The Gospel Ordained, Revealed, And Spoken

Jas. P. Miller

(Read: I Corinthians 2) There are many who would change the gospel of Christ.This is as true in the twentieth century as it was true in thedays of the Apostle Paul. The Book of I Corinthians waswritten to correct the effects of false teachers. Among the errors that had been taught at that time was that the gospelneeded to be changed. The world did not want to acceptit in its present form. "Dress it up," "make it more attractive," and "change it so the world will think it great," was the watchword. In answer to the attempt to alter the"power of God," Paul wrote the great essay on the gospelthat covers the entire second chapter of I Corinthians. Helisted three great reasons why men cannot change the messageof our salvation:

1. The gospel was ordained before the world began.

In verse 7, we read: "But we speak the wisdom of Godin a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordainedbefore the world unto our glory."

Here the apostle declared that the gospel was of nosudden origin. Even though it had not been known in other ages and in other dispensations, it had now been revealed, (Eph. 3:7). This good news of the kingdom had not been seen by eyes and heard with ears and had not entered intothe heart of man. God had ordained it, however, for man and it cannot be changed for the time of its conception in the mind of God dates back before the beginning of theworld.

2. The gospel was revealed by the Holy Spirit.

In verse 10, we read: "But God has revealed them unto us by his spirit for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God."

Just as the period of its conception denies the right ofmen to change it, the method of its transmission will not permit any alteration. The Holy Spirit made the perfectrevelation of the mind of God. He searched out all things, the deep things of God. The mind of God thus revealedto man the entire will of the heavenly Father. For this reason, we know that God never intended men in this age tohave instrumental music in the worship, infant membershipin the church, meet on the seventh day, or any other thing that was not given by this great Revelator. The expression "deep things" shows not only completeness in the revelation, but the finality of the message. It is all there, the apostleshave been guided into all truth, (John 16:13). Nothing can be added to it or taken from it without the curse of heaven, (Gal. 1:8,9). No, the gospel cannot be changed.

3. The gospel was spoken by the apostles in the very words of God.

In verse 13, we read: "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

The gospel is unchangable, not only because it waspurposed before the world began, and because it was revealed to the apostles by the Holy Spirit, but because it came to the apostles in the very words of God and they spoke thewords that were given. This forever denies the modernistwho will not believe in the verbal inspiration of the scripture. The same great truth cries out to the men today whohave lost faith in the message and its ability to meet theneeds of the modern world. The same sword that cut the Pentecostians to the heart will discern the thoughts andintents of the heart today. Departures in any realm are caused by a lack of faith in the "old, old story." In ourtime, the "Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek afterwisdom," but our answer still must be the cry of Paul inverse 23 when he said, "but we preach Christ crucified untothe Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness." In studying the meaning of this statement, we call to mindanother verse reading, "After that in the wisdom of God,the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by thefoolishness of preaching to save them that believe." Not bypreaching foolishness, not by it being foolishness to preachwere they saved, oh, no, but by the eternal gospel that theworld in its wisdom called foolishness and unto us is the power of God.

Brethren, we need to learn one great truth: God is notmoved by the wishes of this world. Men may be influencedby the pull of human wisdom, brethren may be persuadedthat the word of God is out of date and needs to be modified, and preachers may be convinced that the time-tested andGod-given message needs a "face lifting" but God sits inheaven, unmoved, and unmovable.

Corinth was a great and sophisticated city. The naturalmen of Corinth, like those of Athens, wanted somethingthat they thought would be more in keeping with theirstation and philosophy. The gospel did not measure up to their standards. It was simple, plain, and direct. It condemned sin an d sinners and told them to repent and turn.

Natural men called it foolishness. Not all of the human race fell into this category, however, for there were men theapostle called spiritual men. He stated, "but he that isspiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of noman."

Yes, thanks be to God, we have a message that is unchangeable and unchanging, suitable to the needs of everygeneration and destined to live until the end of time. Preached without compromise, it is the "word of God, quick andpowerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercingeven to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and jointsand marrow, and is a discerned of the thoughts and intents of the heart." For anyone, in all ages, that finds his faith wavering, the apostle asked this question: "For who hathknown the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?"He then closes the great essay with the simple statement,"But we have the mind of Christ."

We need today to preach the gospel; preach it at everyopportunity; preach it in all its purity and power; preach itin the meeting houses and in the market place; preach it toa lost and dying world; preach it without great plans andschemes to make it more attractive; preach it openly andboldly unafraid, knowing the Lord is with us, for unto usis given "God's power to save."

teach all nations

Here, the expression "teach all nations" would beliterally translated, "disciple all nations."

Christianity is a system of teaching from first to last,Jno. 6:44, 45. Any theory, therefore, which omits teachingfrom the plan of salvation cannot be true. Consequently,all theories of direct operations of the Holy Spirit apartfrom the Gospel are false.

In this passage, the structure of the Greek text doesnot say, "make disciples and then baptize them. " Someargue this point, saying that we become disciples or Christians, and then are baptized. Rather, the Greek says, "in the process of making disciples of the nations, baptize them."Hence, baptizing is a necessary part of making disciples, orChristians.

HE FOUND HIS PLACE

It was said that a man dropped in at a certain church during worship and as he entered he heard the followingprayer: "Lord, we have left undone those things we ought to have done, and have done those things which we ought not to have done . . ." The man breathed a sigh of relief and said: "At last I have found my crowd." I am afraid that too many of us today arc looking for the crowd who will soften, worship and make religion a play-thing. It seems to be the trend to invite all sorts of extras and attention getting acts even into "gospel meetings" to "get the crowds." "Refreshments" and "parties" are the cry of the hour. Many no doubt come into these churches who practice such things and "find their crowd."

When one takes his pen in hand, as we usually expressit, to write something for the present and future generations, he should fully realize that he is about to declare what kind of man he is and what his ambitions and goals are. This fact alone should make one approach the task with a clear mind and a careful expression. So many writers, as well as speakers, express themselves without first taking into account the results of their statements: the good or evil that will follow.

Jesus, our Master and King, made the following statement for all men of all ages: "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Mat. 12:24-37). James said: "For in many things we offend all. If any man offended not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able I also to bridle the whole body . . . Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth! And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and is set on fire of hell" (James 3:2, 5, 6). We should be slow to speak (James 1:19); give soft answer:, to wrath (Prov. 15:1); speak with grace seasoned with .salt (Col. 4:6); and above all "lie not one to another" (Col. 3:9). All speaking and writing should be guided by the following statement from the inspired Paul: "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which

Page 3

is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers" (Eph. 4:29).

There can be no mistake about it: the word of God demands of every person that he be careful about his communication with others, both as to what is said and bow it is said.

