baptist Church, for this is what it teaches.

Dr. Albert Garner, President of Florida Baptist Institute and Seminary at Lakeland, Florida, in a religious debate with Brother Marvine Kelly were given a series of questions by Brother Kelly. Notice these questions asked by Brother Kelly and the answers given by Dr. Garner. “If a child of God dies while drunk, will he go to heaven?” Answer: “Yes.” Yet the Bible plainly says that no drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21). Another question. “Can a child of God lie?” Dr. Garner’s answer-“Yes.” Again, “If he dies before he repents of the lie, will he go to heaven anyhow?” Dr. Garner’s answer: “Yes.” (Kelly Garner Debate. pp. 116, 117). We see what Dr. Garner says about it, but what does the Bible have to say? “All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.” (Rev. 21:8). Does this sound like heaven? This doctrine teaches men that it makes absolutely no difference whether one lives a godly or an ungodly life after he becomes a Christian. It promises you that you will go to heaven anyway. But the Lord never so promises. You must be faithful unto death to receive the crown of life (Rev. 2: 10).

Other Baptist preachers teach that the body sins, but the soul cannot, and that God will take the soul to heaven regardless of what the body does. Dr. Ben Bogard was probably the greatest Baptist debater that ever lived. In the Ilardeman-Bogard Debate, pp. 309, 310, Bogard says “My soul sin? No. Has Brother Bogard ever sinned? In my soul I do not. I am as perfect as God himself, as far as my soul is concerned. Then what about my body? It does sin.” ‘File Bible teaches the spirit can be defiled. Paul says “let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit” (2 Cor. 7:1). And he also teaches that at the judgment we will be rewarded according to what we have done in the body (2 Cor. 5: 10).

On the possibility of apostasy, notice these three passages of Scripture written to Christians, and with these we must close this article. “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10: 12), “Take heed brethren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God” (Heb. 3:12). Finally, notice Paul’s statement in Gal. 5:4. He not only says it is possible that you might fall, but that you are fallen. “Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 20, pp. 3-4
March 22, 1973

By Dudley RossSpears

In most all of the discussions in the last several years over the divisive question of institutionalism has been the subject of the work of the local church. While the question of authority is the basic reason for all of our divisions in the church today, the work of the church has become a vehicle for expressing different attitudes toward Bible authority.

The work of the church to many in the church today consists of “any good work” without qualification. This includes the relief of humanity in general, improving the ghetto conditions, trying to eliminate illiteracy and a multitude of other humanitarian endeavors. Kitchens in church buildings indicate that many think that the work of the local church can be expedited by the culinary arts. Some congregations have gone into the cultural fields with flower shows, reading clubs, art clubs and the like. I know of one congregation that has a modified “lonely hearts club.”

In the study of what is the work of the local church it is always necessary to know what the Lord has revealed about the subject. Has the Lord revealed anything about His local churches and their work? If not, then we have nothing to study. If so, we must always operate within those things He has revealed. (Read 2 John 9; 1 Cor. 4:6; Acts 15:24). God’s mind and His eternal purpose are manifested even to the high order of “principalities and powers in heavenly places” through the church. (Eph. 3:10).

By definition, the local church is the saved people who meet together and work together in a specific place to do the work God has assigned the church. The local church is the place where worship of God’s people collectively is to be offered. The local church is a body of the saved who agree to work together under qualified elders whom they select and who pool their resources in order to finance their common objectives. Basically the local church is a cooperative of the saved who are dedicated to doing God’s work in the way God has appointed.

To further study this, let us look at some definitions given by scholars to the word church. Edward D. Morris wrote, Kuriakos: The term Church, (German kirche: Scotch, kirk, and the Teutonic and Scandinavian languages generally) is derived from the Greek word, huriakos,… a derivative from kurios. It came, however, to be employed at an early date to designate the religious organization inhabiting such a building, and engaging statedly in such joint devotions; and this is the use and meaning here to be retained.”

Again, he discusses Ekklesia. “The term applied in classic Greek to any assembly of persons called out, or called together, for any specific purpose (Acts 19:32,39), this term came early to designate a religious or a Christian assembly, and such an assembly, not as convened on a single occasion, but rather as in some way organized and having permanent existence.”

On the word Sunagoga, Morris says. “The same transition appears in the parallel word, sunagoga, often employed in the Septuagint like ekklesia, to describe not merely the place of assembling, but a company of persons brought together for religious purposes, thus gradually coming to indicate a permanent religious congregation.” These quotations are from his book, Ecclesiology, Charles Scribners’ Sons, 1890. pages 13-14.

