Truth Magazine

By Ray Ferris

Under a New York Times News Service designation, dated March 31, 1972, the Chicago Tribune ran a news release regarding “an ecclesiastical bonanza” that had been discovered by a Catholic priest recently. “The Roman Catholic priest who bought a full-page advertisement in Playboy magazine last January to stimulate recruitment for the Order of the Most Holy Trinity (Trinitarians) has .come up with an ecclesiastical bonanza.”

It seems that literally hundreds of responses were being received from the ad in an effort to find suitable students for training for the priesthood. Responses had reached a peak of 30 to 40 per week from the ad which was placed in only the East Coast edition of the magazine at a cost of $9,222.00 with no fee from the advertising agency. The good “Father” who obtained the response had tried various other publications with results that were not satisfactory, including $10,000.00 spent last year in Life Magazine, as well as money spent in church papers, new magazines, and newspapers. They were getting an average of only five new students per year, and getting as many as ten was considered an exceptional year. They have already approved twenty-eight for testing from the new group of responses, and, “if all goes well, most of them will be approved as students for the priesthood in June.”

Varied Reactions

In the news story there were brief references to the reactions of various people regarding this approach. It is manifest that the “Father” who placed the ad must have approved of the action. The president of the Baltimore advertising agency was, of course, pleased with the outcome, and offered an analysis for its success. The establishment had turned off most of the young people, and any appearance of part of that establishment in unusual and- unexpected areas caused the young people to take note! One New Jersey resident said it was “one of the most disgraceful acts of any member of the church in this century.” A New Yorker said, “At a time when religion has lost its meaning for so many young people and has lost touch with them and has become irrelevant, we have to reach out to them.” The church official who placed the ad said, “In conscience, I do not feel that Christ’s message is out of place anywhere.”

The resident of New Jersey has hit “the nail on the head.” It is one thing to reach out with the saving gospel of Christ and declare His message anywhere; to demonstrate the “relevance” of the message of Jesus now to all people, whether in or out of “the establishment.” It is an entirely different thing to reach into the grossest elements of our society to find people to be representatives of the Lord in some special effort to bring people out of wickedness. It would make just as much sense to advertise in the midst of the crime syndicate for one to be schooled as a policeman, and then gloat of the success of the advertisement when several “hoods” answer the ad! Who would dare to say this was making law and order relevant to anybody and delivering its message to the syndicate?

There was no mention made of a need to convert to Christ those who responded, and then train them for the “priesthood.” A member of the Crime syndicate may reform and become a very effective policeman, but he can hardly be a logical representative of law and order, and one who would be used by reasonable men to enforce law and order, while a member of the crime syndicate. Likewise, a reader of Playboy Magazine may be converted and become a preacher of righteousness, but reasonable men who uphold truth can hardly recruit from those who subscribe to the immoral “Playboy” codes, and set these forth as examples of moral living and advocates of truth and godliness, while they are yet members of the “Playboy Community!” But that is exactly what is proposed by this plan.

Some Observations

Several observations seem to be in order here. First, the Catholic Church must be having a difficult time in recruiting priests. There is seemingly a tremendous shortage of men who are really willing to make a sacrifice in behalf of what they think of as the service of God and man in the “spiritual community,” regardless of what religious group is involved, and the Catholics are no exception. Second, we have illustrated the extent to which so-called religious people will go to foster the organization of which they are a part. Even though likelihood of getting a spiritually-minded person from the abysmal depth of moral pollution to be found among Playboy readers is almost non-existent, it does not deter some from perpetuating the organization at the expense of souls, who will be led and influenced by such immoral leaders. Third, the tremendous influence of immorality in the “religious world” is seen because “Father Lupo” says the basic reaction to the ad and its results has been favorable! Fourth, there is indication that some are saying of Hugh Heffner and his philosophy – “If we can’t lick him, we will join him!” Finally, the widespread popularity of this obscene magazine is seen. After all they only used the East Coast edition for the ad. Think of the result they might have gotten if they had advertised in all editions! The article ends by saying, “the Trinitarians were not considering placing another ad in Playboy but were currently working on ‘another new idea in recruiting.’ He declined to elaborate.” Hmmm-mm!

