THE WHALE AND THE TOMB

It has long been truthfully said there is no middle ground in regard to the word of God. We either take it all as thevery inspired word breathed out by God himself, or we reject it and are lost. There is no better example of this in allof the Bible than the statement of Jesus to the Pharisees in Matthew 12:39, 40.

"But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeking after a sign; and thereshall no sign be given to it, but the sign of theprophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days andthree nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heartof the earth."

In this wonderful passage, the Son of God connects the storyof Jonas with the great truth of his resurrection. The paradoxto the modernist is very clear. If you are to believe one you must believe the other. The story of Jonah and the whalehas long been the target of all skeptics Of all of the truthsof the word of God, it is the most doubted and laughed at. To the modern mind, who can not explain his own birth fromhis mother's womb, it is inconceivable that a man could live three days and three nights in the belly of the whale. As theresult of this kind of thinking, preachers long ago decidedthat they too would agree that it is a fable. Teachers in theSunday Schools in thousands of churches explain to children five and six years old that the whale did not really swallowJonah but this is just a story to illustrate the truth of man'sobedience to God. The entire book of Jonah has long beenthe object of "higher criticism" and everything in the book has been denied save the existence of the city of Nineveh itself.

Our Savior must have had this in mind when to an evil generation that demanded more than was necessary for faith,he simply said, one is like the other.

THE LESS AND THE GREATER

By this statement the Lord connects what is consideredthe most insignificant fact in the Bible with what all mustagree to be the most important. Jesus says to the Phariseeswho wanted to see a sign, you already have a sign, which is Jonas and the whale and that my resurrection will be like it,and if you cannot believe one, you will not believe the other.

Let us look at some of the great lessons in these twoverses. First, Jonah was an inspired prophet of God and thebook of Jonah is inspired. Jesus recognized him as a prophet and called him that. Let the modernist teach, if he will, that there was no such man as Jonah. Jesus says there was, and notonly this, but that he was a prophet. Let the skeptic denythat the whale swallowed Jonah, Jesus said it did. Permit the liberal mind to attack the importance of the book ofJonah and its inspiration, Jesus said it was inspired. Secondly,notice the divine purpose of God in all that he does. Little didJonah know that our Lord would use his experience with the whale as a type of his resurrection. But God knew, and had apurpose. God never wanders with aimless feet, but his pathsalways lead to his purposes. Why should it be necessary forus, who have all spent far longer than Jonah in our mothers body, demand of God additional proof of the deity of hisSon. The sign of signs, the resurrection of Christ from thedead, is sign enough. Listen to the apostle Paul in Romans1:3, 4.

"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, whichwas made of the seed of David according to theflesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by theresurrection from the dead."

The third lesson is fearful in its consequences. It is this: thepreaching of Jonah was good enough to produce faith on the part of the men of Nineveh and they repented. Read verse 41;

"The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgement withthis generation and condemn it; because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here."

What a sad commentary this is on the world in the timeof Christ and indeed it is no better in our own world. As wicked as Nineveh was, they were better than the Phariseeswho had a greater than Jonas and would not believe. Over nineteen hundred years have passed since the Lord left the "heart of the earth", after three days to prove that he was thevery son of God with power and yet the world will not accept him in his deity. The world is filled with modernism anddoubt. Man has not yet learned that no other sign will begiven. There is no middle ground.

ENSNARING ONCOMING GENERATIONS

Hugh W. Davis, Lake Wales, Fla.

Are we leaving a snare for the next generation? God's people of old did. Concerning their occupation of Canaan, Godcharged Israel, . .y e shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall break down their altars"(Judges 2:2). But the people found it easier to form unholyalliances and to tolerate the false worship of the people around about them. Therefore, God said, " .. . they shall beas thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you" (Judges 2:3). That generation soon passed the way of all flesh ". . . and there arose a generation that knew notJehovah . . . they forsook Jehovah, the God of their fathers, . . . and followed other gods, of the gods of the people thatwere round about them" (Judges 2:10-12). And so we seeone generation leaving undealt-with evils behind to be a snare for the oncoming generation.

There is a much needed lesson here for us! The temptation to allow error to continue in the church is great indeed. Itis so much easier to tolerate evil than to gird for battle, contend for the faith, and carry the scars of spiritual conflictthat invariably result from extirpating religious wrong. It is so much more pleasant to build up than to tear down! Yet, as the. alters of the false gods were to be broken down byIsrael, so it is that things may arise in the church which mustbe overthrown. In wagering his relentless fight against error that had arisen in the church at Corinth, the apostle Paulwrote, ". . . though we walk in the flesh, we do not war afterthe flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, butmighty through God to the pulling down of strong-holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exhalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing intocaptivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor.10:3-5). This was Paul's attitude, in spite of the fact thatthere were those who would criticize, belittle, and smear his good name. But not many of us have the courage of Paul.And so we wink at evil and turn our attention to those thingspleasant and lovely in the sight of all.

But while we busy ourselves in the more pleasant pursuitsof serving God: playing "hands off" when it comes to error, we not only fail in our duty, but we may be bloodying ourhands with the souls of oncoming generations. The unextirpated evils of this generation may well be the snare of thenext. Brethren, our children and children's children will have enough problems of their own without inheriting our too.Let us therefore arise to the task before us and break down every "idol".

The religious sense of hamartano is seen in a Hellenistic papyrus on which is recorded an illiterate appeal from Antonius Longus to his mother entreating her to be reconciledto him. He makes his daily prayer to Serapis for her: "Iknow that I have sinned (oida hoti hemarteka)," BGU 3.846, from A.D. 100. This is reminiscent of the Biblical: "Father, I have sinned (pater, hemarton)," Luke 15:18.

At this point it is interesting to observe the pagan templeinscriptions that employ the verb hamartano. The incidents related on these inscriptions tell of some fault which caused guilt or impurity in the eyes of the god. In same cases it ismerely expressed in general terms by some part of the verbhamartano. In other instances the fault is described in detail. One such inscription has: "When Phoebus sinned (hemartesen), Great Artemis required of him an offering," (This is aninscription of the Katakekaumene.)

INDIFFERENCE

Indifference of the American people is becoming morealarming every day. Unless something is done about it wewill find ourselves completely destroyed by the forces thatare around us. Most people are indifferent about their ownhealth. Their habits of eating, sleeping, working, etc., aredestroying the general health, but the average man is indifferent to the warning he receives from his physician. Many are indifferent toward family responsibilities. The children are being lost to society, and parents are being warned aboutit, but they ignore the warning. Homes are breaking up at anastounding rate, but most of us are indifferent about it.

The national safety of all of us is threatened by inter: national communism and infidelity, but the average Americangives only lip concern about it. We are making little effort toteach and practice what we call "Americanism". We just driftalong with an indifferent attitude; and this is a matter ofconcern to those who wish to preserve our cherished liberties.

Far more important than our physical and civil well-being is our spiritual health and destiny. It seems right and reasonable to suppose that one would be concerned about his eternal destiny if he were concerned about anything. But ourpractice indicates that we as a people are less concernedabout our spiritual welfare than anything else. The only realdesire of most people is to get wealth and power.

The evidence of indifference or lukewarmness in spiritualmatters is shown in our attitude toward the Bible. Few reallyshow an interest in learning more about God's will. Few reallyread the Bible with a view of learning what they must do toplease God and be saved. Some denominations have beenoffering prizes to those who read a certain amount from the Bible in a given period. Some read the Bible through so manytimes in a lifetime, thinking that the amount of reading willpile up righteousness which will save them. Even in congregations of the Lord's church special rewards are sometimespromised for certain amounts read from the Bible. The desire for the reward is more desirable than the good that comesfrom the reading. What we need is BIBLE STUDY— diligentstudy to learn and live.

