OUR TROUBLED TIMES

James P Miller

We would have to go back to the reformation to find times as troubled as ours religiously. I am now not speaking of the brotherhood alone but of theentire religious world. In every denomination ofour day the fountain is sending forth both bitter and sweet and the very bed-rock of so-called fundamentalism is crumbling. By fundamentalism I mean a belief in "the verbal inspiration of thescriptures, the deity of Christ, and the doctrine ofblood atonement," and other doctrine that calls for faith in the word of God. Many of thedenominations of our day and of the generations past have had a heritage deeply imbedded in this so-called fundamentalism. Modernism, as the term is used today, is the deadly enemy of fundamentalism. Modernism denies the ver y things that fundamentalism affirms. It not only denies the verbal inspiration of the scriptures, the virgin birth of Christ, and the doctrine of blood atonement, butit goes far deeper than this and denies anything and everything that does not seem reasonable to the mind of man. It takes away the role of faith andleaves all in the realm of sight.

For my part I regret to see modernism make anygains anywhere. We have all cried until we can cry no more over the sharp inroads modernism ismaking into the church of our Lord. SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES is dedicated to war against it in any form, whether it be institutionalism orcentralization. It is not, however, the purpose of this article to investigate the problem of modernism from within the body, but rather to call attention to its effects elsewhere.

THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST

We should never be so naive as to believe that all of the problems of modernism belong to us or even originate with the people of God. We borrow our ills as a rule from the denominational world around us. Among the fundamental people of our time there were none among this great role of so-called Biblebelievers as strong as the southern Baptist. For as long as I can remember the Southern Baptist Convention made up of Missionary Baptist Churches have stood for the Bible as the word of God. We disagreed with them on its teaching andtime after time we have crossed swords in debate but we had no disagreement over the authority ofthe scriptures. It is an undeniable fact, however, that today even this strong hold of fundamentalism is in serious trouble.

In the last few months in their national convention they had to come to grips with theproblem. Ralph Elliott is the head of the Old Testament Department at the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City. He is also the author of a book printed by the Sunday SchoolBoard of the Southern Baptist Convention entitled,"The Message of Genesis." In this work he takes the position that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are not accurate, that the fall of Adam is not historically true and other modernistic doctrines fill the book. When pressure was brought among theBaptists not to have the book reprinted, 36 teachers in Southern Baptist Colleges and Seminaries met and filed a formal protest. Now I know that thereare several hundred teachers in Baptist Colleges and Universities and that 36 would be a minority, but at the same time think of the very fact that they would meet at all. It has been known for several years that modernists were teaching in these schools and especially guest speakers were beingbrought in who denied the fundamentals. Dr. George McCracken who took Fos-dicks place at Riverside Church in New York City is one.

In the Tampa Tribune a short time ago several prominent Baptist leaders were quoted as saying division among southern Baptists was inevitable. It can also be said with certainty that these same Baptist schools have had an effect on some of thegospel preachers who have attended them.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

Those who have followed closely the recent ecumenical council in Rome were shocked to find that Modernism has found its way into the fortress of Roman Catholicism. At one point in the council one of the old and conser vative bishops wasjeered when he tried to speak and rule for thefundamental beliefs and practices of the Roman Church. The bishops, especially from the lowcountries of western Europe were no longer willing to subscribe to the "one church," position, etc. I shar e the opinion of many, that the Pope calledoff the council and sent the delegates home lest divisions occur in Catholicism that could not be healed. This is strange only to the one who takes it for granted that simply because in the past Catholicism has been rigid it will always remain so. Why would not the seed of modernism find root inyoung Catholic minds even as it does in youngBaptist minds or young minds of Christians whopreach the gospel. I do not know how the Catholicchurch will seek to cope with her problem. A simple division as in the case of the Baptist and our brethren will not suffice for there is only one pope and he has to be over all. Nevertheless the problem is there and although ithas not yet taken the form of modernism as in theprotestant world it will soon do so for the same forces are at work. They simply do not have thsame liberty to exercise them in Catholicism.

THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Next to Catholicism we would suppose that old and staid Episcopalianism would never fall to any form of modernism. Bound since Henry VIII in her creeds and ceremonies she is supposed a fortress of tradition. Only a few days ago here in my own cityof Tampa the Episcopal churches brought in awestern bishop to speak in a city-wide effort. When asked about his messages the Tampa Times quotedhim as saying he intended to discu , "T hat Christian religion bit— what it is REALLY all about." Some of his announced sermons were as follows. "Who Does He Think He Is, Anyway?""Looks Like He Might Carry It Off, Doesn't It?" and "What's The Matter With Him, Losing His Nerve?" Now I am well aware that there are manydifferent definitions for Modernism and not all of them include a denial of the Deity of Chr ist, buwho can deny its deadly effects in this approach to the holy scr ipture.

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

The departures of the "Christian Church" intomodernism and the lessons it should have for us have long been the subject of these pages. "OpenMembership," The Missionary Society, The Inspiration of the Bible, and many other things have led our digressive brethren into one break offellowship after another. The battle still rageswithin the ranks of the Disciples. Many of their great preachers have tried to stem the tide. The main bodyof the "Christian Church" goes on its way farther and farther from the "Old Paths." As sad as this may be it is sadder still that we have to repeat this regrettable history in the Lord's Church.

WHY

The wisdom of a Solomon would be needed to give the complete answer. Perhaps he gave it in Ecc.

12 :12 when he said, "And further, by these, my son,be admonished: of making books there is no end ; andmuch study is a weariness of the flesh. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep his commandments: for this is the whole dutyof man." One thing is sure: the modern translations of the New Testament are not helping the truth. One after another they are thrust upon the public until we have today a confusion of tongues. They receive the widest publicity from their publishers and come from the most liberal elements of Protestantism. Liberty after liberty is taken with the original until words like "virgin," "Jehovah," and even "leprosy" are disappearing from the text. Christians are meeting on Saturday night to break bread and there is no standard. All of them cannot be r ight and too many of them interpret the text instead of translating it. Who can deny that all of this is modernism, a lack of respect for God and his word? (Continued on Page 4)

PAT BOONE AND THE BRETHREN

When one departure from the faith is taken, it becomes easier to take another; and when a nationally famous person leads the way, he takes thousands with him. Many brethren who are carried away by their own feeling of importance and greatness in the religious world are eager to use such famous people as Pat Boone in their "special meetings," "youth rallies," and "worship services" to enhance their recognition in the religious world. Thousands are attracted to such meetings, not toworship God, but to see and hear a movie idol. But the sad part of all this is that the world forms the image of the church of Christ as it is pictured bythe life of the movie star, and the indorsement givenhim by brethren in such public recognition. Has Pat Boone left the faith? Is he an example of a follower of Christ?

The New Testament teaches: "No man can serve two masters .. . Ye cannot serve God and mammon." ( Matt. 6:24) . . . "Ye cannot dr ink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table odevils." (I Cor. 10:21) . . . "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship othe world is enmity with God ? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4:4) .. . "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." (Gal. 1:10) . . . "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respector of persons." (Acts 10:34)

Pat Boone's latest film is Seven Arts, "The MainAttraction." This picture has created much more criticism from the world than from Pat's own

brethren. T he following is a part of an article taken from the pen of E. L. Flannery in the Downtown Worker, June 3, 1962:

PAT BOONE'S LOST BATTLE WITH HIS CONSCIENCE

. . . T his week we want to study Pat Boone, his standards, and how the brethren haveused Pat as a drawing card, and as anexample for our Christian young folks.

First, let us reprint an article from theNashville Banner, Thursday, May 17, 1962, under the title: "Pat Boone Battles Conscience Over Film's Role." It reads:

"Pat Boone has won a battle with his conscience over the earthly (worldly,immoral, ELF) role he plays in Seven Arts,'The Main Attraction' with Nancy Kwan.