With all that result from just one ad in one segment of the magazine and it seems to have made everyone so happy, it is difficult to determine why they did not pursue the course with more frequent ads in all the editions. Since the implication is that this ad was “Christ’s message” to the Playboy Magazine readers, then it may be that they are considering placing ads for “students for the priesthood” in all of the “X-Rated” movies, the Burlesque Shows, Saloons, Hippie Communes, etc. Thus “Christ’s message” could be taken to these people, and this appearance of “part of the establishment” in these surroundings would be sure to attract the attention of some of these young people who will respond to become priests, nuns, etc! A whole new field of opportunity is opened.

Not Really Surprising

Do not get the impression that I am really surprised by the article. Anyone who has made even a slight study of church history is aware of the unbelievable immorality that has been condoned, practiced, and even advocated by the Catholic religion in its sordid history. This is but another milestone in the long road of their immorality.

Nor is this an effort to imply that all Catholics are immoral, or would approve of the practice referred to in the article, and other immoral deeds. But any Catholic is stuck with the stubborn fact of history. The history of the Catholic Church is filled with record after record of the immoral actions of its official leaders. This is but one of many evidences that could be cited to show that it is not following the truth that is revealed in God’s word. To be imperfect is but to be human, but to attempt to justify such unethical actions as an official claiming to represent God on earth is blasphemy!

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 35, pp. 10-11
July 13, 1972

By Dudley R. Spears

Brother James P. Needham and I were the third pair of American brethren to visit with and work with the conservative Philippine brethren. We followed brethren Roy Cogdill, Cecil Willis, J. T. Smith and Connie Adams. The work these men did in their trips was indeed a great help to the work we were able to do. The work among the Philippines is greatly enhanced and encouraged by the visits of American preachers. The Philippine Christians are very cordial and hospitable toward Americans who visit them. They are also very concerned about the welfare of Americans as there are some dangerous conditions that exist there.

There are over 200 congregations throughout the Philippine Islands who stand for the truth on the institutional issue. During our stay in Luzon and on Mindinao we were in direct contact with somewhere around 130 preachers who are either fully supported or partially supported and stand for the truth. There are new congregations being started regularly by these brethren. While we were there, a new work was begun in the Visayan Islands and another work began shortly after our departure in the northern most part of Luzon in the city of Laoag. This is indicative of the efforts of these Filipinos who diligently work and preach. There were 63 baptisms while we were there, due largely to the teaching work of native preachers, and 14 more the day we left.

Viewing our trip as a whole, it is my judgment that the trip was well worth the time and money that were involved. Several interested brethren and congregations contributed to our support to make the trip possible. Without the financial help these people gave, we could not have gone and could not have accomplished what we did. From the letters we are already receiving from brethren in the Islands, it is evident that our trip served to strengthen the conservative preachers and congregations. One brother wrote, “. . . your visit is a great success. The knowledge you have imparted and the several souls that were baptized are worth more than the wealth of this world. To me, the things I have observed from the lectures are too edifying. I owe you a lot of things. Only God knows how I can pay for all of these.” Another preacher from the Philippines wrote, “The Lord be praised for our recently concluded meeting. It did so much good for the cause of Christ in this city (Baguio City, DRS) of 95,000. Only God knows the extent of good accomplished.” These are two samples of many similar comments we have received since our return.

It is often difficult to evaluate a work while the work is being done. During our stay in the Philippines, there were times when elation was experienced at the prospects for the cause and at other times we bad sad disappointments. It is only after the work is over and one gets back to his normal habitat and things settle in his mind that a man can honestly evaluate and describe such a trip as we took. In this article and others to follow, I shall try to set before you as accurate a description of our work there as possible and also some sort of critique of the entire situation among conservatives in the Philippines. I tried to keep an accurate diary, but the press of teaching and travel made it very difficult to record all that I wanted to remember. Therefore my memory will have to serve to fill in those spots that I have no written record of.

Our plans were laid well in advance before we left this country. We had many discussions with others who had gone before, and with their suggestions and their knowledge, we made our plans to work primarily with native preachers. From the first we tried to arrange our schedule and teaching materials so that the native preachers would be helped to do the work of an evangelist. We felt and still feel that in order for us to be of a lasting help to the cause of Christ there it would be necessary for us to help them stand on their own feet. One of the things that we emphasized in every place we spoke was that the Philippine churches should plan for and work toward the day when they will be no longer in need of foreign financial help. The Philippine people have traditionally been known for an “independent spirit” seen in their efforts for freedom from Spain which ruled them for over 300 years and for their desire to be independent as a nation which became a reality in 1946 when they were granted in. dependence by this government.