What Jesus said about our words applies equally to our writing. In fact, there is no difference in principle whether one speaks a lie or writes a lie. Both are means of communication between people. The only difference in these means of communication is that speaking is audible and addressed to the ear, while writing is addressed to the eye through symbols we call letters which stand for the phonetic sounds of audible language. Is anyone no naive as to believe that the language of Jesus applies only to spoken language and has no significance to the sign language of writing what would be spoken? The Old and New Testaments are written documents. Is this revelation less important because it is written? Paul wrote two letters to the Corinthians. In the first he wrote: "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teachest; comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (I Cor. 2:13). In the second letter he refers to the first as something written regarding the man in sin in I Corinthians 5. (II Cor. 2:3, 4). What the Holy Spirit spoke, Paul spoke; what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians is what he spoke. Writing is a form of speaking. There are some rules that must guide every writer if he is to escape the terrible judgment of God. These same' rules would guide a speaker, whether in public or private. First, he should always write (or speak) the truth. If he is not sure of the truth of any proposition, he should never attempt to write or speak concerning it. Facts are stubborn things; they will come through any lie in time. God hates a lying tongue (or pen) (Prov. 6:17). Religiously some speak (or write) lies (I Tim. 4:2). Jesus said such are of their father the devil, who is the father of lies. (John 8:44). False teaching is lying and is condemned. (Titus

1:10. 11).

Second, every writer should avoid tale-bearing and backbiting. Jesus said— and remember that what is said of speaking is also true of writing— "Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law . . ." (James 4:11). Speaking of certain young widows Paul said: "And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busy-bodies, speaking things which they ought not" (I Tim. 5:13). Gossip and tale-bearing must never occupy the tune of a writer. The wise Solomon said: Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no tale-bearer, the strife ceaseth" (Prov. 29:20). Any writer or speaker who spends his time in idle gossip and talebearing proves the littleness and evil of a wicked heart. It was Jesus who made the statement: "for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Words of malice and hatred, whether spoken or written, display the condition of a heart that will never see God unless it repents and changes.

Third, No writer should use his pen to glorify and commend himself in religious matters, but should always seek glorify God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Many are more desirous to please and justify themselves that they are to give-to God in their communications. Paul said: "For we

dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare our

selves with some that commend themselves: but they measur

ing themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves

among themselves, are not wise . . . But he that glorieth,

let him glory in the Lord. For not he that commendeth

himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth" (II

Cor. 10:12, 17, 18). When one speaks or writes to glorify

and commend himself by the standard of men, comparing

himself with other men, he is not wise and is not commended

of the Lord.

Keep in mind that the words we speak and write show to all men the kind of hearts we have, and will form the basis for our judgment together with our conduct in life. In the judgment we cannot escape eternal damnation if we persist in using words that are condemned by the Lord, whether we speak them or write them.

A Roman Catholic President?

E. L. Flannery, Bedford, Ohio

The office of the President of the United States is today,perhaps, the most powerful, the most influential executive office in the world. He is in charge of the White HouseOffice; the Bureau of the Budget; National Security Council;Office of Defense Mobilization; Department of State; Department of Treasury; Department of Defense; Chief of theArmy, Navy, and Air Force; Department of Justice; PostOffice Department; Department of The Interior; Departmentof Agriculture; Department of Commerce; Department ofLabor; Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; andscores of other executive responsibilities.' The American people should exercise the utmost care in selecting and electingto Presidential office any candidate for the Chief Executive can bring to bear on our lives tremendous influence.

We have never as yet had a Catholic President of theUnited States. In 1928 Alfred E. Smith, a Roman Catholic, was nominated by the Democratic Party, but was defeated bythe Republican candidate. However, there have been manyCatholics elected as governors, senators, representatives, andappointed as judges, as they have grown to a sizeable percentage of the United States population. This increase can beseen in the fact that the Catholic population in the UnitedStates increased from 18,605,003 in 1926 (about the timeAlfred Smith ran for the Presidency) to 34,563,851 in 1957.This is almost twice the number of Roman Catholics of 1926. Our total population in the same period, 1926 to 1957, increased from 117,399,000 to 171,229,000. This indicated the Catholic increase was almost twice as fast as the general population increase. The Catholics still are a minority group,having about one-fifth of the total population in the UnitedStates (information from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1958, pp. 5,-52).

A CATHOLICS LEGAL RIGHTS A Roman Catholic has as much legal right to becomethe President of the United States as does any other citizen,regardless of his religion. One's religion does not affect hislegal rights. Article II of the Constitution reads: "Noperson except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shallbe eligible to the Office of President . . ." It further stipulates he must be 35 years of age and 14 years a resident ofthe United States. Many Catholics meet these requirements.The oath of office is very pertinent as to any candidate.If elected he must repeat this oath (or affirmation) : "I do

solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully executethe office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

One of the great principles laid down in the Constitution is set forth in the First Amendment: "Congress shallmake no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redressof grievances ... "

The American voter, the American citizen, wants to know from the Catholic candidate for the Presidency whetheror not he will seek his best to preserve the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of religion, of speech, of assembly.We have a right to ask him this, for in every country whereCatholics are in the majority such rights are not extendedto the minorities. For example, investigate Spain, Italy,Mexico. We recognize a Catholic President, with only one-fifth of the population being Catholic, might not seek advantages for the Catholic Church in the United States now. Onthe other hand, we know it is the official position of theCatholic Church that she should be the only officiallyrecognized church and given certain advantages. All informed people know this, and it is the basic reason of fear of Catholic public officials, even though many Catholic publicoffice holders may not agree with the official position oftheir Church.

Dr. V. O. Key, Jr., Professor of Government, HarvardUniversity writes: "In some ways the question of the relation of church and state is, in form at least, essentially thesame question that arises in defining the relations of other kinds of groups to the state. Issues develop about the range of freedom of private groups and the degree of authoritythey shall be permitted to exercise. The rub comes when ecclesiastical claims conflict with the claims of the state or when the clergy insists that the authority of the state bebrought to its service by the conversion of church policy intothe law of the land . . ." (Emphasis mine, ELF) (Politics,Parties, and Pressure Groups p. 134).

THE POSITION ON CHURCH-STATE RELATIONSHIP

From the book, Radio Replies, by two Catholic priests,and having the Imprimatur of Joannes Gregoriusm Murray,Archbishop of St. Paul, published as recently as 1938, I citea few quotations showing the Roman Catholic view towardsliberty and freedom of minorities:

QUESTION: "Do you approve the proclamation ofreligious liberty in Spain?" (This was before Franco.)ANSWER: "No. It was prompted by no desire for anypurer religion, but by motives of hatred for all religion, orelse simply by irreligion."

QUESTION: "Why was the Inquisition established atall?" ANSWER: "On the same principle as that by whichthe U.S. Government passed the "Pure Foods Act" to preventcontamination of the foods we eat. The Inquisition wasestablished and still exists in the church to prevent the doctrine of Christ . .. from being adulterated and contaminated.The Spanish Inquisition, of course, as a semi-political institution has lapsed."

