Truth Magazine

By C.G. (Colly) Caldwell, III

The ground on which the subjectivist most often chooses to defend his cause is the question of fellowship. “To whom may a Christian deny fellowship?” he asks. Those among churches of Christ are answering their own question by saying that they can deny fellowship to no one who has come into Christ through scriptural baptism. Almost without exception their major proof-text is Romans 14. The appeal is that we all differ on some things and since that is true we should agree to disagree on all points of difference (except perhaps on the deity of Jesus) and fellowship each other in spite of our doctrinal problems.

First, the philosophy called “unity in diversity” in matters upon which God has revealed his mind is not only unscriptural: It is anti-scriptural (1 Cor. 1:10). What the subjectivist is really arguing is that it is all right to differ with God. That is why I have called the fellowship issue a “smokescreen.” Suppose we do agree to fellowship all baptized persons. Does that mean that all baptized persons are right with God, walking in the light? If not, we are walking with those in darkness. If so, Gods word on any point other than the deity of Jesus is not worth the snap of your finger, certainly not worth contending for earnestly (Jude 3). Now get in mind what the subjectivist is doing. He is not really arguing for fellowship. He is arguing against a strong stand on the word of God. He will “scream and holler” (no, probably he will smile, fold his hands, say that he loves me and in a whisper affirm) that he is not, but that is exactly the whole point of the whole thing!

Romans 14

Now, let us look at that proof-text, Romans 14. It is a great chapter and at first hearing the position on it sounds wonderful. One question, however, brings the picture into focus: “On what kind of difference does Paul tell brethren they may disagree.” (See also 2 Cor. 8; 10: 14-11 :1)? I affirm that Paul is talking: (1) about matters of personal scruple (that is, matters that clearly affect the Christian personally and which may be participated in without involving any other Christian), and (2) about matters which both the weaker brother and the stronger brother ought to understand are left by God to personal application at the individuals own discretion.

The point of the passage is stated in verse three. First, “Let not him that eateth set as nought him that eateth not.” The instruction given here is to the stronger brother who knows that he can eat privately without religious significance and not sin. His attitude toward his weaker brother (who, regardless of weakness in personal strength on this point, is stringently trying to follow Gods revealed will and thus will not do anything which bothers his conscience) is one of love and good will, not condemnation. You will note that the weaker brother has not violated Gods will nor has he presumed to do anything apart from Gods word.

“. . . And let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth.” This is the instruction to the weaker brother who will not eat meat which has been offered to idols at all. Why, because he strongly believes it is wrong to eat any meat offered to idols? No, he knows that “God hath received” the man who eats and he knows that God does not receive the man who continues in sin. Do not let the subjectivist dodge here by saying that God received this stronger brother when he was baptized. Paul is not talking about his reception upon the basis of baptism. He is talking about acceptance of both men regarding the matter of eating meat. The stronger brother eats and God accepts him in it.

Why then does this weaker brother not eat? He does not eat because, in spite of Gods granting him the liberty to eat, he cannot without compunction of conscience bring himself to eat. The Lord says that he does not sin if he refuses to eat so he does not eat. Nothing is involved but an innocent personal privilege. Paul is not speaking on a point which affects the work or worship of the collectivity. If he were the man would be expressly prohibited from interjecting his views into the affairs of the church (Col. 2:20-23; 1 Tim. 4:1-4; Matt. 15:1-6).

God also, however, tells him not to judge the man who does eat. Why, because God desires that he not firmly takes a stand on a point of faith? No, God never asked any man to overlook sin, compromise truth, or fellowship men in darkness. If so Jesus and the apostles failed to set the proper example for they did not condone sin or fail to judge the sinner who would not recognize the word of God and turn from his evil. Why then must he not judge the man who eats? Look at the text . . .” For God hath received him.” Even the weaker brother is to do what he does because he recognized Gods wishes in the matter. Why receive the other man? Because God says that He has received him and approved his action and thus the weaker brother must receive him too.