The attitude toward the church is evidence of growingindifference. Today we may fill a large building at the morning hour of worship on Lord's day, but seldom at any othertime. People are not really too busy to attend worship. Wecan prove that by pointing to the ball stadiums, golf courses, race tracks, theatres, etc. The truth is that people are indifferent toward the church and the work the Lord gave it todo, and they prove it by neglecting their responsibilities alongthis line.

Jesus said: "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." (Matt. 12:30).Every indifferent person is against Christ. He destroys ratherthan builds. To the church of the Laodiceans Christ said: "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: Iwould thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of mymouth" (Rev. 3:15, 16). Could language be stronger? Could it be plainer?

I am concerned that brethren are indifferent toward efforts like Searching The Scriptures to help teach the truth of Godand encourage in spiritual growth. The same is true of gospelmeetings. Whether the gospel be preached by the printedpage or from the pulpit, brethren should show an interest and stand by the truth. If this is not done, Jesus says we are scattering abroad. Some will not even read such efforts as thisto teach the truth of the gospel. Neither will they listen togospel preaching from the pulpit. This is an alarming sign of indifference toward the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Just as many will not put forth the effort to go to the meeting house during a gospel meeting, many will not spendone thin dime to receive teaching through the printed pagesuch as this. If persuaded to go to the meeting house orsubscribe for some teaching through the printed page, theyoften do not listen or read. The only explanation of this condition is INDIFFERENCE.

The only solution to indifference is teaching the truth aboutit and persuading people to repent. To the church of Ephesus Jesus said: "Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore fromwhence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works;or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent" (Rev. 2:4, 5). It is time to repent of lukewarmness and indifference.It is time to turn again to our first love and do the works wedid when we first became servants of God. We should show interest and love for the truth in our own lives. We should be helpful as far as is possible with us in carrying the gospel toothers. One way to do this is to send tracts and papers likeSearching The Scriptures to some who need to learn the truth. Do not be indifferent about your own soul; why not subscribeor renew your subscription to the paper today? More thanthat, read it and "search the Scriptures daily, whether thosethings were so" (Acts 17:11).

WORLDLINESS IN THE CHURCH

Earl Fly, Orlando, Florida

Worldliness is a broad comprehensive word which includesmany soul-condemning affections, attitudes and acts disapproved by God. Since affections and attitudes determineactions, God gives the following command: "Set your affections on things above, not on things on the earth" (Col. 3:2). This is necessary that we may "seek those things which are above" (Verse 1). We seek that which we love. If we lovethe world we will seek the things therein and be lost. Hencewe are instructed to "love not the world, neither the things that are in the world" (I John 2:15). Demas forsook theapostle Paul because he loved this present world (II Tim.4:10).

There are many specific acts which demonstrate love forthe things of this world, such as lascivious living, covetousness, drunkenness, extortion, et cetera. Lack of space forbids astudy of the multitudes of specific acts which could benamed. In this article I want to present a few manifestationsof worldliness in the church, which pervert preaching, weakenthe mission of the church, hinder Christian growth and endanger souls.

(1) WORLDLY WISDOM IN PREACHING

It is reliably reported firsthand to me that a prominentteacher in one of the colleges operated by brethren instructedpreacher students in his class to 'learn and use big words inyour preaching to impress the audience". Such preachingmight indeed impress some hearers with the education andability of the preacher and gain praise and popularity forhim from those who are ignorant of or disobedient to God's teaching on the subject.

But is it the purpose of preaching to impress the audience with man's ability, or to convict and convert the lost? Can the gospel be effectively preached by using big words of worldlywisdom not understood by many of the hearers? The apostle Paul did not preach "with wisdom of words, lest the cross ofChrist should be made of none effect" (I Cor. 1:17). He said,"But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with thegospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts. For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloak of covetousness; Godis witness: Nor of men sought we glory . . ." (I Thess. 2:4-6). The apostle further said, "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not toknow anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was notwith enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not standin the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (I Cor. 2:1-5). Gospel preaching is designed by God to exalt Christ, not the preacher; to produce faith in God, not man; to convictthe lost and edify the saved, not impress the audience withman's ability.

This worldly desire to receive glory of men by impressingthe audience with excellency of speech and enticing words of man's wisdom results in faith standing in the wisdom of menand makes the gospel of Christ of none effect. Preachers should not become menpleasers because of this desire butresist the devil. Neither should they bow to the lukewarmspiritual weaklings in the church who clamor for a softgospel of flattering words, so as to have the favor of the worldin financial, social and political matters. But we should speakas the oracles of God with great plainness of speech so thatall may understand. As one preacher expressed it, "Let usput the hay down where the calves can get it and the cowswill take care of themselves".

(2) UNDUE EMPHASIS ON MATERIAL BUILDINGS

When brethren build a glamorous building of beauty to impress the world and satisfy their pride of life at an excessive cost, they are manifesting a spirit of worldliness. Whenthey have so much foolish pride in the beauty of their fabulous building that they object to the use of a chart or blackboard by the preacher, who is laboring hard to clearly present the gospel as effectively as possible to convert the lost, theymanifest a greater love for worldly beauty than the salvationof souls. When such worldly minded brethren with theirwarped view of Christianity have this much foolish pride in and love for their temple, it comes dangerously close to becoming an idol, and it is high time for a change of attitude,affections and actions. Their affections are clearly set onthings below. They should realize that no soul can be drawnto God, converted from sin and kept pure in God's sight by any building, regardless of its location, design, cost or beauty.The gospel is still God's power to draw, convert and keep(John 6:44-45; Rom. 1-16).

(3) FUN, FOOD AND FROLIC

It is worldly love for this life and its pleasures that causes brethren to "sit down to eat and drink, and rise up to play" inthe church. They build Recreational Camps, Church Kitchens,Play Rooms, Youth Hobby Shops, promote Social Functions,Entertainment Programs, et cetera, with money from the church treasury, as if the Bible gives authority for it. But theycannot produce one scripture to justify such.

Christ did not die to establish a church through which toprovide worldly pleasure. The church is a spiritual institutionwith a spiritual mission, not a Sanctified Cafe, Holy Theater or Glorified Recreational Camp. Those who misuse God'smoney to promote these worldly activities are not abiding inthe doctrine of Christ. They need to re-study and accept the authority of the Bible and the true mission of the church.

This spirit of worldliness in the church is doing great harmtherein. When its time, efforts and money are diverted topleasure programs and other unauthorized activities, howeverworthy they might be, its mission is greatly hindered. There is a time and place for wholesome recreation, but neither thetime nor the place is in the church. Let us be content to letthe church be the church, doing the work of the churchauthorized in the Bible, nothing more, nothing less andnothing else.

In this age of growing emphasis on materialism we mustgive diligence to make our calling and election sure. We must fight to maintain the purity of the church and not allow it tobecome a social club to provide for the worldly desires of itsmembers who love this present world. Let us take heed lestafter we have preached to others, we ourselves should be castaways because of worldliness in the church.

DOWDY-MORRIS DEBATE

By Marshall E. Patton

On the nights of September 11-16 brother Harold Dowdy of DeLand, Florida, engaged brother J. M. Morris of Holly Hill, Florida, in debate in the church building at DeLand.Three propositions (two nights each) were discussed involving the scripturalness of the DeLand church in organization,doctrine, and practice; church contributions to orphan homes, and the Herald of Truth issue.