QUESTION: "You still justify an ecclesiastical Inquisition?" ANSWER: "Of course. It is as lawful and wise a tribunal as that for censorship of films."

QUESTION: "What is your attitude towards stateschools? Do you think them Satanic and their founders devils?" ANSWER: "I accuse the founders of no conscious error. But I say that the system, whilst not positively teaching Satanic doctrine, is truly an agent of the devil ratherthan of Christ ..."

That the Catholic Church hates public schools, unlessshe can control them, is seen in the above quotation andfurther underscored by the following: "Expelled from theschools, the Church became helpless to train new generations in the way of faith and virtue" (Short History of TheCatholic Church, p. 144). Again: "In the United StatesCatholics had hoped after the Revolution to come to anunderstanding with their non-Catholic fellow-citizens andbuild up together a system of education satisfactory to all,but experience soon showed the futility of all efforts in thatdirection and the necessity of organizing separate CatholicSchools" (Administrative Legislation In The New Code ofCanon Lak, p. 268).

In the Syllabus of Pius IX a condemnation was placedupon eighty-five propositions. Delivered in 1864, it has never been altered or denounced by the Roman Catholic Church. Some American Catholic Bishops have sought achange in the official point of view, but without success.(May I insert here that I believe many American Catholicsdo not know the "official" Catholic Church view). Hereare some of his eighty-five "Syllabus of Errors":

No. 15. A man does not have the right to choose his religion. (But this denies our Constitution guaranteeing certain rights. Would a Catholic President uphold the Constitution, or the official view of the Catholic Church? It is not bigotry to want to know!)

No. 24. The Catholic Church has the right to employ"force". (This denies legal process ("due process") of law under civil government.)

No. 43. The Catholic Church should enjoy "immunities",and the state has no right to object to these special priviledges, which means that Catholicism should be the onlyreligion. (This is always the arrangement Catholic officialsof their Church seek in concordats. This is true in Spain,Italy, Mexico and many other nations. But it is in violationto the first statement in our Bill of rights: "Congress shallmake no law respecting the establishment of religion . .. ")The official position of the Catholic Church is diametricallyopposed to the official position of our government, our constitution. Which would a Catholic President uphold? In his oath he says he would uphold the Constitution. Butdoes he have strong religious convictions to the contrary?As an American citizen I want to know! It is not bigotryto seek an answer. My liberties are at stake!

No. 55. Claims the Church and State should be united.

No. 77. Claims the Catholic religion should be the only one. (This claim would not worry me if it were not for heradditional claims of the right to use force and ally herselfwith the state to enforce her claims, and to deny othersfreedoms and liberties.)

No. 78. Non-Catholic persons coming into a Catholiccountry should not be allowed to worship publicly. (The Catholic Church reestablished this practice in Spain whendictator Franco took over. She tries to enforce it in Italyand elsewhere. As a freedom-loving citizen I resent such apolicy. I would not for a minute suggest that Catholics,who compose less than one-fifth of our population and arevery much a minority group in our country, should not havethe rights to choose their religion, meet publicly to worshipand teach as they believe, etc. I do not agree with theirreligion or teaching, but I firmly believe they should have the right to their belief and their practice. If "Protestant".

Page 5

countries practiced the same as Catholic countries the Catholic Church would have no "rights" in the United States. But such is contrary to their principles as well as to the Constitution of the United States.) (The Syllabus of Pius IX can befound in The Catholic Encyclopedia, XIV, 369)

In LIFE Magazine, Dec. 21, 1959, p. 80, James A Pike,bishop in the Episcopalian Church, wrote: "The AmericanBill of Rights protects this priority of conscience over institutions ... But this does not mean putting a higher priority onthe earthly aims of another institution, whether it be a State or a Church or, as in the case of the Vatican, a combination of both. It is here that the matter of Roman Catholic allegiance becomes a real political issue. To judge anyRoman Catholic candidate fairly, we must find out which of the Roman Catholic views on Church-State relations he holds. One of these (the official view, ELF) requires a belief inprinciples opposed by the American Constitution ... "

The article in Life said further: "The Jesuit world organ, Civilta Cattolica, is blunter: "The Roman Catholic Church, convinced through its divine prerogatives of beingthe only true Church, must demand the right of freedom forherself alone, because such a right can only be possessed bytruth, never by error. As to other religions, the Church willcertainly never draw the sword (comforting thought!),but she will require that by legitimate means they shall notbe allowed to propagate false doctrine." The article grantsthat in countries like the United States, "Catholics will be obliged to ask full religious freedom for all, resigned atbeing forced to cohabit where they alone should rightfullybe allowed to live."

In short, the official Catholic Church concept is that truth has rights but error has no rights," and that she is the infallible judge as to what is orthodox, what is truth. Iwould want to know from any Roman Catholic candidatefor President if that is his conviction, that "error has no rights," that minorities have no rights? This is not bigotry,but self-preservation!

MINORITY RIGHTS Justice Frankfurter in delivering the opinion of theSupreme Court in the Minersville School District vs. Gobitis, 1940 wrote: "A grave responsibility confronts this Courtwhenever in course of litigation it must reconcile the conflicting claims of liberty and authority . . . Lillian Gobitis,aged twelve, and her brother William, aged ten, were expelled from the public schools of Minerville, Pennsylvania, for refusing to salute the national flag as part of a dailyschool exercise .. . Centuries of strife over the erection of particular dogmas as exclusive or all-comprehending faiths led to the inclusion of a guarantee for religious freedom inthe Bill of Rights . . . Government may not interfere withorganized or individual expression of belief or disbelief.Propagation of belief— or even disbelief in the supernatural

— is protected, whether in church or chapel, mosque orsynagogue, tabernacle or meeting house . . ." Justice Frankfurter concluded one has the individual right to freedom ofreligious belief.

Justice Jackson in the West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, (1943), which also considered aJehovah's Witness case, gave the opinion of the court, inwhich he wrote: "To sustain the compulsory flag salute weare required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards theindividual's right to speak his own mind, left it open topublic authorities to compel him to utter what is not in hismind ..." To believe that patriotism will not flourish

i f patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneousinstead of a compulsory routine is to make an unfastering estimate of

the appeal of our institutions to free minds ... If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein ..." (Emphasis mine, ELF).

Justice Jackson and Justice Frankfurter have with clarity and emphasis set forth the traditional, constitutional concept of minority rights in the United States. In no Catholiccountry are the minority granted or extended such rights.Such rights do not belong to minorities, to those "in error",says the official Catholic Church position. It is not bigotry to seek of the Catholic candidate his conviction as to the rights of minorities; his conviction as to the minority rightsset forth in our national constitution. And we do want his conviction, not what he may think to be expedient while Catholics are only one-fifth of the national population.