The subjectivist identifies the “weaker brother” in this passage with one who has not come to know Gods will and thus acts (or does not act as the case may be) in the matter at hand apart from Gods revelation. That is not the case. Paul has told him what God says about his freedom to eat meat or not to eat. He understands that. He is not refusing to accept Gods word. He may be overly cautious but he has committed no presumptuous act. If he had, and not turned from it, God would not have received him, and I take it that he, too, is received by God since God told the stronger brother not to judge him either. Suppose for example that this brother began to eat meat as a religious act of worship. Would Pauls instruction be the same? Certainly not. The man would then be in sin and that is a different matter altogether (1 Cor. 10:20-22).

Scriptural Disagreement: The Rule

On what then may we scripturally disagree. Answer: (1) on those matters on which God has not revealed his mind and (2) on matters of personal concern left by God to the judgment of individual Christians to be determined within the framework of personal spiritual strength and private circumstance. It is true that we should be patient, considering one anothers shortcomings (especially on difficult points of scriptural study) in the application of these guidelines to the subject of fellowship. But to add to these guidelines the realm of revealed New Testament authority and precedent which involves collective action is to leave the question of fellowship and to affirm allegiance with the lawless one (2 Thess. 2:8-12). Again, the fellowship issue is a smokescreen. It is designed to hide the marriage ceremony of the subjectivist (divorced without cause from the word of God) to worldly, human rationalism.

One more time and we will conclude this series. Who is the subjectivist? He is the man who rejects strong responsibility to an objective written standard, the New Testament. He exalts personal elements in experience and feeling (his own and others) as ultimate criteria on which to judge whether a man is in relationship with God. He refuses to challenge those subjective standards with the objective word of God. His preaching leads to the abandonment of real conviction (except perhaps on the topic of his subjectivism). He is a dangerous man because he does not properly love the revealed truth of God (though he, like the cultists, professes strongly his allegiance to the Bible). He is a vulnerable man because he is open game for theological liberalism and skepticism. Be aware of him. Study his doctrines and philosophy. Study the truth. Pray for wisdom to be able to overcome the subtle, lying, workings of Satan (2 Thess. 2:10-12).

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 11, p. 7-8
January 18, 1973

By Cecil Willis

(Editors Note: Recently I spoke in Texas on the subject of Cooperation. Reuel Lemmons, editor of the FIRM FOUNDATION, responded to my remarks. Following is a copy of what I said on that occasion. I did my best to present the truth on the subject, and to expose the various errors promulgated on cooperation.)

The controversy surrounding the subject of church cooperation did not originate among Churches of Christ in the last two or three decades. The imminent historian, Earl West, said: “The question of how congregations may cooperate in their work and still maintain their independence is not only one of the oldest to come from the restoration movement but the most enduring.” (The Life and Times of David Lipscomb, p. 133.) This subject constantly has been before the brotherhood for well over one hundred years.

In 1855 Tolbert Fanning said: “In establishing The Gospel Advocate, I determined, by the help of the Lord, to give the subject of Cooperation a thorough examination. I do not pretend to say how it has been brought about, but I have for years believed that a change must take place in our views of cooperation, before we can labor to each others advantage, or to the honor of God.” (Gospel Advocate, Oct. 1855, p. 110.) The issue is still before us, and hence these discussions this day.

Definition

The word “cooperation” is a key word in this controversy, yet the exact word is not found in either the King James Version or the American Standard Version. The word “cooperation” consists of two parts, “co” meaning “together or with,” and “operation” which mean “a working.” Thus when we speak of “cooperation,” we mean “a working together of two or more units in the production of a common effect or the achievement of a common purpose.

Websters New International Dictionary (The Merriam Series) defines “cooperation” as “act of cooperation: joint operation; concurrent effort or labor. ” The terms “joint operation” and “concurrent effort or labor” are significant, for they aptly describe the two basic kinds of congregational cooperation that have been proposed among Churches of Christ. One of these kinds of cooperation is found in the New Testament; the other kind is lawless, and hence sinful (I Jno. 3:4).

In “joint operation,” the congregations involved pool their resources into a common treasury, and then centralize the control of the pooled treasury. Sometimes the pooling has been done in a human institution (such as the missionary society), sometimes in the hands of one man who came to be called “a one-man missionary society,” and sometimes in the hands of a large church, which has come to be called a “sponsoring church.” But in all “Joint operations, inevitably there are the pooling of resources and the centralization of control.