"He kisses his leading lady after all, as he did in 'State Fair'.

"Pat admits he had serious compunctionsabout his role as a 'kept' man, a beatnik and a cigarette smoker in 'The Main Attraction'. That's not to mention several of the scenes with Miss Kwan in the color drama for MGM release.

" 'The teachings of my church frown onthese things,' Pat said. 'We don't believe inany kind of sensual contact with the opposite sex except one's spouse. I worried — and prayed — a lot over the role. Then I saw the film's moral was good and decided to do it.'

" 'I play a drifter who is picked up by Mai Zetterling to sing to her dummy in a cheapcircus act. Because I have no goal in life (in this film), my conduct with her is, frankly, immoral, although I don't think kids in theaudience will be aware of this. When real love comes along and I have a chance to do something worthwhile with my life, I'm rehabilitated.'

"Therefore, according to Seven Arts Productions, there will be no repetition of Pat's refusal to kiss Shirley Jones in a film. 'As for that incident', the studio quotes Pat as saying, 'I guess I was a little naive (having unaffected simplicity, artless; untaught;unsophisticated; SYN. Simple, ELF.) at thetime. The kisses that Nancy and I do are wholesome. Besides, I've decided that I must be more broadminded (tolerant of liberal views, ELF) about the parts I play if I am tomake progress as an actor.' "

T here you have it! Pat has not "won" abattle with his conscience at all. He has seared his conscience for money and professional progress in the entertainment field! He hassold his spiritual birthright for a mess of Hollywood pottage!

Note these admitted facts by Pat: 1. His conduct with Miss Kwan in the role is "frankly, immoral", (and expresses the senseless idea that kids in the audience will be unaware of his immoral conduct! Kids twixt twelve and twenty are not that dumb!)

2. Pat admits his roles violate the teaching he has received by his "church". 3. He claims he can teach agood moral lesson by playing earthly (immoral) roles. 4. He finally comes clean and admits that to make progress in the movieshe had to become broadminded.

No, this is the man that churches and "Christian" ( ?) colleges have been using asa "drawing power", and setting forth as anexample to young Christians! The Manhattanchurch advertised on their bulletin board that Pat Boone attends services here! Pat was used the first service as song director in a bigmeeting in Norfolk, Va., with James D. Willeford, and 2,000 came. It was about one-tenth that thereafter. Pat delivered the Baccalaureate sermon at my alma mater, Harding College, last May (1961). He has made records as soloist with most of the Christian College Chorus. His books have been praised, some saying they beat hundreds of gospel sermons. (His books actually approve Easter and Christmas with religious sentiment, ELF). But why has brother Boone been pushed in this big way? T wo reasons: 1. Pride, and, 2. Money. The reason was expressed over 1900 years ago in these words: "Their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage." (Jude 16). If Pat lost his fame or his money the colleges and thechurches would drop him like a "hot potato", seeing there was no longer any advantage tothem in exploiting him. Brethren, if we cannot win men by holding up Christ, it is sure we cannot win men by holding up Billie Sol Estes, Pat Boone, or any other man.

Thus concludes the good article by Brother Flannery, but it does not close the reviews of Pat Boone and his movie: "The Main Attraction." T he last week in November, 1962, I clipped thefollowing fr om Hedda Hopper 's column in theTampa Tribune :

Hollywood — Good news today! T wentieth-Fox comes to life again on Dec. 3 when Pat Boone starts "Evil Come, Evil Go," a RodSterling script to be directed by Buzz Kulik.He won't be playing himself, although it's about a singer whose child is kidnapped. It will be another dramatic part for Pat, who'skicked over the traces of his old image andaims to prove himself as an actor . . .

About a week later another news clipping was taken from the Tampa Tribune as follows:

NEW YORK (HTNS) — Scrub-faced Pat Boone, the chronium-age Jack Armstrong, must have been shocked out of his white buckskin shoes when he r eceived news this week that his latest movie, Seven Arts' "The Main Attraction," has been denied a production code seal of approval from the Motion Picture Association of America.