WHAT ABOUT KENNEDY? Neither party has yet selected its candidate for President. John F. Kennedy is one of the leading contestants for the Democratic nomination. . Is he qualified? Legally he meets the constitutional requirements. Patriotically, hehas an outstanding record, both in peace and in war. His academic training has been excellent. His administrativeability should be good considering his long service in Congress in both houses. The only question in the minds ofmany as to his qualifications is his religion. But should hisreligion even be considered ? Not unless his religion mighthave an effect upon his public life. But the Jesuit weekly,America, rightly states: "A man's conscience has a bearing on his public as well as his private life."A Jehovah's Witness would be questioned as to his convictions religiously if he sought the office of President,for the public has learned his beliefs that all governmentsare of the "Devil" and that patriotism is a "form of idolatry." One would not be a "bigot for bringing up the subject ofreligion" to such a candidate!Should a Christian Scientist be nominated as Secretaryof Health the Congress would not be "bigots" in questioningthe nominee as to his "views" on disease, health, pain, ordeath. For an informed Congressman would know a devoutChristian Scientist does not believe there is such a thing asreal disease or death— that it is "but a state of mind." I'd hope the Congress would refuse to approve his appointment! Bigotry ? No! I would not want him in an official capacity.I would argue he should have a right to his belief, but notbe given a governmental position to exercise that belief ina public way over others.Would a Quaker's religion have anything to do withwhether or not he should be appointed as Secretary of Defense? If his conscience would have a bearing on his publiclife, yes! So what about_ John F. Kennedy? He should let usknow whether or not his convictions coincide with the official Catholic position as to rights, liberties, even of minorities, both here and in other countries. If he agrees with theposition of his Church he ought not to be President of theUnited States. It would be unwise to elect to the Presidency a man who felt our constitution is contrary to his religiousconvictions: a man who felt the Catholic population, (onefifth the total) in this nation, should be granted the special"privileges" sought always by the Catholic Church; a manwho felt the Pope has "the God-given right" to prescribe"what is orthodox." Now, if Senator Kennedy does notbelieve this way, let him say so, it will go cross-grain to official Catholic opinion, but he will find that many American

Catholics agree with him, and that many Protestants wouldthen feel differently about him as a candidate.

It will not suffice to discuss "birth control"— this is a camouflage to the real issues as to why many Americans fearCatholic candidates! It is a "straw man." Shouting "bigotry" will not silence intelligent inquiry into the Senator's religiousconvictions. It is a real consideration as to his qualifications.

Christians are to be in subjection to the "powers thatbe." In a Democracy as ours we can have a part in selectingthe "powers that be." Let us not unwittingly place over us officials whose religious convictions could cause them tobecome intolerant of those whose convictions differed with them, or who might permit his Church's claim to preferential treatment cause him as chief executive to grant or succumb to her claim. If a governor abused his office there isappeal to higher courts. But a President has never beenimpeached! He selects for appointment our Supreme CourtJustices! There is no higher appeal in our government.

Let us pray humbly that ours may continue to be a

"land of the free," where we defend the rights of those with

whom we disagree. Let us pray that the lands where

Catholicism is in the majority may extend there to the minori

ties what she asks for herself as a minority here— freedom

of speech and public Worship. Let us inform truthfully all

that we can what the Catholic Church's official position is.

Let us pray that ours may be a life of peace lived in freedom.

Let us not vote in such a way as to contribute to a return to

the yoke of State-Church union.

"WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM"

B. G. Hope. Bowling Green, Ky.

(Read I John 3:1-3)

The first word in I John 3 is "Behold." It is a word that attracts our attention and holds our interest. It signifies that something out of the ordinary — something unusualis about to be introduced. When John the Baptist saw Jesus coming toward him one time, he said: "Behold, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." (John 1:29.) The word creates an interest and a desire to know what is to follow. The author calls attention to the marvelous love of God "given us that we should be called children of God." God's love is great in kind and in scope. It enables us to be called children of God, and it includes every person in all the world. The last verse in chapter 2 suggests that he that doeth righteousness is born of God, or is a child of God. But who is the righteous man? David said: "All thy commandments are righteousness." (Ps. 119:172.) Thus the doing of God's commandments would make him a righteous man. The same author described the righteous man in Psalms 1. "But his delight is in the law of the Lord, and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper." The Lord restores his soul, because he corrects his mistakes, being moved by repentance. This type of person who stands in the love of God shall be able to stand in the judgment without fear but with confidence, because he has striven to walk in the steps of the Lord — to imitate his Master. It means that he has added the qualities that were exemplified by Christ while He lived upon this earth. A man on this earth knows only the earthly things.

His experiences do not extend beyond the grave, but when Christ shall appear, WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM.

We shall be like Him in body. Paul said in Phil. 3:20-21: "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ; Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the workings whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto Himself." The same writer said in I Cor. 15:43-44: "It is sown in dis-honour; It is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power; It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." And verse 53: "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."

The righteous man will be like Him in mind. He will be able to the extent of his ability to enjoy the beauties and the glories and experiences that are prepared for the righteous man as a result of the marvelous love of God. He will not be guilty of sin and subjected to blunders and mistakes that are characteristic of this earth. He will not need to repent and be restored to fellowship. He will have reached the goal — perfection for which he had striven on earth. His -life will be endless — not marred by death. His joys will be eternal.

Every one should always remember, however, that our becoming like him when He comes will depend upon our keeping His commandments while we live. The Christian graces must be added; our hearts or souls must be made beautiful. They must be kept with all diligence in order for us to anticipate the time when we shall be like Him. The admonition of Paul in I Cor. 15:58 is timely: "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord."

Let us realize that if we have so lived, we can be like Him when He comes.

The Strong Must Respect The Rights Of The Weak

Jerry Belchick, Orlando, Florida (An

Exposition of Romans 14)

It was my good fortune to have been raised in an exceedingly large family. In a large family the older children were charged with the task of "looking after' the younger children. The responsibilities were accepted withoutquestion . . . they were part of our birthright.

The church of our Lord is a large family and in that family there are many children. The older children are charged with the responsibility of "looking after" those who are younger. This responsibility should be accepted without question .. . for it, too, is part of a birthright . . . our Christian birthright..

The apostle Paul discusses this problem of "looking! after" some of God's children in the fourteenth chapter of the Roman letter and in the first three verses of the fifteenth! chapter. In these verses Paul does not employ the figure of "older" children "looking after" the "younger" children. 1He uses, instead, the figure of the "stronger" bearing the infirmities of the "weaker."