In the other type of cooperation, there is “concurrent effort or labor.” This aptly describes the type of congregational cooperation to be found in the New Testament. Several congregations may work together for a common goal; they may act simultaneously. Hence, the action is concurrent, but they nevertheless act independently. There is neither pooling of resources nor centralization of control.

Some brethren, who are ignorant of both Bible teaching and dictionary definitions, would deny that independent but concurrent action on the part of congregations is congregational cooperation at all. Thus some refer to those of us who advocate independent but concurrent action as “Anti-cooperationists.” On this point, H. Leo Boles said:

“To operate means to work, and to cooperate means to work together to the same end. There can be no working together of churches without the churches themselves working. Churches that do not work cannot work together; churches that do not operate cannot cooperate. Every church in the universe that operates or works according to the will of God cooperates or works together with every other church in the universe that is working according to the same rule. Churches which are fulfilling their mission separate and independent of other churches nevertheless are cooperating with all other churches that fulfill their mission. It seems that we ought to see this that we ought to recognize this fundamental truth. This is the only church cooperation that is taught in the New Testament. ” (Gospel Advocate, Jan. 28, 1932, p. 114.)

Brother Bill Humble, now Dean of Abilene Christian College was my Church History professor at Florida Christian College in the early 1950s, and a good teacher he was too, I might add. Brother Humble said: “Lipscomb believed that when churches worked under the same divine laws, they were cooperating with one another and with God, though separated by thousands of miles.” (Preceptor, March, 1955, p. 15.) Brother Humble in 1953 was editing a section in the Preceptor, which he called “Restoration and Reaction.” In this column, he re-printed some articles on “Congregational Cooperation” which had been written by Earl West, and which also appeared in the Gospel Advocate and Gospel Guardian. In commending these articles by West, Brother Humble said: “. . . Earl West . . . is, in my estimation, the outstanding student of restoration history in the church today . . We believe that the Advocate has rendered a valuable service to the brotherhood in presenting these articles . . . ” (Preceptor, June, 1953, p. 17.)

In this series of articles, Brother West said:

“The third type of congregational cooperation is more difficult to describe. . . . The chief promoter was David Lipscomb. It was the belief that the congregations of the Lord, in their individual and local and scriptural way was true cooperative work…. Lipscomb was convicted that much of the controversy over cooperation was due to a lack of understanding of what constituted cooperation. Two congregations, although a thousand miles apart, each pursuing its own independent course in the work of the Lord are necessarily cooperating. Their work is cooperative. ” (Preceptor, June, 1953, p. 17.)

Later in this series Brother West said:

“When ten thousand local congregations, all following the same divine laws, all working earnestly to save souls, each in Christian love caring for its own needy-when congregations do this, they are necessarily cooperating for all are doing the work God intended and in the way God intended. Not being able to see any human machinery, they may be unconscious of cooperating, but churches functioning are necessarily and unavoidably cooperating. (Preceptor, July, 1953, p. 17.)

A few months earlier, Brother West had said: They dont have to pool their money. They dont have to put it under the oversight of a designated central church. . . . What do you mean by cooperation, anyway? It is simply working together by the same set of rules.” (Sermon delivered at Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, May, 1953.)

I have gone to some length to show that independent but concurrent action is recognized by the dictionary as a legitimate usage of the word “cooperation,” and also to show that historically this fact has been recognized by the most imminent historians among us. Thus one is betraying an ignorance of the usage of the word “cooperation” when he refers to those of us who believe in independent but concurrent action by congregations as “Anti-cooperationists.”

New Testament Teaching

Let us now come to a discussion of some of the New Testament teaching pertinent to this discussion on congregational cooperation. The New Testament compares the church to the Tabernacle and to the Temple of the Old Testament. The Tabernacle was built according to a pattern designed by God (Ex. 29:1-9; 25:40; 27:8). The Hebrews writer states that Christ is “a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man” (Heb. 8:2). The Hebrews writer further states that Christ serves in “the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands” (Heb. 9: 11).