The definition given earlier is here defended. The local church is God’s order. Paul wrote to Titus telling him he had been left in Crete to “set in order things wanting and ordain elders in every city.” (Titus 1:5). When a thing is set in order, it is organized. It becomes a “set” or if you please. While Paul seems to be telling Titus that things needed repair in Crete, still the inevitable conclusion that the church is a set order is irresistible.

To the church in Colossae. Paul wrote of his joy in beholding their “order”, (Col. 2:5). This is a word that signifies a definite organization. Vine says, ” – – is used in Luke 1: 8 of the fixed succession of priests; of due order, in contrast to confusion, in the gatherings of a local church, 1 Cor. 14:40: of the general condition of such, Col. 2:5 (some give it a military significance here).” Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. III, p. 145.

The local church is to be under the oversight of elders. (Read Titus 1: 5; Acts 14: 23; 1 Peter 5:2-3). These verses show that each church in each city is to have elders appointed who are charged with the duty of overseeing all functions of that church. Their oversight is limited to that congregation only and they have no authority to oversee any part of the work, worship or members of any other congregation.

The local church is to finance its own work and make up those finances by the members contributing regularly into a common treasury. (Read Acts 2:44; 4:34-35; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 1 Cor. 9: 7). These verses teach that on the Lord’s Day, evidently during worship, each member is to give as he or she has been prospered, cheerfully and with liberality, that the work may be financed. They agree to pool their resources.

The work assigned to each local church is the same and the degree of responsibility in each local church is based on the same principle, viz. ability and opportunity determine responsibility. There is to be equality in this respect among all congregations. Paul writes the Corinthians and says, “For if the readiness is present, it is acceptable according to what a man has not according to what he does not have. For this is not for the case of others and for your affliction, but by way of equality.” (2 Cor. 8: 12, 13. NASB).

The work of the local church consists of three things. The first is evangelism, or causing the gospel to be preached. (Read 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Thess. 1:7,8; Phil. 2:14-10; 4:13-17). These verses all show that it is the local church that is given the responsibility of seeing that the gospel is preached. Churches either sent preachers (Acts 1: 22) or they sent directly to a preacher (Read 1 Tim. 4: 13- 17) and in this way caused the gospel to be preached.

The second work of the local church is benevolence or providing physical necessities to those who are poor. Read Acts 6: 1-4; 1 Tim. 5: 16). Churches of Christ in the first century provided for the needs of their own members when those members were in need. The work of benevolence is limited by its very nature.

A third and last work of the church is edification, or strengthening the members of the church. (Read Acts 9:31; Rom. 14:19). This is accomplished by employing teachers, both men and women, to teach the word to members of the church. Paul told the “aged women” to teach the younger women matters that are included in “sound doctrine.” (Titus 2:1-5). Elders are to “feed the flock” with the sincere milk of the word. (Acts 20:28). By this the church grows stronger. Edification is the way members of the church are encouraged and exhorted to do more personal work for the Lord.

In a complete survey of the New Testament there is a conspicuous absence of any information about social or political work being done by churches of Christ. There is no indication that they ever engaged in recreational activities such as parties, banquets and games. Can you imagine James or John endorsing one of the political candidates of their day? Paul never encouraged young Timothy or Silas or any other man of God to lead marches or demonstrations against civil injustices.

The work of the local church is different than the work that is given every individual Christian. It is different in its nature. The individual has duties that are civic and domestic but the local church does not. An individual Christian has social obligations that the local church does not. We, as individual Christian parents, are to train our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, but it is not the local church’s duty to do so.

The work of the local church differs front individual work in finances. The only authorized way of getting money into the treasury of the church is the contribution of the members of the church on the Lord’s Day. (1 Cor. 10: 1-4). There is no authority for local churches to have car washes, cake sales or hold profit-making businesses. But there is nothing wrong in an individual working in a car wash, bakery or holding a profit making business “to be able to give to him that needeth.” (Eph. 4:28).

The work of the local church differs front individual work because there are specific statements of inspiration showing such to be true. “If any man or woman that believeth (is this not individual Christian believer here? DRS) have widows let them relieve them and let not the church (Does this not have to be the local church here? DRS) be charged . . .” (1 Tim. 5: 16). Paul clearly shows the difference in this passage between individual Christian duties and in congregational work.

The local church is limited in organization to operating in and through the framework God has given. There is no authority in the Bible for any other organization than the local church through which this work is to be done. No Missionary Society, Benevolent Society (Orphanage under a board of directors) or College has the right to do the work God gave the Church and no right to expect one cent out of the local church treasury. No separate organization can scriptural become an agent for the execution of local church work.