In view of our over-all objective we worked together for months preparing the materials from which we would do our teaching. Brother Needham and I spent many hours preparing the material in outline form. We intended to have it printed here in the United States and mailed to the brethren there before we arrived in the Philippines, but we met many obstacles to that plan. First, the work took much more time than we had anticipated. Both of us had several meetings to which we already had been committed. Next, the press of local work kept us from getting the manuscript ready by our self-imposed deadline. Then, the costs of printing the book and mailing it were absolutely prohibitive. Therefore, we mailed the manuscript of 100 pages ahead to brother Victorio Tibayan in Manila to see if it could be printed there. We learned that the printing cost there was more than it was here, so we abandoned that plan. Finally, we arranged to have it mimeographed there in Manila and it is now distributed among the native preachers and others who attended our lectures and classes.

As the saying goes, “The best laid plans of mice and men . . .” pretty well describes what occurred during our visit to the Philippines. There are several contributing factors to our inability to do what we planned. We had planned to have daily classes beginning around 8 o’clock in the morning, taking off for dinner, beginning at 1:30 in the afternoon and ending at 5 in the afternoon. Then we were scheduled to preach each evening beginning at 8 p.m. with questions and answers to follow the sermons. This is not said to the discredit of the Philippine people, but merely as an explanation. We found that the brethren there are not as conscious of beginning “on time” as most of us would be. Some of them have to depend on public transportation to travel to the place of meeting and back home. To say that public transportation in the Philippines is not the most dependable way of getting somewhere is quite, an understatement. It is also true that the Philippine people do not live in the rush that most of us live in and therefore do not get as concerned as we do over timetables and schedules. At any rate, very few of the daily teaching sessions began on time.

The materials we selected were divided into the following categories: Preachers and Preaching, Church Organization and Work, The Scheme of Redemption and Scriptural Authority, all taught by brother Needham. The rest of the material consisted of Biblical Interpretation, Denominational Dogmas (Catholicism, Calvinism, Pentecostalism, etc.), The Christian Life and Christian Evidences, which I was to teach. To the best of our knowledge, these were the subjects that we felt were needed. We had written to several preachers there before we outlined these subjects and discussed this with bretheren here who have been over there before. But in nearly every place we went, it was almost impossible to keep our schedule. Probably, we laid of too much land to plow in the short time we were there. This is a mistake others can profit from.

In the daily teaching sessions the major portion of the time was devoted to what they refer to as “Open Forums.” In these sessions there are many questions that are proposed. There is no way to anticipate the kind of questions that will be raised in such sessions. They range anywhere from how the church spends its money, to the time when the Lord’s Supper can be observed, to the covering question and on and on. The Philippine preachers also face a formidable foe in the denominational world in the form of the “Eglesia Ni Christo-Manalo.” This is a rather large denomination begun by a man named Manalo. Apparently, Manalo took from the larger religions of the world what he considered the best feature and incorporated them into his religion. He is dead now but the church is still operated by his son and heir. The preachers for this church are militant and will debate nearly anytime they have the chance.

The Manaloist position on the personality of Christ is their central point of contention. Manalo taught that Jesus was not Deity but only humanity and took passages that mention Christ as “man” and ignored all those which attribute Deity to Him. Perhaps more will be said about this later. Brother Tibayan has promised to write some articles on this question in Torch magazine which is edited by Brother Needham. Since this is one of their problems, we tried to deal with this question. Often we found ourselves to be the student rather than the teacher. I assembled a set of debate notes several years ago that deal with the “Jesus Only” doctrines and had a copy with me which helped. I left the copy with brother Tibayan who may be able to have it duplicated and distributed among the preachers there. Here again, we ran into extremely high printing costs there as we considered having it printed in Manila.

The daily sessions in every place we visited were characterized by more questions and answers than anything else. Brother Needham presented his material on “Preachers and Preaching” in all of the four locations where our classes were conducted. Needham is the author of a book by the same title and is certainly qualified to deal with preachers, their problems and their preaching. This he did as effectively as any man could have. Many of the questions that came up in the open forums had to do with what Needham had presented. All in all, his classes were most effective and what I consider the “high light” of our work there. In fact, that subject became so important that both of us talked about preachers and preaching on Mindinao and omitted the other materials. We felt that since the materials would be given to them in book form, we could devote all of our time to the matter of preachers and preaching.