THE DeLAND CHURCH

In his efforts to prove the DeLand church unscripturalbrother Morris, to the surprise of nearly all brethren present,took a unique position; namely, that a congregation without elders is unscriptural. Upon this basis he sought to prove hisproposition. Brother Dowdy pointed out that while a church fully organized must have elders, it is also scriptural for achurch to exist without elders, e.g., when there are no men in the congregation possessing the divine qualifications(I Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-11). Brother Morris found himselfinvolved in hopeless difficulty in reckoning with the divinecondition "IF" in Titus 1:6 and the fact that New Testament churches existed for a while without elders (Acts 14:23).

This radical, unscriptural position lost for Morris the confidence of brethren in general including some who stood withhim on the other issues involved. In an effort to save face he charged, without submitting proof, that the DeLand church was run by a board of directors (referring to the men of thecongregation as they met in business meetings) and that itwas governed by majority vote. Dowdy denied the chargesand said they were plain falsehoods! He made it clear that he and the DeLand church were opposed to such; that hehad taught against such while there, and that Morris wasobligated to produce proof of such charges. Morris admittedthat he was told this by a brother whom he never identified.Thus, it appeared that Morris had received the tale of a talebearer without establishing it in the mouth of two or three

witnesses and sinned more grievously by making it public without submitting proof. A man never suffered a morecrushing defeat than Morris in this matter.

ORPHAN HOMES

On the orphan home issue Morris argued that when the church contributed to an individual saint, it was contributingto his home. Dowdy showed that the issue was not who or what benefited from the contribution to the saint; that it might be his home, the grocery store, some finance company, or even the government (when taxes are paid) as the individual met his legitimate obligations, but such was not proofthat the church had contributed to such institutions. Furthermore, Dowdy submitted all the scriptures of the New Testament involving church action in benevolence and showed thatevery time it was to "saints"— never to an institution— not even to a private home.

Brother Dowdy made a clear distinction between the individual and church action. Morris, however, continued to use Gal. 6:10 and Jas. 1:27 to prove church action. He also appealed to I Cor. 9:13 in an effort to show church obligationto those other than saints. Dowdy very ably exposed his errorand caused truth to stand out clearly.

Brother Morris argued that since the collection of I Cor.16:1, 2 was for "poor saints" Dowdy had no authority to takehis salary from the church treasury if he were going to followthe example exactly; that if he could get his salary out of it, then it was right to take money out of it for those other than saints. Dowdy replied that if I Cor. 16:1, 2 were all we hadon the use of church funds then it could be used only for"poor saints"; that II Cor. 11:8 authorized a salary for preachers out of the church treasury, and upon that basis he received his salary from it.

On Thursday night Morris placed on the board within acircle the nine scriptures used by Dowdy involving the churchin benevolence. Over this circle he wrote the word "saints". On the other side of the board he placed within anothercircle the passages in which the word "cup" appears in relation to the Lord's supper. Over this circle he wrote "cup" and underneath he wrote the word "singular". He then arguedthat in order to be consistent, since Dowdy says "saints"means "saints only", he would have to take "cup" (singular) to mean only one container, and this would make him a "onecupper". Again he tried to make Dowdy appear to be in the class with the Anti-Bible brethren. Brother Dowdy showedthat he accepted what the Bible said in both instances; thathe was a "one-cupper" in the sense that the word "cup" was used in the Scriptures; that the word "cup" meant the elementin the container— not the container itself (Matt. 26:27, 28); that in order to have a plurality of cups in the Bible senseone would have to add other elements, e.g., coffee, orangejuice, etc. Dowdy then showed that Morris' argument was thevery one made by the "Anti-Bible Class, One-Cup" brethren.Morris never recovered from this colossal blunder throughout the rest of the debate.

Brother Dowdy showed that one of the basic errors on thepart of Morris and those with him is that of stretching theScriptures to include what they want. For example, Morristhought the Scriptures authorized "cup" (singular), but hestretched them to mean many cups. He knew the Scripturessaid "saints", but he stretched them to mean those not saints. He knew that the collection of I Cor. 16:1, 2 was for "poorsaints", yet he stretched it to include his salary, unaware of II Cor. 11:8 which authorized it.

Brother Morris had much to say about the "love of God"and the "spirit of Christ", and that to limit the church inbenevolence was to limit the love of God. Dowdy did a very effective job in answering this showing that God's love was not limited when he forbade the church to help him who willnot work in II Thess. 3:10; when he said "let not the church be charged" in I Tim. 5:16; and again, when he said "saints"in Acts 2:44, 45; 4:34; 6:1-6; 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25-27; I Cor. 16:1, 2; II Cor. 8:1-4; 6:1, 12; I Tim. 5:16, but that God's love had provided for all worthy objects of charity. Hethen challenged Morris to name one object of charity forwhom God's love had not provided! Dowdy showed how that all were covered by the obligations placed upon the individualhimself, relatives, the church, or other individuals; that it was simply a question of following God's plan or one of our own. Morris never made any reply to this.

Morris also argued that when the church "relieved" theneedy by providing a place, food, clothing, nurse, guardian,etc., that such became a home and the elders were, therefore, over two organizations— a church and a home. Dowdy showedthat this was the same mistake made by the Anti-Bible classbrethren, for they argue that when the church "teaches" byproviding a place, teacher, literature, etc., that such becomesanother organization and the elders, therefore, are over twoorganizations— a church and a school. Dowdy showed, however, that both were functional arrangements of the churchand not organizations separate from the church.

HERALD OF TRUTH

On the Herald of Truth issue the discussion was confined primarily to the arrangement of some churches in CentralFlorida with the Jefferson Street church in Orlando whereby contributions are made to Jefferson Street who in turn makes the arrangements, signs the contract, and bears the responsibility for maintaining the Herald of Truth film on a localTV station.

While several stock arguments of the liberal brethren were used by Morris and ably answered by Dowdy we conservespace in this article by examining the main burden of proofoffered by Morris. He argued that the churches of Macedonia contributed to Philippi and Philippi in turn sent toPaul at Corinth (Phil. 4:15; II Cor. 11:8, 9); that this madePhilippi a supporting church, and, therefore, contributions to a sponsoring church is Scriptural.

Brother Dowdy took this argument away from him completely by showing that the two passages could not possibly refer to the same instance for the following reasons:

1. They are not the same in language. II Cor. 11:8, 9 says"churches" (plural) and Phil. 4:15 says "ye only" (Philippi,singular).
2. They are not the same in place. Phil. 4:16 says "For even in Thessalonica", and II Cor. 11:8, 9 shows Paul to be in Corinth.
3. They are not the same in time. Phil. 4:15 says "in thebeginning, when I departed from Macedonia". Even if wegrant that this refers to a time after he left Macedonia (which it does not) it still would not put Paul at Corinth but inAthens. Dowdy also pointed out that the tense of the Greekword translated "when" will not allow the conclusion that it means "after" necessarily; that in the light of the context(next verse) we are forced to accept Thessalonica as theplace, and, therefore, not when he was at Corinth. It wasalso pointed out that Morris' conclusion demanded a violation of I Pet. 5:2 which limits the function of elders.

On the last night of the debate Morris conceded that thematter of whether or not churches of Macedonia contributed to Philippi was a question of debate; that he could not provethat they did and Dowdy could not prove that they did not;that he, therefore, had as much proof as Dowdy. Morris,however, overlooked the fact that the only doubtful positionwas his own (since he could not prove it) and that Dowdy'sposition (Philippi sent to Paul) was unquestioned! One isrevealed and the other is not.

Brother Dowdy showed that no church in New Testament times sent to another except when the receiving church wasin need; that it was God's plan for each church to act independently to the extent of its ability in accomplishing itsmission. When this is done all that can be done is accomplished and that without loss of energy, time, and overheadexpense, all of which necessarily inheres in any centralizedsystem. Furthermore, it maintains congregational equality, afundamental Bible principle.