But the Lords church is also likened unto the Old Testament Temple (See Eph. 2:20-22; 1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 2 Cor. 6:16). However, God charged Solomon to follow the “pattern” in erecting the Temple (See 1 Chron. 28:9-19). I, therefore, at this point appropriate the lengthy but well-chosen words of Brother Humble, as he wrote regarding the divine pattern:

“It is inconceivable that God would lavish such care upon the tabernacle and temple and not bestow at least equal care upon the church, particularly when we consider the fact that they were temporary and the church permanent, they were physical and the church spiritual, and that they were of little worth compared with the blood-purchased church of the Lord. . . . The tabernacle is a type (shadow) of the church; therefore since there is a pattern for the tabernacle, there must have been a pattern for the church! Alexander Campbell once argued in a discussion of worship that where there is no order, there can be no disorder; and this same principle could be extended to prove that God has a pattern for every essential characteristic of the New Testament church. Where there is no pattern, there can be no violation of the pattern  Though discussions become heated, the very fact that discussions are being carried on indicates that we still believe in the necessity of determining just what the pattern requires. If the time ever comes that we assume the it makes no difference attitude and discussions cease, complete harmony might result; but the peace would not be worth the price. Our cause would be lost…. A century ago brethren were involved in controversy regarding the missionary society; they were asking one another whether such an organization was included in the pattern. Though the world laughed and though division came, brethren were determined to follow the plan, and follow it they did! Today another generation of likeminded brethren are again discussing the question of how to do missionary work. Instead of accusing one another of being antimissionary or pro-society, would it not be better to dedicate ourselves anew to answering the question, What does the blue-print say? – and this without bitterness, malice, and hate?” (Preceptor, Oct., 1953, pp. 10, 11.)

I submit to you once more the premise advanced by Brother Alexander Campbell: if there is no divine order, then there can be no disorder! If the New Testament supplies no information as to how congregations cooperated, then any type of congregational cooperation, from the missionary society on up, or down, would be acceptable. Let us therefore take a hurried look at what is taught in the New Testament regarding how congregations worked together. I propose that the following abbreviated points summarize what the New Testament teaches regarding how churches cooperated.

1. Churches helped each other in time of emergency by contributing directly to the church or churches, which needed relief. (Rom. 15: 26; 1 Cor. 16: 1-4.) There were needy saints in Jerusalem, and churches in Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia sent to their relief. See also Acts 11: 27-30 for the record of Antiochs relief sent to the Judean churches.

2. Many churches contributed to one church in time of need. (2 Cor. 8, 9.) Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia were provinces, and the churches of these provinces sent to Jerusalem to relieve the need of the destitute saints there.

3. Each church made up its own “bounty,” selected its own “messengers,” and sent its “bounty” by its “messengers” directly to the church in need. (2 Cor. 8, 9; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; Rom. 15:26.) Paul mentioned that “whomsoever ye shall approve” should “carry your bounty unto Jerusalem.”

4. A church with “power” (ability) gave to a church in “want” in order to produce mutual freedom from want, or as Paul put it, “equality.” (2 Cor. 8:13-15.) The only time one can read about one church sending funds to another church for any purpose at all was to relieve the physical “want” of members of the church to which the funds were sent.

5. Individuals, not churches, served as messengers. (1 Cor. 16:1-4.)

6. Messengers served only in the capacity of delivering the contribution from the contributing church to the intended recipient. (Acts 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16-1-4; Phil. 4:10-18.)

7. Several churches assisted in supporting an evangelist, each communicating directly with him. (Phil. 4:10-18; 2 Cor. 11:8.) As J. C. McQuiddy phrased it, “The Scriptures establish clearly that in New Testament times the church communicated directly with the missionary in the field.” (Gospel Advocate, March 17, 1910, pp. 328, 329.) He also cited Phil. 4:15-17 to prove his affirmation, even as I have done.

So far as I am able to ascertain, anything more than what has just been recited, which is taught by man on the subject of cooperation, emanates from human wisdom, rather than

from the Wisdom that is from above. From the teaching of scriptures, we affirm that all congregations were independent, equal, and autonomous. (Acts 14:23; 20:28; Phil. 1: 1; 1 Pet. 5: 1-4.) Secular history verifies these points. Mosheim said: “All the churches, in those primitive times, were independent bodies; or none of them subject to the jurisdiction of any other…. it is as clear as the noon-day, that all Christian churches had equal rights, and were in all respects on a footing of equality.” (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 1, p. 72). Other historians, such as Lyman Coleman, agree with the testimony of Mosheim.