We held our first classes and lectures in Manila. The classes were held in the meeting house at Pasay where Victorio Tibayan is one of the preachers. The evening lectures were held at the Philippine Christian College auditorium. The PCC is a denominational school. We held the next sessions in Baguio City in the basement (A the United Church of Christ of the Philippines meeting house. The UCCP is also a denomination. Next we went to Mindinao and taught in Lambayong and M’Lang. We left the Islands on April 27 for our return to the States. In subsequent articles I will go more into detail on the work in these four places.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 35, pp. 6-9
July 13, 1972

By Cecil Willis

Without doubt, one of the most interesting subjects of our time for character study is Reuel Lemmons, editor of the Firm Foundation published at Austin, Texas. Regardless of how one attempts to add up the totality of what Lemmons says, it does not make sense to any completely rational being. One brother told me recently, “Reuel Lemmons can come nearer to sitting in his own lap than any man I know.” Or as another put it, Reuel Lemmons has the great ability to be “equally strong on both sides of a question.” And Reuel Lemmons has been on both sides of nearly every important question which has been before the brotherhood in the last quarter of a century.

In the April 11, 1972 issue of Firm Foundation, Brother Lemmons published an article which he entitled “Butcher Shop.” in this article he devoted some attention to the trip to the Philippines which Brother Roy E. Cogdill and I made in early 1970. He also paid his respects to the preaching efforts made by several faithful brethren in South Africa, to Brother Leslie Diestelkamps sacrificial work in Nigeria, to the commendable and long-time work done by Brother Ben Shropshire in Hawaii, and to the efforts of a few other faithful brethren in other parts of the world.

In substance, Brother Lemmons said that we had merely butchered up the evangelistic work done by liberal brethren in various parts of the world. I sometimes am accused of being too rough on some writers whose productions I review editorially in this magazine. In order that you might see my reason for dealing I rather stringently with editor Lemmons, I want to quote quite liberally from Lemmons ignoble article entitled “Butcher Shop.”

Lemmons Speaks

Lemmons said that our efforts constituted a “tragic butchering of the body of Christ,” and that “Brethren who love the church will not do this sort of thing.” You see, he already has told his 20,000 readers that we do not love the Lords church. He states that there have been dozens of reports in recent years “of mission efforts being split by hobbyists,” and that “hobbyists . . . prey upon weak and unstable converts. And they actually gloat over the number of them they can turn from the Lord to hobbyism.” He refers to us as “the anti-orphan home anti-cooperation movement.”

Leslie Diestelkamp, Ben Shropshire and other such faithful preachers can well take care of themselves in any exchange with Lemmons, and he knows it. Particularly in this article do I wish to respond to what Lemmons had to say regarding the trip made to the Philippines by Roy Cogdill and me. Note his remarks.

Our Philippine Trip

“Perhaps the most glaring example is the relatively recent church-splitting journey made into the Philippines by Cecil Willis and Roy Cogdill. Willis magazine gloated over the fact that they had converted over 20 preachers…. What these men actually did was just about stopping all the gospel preachers in the Philippines from preaching the gospel and set them to fighting each other.”

He refers to brethren in faithful churches as “this faction.” Lemmons uses about every opprobrious term to describe us he can think of, stopping just barely short of four letter words. Yater Tant, in referring to Lemmons article, said: “In it our Texas brother has quite a bit of fuming and fulminating (and castigating just short of cussing). . .” (Gospel Guardian, May 4, 1972). Tant also added, “His writing almost shows signs of hysteria. He should watch this. Apoplexy is dangerous at any age, but can be downright ominous as one approaches that three-score mark (he will be 60 years old come July 8).”

Lemmons continued his severe castigation of us with these words: “Support is being sought for this faction. How much more noble it would be if all this energy had been spent in preaching the gospel of Christ and the conversion of honest men to him, rather than to a hobby. About the most ridiculous thing we can imagine is to go into a foreign, and even heathen, land and preach to natives that they should not support orphan homes and Herald of Truth! The natives probably think both are heathen Gods that are not supposed to be worshiped any longer.” Lemmons states that liberal brethren “feel that the kingdom of heaven is a vineyard where men labor in peace, love and unity; not a butcher shop.” Lemmons charged that we turned the native Filipino preachers into men who were “flaying the jungle with denunciations of orphan homes, Herald of Truth, and each other.” He adds, “If brethren cannot come to agreement on these issues they can at least desist from the practice of making raids on each others camps. . . .” Now there are a host of these unbecoming and misrepresenting remarks which need some attention.