The debate did much good in DeLand and the surroundingarea. The church in DeLand was unified in greater measure in the truth, strengthened in the faith, and a much betterspirit prevails now than before the debate. There have beenseveral additions to the church there since the debate, some as a result of it.

While this was brother Dowdy's first debate, faithful brethren were well pleased with his efforts. He is worthy of allcommendation and proved himself to be an able defenderof the faith.

It is to be regretted that it is becoming more and moredifficult to get liberal brethren to debate. In this matter they are becoming more and more like he denominations— and for the same reason. They operate best from behind closed doors.

The writer moderated for brother Dowdy and brother Ross

G. Embry of Holly Hill moderated for brother Morris. Brother Jerry Belchick was time keeper for brother Dowdy andbrother Paul Breakfield was time keeper for brother Morris.

Since infants are not accountable, they are not subject to the law of the king either in becoming a citizen or as a citizen in the kingdom. They, therefore, are not subjects in the kingdom.

While the infant is with both God and Christ (having never been separated) and shall be with the redeemed throughout eternity, his relationship to God, Christ, and the kingdom differs from that of the accountable soul saved by the grace of God.

QUESTION: Are infants in the kingdom? What is theirrelationship to God and Christ?

ANSWER: These questions can best be answered by determining the condition or state of the infant in the sight of God.

The Bible does not teach the doctrine of "total depravity"as affirmed by Calvinist. Every appeal to the Scriptures tosustain this doctrine places a forced meaning upon thepassage that is out of harmony with its context. Such is"wresting the scripture", and results in condemnation to thesoul (II Pet. 3:16).

The Bible teaches that infants are innocent! God is the "Father of spirits" (Heb. 12:9). Every soul, therefore, is the"offspring of God" (Acts 17:28). Since "like begets like", itnecessarily follows that souls are born innocent. No doubt,Jesus had such innocence and purity in mind when he saidconcerning little children, "of such is the kingdom of heaven"(Matt. 19:14). This does not teach that infants are in thekingdom, but that those in the kingdom correspond in nature to little children— they are innocent, pure, holy. They havebeen made so through the atoning benefits of the blood ofthe lamb appropriated by their obedience to the gospel. Infants are pure because they have never sinned. Those in thekingdom have sinned, but have been made pure through conversion.

Sin is the thing that separates the soul from God (Isa. 59:1;Ezk. 18:20). Sin is a transgression of the law (I John 3:4).However, God's judgment against man is based upon accountability (II Cor. 5:10; Deut. 1:39). Therefore, one isnot a sinner in God's sight until he becomes accountable andtransgresses God's law. Then he is in need of the grace whichGod provides that he might be saved.

This grace includes a redeemer— even Jesus Christ. To redeem is to recover or buy back. Christ purchased our redemption with a price that is precious, indeed (I Pet. 1:18, 19). Infants are not redeemed. You cannot buy back thatwhich has never been away or separated from the originalowner. Infants are not in need of redemption. They are yetwith the original owner, and are, therefore, safe!

This grace includes the church. The word "church"(ekklesia) means "the called out". Its membership is composed of those who have been "called" by the gospel (II Thess. 2:14) out of darkness and the kingdom thereof (I Pet.2:9; Col. 1:13) through their obedience to truth (John 8:32;Acts 2:41,47). It is a relationship for the saved. Infants arenot in it. They cannot hear, believe, and obey the gospel bywhich souls are called out of the world into the church. Furthermore, you cannot call one out of something he hasnever been in. The infant has never been lost, therefore, is not saved— but safe!

Since the church and the kingdom are the same (Isa. 2:2,3; I Tim. 3:15; Matt. 16:18,19), and since infants are not in thechurch, it necessarily follows that they are not in the kingdom. Furthermore, citizenship in the kingdom is not established by physical birth, but by a spiritual birth (John 3:5).

Many good brethren are disturbed over the failure of gospelmeetings to reach the masses as they did a few years ago.There can be little doubt that there is some basis for their concern. No matter how hard the brethren try, and no matter how good the preaching, many "meetings" go todaywithout a single addition or at best with very few. I thinkthat there may be two answers to the problem. One is thefact that the good congregation today seeks to save souls allthe year long. I know that where I preach in Tampa manytime I stop the invitation and say just a word by way ofadditional encouragement. The day is gone when all that are to obey the gospel wait until the "meeting" to do so. Thesecond reason is found in the times in which we live. It is almost impossible today to get outsiders to come withregularity to a series of sermons. Modern life leaves at best only a free night or two in the week. School activities, clubs, work and other things occupy the minds of thosewho are not children of God. Twenty five years ago itwas not this way. An outsider would come early in themeeting and become so interested that he would comeback each night until he would obey the gospel.Preachers would start the very first service to "lay thefoundation" and before the meeting was over would teach the entire unfolding of God's plan. It must have beenhard to convert men in the days of the early church. Weshould not be discouraged. Just make the gospel meetinga part of the overall teaching program of the church andfollow through on all that do come. Remember that the church of the Lord is in the work of saving souls everyday and that our series of meetings is a wonderfulopportunity to accelerate our efforts. NEVER DECIDETHAT A MEETING IS NOT WORTHWHILE. Use it to sow or to reap but use it with all of its power for good.

I marvel that so few people are sought out by their fellowmen as counselors in time of personal trouble. If the readerwill pardon a personal example, as I write this column in the evening I can hear a young girl pouring out her heart to my wife in the living room of our home. Someone saidrecently there are only two kinds of people. Those who are the problem and those who are the solution. Christiansneed to be the solution and not the problem. How long has it been since someone in trouble sought you out and asked for a helping hand?

INN BUT NO HOSPITAL

Some of the leading brethren among us have affirmed thatthe example of the "good Samaritan" in the 10th Chapter ofLuke is all the authority the church needs to build andmain

tain a hospital. In preaching on the wonderful example of individual responsibility not long ago, it occurred to me that itwould be better for them to teach that this passage justifiedthe building and support of hotels by the Church. After all,there is a hotel in the narrative. Read verse 34, "And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn,and took care of him." They can find an inn but no hospital. There would be one draw back however. They would haveto stay and take care of the needy man for the last part ofthe verse said, "and took care of him."

THE AGE OF THE EARTH

The word of God does not tell us how old the earth is. The very fact that the scientists disagree to billions of years is proof enough that the age of the earth is not known. God asked Job in the long ago in Job 38:4 this question; "Wherewast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" Job was not there and neither were the experts on such matters today. The story is told about the old fellow who went to sleep at the science lecture and missed a statement about the end of the world. He punched the man sitting by him and said, "what did he say?" His fellow listener said, " The speaker said the world would give out and be burned up by the sun in 4 billion years." The old man let out a sigh of relief and exclaimed, "thank goodness, I thought he said in 4 million."

EDOMITES, MIDIANITES AND OTHERS

It has been suggested by those who seek a human explanation for all things divine, that the Israelites were in a positionby their close ties to work out the Bible and give it to theworld as the word of God. Of course this makes the Bible of human origin and the product of the Jews alone. The question arises however, about why some of the tribes and nations kinto Israel, were not able to do so as well. The very best theycould do was to worship idols and even sometimes offer human sacrifices to them. For example the Edomites were the descendants of Ishmael while the Midianites were from Midian the son of Abraham by Keturah, and therefore closelyrelated to the Hebrews. The Ammonites descended from Ben-Ami who was the son of Lot. The Moabites came from Moab also the son of Lot and they too have a connectionwith the chosen of God. If the Bible is the product of humanminds why did not some of these related tribes produce aBible also. I am reminded of the story of the little girl whowhen told by the college professor that man came frommonkey very pointedly inquired, "why are some not turningnow?"

