Some brethren assume the continuity of a faithful, visible, functioning church, from the first Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection until now. It must be “assumed” — it can not be proven — nor do I believe either is essential. But on that assumption, there is a “necessary inference” that should shake us up a bit.

If there has always been a “faithful few” it is because there has always been a few who acted independently of the majority — who thought for themselves — who refused to go along with the elders or the preacher “for the sake of peace.” History is filled with proof of continual change which constituted apostasy from the divinely ordained standard. Such changes (we do not refer to changes of no scriptural consequences) had to be resisted — by people who knew the difference in essentials and non-essentials, and who refused to accept as a matter of faith or standard for fellowship anything for which there was no divine authority.

In every generation there had to be a few who endured the name “Anti” or its equivalent, and went about the business of maintaining a small (minority) scriptural church regardless of how this affected their secular business and social relations.

The key was, of course, independent Bible study, which directed dedication to Christ rather than to the “party” or popular opinion. The faithful few knew both who and what they believed (2 Tim. 1:12-14), and on this basis they both spoke and acted (2 Cor. 4:13). They had convictions — vital, personal, motivating convictions.

But the folk today who rest their hope upon party affiliation, and seem most anxious to assume the historic continuity of such a party; are often the least informed, and less likely to have strong convictions based upon independent Bible study.

Had you lived in the “dark ages,” would you have been among the “faithful few”? We all like to think that we would have been; but the truth can be read in our present day record. Do we stand with the “faithful few” today, regardless of consequences?