Now For the Truth

First, let it be clearly understood that Roy Cogdill and I did not introduce the institutional controversy into the Philippine Islands. The liberal American missionaries did that! For at least 13 years before any American conservative brother went to the Philippines to preach the gospel, there were faithful men among the native Filipino preachers who opposed the sponsoring church and the church support of human institutions. Many of the faithful preachers there came out of the Christian Church, and they had already learned enough about the dangers of centralization and institutionalism to know they were wrong. These faithful native Filipino preachers had suffered the same kind of ungodly misrepresentation and abuse as is characteristic of Brother Lemmons attack on us.

Brother Lemmons hardly ever gets anything he writes exactly right. Now and then he approximates the truth in an article but I used to hear my father say, “Even a blind hog will now and then find an acorn.” Let it be clearly understood that Brother Cogdill and I made no effort whatever to go among liberal churches in the Philippines. We only went to those places where we had been invited and to which we had been specifically requested to come. Our only contact with any liberal preachers was with a few of those who came to hear us when we spoke in faithful churches. In fact, the liberal American missionaries severely criticized us because we did not come to see all of them while we were there. Of course, they could as easily have come to see us, if they wanted to see us. They knew we were coming. Within five minutes after I arrived in Manila, I was handed a copy of a scathing literary attack which had been made upon us by the liberal American missionaries, which attack bad been circulated throughout the Philippine Islands prior to our arrival.

About the only liberal preachers with whom we had any contact whatsoever were eight or ten who came to hear us speak, and to publicly question us during an open forum, at Mlang in Cotabato on the southern island of Mindanao. These liberal preachers had obviously been assigned to attend the daily open forum in an effort to disrupt it. Two liberal preachers came each day, just in time for the open forum, and each day two different liberals attended.

Incidentally, Brother Lemmons states that effective evangelistic work has stopped in the Philippines. That may be true among liberal churches, but it definitely is not true among faithful brethren. While Brother Cogdill and I were in the Philippines for just two weeks, 28 were baptized. Last year, during a one month stay, J. T. Smith and Connie Adams baptized 60 people. James P. Needham and Dudley Spears just returned May 13, 1972 from a one month stay among faithful Philippine brethren. During that time more than 60 were baptized. Brother Wallace Little, in the May 18th issue of Truth Magazine, reported the baptism of more than 80. Literally hundreds have been baptized since our visit to the Philippines. More than 30 have been baptized in each of several different gospel meetings. Liberal brethren may have stopped effective gospel preaching, but faithful brethren have not.

Incidentally, Brother Lemmons contemptuously referred to our Filipino brethren as though they were a bunch of illiterate ignoramuses from the jungle. Such high-handed, condescending and contemptuous treatment has been seriously reacted to by competent and faithful Filipino preachers. Many of the faithful preachers are men with several years of college training. Some are as competent, even in the usage of the English language, as is Brother Lemmons himself. There were several men among these native preachers who had as good a grasp of the scriptural principles involved in the digressions of liberalism as any American preacher. In fact, I got considerable satisfaction out of sitting back and watching the most experienced liberal native preachers take a terrific beating in the open forum from faithful native preachers. Truthfully, I do not think I have witnessed any liberal in this country being more soundly thrashed with the truth than were those eight or ten liberal preachers who came to Mlang to try to disrupt our services.

Talk about importing to the Philippines our American problems! You know what book the liberal Filipino brethren brought with them in order to defend sponsoring church-ism and the church support of human institutionalism? They obviously already had learned that the New Testament would be useless in the defense of liberalism. They had under their arm Brother Tom Warrens lecture book on church cooperation. I was much amused as those liberal brethren were repeatedly chided for reading from the wrong book, if they were going to establish the scriptural authenticity of any action among Gods people. Somebody already had drilled into them the patent little liberal dodges.