In the kingdom of God there are those who are "stronger in the faith" than are others. These, by virtue of their strength, are charged with the task of helping that brother who is "weak in the faith." In the first verse of the fourteenth chapter of the Roman epistle Paul speaks of that brother who is "weak in the faith." It is obvious that "the faith" spoken of here is that "body of doctrine," that "system of faith," those "facts contained in the gospel" that men must believe. Compare the phrase "the faith" with such passages of scripture as Acts 6:7, 14:22, Gal.

1:23 and Jude 3. To be weak in "the faith" is to lack strength, to be deficient in understanding, to lack depth. Paul, in another place, describes brethren who were "weak in the faith" when he declares, "Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men." (I Cor. 14:20) To be children in understanding is to be "weak in the faith." Paul, again, describes the brother who is "weak in the faith" when he-asserts, "Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled." (I Cor. 8:7) We can see, therefore, that there is not the same degree of understanding or knowledge present in the hearts of all of God's children.

Just as there are those in God's Kingdom who are "weak in the faith," there are those who are "strong" in the faith. In the first verse of the fifteenth chapter of Romans, Paul declares that those "that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak ... " A man who is strong in the faith is one who has been fed on the strong meat of the Word, "even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Hebrews 5:14) Having feasted on the "bread of life" they have become strong and their strength lies in knowledge, in understanding, in wisdom. This strength places upon them added responsibilities for knowledge is a weapon. It can be used to protect, to defend, to uphold, or it can be used to destroy, to ruin or to overthrow. Paul cautions that brother who has grown strong in "the faith" that he "destroy not him with (thy) meat, for whom Christ died." (Rom. 14:15) The strong must, therefore, not abuse the power that they possess. This strength is to be used to protect and to assist; not to destroy or offend. In I Corinthians 8:9 Paul warns the strong to "take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak." When this knowledge (the source of our strength) is misused the weak may perish . . . "and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died." (I Cor. 8:11)

To misuse the strength that we may possess through knowledge is sin. It is sin against that brother who is "weak in the faith" and it is sin against Christ. It is affirmed by inspiration that ". . . if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ." (I Cor. 8:1012) The disposition of heart that should characterize the children of God in such situations is expressed by Paul when he concludes his argument on the responsibilities of the ing toward those who are "weak in the faith" . . . "Where-fore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh

while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."

(I Cor. 8:13)

In this first article we have attempted to show that in

many cases the strong must defer or forbear. We shall, in

subsequent articles, study the "area of forbearance," the

"limits of this forbearance" and, then, draw some practical

lessons that might be applied to the present times.

INDIVIDUAL EVANGELISM

Harold Howard — Dickson, Tenn.

It would be impossible for one to over emphasize the

importance of personal evangelism, for every child of God

will stand before the Lord in judgment as an individual,

and give an account for what he has done or not done (II

Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12, 13; Rom. 14:12.) The wise man

has said, "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life: and

he that is wise winneth souls" (Prov. 11:30) and to this

Daniel has added, "And they that are wise shall shine

as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn

many to righteousness as the stars, for ever and ever" (Daniel

12:3.) In view of this we would like to quote part of a

sermon by Harris Dark that is recorded in the book "Ancient

Faith in Conflict" on page 40.

"A sense of individual responsibility in evangelism as

it is emphasized in the book of Philippians would soon

cause the gospel to be preached all the way around the

world.

"Let me give you a few figures. Suppose I relate a

story to just one person, then two of us know it. Let each

of us tell another, and that makes four. If each of the four

tells another, obviously eight will have heard. Do you

know how many times that would have to be repeated in

order for every person on earth to hear the story? Only

thirty times, following the first."

If I tell another person, each of us another, and so on, after the message has been communicated thirty-one times it will have been heard by 2,147,483,648. If we allow anentire month for one person to relate the story to one otherperson, it can cover the earth in thirty-one months. Can we do that well with our modern methods and devices?

"This would be cooperation in the finest and mosteffective sense. It is the best system of communication everknown. It is the one Jesus used. But, it has one greathindrance. It places the responsibility on the individual, and we don't like that! We want to shift it to the group.We prefer to make small contributions to some mass movements, and then claim credit for everything the group does."

Jesus gave the great commission, and the apostles weretold that they would be "witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 1:8.) Just thirty short years laterPaul states, "and be not moved away from the hope of thegospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached toevery creature which is under heaven" (Col. 1:23.) Thiswas not done accidentally, but as the individual Christiansassumed their responsibilities in going forth. In Jerusalem they were accused of having filled the city with the doctrine of Christ (Acts 5:28.) How was this done? "And dailyin the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teachand preach Jesus Christ" (Acts 5:42.) When the churchsuffered persecution and was scattered abroad from Jerusalem they (the church) went every where preaching the word(Acts 8:1-4.) We need to realize that the Master hasdrafted the individual into His service, and this individual must give an answer to his Master..

QUESTION: Please explain the following verses: "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins," (Heb. 10:25, 26) —A. L.

ANSWER: Verse twenty five commands all Christians not to forsake "the assembling of ourselves together." Thishas often been understood to refer to one definite assembly, and, for that reason, has been frequently paraphrased: "forsake not the assembly.." A closer study of the verse shows that the emphasis is placed upon the practice of meeting with the saints rather than upon one particular assembly. The contrasting conjunction "but" shows that one thing missed by those who fail to meet with the saints is "exhortation." This exhortation the Hebrew Christians needed— especially, in view of "the day" they could see approaching. This day the Lord had clearly foreseen and foretold. Furthermore, he had given signs by which they could see its approach. (Matt. 24:1-34). The early Christians were apprehensive about these prophecies of the Lord and their fulfillmentIt involved the pouring out of God's judgment upon national Israel— the destruction of Jerusalem, the overthrow of the temple, and the end of the old Jewish state. During this time Christians were tried severely. Jesus prophesied: "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." (Matt. 24:9-12).

There are many benefits received by those who meet with the saints and jointly participate in the worship God hasordained for our good. One of these is the exhortation needed to sustain us through the trials of time. We need these benefits as much as they, and the command "not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together" applies with equal force today. Whether or not we see any day of great trial approaching does not invalidate the command to assemble. Trials, temptations, persecutions, etc., will come. (2 Tim. 3:12).

The first day of the week assembly has been plainly authorized by the Lord. (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:1, 2). The Lord's Supper is an item of worship necessarily associatedwith this day and is peculiar to it. One cannot forsake this assembly and follow the New Testament pattern. Those who forsake it arc transgressors of the law and are, therefore, sinners. (I Jno. 3:4).

Authority for other assemblies grows out of the responsibilities of elders and our relationship to them (Acts 20:28; Heb. 13:1 7); the examples of early Christians meeting daily for indefinite periods of time (Acts 2:42, 46; 19:9, 10); and our need for indoctrination (Titus 2; Heb. 5:12-14; I Cor. 3:1-3; Phil. 1:9, 10; 2 Tim. 2:15). How many of these assemblies, when, and how often, are matters within the jurisdiction of elders. These assemblies, never-the less, are a part of God's plan of salvation. They cannot be ignored or neglected without departing from the only plan covered by the atoning blood of the lamb. The consequences of such departure is clearly revealed in Heb.10:26-31.