(To be concluded next week)

 

“Were You Successful?”

Paul K. Williams

Transvaal, Republic of South Africa

Charles Goodall returned home after going on a personal call. His wife said, “Were you successful?” The prospect had not been baptized, but Charles replied, “Yes, I was successful.” He had been successful in doing what the Lord commanded. He had preached the gospel to the man.

Our measurement of success is often by the wrong yardstick. Of course we want to baptize people, but not everyone who is taught will obey. The “failure rate” of Jesus was phenomenal. By far the majority of the ones He taught were not converted. And He does not expect us to baptize every one we teach. He counts us a success when we teach the gospel, whether we baptize the ones taught or not. But we must teach.

“When I say to the wicked, You shall surely die; and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself.” (Ezekiel 3:18-19).

Every time you teach someone the gospel, you are successful in carrying out the command of Jesus. Every time you sit at home watching television when you could be teaching someone, you are a failure! This is an urgent business. Your soul is at stake as well as the souls of those creatures who have never heard the gospel.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 11, pp. 3-6
January 18, 1973

By Earl E. Robertson

Our Lord Jesus Christ ever stressed the fact that for a sinner to come to him in obedience he must first be taught the gospel. There just is not any way to Christ without learning of him. It would appear under some circumstances a stress has been made to “baptize” before proper indoctrination. An effort for harvest before sufficient toil does not produce the desired end; neither does “baptism” before one is taught the truth. Churches have suffered much due to this error. Yes, we are anxious for sinners to obey the Lord, but it is so necessary that they “know the truth” (John 8:32) to be made free and run smoothly as a Saint in the Kingdom of God. The untaught “baptized” cannot but create problems.

To come to Christ, he says: “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me. . . ” (Matt. 11: 29). Again, he says: “No man can come to me, except the father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, and they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (John 6:44,45). All of this reveals why the Master would say, “Go preach the gospel” (Mark 16:15). Inasmuch as men cannot believe in him of whom they have not heard, it is necessary that they be taught Christ . . . understand his will … that they might be saved in him. Cf. Rom. 10: 14,17: Acts 16:31-34.

The parable of the Sower (Luke 8) emphasizes the function and purpose of seed; the call of Paul to the apostleship of Christ reveals also his work and its design (Acts 26:16-18). Peter speaks also, saying, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). The passage says they were “called” out of darkness. This call was the instruction they received through apostolic teaching. Colossians 1:13 also say the same thing. So, the call necessitates teaching. “The eyes of your understanding (heart) being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints” (Eph. 1:18).

All of this means that each preacher and each Bible teacher must be patient and willing to keep on teaching and teaching. In doing this we are doing what the Lord wants. After this let us be satisfied for his increase (1 Cor. 3:5-7). Then the labors of our hearts and hands will be able with Paul to give intelligent response to the questions concerning their hope: “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day” (2 Tim. 1: 12).

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 11, p. 2
January 18, 1973

By Roy E. Cogdill

On Sunday morning, November 20, 1922, at Hobart, Oklahoma, as a boy of fifteen, I preached my first gospel sermon. That was fifty years ago and that is a long time. I was then in my last year of high school, taking some of the first year of college at the same time, and was attending a school operated by the brethren called Western Oklahoma Christian College at Cordell, Oklahoma.

From that time on I preached almost every Sunday through the rest of the school year. The next summer I preached for the church at Mountain View, Okla., and held two meetings. From this beginning, I have been constantly busy for fifty years preaching the gospel. I love to preach and think the greatest compliment ever paid me was a lady who said, “I am not going to tell you that was the greatest sermon I ever heard or that you are the greatest preacher I ever heard, but I do want to tell you that I believe you enjoy preaching more than any one that I have ever heard.”

There have been several occasions in my life when the temptation came to turn aside from preaching and get into some profession or business that offered tempting financial reward, but it has never been a problem to make the decision that I would continue to give my full time to preaching the word of the Lord. A time or two in my life, due to circumstances, it has been necessary for brief intervals to “make tents” in order to provide a living for my family, but they have not been but few and there was never any difficulty in turning from such to a full time program of preaching when the emergency was ended. I am grateful for the fact that I have never turned aside from the course I began so early in life. I have received much encouragement and have been dealt with generously, for the most part, by my brethren and such has always meant much to me.