Brother Lemmons said the native preachers probably think the church supported institutional orphan homes (and colleges), and the Herald of Truth, “are heathen Gods that are not supposed to be worshiped any longer.” Listen Brother Lemmons, it was not us “hobbyists” who introduced the Herald of Truth into the Philippine Islands. You liberal brethren are the ones who aired it there. Furthermore, the liberal American missionaries brought with them many years ago the sponsoring church -practice, and even the church support of the Bible College at Baguio City. I repeat: WE DID NOT INTRODUCE THESE ISSUES AMONG THOSE BRETHREN. You liberal brethren get the credit for that.

Furthermore, Brother Lemmons said we gloated over the conversion of 20 preachers. Again your facts are badly wrong, Brother Lemmons. There are 68 faithful native preachers in the Philippines who are being supported by faithful American churches. I personally know of that many; there may well be even more -than that. Still there is not a single American “factionist” over there to indoctrinate these brethren, while there are several liberal American missionaries who are blasting faithful brethren in every issue of the Philippine Christian. In fact, that is about all they have had in the liberal Philippine Christian for a good many issues now. Liberal Filipino preachers, and liberal American preachers in the Philippines, are much holder than liberal preachers in America.

Now it is true that Truth Magazine and the Gospel Guardian have, in a very few instances, been sent to certain Filipino brethren as subscriptions have been paid for, either by them or by someone who ordered us to send the paper to someone there. But so have the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation. Of course we have taught what we believe to be the truth in the papers we publish, but so has Brother Lemmons in his paper that also goes to some in the Philippines I would presume, since his subscription mailing list is some four times as large as ours.

The truth of the matter is that most of the faithful Filipino brethren who stand for the truth have been taught it, not by any American here or there, but by faithful brethren among themselves. Particularly has Romulo B. Agduma through his mimeographed publications taught the truth on these points. Yet nearly everything Romulo hag printed has been material that he felt conscience bound to write and circulate in answer to liberalism being taught by liberal American missionaries there. Many of the faithful preachers there have taken a stand for the truth, even at the expense of having their support summarily cut off. You liberal brethren, Brother Lemmons, deserve all the “credit” for importing the liberal–conservative controversy to the Philippine Islands, as well as to South Africa, Hawaii, Nigeria, and other spots throughout the world. What seems to upset Brother Lemmons is when some faithful preacher, whether native or American, exposes the errors of liberalism.

(To be continued)

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 35, pp. 3-6
July 13, 1972

By Randall Mark Trainer

1. The sixty-six books of the Holy Scriptures were produced under the direct supervision of the Holy Spirit and thus constitute the Word of God. This supervision extended to both the thoughts and words. The original manuscripts were totally free from error of any kind.

2. The Scriptures are today the only reliable and authoritative source of the Word of God. The Bible is totally sufficient to supply man everything he must know in order to live acceptably to God. It is the only standard for faith and practice.

3. Any belief or practice which is not in total accordance with the teaching of the Scriptures is sinful. Failure to believe or practice anything taught by the Scriptures constitutes sin. Any sin results in the eternal separation of the sinner from God (damnation in Hell), unless forgiven by God. All this is true regardless of circumstances, sincerity, or ignorance.

4. Salvation is by the grace of God through the atonement of the blood of Christ, and is conditioned upon the following human responses, which are absolutely essential for the forgiveness of sins and so becoming a child of God:

a. Faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, risen Savior, and Lord.

b. Repentance from sin, toward God.

c. Confession of faith in Christ.

d. Baptism (immersion in water) in the name of Christ, which is for the remission of sins by God.

5. Salvation is forfeited (that is, a child of God falls from grace) whenever a person ceases to believe anything essential to salvation, or is guilty of any infraction of the law of God which indicates the loss of an attitude of love, reverence, and obedience to God and His holy law. Salvation thus lost may be regained only by repentance, confession, and reformation.

6. There is no salvation outside of the church of Christ.

7. The Scriptures reveal Gods 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.

8. 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.

9. A Christians faith and practice must not be based on or controlled by feelings, emotions, mystical experiences, philosophies, theological systems, or anything other than the written Word of God. The human will which is conformed to the will of God must always be in conscious control of the emotions and the intellect.

10. A Christian must never compromise big conviction on any teaching of the Bible for the sake of unity or any other worthy end. He must strive to know, to teach, and to practice the precepts of the Scriptures on every point. Failure to do this is tantamount to repudiation of Christ as the Lord of ones entire life, and rebellion against the absolute truth and authority of the Word of God, and will not be tolerated by Him.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 35, p. 2
July 13, 1972