No doubt, some of the Hebrew Christians were neglecting to meet with the saints in hope of being forgiven by the atoning benefits of another sacrifice. Under the law they were accustomed to numerous sacrifices. (Heb. 10:3). The Hebrew writer shows that now there is only one sacrifice— offered once for all. (Heb. 10:10-13). Any hope for another sacrifice was in vain, for "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." (Heb. 10:26). Their only hope was to turn and follow the only plan covered by the only sacrifice that avails. Furthermore, this is our only hope!

This plan involves the authorized assemblies of the saints. Those who follow any other plan are covered by no sacrificethat avails. Yet, how many Christians have plans of their own in regard to these assemblies? Unless they turn, for them there remains only "a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." (Heb. 10:27). Such "hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace." (Heb. 10:29). Such have sinned grievously and need to comply with heaven's law of pardon for such— genuine repentance, confession, and prayer. (Acts 8:22; I Jno. 1:9).

From many sources

You cannot keep your shoes shinned and walk in the mud. We wonder if a person can do it spiritually. ** *

My idea of an egotist is a man who don't want to know any more than he knows, because he knows it is not worthknowing.

* * * Let us endeavor to so live that, when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry. ** * It is a shallow mind that sees no more to life than the material present.

IS IT RIGHT?

Is it right to spend $10.00 to bring worldly pleasuresto us, and spend $1.00 to carry the gospel to the lost? Is it right to worship and serve the devil six days a week, and try to worship God one hour on Sundays? ? Is it right to talk about loving God with all the heart, and at the same time try to destroy your brother in Christ?

Is it right to use every excuse known to avoid public worship to God, and use everything to promote personal gain and pleasure?

Page 9

TRIPLETS OF WORLDLINESS

James P. Needham, St. Petersburg, Florida

(NOTE: Bro. Phillips requested that I write a series of articles on "Dancing, Petting and Gambling." I decided to do so by writing under the general title seen above.)

DANCING NO. I

One of the most dangerous and deceptive acts of worldliness in modern times is that of dancing. Careful observation over a period of years has proven it to be an increasingevil, becoming more prevalent and acceptable as time goes on. There was a time when it was largely practiced by people who made no claim to good morals, much less to being Christians. This writer can remember when a school teacher who engaged in dancing was considered unfit to serve in the public schools. Today it is different: it is encouraged in the public schools, and in some cases enforced if at all possible, and church members engage in it promiscuously and frown upon preachers and elders who condemn it. And it is not unusual to find preachers and elders who sanction and condone it! In view of these sad facts, there is a great need for a thorough study of the subject in the light ofwhat the Bible teaches.

I. TWO KINDS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE:

A close study of the scriptures will show that the Bible mentions two kinds of dancing:

1. A dance which was used as an expression of joy and worship to God. (Exo. 15:20; 2 Sam. 6:12-16; Psa. 150:4; Judges 21:19-23 Eccl. 3:4). Peloubet's Bible Dictionary says concerning this dance: "Dancing formed a part of the religious ceremonies of the Egyptians, and was also common in private entertainments. For the most part dancing was carried on by the women, the two sexes seldom and not customarily intermingled. The one who happened to be near of kin to the champion of the hour led the dance. In the earlier period of the Judges the dances of the virgins of Shiloh, Judges 21:19-23, were certainly part of a religious festivity." (p. 138).
2. A dance that was used to arouse fleshly passions. (Exo. 32:19, 25; Mt. 14:1-11). We now give some comments concerning this type of dance in general, and Salome's in particular: "Dancing also had its place among merely festive amusements, apart from any religious character. But the dancing of Salome before Herod was due to the introduction of Greek fashions and was not approved by the better classes among the Jews." (Peloubet's Bible Dictionary,

p. 139). "Her dance was, doubtless, of a mimetic and wanton character." (Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament, p. 270). "The dancing of the East was then, as now, voluptuous and indecent, and nothing but utter shamelessness or inveterate malice could have induced a princess to thus make a public show of herself at such a carousal." (The Fourfold Gospel, McGarvey, p. 372). "This was a violation of all the rules of modesty . . . No modest woman would have appeared in this manner before the court, and it is probable, therefore, that she partook of the dissolute principles of her mother. It is also probable that the DANCE was one well known in Greece— the lascivious and wanton dance of the Ionics." (Barnes Notes, p. 151).

In view of the above paragraphs I believe this question is in order: where does the modern dance classify? Can anyone say it is an expression of worship or praise to God?

II. WHY THE MODERN DANCE IS SINFUL:

1. It is too closely associated with evil. (a). The lustful dance mentioned in the Bible is associated with such evils as: Nakedness (Exo. 32:19, 25; Mt. 14:1-11), Idolatry (Exo. 32:19, 25), and the wicked, lack of parental love, and rebellion against God. (Job 21:7-15).

(b). Today the modern dance, which classifies with the one mentioned above, is likewise associated with evil. When one thinks of the modern dance he automatically thinks of scanty clothes — nakedness — immodesty (I Tim. 2:9), drunkenness, late hours, road houses, and prostitution, to mention only a few!

In view of this association with evil, what should be the Christian's attitude toward the modern dance? Let us see: "Abstain from all appearance of evil." (I Thess: 5:22); "Walk circumspectly." (Eph. 5:15), "Giving attention to all circumstances." (Webster). ". . . hating even the garment spotted by the flesh." (Jude 23). Can anyone honestly view the modern dance in the light of these passages and commend it to a child of God ?

1. It destroys spirituality and reverence. This may be hard for some to accept, but notice this revealing passage from the book of Job: ".. . The wicked . . . send forth their little ones like a flock, and their children DANCE . . . Therefore, they say unto God, Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways." (Job 21:7-15). When as a younger preacher I first heard this charge made against the dance, I considered it a stretching of a point though I felt toward the dance then just as I do now. But, several years of careful observation and experience have convinced me that no truer charge was ever made. I have found it impossible for children of God to maintain a strong spiritual constitution and engage in the dance. I have noticed that in congregations where members frequent the dance irreverence in worship runs rampant; the older folks complain of 30 minute sermons, squirm at "plainness of speech" (2 Cor. 3:12), and flinch when purity in life is preached and worldliness is condemned. The younger folks write notes, talk, and many times play during worship, and a mad rush for the back seats prevails. There is therefore, a direct connection between ones attitude toward the church and dancing. Could it be that one cannot serve two masters? (Matt. 6:24).
2. It is lasciviousness. What is lasciviousness? MODERN USAGE: "Lewd, lustful, that which is tending to produce lewd emotions." (Webster). NEW TESTAMENT USAGE: "Unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence . . . Wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females." (Thayer's Greek Lexicon, p. 80). (Emphasis Mine JPN). Is dancing lascivious? Let us obtain the answer to this question from those who know. Prof. Louis Guyon, owner of one of Chicago's largest dance halls "Paradise" testified before THE WORLD PURITY FEDERATION thusly: "We are all men. We know the natural desires of youth. We know that sex is the strongest impulse implanted in the human race. You can picture the effect of a boy or girl of eighteen or twenty, when his hunger is keenest, when knowledge and experience are lacking in formation of judgment, of one of these dances which call for close abdominal contact and frequently bring the cheeks together and entwine the limbs. Yet you find thousands of boys and girls danc

ing this way every day who do not realize they are doing

anything out of the way, and whose fool parents look on

complacently. This form of dancing is a menace to the

future of our nation."