The local church work cannot be done by one congregation trying to work through another. The sponsoring church practice is an offender in this case. A sponsoring church acts as agent for all the contributing “interested” churches. This destroys the equality and independence of all congregations in this cooperative. When one church becomes the “agent” for other churches, the agent must be subject to the principal. When a sponsoring church depends on contributing churches for money and contributing churches depend on a sponsoring church to spend the money, the independence of all these churches involved is destroyed. If not, why not?

An old preacher once wrote in the Gospel Advocate, “Brethren, the word of God is still the seed of the kingdom. If we want this cooperation of churches and organizations, let us then plant the seed and be satisfied with the crop that comes tip. Those are excellent sentiments to follow today. Doing so will bring is back to the local church doing the work that God wants done, nothing more or less.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 19, pp. 11-13
March 15, 1973

By Mike Willis

Despite his vociferous cries against the evils of legalism, even Carl Ketcherside is legalistic. When Brother Ketcherside begins to tell what is required for sonship and, therefore for fellowship, he becomes very legalistic. Here is Brother Ketcherside’s position:

“In God’s plan there is only one fact which must be believed and one act which must be performed, to bring one into that glorious fellowship of the redeemed. The fact is that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and the Anointed One, and that act is immersion into the relationship expressed by the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Mission Messenger, Vol. 34, No. 8, P. 115).

In this statement, Ketcherside becomes extremely legalistic—-even to the point of excluding every person who does not accept the fundamentalists’ concept of the deity of Jesus. Even among those who do accept the deity of Jesus, Ketcherside excluded from fellowship everyone who has not been immersed. Is he not in this appealing to a unity in doctrine instead of a unity in diversity?

Whether Brother Ketcherside is willing to admit it or not, he has become legalistic in his concept. Perhaps, he has even become too legalistic for F.L. Lemley, who writes occasionally for the Mission Messenger. Here are Lemley’s comments:

“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? … Do the commands involved in conversion fall within the sphere of God’s grace or must one make a grade of 100 percent on all of them in order to reach the sphere of grace?” (“Heart Circumcision,” Mission Messenger. Vol. 34, No. 5, p. 73).

“A legalistic view of baptism has led to an exclusive position that only those immersed with the knowledge of its being ‘for the remission of sins’ are Christians (“Fact or Fiction,” Mission Messenger. Vol. 34, No. 10, p. 150).

Brother Lemley has backed off the “legalistic” position regarding the purpose of baptism. Now, Brother Lemley is only 2/3 legalistic with regard to baptism. He now legalistically believes that a person must be immersed -have the right action- and that the person must be the proper candidate for baptism-a penitent believer. Now Brother Lemley, you should not legalistically exclude a penitent believer just because he was sprinkled instead of immersed in water. Must a person make 100 percent on the subject of the action of baptism before he receives the blessings of God’s grace?

One of Brother Ketcherside’s favorite expressions is “All truths are equally true but all truths are not equally important.” Now, we are told that the knowledge of the purpose of baptism is one of those truths, which is not really that important. Why? Because Brother Lemley said so. And surely, Brother Lemley could not be wrong! Brother Lemley, why be legalistic in saying that a man must believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Why be legalistic in saying that a man must repent? Why be legalistic in saying that a man must be immersed?

Yes, the writers of Mission Messenger are as “legalistic” as I am, but they have just chosen to draw the line in a different place. I am not quite sure they even know where they draw the line, but that they draw lines is obvious. “You therefore who teach another, do you not teach yourself?” You who preach that one should not be legalistic, are you legalistic?

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 19, p. 9
March 15, 1973

By Cecil Willis

Beginning with the August 10, 197 2 issue of Truth Magazine, four editorials were printed entitled “Theological Liberalism at Abilene Christian College.” These articles were precipitated by an article written by a young brother (Randall Mark Trainer), which appeared in the April 20, 1972 issue of the Gospel Guardian. Brother Trainer assured everyone that there was no theological liberalism to be found at Abilene Christian College. Such an article, written by a former Florida College student, so delighted the administration of ACC that they photographically reproduced the Guardian article and circulated it all over the brotherhood. The Firm Foundation and the Christian Chronicle also reprinted the Guardian article. Apparently that Guardian article served their purposes well.