As I look back over these fifty years, they are wonderfully rewarding and for them I am very grateful. There have been, of course, many disappointments, heartaches, and trials, but these are far outweighed by the satisfaction of having spent a half-century of continued and determined effort to faithfully serve God by preaching and teaching His Word.

A man cannot honestly examine the past without recognizing that he has made many mistakes and often erred in judgment. There are many things that I would do differently, if they could be recalled. There is tremendous satisfaction though in honesty of purpose and the knowledge that there has never been a vicious attitude of heart. Then how gratifying is the knowledge that in every error and mistake there has always been the readiness to try to correct and overcome the mistake made.

I am glad and grateful, as I think back over the years, I can say, as far as I know my own heart, I have no personal malice or ill feeling in my heart against any. Whatever disappointments have come or whatever injury or indignity may have been suffered, the result has been, with any resentment, soon forgotten and no bitterness or grudge has lingered.

Perhaps the most strengthening and satisfying factor in all the memories that come flooding my mind from the past is the honest belief in my own heart that no matter what the circumstances or cost, I have stood by my convictions and have not sold out my conscience by betraying the truth or compromising with error. I have earnestly tried to preach and contend for what I have believed to be the truth through these years without compromise. As I face the future I pray that it may continue to be so. Nothing has been sadder to me than to witness some stalwart servant of the Lord live to reach such years in which he destroys all for which he ever stood. I pray that I may not do so.

That does not mean that I have not erred in what I have believed and taught. On more than one occasion I have found myself out of harmony with what I have learned to be the truth and been brought to alter my position to bring it in harmony with the truth I learned. I intend to continue to learn and whenever I learn anything that is contrary to what I have believed, I will make whatever change may be demanded by truth. I pray that God may continue to give me the strength to do so. It does mean, though, that my convictions and conscience have not been for sale. Personal popularity, the influence of even the closest of friends, personal ambition to be a “big preacher,” financial advantage, nor any other personal consideration has been a determining factor in any stand taken or position occupied, or in any course of action.

On the other hand, there is the persuasion that in many cases a vastly different course would have been taken had such things entered into the decision. I have never rejoiced in making enemies but I have never weighed the preaching of the gospel by the measuring of its impression or result. Preaching it has been my obligation and the results of truth belong to God. I heard a man once brag publicly that he had been preaching the gospel for more than thirty years and if he had an enemy in the world, he did not know anything about it. Jesus seemed to think that such was not something to boast of but that it condemned.

The other side of the picture is that a great deal of misrepresentation, personal abuse, slander, loss of friendship and favor, and other attending consequences could have and would have been avoided if convictions and conscience had not been the price demanded in taking another course. Battles have had to be fought that made bitter enemies but truth cannot be sold out for the sake of friendship. “Let God be found true and every man a liar.” None of these experiences has been pleasant. I love my friends as dearly as anyone and a fight has always been unpleasant to me, but serving my God and “contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints” is every Christians greatest obligation.

One of the most rewarding aspects of this half century of gospel preaching has been the testimonials that have come in the evidences of the good that have been accomplished. Some of it has been apparent but much of it will “follow after.” Churches have been planted to grow and flourish. Multitudes have been converted to the, Lord. How many people have been baptized under my preaching, I do not know. I have rot kept count but God knows. The Holy Spirit did not even see fit to remind Paul of how many he had baptized at Corinth, so I guess the number is not too important. Disciples and small, weak churches have been edified and built up). Many young men and some older ones have been encouraged to preach the gospel. Much good has been done that was not immediate or visible at the time. I am constantly coming in contact with people, almost everywhere I go, who tell me that they learned the truth from some sermon they heard me preach or from something I have written. Dozens have told me that they learned the truth on present day issues from the debates I have held. I would not have known of this bad they not borne such witness personally. All of this has convinced me long ago that when truth is preached or taught, we are doing much more good than we can see or know. For all of this I am grateful.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 10, pp.7-9
January 11, 1973