"GOD DID NOT GIVE THE HOW"

H. E. Phillips

One of the oldest arguments to introduce and supportunauthorized practices in the church is that one which says:"God commanded the church to do it, but did not tell us how, hence, any 'how' is scriptural". This was one of the argumentsto support the missionary society. One thing we note aboutthis rule is that it is usually applied only to the issues thatthe one has in mind. It will not be applied to the many things in the word of God that the advocate of it accepts as written.For example: "God commanded us to be baptized, but Hedid not tell us how, therefore, any how is scriptural." Fromthis we could conclude that the Red Cross, Community Fund, Summer Camps, etc. are scriptural institutions to baptize people into Christ. But the advocate of this argument wouldobject to this on the basis that we are jumping from the action to the institution when the "how" is applied, and rightly so.

Yet, those who argue that any "how" is scriptural becauseGod did not designate the exact action of some requirement,rush to substitute an institution for the action when evangelism and benevolence is the subject.

There are three big questions to answer in connection with the argument we are considering: (1) Does God really command it? (2) Did He tell us how? (3) What does the "how"involve?

DOES GOD REALLY COMMAND IT?

There are many things which have been bound upon usto do that God really did not command. Some of these involve the rituals many go through when worshipping God; someof them involve the individual responsibilities in human relations; some of them involve personal conduct of Christians.For example: the singing of three songs, a prayer, another song, preaching, invitation song, Lord's Supper, contribution,announcements and closing prayer. God authorized thesethings to be done decently and orderly, but He did not command us to follow this form. If one says (assumes) that God has commanded this form, he is saying that God commanded us to do something which He did not command— the form or ritual of worship on Lord's day.

Again, in human relations it may be said that God commanded us to visit people in prison (criminals of all kinds).If one says God commanded us to make visits to jails on Sunday afternoons, he is arguing from something which God didnot command. The Bible does require us to visit (supply theneeds) to brethren or saints who are imprisoned for thegospel, and Jesus says we do such to him when we do it to one of the least of these his brethren (Matt. 25:36-40). But this is in no way a command to visit all jails and prisoners as the duty of a Christian.

Once more, in personal duties it may be said that God commanded us to provide recreation and training for our children. If one says God commanded us (the church) to provideproper training for our children in recreation, he is makinga command of God which is not given in the Bible. This isthe responsibility of fathers and mothers, not the church.

Now, applying this to the care of orphans, widows andaged people, we are told in definite and uncertain terms thatGod has commanded the church to do this work. Before we can proceed to arguments about the HOW, we must firstdetermine if God really commanded the church to do such. Widows of a certain age, qualifications and destitute are definitely the charge of the church (I Tim. 5:16). There is nododging this; God has commanded THE CHURCH to carefor "widows indeed" who have no one to care for them. Other widows are as definitely NOT the charge of the church.They are to be "refused" and their care to be supplied by thefamily of the widow (I Tim. 5:9, 11, 16). The "poor saints"are to be cared for by the church. This is a "command" of God. Other than these, where is the command of God for the church to care for the physical needs of mankind? Christianshave the individual responsibility of caring for the needs of"all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith", but this does not prove that "God commanded thechurch to do it". If we are permitted to shift our personal andindividual duties to the church and say "what the individualis to do the church is to do", then I Tim. 5:9-16 has no meaning. Here a distinction between church and individualresponsibility is clearly drawn.

Without being overthrown by emotion, let me inquire:Where does God command the church as a body to relieve orphans? We cannot just assume this if we are to walk by faith,and not by sight. The answer would have to be found in James 1:26, 27 because this is the only place the word "fatherless" (orphan) occurs in our English translation of the New Testament.Throughout the first chapter of James the emphasis is on theindividual. Beginning with verse 26: "If ANY MAN among you seem to be religious . . ." Is this a personal, individualmatter or is it a congregational action ". . . and bridleth notHIS tongue, but deceiveth HIS own heart, THIS MAN'Sreligion is vain." James is speaking of the individual as suchand not congregational action. He is also speaking about theman's RELIGION— the difference between vain and pure.Vain religion, is this: self-deception, hypocrisy and an uncontrolled tongue. On the other hand, pure religion is visiting(supplying what is needed) the fatherless and widowsand keeping self unspotted from the world. Who is to keephimself unspotted from the world? THE MAN who is practicing pure religion. Who is to care for the fatherless and widows in their afflictions? THE MAN who is practicing pure religion.

In the very next chapter (James 2:15, 16) we have someinformation on benevolent responsibility. "If a brother orsister be naked and destitute of daily food, and ONE OFYOU say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed andfilled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit"? This forcefullypoints to the individual responsibility to help those in need.

We ask again, Where did God command the church as abody to care for the fatherless and widows in general, or anyone else except "poor saints" and "widows indeed"?

DID GOD TELL US HOW?

Assuming that the church as a body is to care for theorphans and widows of the world without further classification, did God leave us a pattern or example of how it is to be done?

In Acts 4:34, 35 we find that "neither was there any amongthem that lacked: for as many as were possessors of landsor houses sold them, and brought the prices of the thingsthat were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet:and distribution was made unto every man according as hehad need." This is the HOW! This is "how" the earlychurch cared for those of its members who were needy. In Acts 6 we have the problem of widow care in the Jerusalemchurch. The apostles told the multitude of people composingthe church there to "look ye out among you seven men ofhonest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whomwe may appoint over this business". This is the HOW— within the framework of the congregation. In Acts 11:29, 30 wehave the matter of needy saints in the country of Judea beinghelped by another church. "Then the disciples, every manaccording to his ability, determined to send relief unto thebrethren which dwelt in Judaea; which also they did, andsent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul." This is the HOW— they sent it to the elders of the congregation in need.

In I Tim. 5:16 we have the problem of widows indeedbeing relieved. "If any man or woman that believeth havewidows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed."This is the HOW— the individual to take care of his own benevolent responsibility and the church to take the chargeof widows indeed.

The matter of who is to do the relieving, who is to be relieved, and the independence of each congregation in doingits own work is clearly taught, and if this involves the HOW, it is given in the word of God.

WHAT DOES THE HOW INVOLVE?

Usually when the matter of "how" is brought up the procedure is not thought of, only the agency. Our use of the word how involves two separate things: the agency (personor institution) and the procedure (the methods used inaccomplishing the work). Now which one is under consideration when we say "God did not tell the church how"?

How does God reveal Himself unto us? Well, what do we mean by the "how", the agent or action in revealing Himself? To know this is important in answering the questionproperly. If we have in mind the agent or person, it is Jesus Christ and no one else. Peter quotes what Moses said ofChrist: "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up untoyou of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in allthings whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet,shall be destroyed from among the people" (Acts 3:22, 23).The opening verses of Hebrews tell us that God spoke before to the fathers by the prophets, and "hath in these last daysspoken unto us by his Son . . ." (Heb. 1:1, 2). If the agent or person is means by the "how", God revealed Himselfonly through His Son in these last days. The Bible gives usthe "how".

But if the action or procedure is meant by the "how", thequestion would have to be answered differently. Christ being the agent, God gave him all power and authority. The HolySpirit was employed by Christ to reveal the word to theapostles (John 14:26; 16:13; Acts 1:1,2,8; 2:1-4; I Cor. 2:10; I Pet. 1:12). The apostles, being moved by the Holy Spirit,wrote the things revealed in what we now call the New Testament (I Cor. 14:37; II Pet. 3:15,16). This is the "how" concerning the action or procedure.