The milk-drinking crooner has been a sturdy symbol of scout's oath clean living to his fans since his r ise to fame some seven years ago.

When he made his film debut in "April Love" in 1957 he wouldn't even allow himself to kiss his leading lady, Shirley Jones. Not even at the fadeout.

"It wasn't in the script," he had said, "andI didn't want to rush into a thing like thatwithout thinking about it."

Boone has obviously been doing some heavythinking. In "The Main Attraction," he hasforsaken the milk and tasted of the wine. He smokes, has a corking barroom brawl, dallies nocturnally with a girl (Nancy Kwan), and intwo choice words, plays a bum.

This isn't what made the MPAA office denythe seal. The office claims that the film "appears to justify premarital relations." T hey said additional scenes would be required, to show "that such a situation ismorally wrong."

A Seven Arts spokesman had this to say: "It was primarily conceived as family entertainment," adding that teen-agers, thebulk of movie audiences today, have "matured" and expect "more sophisticated fare." In the film, he went on, Boone plays a"moraly (sic) bankrupt young man who is reformed by the love and understanding of adecent young girl."

Boone was unavailable for comment. He may be standing in the corner.

This, no doubt, was a shock to Pat Boone and his well-wishers in the church. Imagine, if you can, Chr istian playing the role of an immoral bum tosuch a degree that men of the world must call attention to its evil portrayal of such low standards as to corrupt the teen-agers of the nation. Then on Monday, Dec. 17, 1962, an article appeared in the Tampa Tribune which follows:

Hollywood (UPI) — Actor Pat Boone said Friday he would re-shoot certain scenes of his latest picture without pay if it would obtain aseal of approval of the Shurlock Office,Hollywood's self-censoring board.

Boone said he would fight against havinthe picture, "The Main Attraction," shown inthis country without a seal of approval. The Shurlock Office has refused to approve the English-made picture despite its approval bBritish censors for showing there.

The British censors granted their approval with the qualification that children not beallowed to see the picture unless accompaniedby adults.

Pat's image of a clean cut young man with highmor als has turned to almost the opposite. Since many brethren advertise his as a member of the"church of Christ" in good standing, the world must look upon the church of the Lord as a religious group most tolerant of worldly ambitions andimmoral conduct. I, for one, indorse no part of that for which Pat Boone stands at the present time.

OUR TROUBLED TIMES— (From Page 2)THE FUTURE

Who among us is wise enough to see the future? Only divinity can know the outcome. Some things are true, however, and no man can deny them successfully. First, the body of Christ has been torn asunder by liberalism which is the forerunner ofmodernism. Second, regardless of how the Protestant world emerges from this great revolution going on in every denomination under the sun itwill never be the same again. Wherever liberalism thrives, complacency and compromise go hand ihand. Protestantism will never be the force in this half century that it has been in the fifty years just passed. Whether Catholicism can stay united enoughto take advantage of these broken walls and hanginggates only time will tell. THE COURSE OF GOD'S PEOPLE IS CLEAR. Look for the Old Paths and walk therein for there is the good way.

ESTHER

The book of E sther links those with Chr ist who did not connect by Jewish lineage. The book denotes the Providence of God. God's name is not in the book of E sther yet the hand of God is on ever ypage. When we think of the words of Mordecai, at the time he was asking Esther to intercede for the Jews, a strong reference to the providence of God is found. Note (as the wicked Haaman had deceivedthe king into allowing a command to be i ued that would slaughter the Jews;) Nehemiah 4:13-14,shows how faithful Mordecai believed that helwould arrive. "Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape in the king's house, more than all the Jews. For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at thitime, then shall enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thfather's house shall be destroyed: and who knowethwhether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?" T his unswerving faith compellehim to ask Esther to do what she could. I believeeven in God's providence for our help, we must do what we can in accordance with his word. (Neh.