Dr. E. S. Sonners of Chicago and Los Angeles, says,

"I attack the modern dance as a reversion toward savagery. As a medical man, I flatly charge that modern dancing is fundamentally sinful and evil. I charge that it is the most insidious of the maneuvers preliminary to sex betrayal. It is nothing more or less than damnable, diabolical, animal physical dissipation. I tell you the basic spell of the dance is the spell of illicit physical contact. Under what other shield can a man fondle so many of the opposite sex in a single night— or a lifetime? We doctors know— a train of broken homes proves it. We are headed toward the pit, the dance craze is a sign." (Carnival of Death, p. 68, 69). Dr.

A. C. Dixon says, "The modern dance is the fine art of covering with music, indelicate, immodest and oftimes indecent attitudes and postures between men and women. It is too bad for reformation. Its remedy is extermination." There can be no doubt that modern dancing is lascivious-ness; this being true, what about those who engage in it? Let Paul answer: ".. . lasciviousness .. . of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Gal. 5:19, 21).

1. It is revelry. What is revelry? MODERN USAGE: "A feast with noisy jollity; or a spectacular dance." (Twentieth Century Dictionary). NEW TESTAMENT USAGE: Lidell and Scott, eminent Greek scholars, translate the original word for revelling in Gal. 5:21, "dancing". What does Paul say about revelling? Notice, ".. . they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Gal. 5:21).
2. Its fruits are bad. Jesus said, "Every tree is known by its fruit." (Lk. 6:44). If dancing is a good tree, its fruits will be good, if bad the fruit will be bad. What are some of the evil fruits of the dance? (a). Delinquency: Perry Wayland Sinks, matron for a fallen girl's home in Los Angeles said, "Seven tenths of the girls received there fell because of the dance and its influence." The head of a fallen girls home in Geneva said, "Eighty per cent of all girls received traced their downfall to the dance." Prof William

H. Holmes, ex-dancing master said, "I have found the ball room an avenue of destruction to multitudes." J. Edgar Hoover, head of FBI, said, "Most juvenile crime had its inception in the dance hall, either public or private." A matron of an unwed mothers home in Chattanooga, Tenn., said ".. . you may be surprised, but MOST OF THEM (unwed mothers JPN) SAY THEY STARTED TOWARD THEIR RUIN WHEN THEY LEARNED TO DANCE." (b) Divorce. Dr. Frank Richardson, said, "Dance halls are the modern nurseries of the divorce court." A reputable judge said, "More than half of the divorce cases I have tried came about because of the dance. New partners, new arms that bring new thrills, new companions, and there is a wedge driven into the marriage vow."

How can anyone pronounce the dance as a good tree when its fruit is so bad? The answer is evident, it is a corrupt tree, ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT OF ALL TIME!

CONCLUSION There is no point in any Christian's trying to defend the modern dance as" an innocent entertainment or pass-time,

for it is evident that such is a vicious falsehood. There is no need to answer all the quibbles made in its defence when it is so evidently wicked. That which has so much against it and which is so plainly condemned in the word of God cannot be defended regardless of the cleverness of the quibble, or the "piety" of the proponent. All thinking parents will therefore see that they warn their children of this insidious evil, and all God-loving church members will cease engaging in it and repent of their sins. May God help us to keep ourselves pure. (I Tim. 5:22).

Books for Sale

Sermons By Pickup (Harry Pickup, Sr.) _______ $3.00 Book-Miller Debate (Instrumental Music) _______ 2.50 Identity of the Church (Cook-Miller Debate) 2.00 More Than Conquerors (Hendriksen on Revelation) 3.50 External Evidences of Christianity (A. J. Hoover) 3.00 Peloubet's Bible Dictionary _________ 4.00 Scriptural Elders and Deacons (Phillips) 4.00 What Is Wrong With Modern Marriage? (Phillips) .75 What Is the Church of Christ? (Phillips) ____ .25 Johnson's New Testament Notes (2 vols.) _____ 6.00

Write for any book, commentary, Bible or reference book

SERMONS BY PICKUP

"A Book of Complete Sermons" A series of sermons presented by Harry Pickup, Sr. in Clearwater, Fla. in 1952. They were recorded and put into book form just as he delivered them. It is a book of hard-hitting, down-to-earth sermons on such subjects as "The Battle-Ground of Those Who Build," "What The Church Needs," "Seeing The Difference," "Questions And Answers," etc. There are twelve full length sermons in the 214 page book.

Price — $3.00

Order from

PHILLIPS PUBLICATIONS 124 S.E. 7th St. Gainesville, Florida

SCRIPTURAL ELDERS AND DEACONS

By H. E. PHILLIPS

Eighteen chapters dealing in detail with the organization of the church, qualifications and duties of eldersand deacons, and duties of the church.

A book every elder, deacon, preacher and Christian should obtain and read carefully.

PALMETTO, Fla.— Brother Frank Andrews is leaving the work here in Palmetto in June of this year. The elders would like to contact any preacher interested in working with this congregation. Our mailing address is: Palmetto church of Christ, 420 Ninth Avenue, Palmetto, Fla. (J. C. Cannon).

TRENTON, Fla., Herbert Thornton— Our meeting will be August 7-17 with brother Irven Lee of Russellville, Ala. doing the preaching. We are very favorably impressed with the new paper, and are sure much good will result.

BUTLER, ALA.— A radio program began February 1 over station WPRN in Butler. Ala. Thomas G. O'Neal is the speaker. This program can be heard by those in reach of WPRN, 1220 on the dial, at 11:30 a.m. to 11:45

a.m. Monday through Friday, and at 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on Sundays.