Now with regard to orphan and widow care, has God givenus the "how"? If no "how" is given, it would follow that any "how" is scriptural, providing of course He commanded usto do it. Are we speaking of the agent (person or organization)? If so, the church or the individual is the only "how"revealed in the word of God. Just find the verse that shows any other agent or organization and we will have some placeto begin in reviewing our position. God has specified theorganization or institution when He required the church in certain circumstances and Christians in general to do benevolent work. If not, then why cannot the Red Cross, Community Fund, Salvation Army, etc. be the agent through which thechurch works in this field? They can if God did not give the"how", meaning the agent or organization for caring for theneedy. But it is said that the church is commanded to do this work. Then the "how" (organization) is given by God.It is the church.

But if the procedure or action is meant by the "how", i.e.,God did not tell us exactly the action to follow in caring forthe needy, then institutions have nothing whatever to do with the question. It is simply a matter of procedure in getting thework done. Sometimes this is called "methods". There would be no question at all about whether food was given to the hungry or whether money was given to him to buy food.That is not what the problem is all about, and most peoplewho argue this matter know it. The agent or institution is what is objected to on the grounds that God specified whois to do this work. When the argument is presented the agent is the only thing under consideration in the "how". Did Godtell us how? He certainly did: the church under given circumstances and each Christian according to his ability andopportunity.

A STATEMENT CONCERNING GOSPEL PRESS, INC.

Earl Fly, Orlando, Florida

I understand that the Firm Foundation editorial of August 29, 1961 says that Gospel Press does not solicit funds from churches and that those who had written and spoken aboutit "did not know what they were talking and writing aboutrelative to the activities of Gospel Press".

Inasmuch as I was one of those who talked and wrote about its activities, I publish the following to set the recordstraight. I have the two original letters from Gospel Press,Inc., signed by Vice President Paul Hunton.

When the Belmont Heights church of Christ in Tampa,Florida, received a letter from Gospel Press signed by PaulHunton, postmarked Sept. 26, 1960, asking for a contribution from the church to Gospel Press, the brethren considered it in a business meeting conducted October 3, 1960. Theyinstructed me to write the following letter, which was readand approved in a special meeting October 5, 1960.

"Mr. Paul Hunton

Gospel Press, Inc. 3813

Hillsboro Road Dear

brother Hunton:

"The Belmont Heights church received your letter postmarked Sept. 26, 1960, in which you request the fifth Sunday contribution in October for Gospel Press. The letter was readand discussed Monday night, October 3, in the regularbusiness meeting of the church, and the decision was made that I be authorized to write this letter to you, which wasread and approved in a special called business meeting,Wednesday night, October 5.

"Some of the brethren here, Wendel Strickland, John Lang-ford, Gerstle Slatton and others, remembered favorably yourpreaching in this area, and an interest was expressed to hearwhat you might have to say further about some questionsregarding Gospel Press.

"The brethren here have always rejected and opposedchurch contributions to the Missionary Society to enable it to preach the gospel on the grounds that there is no Bibleauthority for it, that the church is sufficient to preach thegospel without contributing to and consequently workingthrough human organizations. We believe that Gospel Press,with its Board and Chairman, President, Vice President, is an exact parallel with this missionary society of yesteryear, whichalienated brethren, divided churches, and resulted in a new denomination being born, namely, the Christian Church. Forthis reason the decision was made not to support Gospel Press in any way.

"We understand that Gospel Press publicly stated in itsbeginning that it would not solicit or accept church contributions. The brethren are interested to know the grounds forthe change. It is also requested that you give Bible authority for church contributions to Gospel Press.

"The brethren here sincerely request your reply to thesematters, which will be read to the brethren for consideration in a called business meeting.

Yours sincerely,BELMONT HEIGHTS CHURCH OF CHRIST,By Earl Fly, Evangelist."

The following letter, dated October 18, 1960, was signedand sent by Paul Hunton, via air-mail, to the Belmont Heights church.

"Dear Brethren:

"When we mailed out the letter requesting contributionsfrom the churches we assumed that everyone had read ofthe revised position of the Board of Directors of the GospelPress. Contributions are now solicited from churches if the check is specifically for the advertising, tracts to be mailedout, or answering the inquiries. We never have and we do not now solicit funds from churches for salaries or other necessary expenses involved. These expenses are paid byindividual contributions. It have been stated in our gospelpapers that all contributions raised east of the Mississippi will be used only for the ads, tracts and answering inquiries. Ishould have stated this again in my letter to you.

"I hope this answers your questions and you will encouragethe church to send a sizeable contribution in October.

Your very truly,(signed) Paul Hunton, Vice-President.

The reader will please notice that the second letter reaffirmed the intentions of the first to solicit contributions from churches, and I was personally asked to encourage the churchto "send a sizable contribution in October". Surely the Vice-President knew the policy of Gospel Press and the position of the Board! If they have now ceased their solicitations forchurch contributions they owe us an explanation. What aretheir reasons for the newly revised position to not solicit churches, if this be their latest position when this article ispublished.

The indisputable facts in this article are published to keep the record straight.

In a recently published college textbook in Zoology thereis a chapter devoted to Evolution. In this chapter there is a brief summary of events which lead to the acceptance of thetheory, according to the author. Empedocles (5 BC) suggested that the parts of animals had arisen separately andspontaneously from the earth and had assembled themselves at random into whole animals. Later the theory of spontaneous generation accounted for whole animals coming intoexistence out of nothing. In 1802 the French biologist, Lamarck, put forth the theory of acquired characteristics (ablacksmith would have brawnier children than if he had been a musician). Then came Charles Darwin in the eighteenhundreds. Darwin took the works of others as well as his own conclusions and presented them at the Linnean Society ofLondon in 1858. In 1859 he published, "On The Origin ofSpecies by Means of Natural Selection". The author statesthat, "Darwin's theory of evolution took the scientific worldby storm". He declares further that, "within a few years thetheory of special creation was abandoned by biologists, in favor of the theory of evolution". He leaves the impression that no biologist today exists that does not subscribe to thetheory of evolution. I not only resent this statement and conclusion but I claim that it is a false and misleading statement.To claim that all biologists are in favor of the theory of evolution is to make a claim that is not true. I readily admit thatmany biologists are evolutionists. I also am conscious thatsome bankers are thieves, some doctors are quacks and some men are drunkards. However, if I place every banker, doctor and man in these groups it would be a dishonest classification.One may be a banker, doctor, biologist or of other professionsand still be a Christian. Jesus invites "whosoever will" to come and partake of the blessings that are promised to theobedient and faithful. There are those who claim that the things they have learned in a biology class or some othercourse in school has caused them to lose their faith. If this is true it was indeed a weak faith that was not based upon the word of God. No truth has ever caused one to forsake Christianity. When one is taught or discovers a "truth" thatopposed inspired revelation it would be the point of wisdomand intelligence to investigate this "truth" closely and critically. Since God is the source of all truth, truth does notcontradict itself.

COMMENTS TO THE EDITORS

"We sure are enjoying Searching The Scriptures and praythat all who receive and read it will be strengthened in the Faith."-L. N. Clifford, Nashville, Tenn.

"This is a very fine paper and I wish I could send it intoevery home among our brethren. Possibly I can subscribefor more of my friends in the near future."— W. C. Sawyer,Sciotoville, Ohio.

"I enjoy your good paper and it should be doing a lot of good for the Cause of Truth. Keep up the good work."— Charles A. Holt, Wichita Falls, Texas.

"I am grateful for your good work with the paper."— Rufus

R. Clifford, Nashville, Tenn.

"I have enjoyed reading this paper very much."— W. B. Kickliter, Palatka, Fla.