My articles were written to attend to a job that I sincerely feel should have been attended to by the Gospel Guardian editor who permitted the Trainer article to be printed without a word of disagreement with its conclusions. This young brother stated that he had been in the classes of several teachers at ACC. Of these teachers he said: “If any of them has presented anything even remotely akin to theological liberalism. I am unaware of it . . . If some ‘brotherhood watchdogs’ have discovered an onslaught of theological liberalism in the church of our Lord today, they must have found it somewhere else than Abilene Christian College, at least so far as I can tell.”

My four article series was designed to show that our young brother was a little naive in his evaluation of ACC and its teachers. Considerable evidence was then recited to show that even ACC faculty members had accused other faculty members of theological liberalism. Such is still the case. If the ACC President or Dean will arrange for their Bible faculty members publicly to answer in writing a series of questions, I think I can even now prove that liberal positions are held by some Bible faculty members at Abilene Christian College. Does anybody want to challenge my hand on the matter’! If so, require the faculty members to answer some questions about what they believe and teach; and we shall see what we shall see!

I will guarantee you that I can write a series of questions, pertaining to Bible teaching, concerning which you could not hire the ACC administration or faculty to require each Bible faculty member to state publicly what he believes, teaches, or would practice. If you think my case is over-stated, let me simply offer the pages of Truth Magazine as one public means of interrogation. Then we can see whether there is any liberalism at ACC, to what degree has liberalism affected the ACC Bible faculty, and who the liberal ACC Bible faculty people are. I predict right now that there will be no “takers” on this proposal ACC Bible faculty members would end up testifying against ACC Bible faculty member, if they did not incriminate themselves.

Brother Trainer ought to know that some of the liberal brethren are in hysterics right now over theological liberalism within the church. Brother Trainer is just sure there is none of it at ACC. I am not sure Brother Trainer would know what it was, if he encountered it face to face. My reason for that statement will be shown shortly.

“Doctor” Thomas B. Warren of Harding Graduate School in Memphis, edits a paper named The Spiritual Sword which is filled, issue after issue, with teaching against theological liberalism within liberal churches of Christ, and Warren and associates document abundantly that theological liberalism is about to engulf liberal churches. But Brother Trainer is oblivious to the slightest danger of such on the campus of ACC. I simply declare that Brother Trainer either does not know what some ACC teachers believe, propagate and teach, or else he does not know liberalism when he sees it.

Before me as I write is the January 1973 issue of The Spiritual Sword. In this issue is an article entitled -Some Grave Dangers Presently Facing Young Preachers.” Within this article is this statement: “No danger is more imminent or frightening than the presence of liberalism and modernism in the church of Christ today.” Is The Spiritual Sword writer misrepresenting the danger, or is Brother Trainer just blind to it? Listen further to our liberal brother warn about theological liberalism: -Its leprous hands have the church by the throat in wide areas of the country and many who are carrying its banner are the young preachers, teachers, professors and Bible Chair workers who have arisen from within the Lord’s church. Without doubt the church today faces one of the gravest crises it has ever confronted because of this cancer, which has grown up within our midst. It is the case today that preachers within the church are openly denying that the Bible is inerrant, holding that truth is subjective, relative and that absolute truth is not attainable.”

According to The Spiritual Sword writer, theological liberalism is running rampant “in wide areas of the country” and it affects “‘, professors and Bible Chair workers . . ..” But Brother Trainer has not seen the slightest indication of it at ACC. Trainer said, “Neither does there appear to be a trend in the direction of theological liberalism.” I do not make bets, but if I were a betting man, I would bet that Brother Trainer could not get every ACC Bible faculty member even to state of every other Bible faculty member: “Neither does there appear to be a trend in the direction of theological liberalism. – But if every ACC Bible faculty member were to make such a careless statement, I still would defy them to agree one by one to answer a series of questions regarding what they believe, teach, or would practice. I do not believe that even the administration (-an get the Bible faculty to agree to answer questions about their belief, teaching, and practice through a public media.

James D. Bales, of Harding College, said: “if we think modernism cannot subvert churches and colleges today. We are helping it to happen. If we think, when it begins to appear among us, that it will go away if we ignore it, we are guilty of failing to exercise vigilance. It not only can happen to us, but it is happening to us.” (Modernism: Trojan Horse in the Church, p. 15) But again, according to Brother Trainer, it may be a danger everywhere else but there is not even a “trend in the direction of theological liberalism” at ACC. Who believes it???

ACC Bible faculty members J. W. Roberts, Everett Ferguson, and Tom Olbricht are even yet on the Board o! Trustees of Mission magazine, which is the Number One espouser of theological liberalism among churches of Christ. Some accused me of misrepresenting these brethren. I was told that they had been Mission Trustees, but they were not any longer. So when I went to Abilene recently, I asked Brother Ferguson if they were still on the Board of Trustees of Mission. Unequivocally he answered that they were.