"I like your new paper. I am anxiously awaiting the next issue. May the Lord bless your efforts.” — Curtis E. Flatt

GOSPEL MEETINGS REPORTED

During April brother Joe Laird of Oklahoma will preach in a series of meetings at the 14th Street church in Gainesville, Florida . . . Robert Jackson of Nashville, Tennessee preacher in a meeting at Baytown, Texas in March . . . John Iverson of Bessemer, Alabama preached in a meeting at Holden Heights church in Orlando, Florida in March . . . L O. Sanderson was in a meeting in Sanford, Fla. in February .. . Bob F. Owen of Tampa, Florida preached in a meeting at Walsingham Road church near Largo, Florida in March . . . B. G. Hope of Bowling Green, Kentucky preached in a meeting in Lakeland, Florida in March . . . J. P. Miller of Tampa, Florida preached in a meeting at MacDill church in Tampa the last of March and the first three days of April . . . Louis Garrett of Tampa, Florida preached in a meeting in Brooksville, Florida in March .. . Harry Payne of Tampa preached in a meeting at the Palm River congregation in that city in March.

BUS FOR SALE

The church at Largo, Florida wishes to sell a 37

passen-ger bus that it no longer needs. Anyone interested

in this bus please contact the Largo church, P.O. Box 80,

Largo, Florida. Information will be supplied by letter.

HAVE YOU SUBSCRIBED YET?

Have you mailed your subscription price of$2.00 to receive SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES for a whole year? As you send your own, whynot subscribe for two others? We want to teach the truth to as many as possible and you can help by sending in your own subscription and two others at once.

Most people are generally consistent in things other

than religious practices, but when it comes to Christian

living they show some of the most inconsistent practices to

be imagined. For example: Arguing that it is wrong to

argue. When a denominational preacher is cornered by the

powerful word of God, he immediately begins to present

arguments that it is sinful to argue. What he is really doing

is trying to prove what he claims to believe. But when an

other tries to prove what he believes from the Bible, that is

sinful— it is arguing.

Another inconsistent practice is to claim to believe the Bible as the inspired word of God, and then quote fromuninspired men to prove a thing right on which the Bible is completely silent. If the Bible is the complete inspired word of God, then uninspired writers cannot change or destroy it. To be consistent one must either accept the Bible as it is or reject it as the word of God; he cannot do both at once.

One more inconsistent practice is the claim to love and adore God while ignoring his authority to assemble with the saints on the Lord's day and to live a pure, consecrated life. If one loves God, he will obey His commandments without question— including public worship. If he does not obey God's commands, it is positive proof that he does not loveGod, regardless of his claims.

Let us strive to be both consistent and right. That is the only way to heaven, and the only way to live in service to God.

"BE YE SEPARATE"

Oaks Gowen, Bradenton, Florida

(Read: II Cor. 6:17-7:1)

Because there is no fellowship, communion, concord or agreement between righteousness and unrighteousness; between light and darkness; between Christ and Belial (idols); and between the church of God and heathen temples, God commands that we be separated from all works of darkness, unrighteousness and idolatry. "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises,dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." (II Cor. 6:17-18; 7:1.)

Righteousness and unrighteousness, light and darkness, Christ and idols, believers and infidels and the church of God and heathen temples are all diametrically opposed one unto the other so that no fellowship, communion, concord or agreement is in any way possible. Righteousness and unrighteousness cannot characterize the same action; light and darkness cannot occupy the same space at the same time.Neither will God dwell in one who is filled with unrighteousness, darkness and idolatry. We must be separated from all unclean things for God to dwell in us.

Under the Old Testament things were made clean or unclean by the commandments of God. Things authorized by divine law were made holy, clean and sanctified for use in the service of the Almighty. It was the duty of the priest to teach the people the difference between the holy and profane. "And they shall teach the people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean." (Ezekiel 44:23.) But the priests failed to make this distinction and led all Israel intoidolatry. "The priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them." (Ezek. 22:26.)

Under the New Testament things are made holy, clean and sanctified by coming under the blood of Christ. "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these." (Heb. 9:22-23-) Thingsunder the Old Testament were but "patterns of the things in the heavens." But the things revealed in the New Testament are the "heavenly things themselves." These "heavenly things" are all made pure, clean, holy and sanctified "with better sacrifices" than the things under the Old Testament. They have been made clean, holy, pure and sanctified by the precious blood of Christ.

Sectarian preachers fail to "put difference between holy and profane" things by ignoring the silence of the New Testament concerning a thousand and one things. They seem to think that since the New Testament does not specifically condemn a thing it is all right to introduce it. Everyunclean thing is brought into use by them through ignoring the silence of God's word and through failure to "put difference between the holy and profane."

But are we any better than sectarian preachers and the priests of the Old Testament when we fail to put a difference between that which the New Testament mentions and that which it does not mention? Are we any better than they when we fail to teach the people to put "difference between things revealed and unrevealed"; and fail to cause Christians by our teaching (or lack of it) to discern between things that are authorized in God's word and things unauthorized? I think not.

It has been hard for many of God's people throughout the ages to remain separated from those about them. Israel was influenced by the nations about her. She demanded a king like the nations about her. Many churches of the Lord are being influenced by the show of might and outward success of the denominations today. But we must remain a separate people if we will maintain our identity as the Lord's body. Israel lost her identity by copying the nations about her. We will just as surely loose our identity as the church of Christ when we become like the human institutions about us today. Adding human institutions to the church will most certainly make the church to whichthey are added just another human institution. The purity of the church is in her sanctification. When unsanctified things are brought into the church and made a part of the church, the church has lost her sanctification. No wonder the Lord said: "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

God's promises unto us are all conditional. His promise to be "a Father" unto us is conditioned upon our being separate and not touching the unclean thing. His promise to receive us is predicated upon our obedience. We must "come out from among them and be separate"; we must "touch not the unclean (unauthorized) thing"; we must "cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit"; and we must "perfect holiness in the fear of God" if God is to be "a Father unto us; and we are to be sons and daughters unto him."

STRIVING LAWFULLY

It is necessary for one to comply with the laws governing any sport to win and be crowned with victory. Paul writes Timothy: "And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully" (II Tim. 2:5). Violating the rules not only causes penalties to the individual guilty, but to all the team. When one man on a football team breaks one of the rules— and he does not have to break every rule to be punished— the whole team must suffer the consequences. It may cost that team the victory when the game is over. The apostle in this passage is speaking of this very principle. Some individual in a congregation may violate a rule of Christianity (spoken of as a race for the crown of life) and cause the whole congregation to suffer as a result.

The Rule-book by which we are to gain the crown of life is the New Testament of Jesus Christ. It is not enough to do certain things; they must be done according to the Rule-book. Let us take the time often to learn the rules of life and then conform to them that we may be crowned when this life is over.

THE IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH

"Debate with Primitive Baptist" A debate on the general church question be-tween W. T. Cook, Primitive Baptist, and James P. Miller, church of Christ. This debate was held in Nashville, Ga. in October, 1954. This 200 page paper bound book is a good defense of Bible truth. Price — $2.00