"I enjoy reading your paper so much. I'm sure it is a greatinspiration to all who read and study things written in it."—Mrs. L. R. Ward, Clearwater, Fla.

"Thanks for being so kind to continue sending SearchingThe Scriptures over the past few months so that it has not been necessary to miss a single issue. We appreciate it more every time we read it."— Arthur M. Ogden, Live Oak, Fla.

"I am appreciative of the paper, undoubtedly it is doinga world of good. Keep up the good work."— J. R. Snell, Louisville, Ky.

"Please renew my subscription to Searching The Scriptures.I enjoy it very much."— Bill Adams, Warrington, Mo.

"Renew my subscription. I appreciate the paper so muchand I am trusting much good will come from the paper."—Dewey J. Stalvey, Trenton, Fla.

"I continue to enjoy the excellent material which you putout. I feel especially grateful here since I am the only one inthis congregation who feels that the Scriptures teach that the church has no business getting involved in the projects ofmen. I trust that you continue to publish the truth as youhave thus far."— Capt. Wallace H. Little, San Francisco, Calif.

"This is one paper we don't discard after reading."— Mona

S. Duncan, Chattanooga, Tenn. "Keep up the good work."— William Lewis, Knoxville, Tenn.

"It is with pleasure that I renew my subscription toSearching The Scriptures. Its physical structure compares tothe best and its contents second to none."— Harold Trimble, San Antonio, Texas.

"I enjoy Searching The Scriptures very much."— Mrs. Justis Shull, Louisville, Ky.

COMMENTARIES

GOSPEL OF JOHN by William Hendriksen ___ 6.50 EPISTLES OF PAUL by W. J. Conybeare ______ 2.50 ACTS MADE ACTUAL by Don DeWelt __ __ 3.50 ROMANS REALIZED by Don DeWelt ______ 3.95 MORE THAN CONQUERORS (Revelation)

by William Hendriksen _. ----------------------3.50

FIRST & SECOND THESSALONIANS

by William Hendriksen _______________ -4.50 FIRST & SECOND TIMOTHY & TITUS

by William Hendriksen . ____ 6.00 NEW TESTAMENT EPISTLES by Victor Hoven .... 3.50 COMMENTARY ON DANIEL (Jerome) _____ . 3.95 MATTHEW HENRY & THOMAS SCOTT

(six volumes) commentary on whole Bible ____ 23.95 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS by Larry W. Jonas3.95 COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW

Hobbs --________________________ ___ 2.50 BOOK OF ISAIAH by George L. Robinson ___ .... 2.50 TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS by George L.

Robinson ___________________ ____ 2.50 A HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS by A. T.Robertson ___________________________ — -3.00

THE LIFE AND EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL

by Conybeare & Howson -_ ______ --------5.00

THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE GALATIANS by J. B. Lightfoot _____ . -3.50 THE PEOPLES NEW TESTAMENT NOTES

by B. W. Johnson (two volumes) ___________ 6.00

COMMENTARY ON THE WHOLE BIBLE

by Jameson, Fausset & Brown __ ______ --7.95 IRWIN'S BIBLE COMMENTARY by C. H. Irwin .... 4.00 MACKNIGHT ON THE GOSPELS (two volumes) .__. 6.50 MACKNIGHT ON THE EPISTLES _____ ___ 8.50

REFERENCE BOOKS

HARMONY OF SAMUEL, KINGS AND CHRONICLES by William D. Crockett . ..... 3.50 CRUDEN'S DICTIONARY OF BIBLE TERMS

by Alexander Cruden -----— . -3.50

CRUDEN'S CONCORDANCE, HANDY REFERENCE EDITION by Alexander Cruden 2.95BIBLE STUDENT'S ENGLISH-GREEK

CONCORDANCE by James Gall .... ___ 4.95 PELOUBET'S BIBLE DICTIONARY _____ ..... 4.00 COMPLETE CONCORDANCE TO THE

AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE . 9.00 STRONG'S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE OF

THE BIBLE by James Strong .... NAVE'S TOPICAL BIBLE ___________	_	....	13.75 9.95
LIDDELL AND SCOTTS ABRIDGED
GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON		..	5.50

". . . THEY REHEARSED ALL THAT GOD HAD DONE WITH THEM . . ."— Acts 14:27

NEW CHURCH IN MANCHESTER, TENNESSEE

Early in 1961 a few families living in the Forest Mills community in Manchester, Tennessee decided to make an effortto establish a New Testament church in that area. There are two or three denominational churches in that section but only a few active members of the body of Christ. They wereattending worship at East Fort Street, South Side, Cumberland Academy, and perhaps other places, but felt that therewould be a considerable advantage in having a congregation in Forest Mills; that there were perhaps a number of members who were not attending any place who might be encouraged by such an undertaking and thus become interested inthe Lord's work again.

A canvass was made of the neighborhood in an effort to reach such members. Several business meetings were held andplans were made to begin the work.

On January 22, 1961, the group met in the Forest Millsschool building for Bible study, with 37 present for thisinitial service, 16 members of the church were present andformed the nucleus of a new congregation which has seemedto make excellent progress from the beginning. Contributions have averaged around $75 per week, plus several sizabledonations from other congregations. To date, there have been 6 baptisms, and 8 members have formerly identified themselves with this new church. Brother C. G. Caldwell Sr. preaches regularly, two Lord's days each month and brother

O. C. Tally preaches two Lord's days each month.

A spacious lot was donated by Mr. David King of Manchester. A modern brick meeting house is being erected onthis lot which will seat around 300. It is a beautiful buildingof modest design which will meet the needs of future growth.The house will be ready for occupancy within a month from this date. In the meantime the church continues to meet in the Forest Mills school building.

Brother Caldwell is sound in the faith and a loyal workerfor the Lord. He spends much of his time in meeting work.Congregations looking for a good man for a meeting will do well to contact him. His address is 1310 McArthur Dr., Manchester, Tenn.

ARTHUR M. OGDEN, Live Oak, Fla.— May 1st endednearly six years of work in Southern Illinois, most of which was in Franklin County. During this time I worked withChurches in Christopher and West Frankfort full time fortwo years and nine months each, and simultaneously withWest Frankfort and the Crawford churches the last three months of our stay. The only churches that I know of inextreme Southern Illinois that are definitely conservative arein Franklin County, even though I am sure there are others.

May 1st also marked the beginning of work with the LiveOak, Florida brethren. Prospects are good here, and I amlooking forward to a very happy and fruitful work. Everett Williamson, who labored with this church part time for thepast seven years, still resides here in Live Oak, occupying theposition of Supt. of Schools, and preaching for the Mt. Olivebrethren, who meet six miles west of Live Oak. When passingthrough be sure to worship with us.

TOMMY NELSON has moved from Newberry, Fla., to labor with two rural congregations near Monticello, Ky. (Stop and Shearer Valley). He reports that the work looks good in that section.

DEWEY J. STALVEY, Trenton, Fla.— We, the members of the church of Christ in Newberry, Florida, wish to report in Searching the Scriptures a statement on behalf of brother Tommy Nelson for the purpose of encouraging the work of the Lord. Brother Nelson labored with this church for almost two and one half years. We are able to see many good results of his work while he was with us. We were made sad when he departed from us, yet we do rejoice to know that the lessons brother Nelson preached were true to the word of God. The last Sunday night brother Nelson was here five were baptized. Many others have obeyed the gospel during his work with us. We would like to express our sincere love for brother Nelson and his family. Our prayers are for him and the work of the church wherever he goes. May God be with him and bless him.

GOSPEL MEETING

A gospel meeting at Par Avenue in Orlando, Fla. willbegin November 26 and continue through December 5.