Mission magazine periodically conducts an opinion poll. The January 1973 Mission states: “Churches of Christ have historically called for unity on the basis of a return to the New Testament. For some the New Testament is viewed as a blueprint, which is to be followed in exact detail in every age of history if the church is to be faithful to the Bible. For these Christians unity will only come when everyone agrees to the concept of a New Testament blueprint and then conforms to it.”

Then this question is posed: “Is the New Testament a blueprint for church organization and worship?” Friends, this gets to the very heart and essence of liberalism. Soon they will feature the results of their opinion poll. Keep in mind that three ACC Bible faculty members are helping to propagate such material as this, and then some young naive brother wants to guarantee the brotherhood that there is not the slight tinge of liberalism at ACC . . . that there is not even “a trend in the direction of theological liberalism” there. Apparently our voting brother either does not recognize blatant liberalism (yes, even modernism) when he sees it, or else he does not in any way hold the Trustees of Mission responsible for the thrust and propagation of the paper over which they serve as Trustees. Incidentally, Mission now has a new and fulltime editor (Victor Hunter). and have moved their offices to Dallas, Texas.

Brother Trainer’s Beliefs

Shortly after Brother Trainer’s article in the Gospel Guardian appeared, he sent me an article entitled “This I Believe,” and urged me to print it quickly, for some brethren were beginning to question his soundness. Trainer’s article appeared in the July 1:3, 1(72 issue of Truth Magazine.

What did Brother Trainer then believe? He itemized several beliefs in order that brethren may know what he believed and where he stood. Point No. 7 was this: “The Scriptures reveal God’s complete and perfect pattern for the organization, worship, and work of the church. We must strive to duplicate this pattern today without addition, subtraction, or modification) in order to be pleasing to God.” This sounds good, doesn’t it? This is precisely what I believe a Bible believer must believe. Let’s see how Brother Trainer puts this into practice, after a while.

Point No. 8 in Brother Trainers article said: “A Christian can never participate in or endorse any activity with another Christian or congregation if he does not believe that activity is in complete accordance with the Scriptures. A Christian must withdraw himself from an apostate, ceasing to have any dealings with him which are related to being a fellow-Christian, but must seek to restore him to the Lord.” And that sounds plenty strong too, doesn’t it? But wait just a minute before concluding where Brother Trainer is going to stand.

Under point No.10 Brother Trainer said: “A Christian must never compromise his conviction on any teaching of the Bible for the sake of unity or any other worthy end.” And that too sounds like a fine and truthful statement.

But what did Brother Trainer do when he left ACC? He moved to Austin, Texas where there are two faithful churches. From the July 13, 1972 Truth Magazine article, one would conclude that Brother Trainer would oppose inter-congregational cooperation, the church support of human institutions, and congregational involvement in recreation. It is probable that nearly everybody thought that was what Brother Trainer believed. But when he moved last summer to Austin, he aligned himself with a liberal church.

Brother Trainer had said: “A Christian can never participate in or endorse any activity with another Christian or congregation if he does not believe that activity is in complete accordance with Scriptures.” It is therefore evident that Brother Trainer thought that the practice of the liberal church in Austin with which he aligned himself was “in complete accordance with the Scriptures. “

Furthermore, he had said: “A Christian must never compromise his conviction on any teaching of the Bible for the sake of unity or any other worthy end.” But he did! Or else he thought the practice of the liberal Austin church was “in complete accordance with the Scriptures.”

A few months ago, Brother Trainer was worried because some of the brethren doubted if he was sound in the faith. Evidently those brethren had good reason for being doubtful about Brother Trainer. I thought he was a naive young brother who was playing into the hands of the liberals who operate ACC. But now he is aligned with them.

Now what of his testimony that there is no liberalism at ACC? It now is apparent that his was simply the testimony of one liberal that there was no theological liberalism at ACC. I did not believe it then, nor do I now. Brethren had better beware of young men who waver in their stance for the truth. Such young brethren are usually “on their way out’ When they begin such wavering. Certainly we hate to see brethren (young or old) jeopardize their souls, and become useless for the cause of truth. And certainly brethren had better continue to be wary of brethren, voting or old, who evidence by their teaching (whether oral or written) that they either do not know the truth, or do not intend to stand upon it and uphold it. Such men are a threat to the purity and loyalty of churches, and brethren might, with very good reasons, be wary of them.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 19, pp. 3-6
March 15, 1973