H. E. Phillips will be the speaker. All in this section areinvited to attend these services each evening at 7:30. M.

E. Patton is the local preacher.

GIVE US YOUR REPORTS

It is not an easy matter to get all the facts of a gospelmeeting or the reports of interest from various sections from some of the bulletins. If you have announcements of meetings, please send us such reports in time to do good in encouraging people to attend. Others may be interested in whatyou are doing.

H. E. PHILLIPS, Tampa, Fla.— I recently closed a goodmeeting with the church in Pelham, Tenn., near Monteagle.Although there were no additions the interest was goodthroughout the meeting. Following this meeting I was withthe 12th Street church in Bowling Green, Ky. Attendancewas good every day and evening. Three were baptized andfour were restored during this meeting. I was impressed by the diligence of the elders: W. L. Forshee, W. T. Harrah andFrank G. Melton. They are busy in teaching the word bothpublicly and privately. They love the truth and will stand byit whenever proclaimed. They are loved and respected by the members of that congregation. Brother B. G. Hope has beenwith this good church for 12 years and is still doing a goodwork. His reputation is well known throughout that sectionof Kentucky as a sound and faithful preacher of the gospel.The preacher, elders and deacons work well together and the spiritual health of that church is excellent.

GOSPEL MEETINGS

A meeting with different speakers each evening at Shelbyville Mills, Tenn., Oct. 1-8. Harris Dark-"What Is The Church?"; Robert Jackson-"How To Enter The Church"; Richard Weaver— "Congregational Independence and Cooperation"; Bob Crawley— "The Church and The Christian"; Rufus Clifford— "The Mission of The Church".

IRVEN LEE of Russellville, Ala. was in a meeting at North Street in Tampa, Fla., Nov. 5-12. PAUL ANDREWS is thelocal man. . . JACK DUNCAN was the speaker in a meetingat Kirkwood, Mo., Oct. 22-29. . . EARL FLY of Holden Heights in Orlando, Fla. spoke in a meeting at Umatilla, Fla.,Oct. 16-24. . . WESLEY JONES of West End church in Bowling Green, Ky. was the speaker in a meeting at Franklin,Ky., Oct. 8-15. . . M. E. PATTON of Par Ave. in Orlando, Fla. preached in a meeting at Forest Hills in Tampa., Fla.,Sept. 17-24. . . HUGH DAVIS of Lake Wales, Fla. was thespeaker in a meeting at Holden Heights in Orlando, whichbegan Nov. 5. EARL FLY is the preacher with this church.

J. P. MILLER of Tampa preached in a meeting with the Spring & Blaine church in St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 1-10. One was baptized. FERRELL JENKINS is the preacher with this congregation. . . EDWIN BROADUS was at St. Charles, Mo. ina meeting Oct. 8-18. . . ROY COGDILL was the speaker in a meeting at the MacDill church in Tampa, Fla. Oct. 15-22. COLIN WILLIAMSON is with this church. . . C. G. CALDWELL, JR. of Columbus, Ga. was in a meeting at Glen Park church in Gary, Ind., Oct. 8-15. HARVEY J. WILLIAMS is the preacher here. . . JERE E. FROST of Birmingham, Ala.was in a meeting Oct. 4 at Hessville church in Hammond,Ind. . . WARD HOGLAND of Greenville, Texas was in a meeting at Franklin Road in Nashville, Tenn., Oct. 1-11. C.

M. CAMPBELL is the preacher at Franklin Road. . . C. L.OVERTURF of Tampa, Fla., was the speaker in a meetingat College View in Florence, Ala., Oct. 1-8.

JAMES R. COPE of Tampa was with the Locust Streetchurch in Mt. Pleasant, Tenn., Oct. 8-14. . . OAKS GOWEN of Bradenton, Fla. spoke in a meeting at West End in BowlingGreen, Ky. in September. WESLEY JONES is with this congregation and doing a good work. . . CHARLES G. LEMONSof Lewisburg, Tenn. was in a meeting at Tarpon Springs, Fla., Sept. 24-Oct. 1. O. T. ROMINE is the preacher at TarponSprings. . . BILL CAVENDER of Greggton, Texas was in a good meeting at Westvue, Murfreesboro, Tenn. in September.RICHARD WEAVER is the preacher at Westvue. . . CLYDE WILSON of Gardena, Calif, was in a meeting at Sunnyvale,Calif., Sept. 17-24. FOREST MOYER is the local man inSunnyvale. . . M. E. PATTON of Par Ave. in Orlando spokein a meeting at Northside in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., Oct. 9-15. JIMMY TUTEN JR. is the preacher there. . . ELMERMOORE of Highlands, Texas was in a meeting at TimberlandDr. in Lufkin, Texas, which closed Sept. 22. HERSCHEL E.PATTON is the preacher at Timberland Dr.

ROBERT JACKSON of Nashville, Tenn. was in a meeting with the Downtown church in Lawrenceburg, Tenn., Nov. 5

12. E. L. FLANNERY is the local man. . . RICHARD WEAVER of Murfreesboro, Tenn. spoke in a meeting atDecatur, Ga., Oct. 22-27. W. C. HINTON, JR. is the local preacher. . . E. L. FLANNERY was at E. Portsmouth, Ohioin a meeting October 22-29. W. C. SAWYER is the newpreacher at E. Portsmouth. . . J. R. COPE of Tampa closeda good meeting at Perry Heights in Donnelson, Tenn., Oct.

22. HARRIS DARK preaches at Perry Heights. . . ROBERTJACKSON preached at El Bethel, Tenn. Oct. 23-27. . .DELTON PORTER was in a meeting at Woodbury, Tenn.

Oct. 29-Nov. 7. . . PAUL ANDREWS of Tampa was in ameeting at 12th & Chestnut Sts. in Abilene, Texas in October.. . HOMER HAILEY of Tampa was in a meeting at ParkBlvd. in Louisville, Ky., Oct. 8-15. . . ROBERT ATKINSON of Miami was in a gospel meeting at Palmetto, Fla. whichclosed Oct. 8. LESLIE E. SLOAN is the preacher here. . .HOMER HAILEY is to be the preacher in a series of meetings at 10th Ave. W. in Bradenton, Fla. in November. OAKS GOWEN is with this congregation.

THOMAS A. THORNHILL, Perry, Fla.-Concerning thework at the Spring Warrior congregation, we are makingprogress all along. The congregation is on pretty solid groundas far as the issues are concerned. Most of the members are conscientious and sound in judgment. We have baptized 10during the year and also restored the same number. Thebrethren have built new classrooms and a baptistry, and havealso expanded the auditorium. There is still plenty of workto do.

ROBERT J. LaCOSTE is the new preacher at Temple Terrace in Tampa, Fla. Brother LaCoste moved from Clearwater, Fla. and began his work October 1 of this year. He has donea good work in Clearwater and we expect a good work inTemple Terrace.

COGDILL-WOODS DEBATE

Roy E. Cogdill and Guy N. Woods are scheduled to meet in Newbern, Tennessee on December 18-24 to discuss the propositions they discussed in November, 1957 in Birmingham, Ala. These propositions cover the human organizationsthrough which churches cooperate in benevolent and evangelistic work.

GROVER STEVENS began a meeting at Drew Park inTampa, Fla., October 30th. H. E. PAYNE is the preacher withthis church. . . BOBBY THOMPSON of North Miami church began a meeting at Lake Wire church in Lakeland, Fla.November 5 to continue through November 12. TOM BUTLER has been with this church for several years. . . WARDHOGLAND of Greenville, Texas closed a good meeting atSeminole in Tampa Oct. 29. Six responded to the invitation.