4: 13-14) There is another beautiful le on. The queenVashti, who had been dethroned because of her husband's wicked demand, shows great chastity inrefusing the king's demands. You will remember that while the king was merry with wine he wantedthe beautiful queen Vashti to appear before the drunken men and expose herself to their beastlygaze. Vashti, being a chaste woman and modest,would not allow her body to be the object of delightto the drunken men of the court. I should like here to set in this article a statement found in the commentary of Adam Clarke:"Vashti refused to come. And much should she be

commended for it. What woman, possessing even acommon share of prudence and modesty, could con

sent to expose herself to the view of such a group of drunken Bacchanalians? Her courage was equalto her modesty; she would r esist the r oyal mandate,rather than violate the rules of chaste decorum. Her contempt of worldly grandeur, when brought in competition with what ever y modest woman holdsdear and sacr ed, is worthy of obser vation. She wellknew that this act of disobedience would cost her her crown, if not her life also; but she was regardless of both, resigned to honour as she conceived her virtue and honour were at stake. Her humility was greatly evidenced in this refusal. Shewas beautiful ; and might have shown herself togreat advantage, and have had a fine opportunity of gratifying her vanity, if she had any; but she refused to come. Hail, noble woman! be thou apattern to all thy sex on every similar occasion! Surely, every thing considered, we have few women like Vashti; for some of the highest of theland will dr ess and deck themselves with the utmost splendour, even to the selvedge of their fortunes, to exhibit themselves at balls, plays, galas, oper as, and public assemblies of all kinds, (nearly half naked,)that they may be seen and admired of men, and even, to the endless r epr oach and br oad suspicion of their honour and chastity, figure away in masquerade! Vashti must be considered at the top of her sex. A BLACK SWAN IS NOT HALF SO RARE A BIRD."

THE SPONSORING CHURCH

P. J. Casebolt, Akron, Ohio

What would you think of a man who wanted to"sponsor" a wife and a family, but wanted someone else to pay for their upkeep? It is being done every day. T her e ar e those who r eceive public or privateassistance of a financial nature, and then buy suchextravagant luxuries as color TV sets and newCadillacs. A f ew year s ago, when any kind of a TV set was consider ed a luxur y, an investigation was made of families who purchased them with welfare money provided by local governments. Recently, some brethren told us about a family that apparently was so destitute that the church decided to help them, and then they were seen ridingar ound in a new Cadillac. Most of us would say,"Either the luxuries stop or the charity stops."

This past year, one relatively small congregation in Ohio decided to "sponsor" a "big" meeting to thetune of $10,000 with all the "trimmings" — a "big"preacher, a "big" auditorium, and a college chorus from one of the "big" colleges. I am not necessarily opposed to a thing because of its size, except when it is done to make a congregation look "big" in theeyes of the world. Of course, this congregation could not afford to pay all of the expenses incurred insuch an extr avaganza, so it unashamedly beggedmoney from sister congregations.

E ver y countr y congr egation with a dozen members could sponsor something of this kind above and beyond its obligation and responsibility withjust as much logic and authority as some of the citycongr egations which have followed this pr evalent practice. Even God would not hold an individualresponsible for something beyond his ability andopportunities, and it is unreasonable for a congregation to think it can operate under a different principle. Too many congregations are begging money from others while engaged in some extravagant program of their own. In the case of an individual or a congregation, the extravagance ought to stop or the money ought to stop.

Now someone comes back with the ster eotyped reply, "Since some good is done by these projects, isn't it better to do something wrong than donothing at all ?" This stock-in-trade attitude needs to be answer ed once and f or all, but I suppose that no matter how many times it is knocked in the head,someone will resurrect the skeleton, dress it in different clothing, and try to breathe into its nostrils the breath of intelligent argument. Our memories must be short indeed, for the missionary societies of the digressive Christian Church and the denominations of men could be justified with this argument. The question supposes that there are only two alternatives — do nothing or do something wr ong. We ought to awaken to thesensible conclusion that ther e is a third alter native

— do something right!

A VIVID EXAMPLE

Recently, the congregation where I preach received a plea for financial help from a congr egation in Michigan. A congr egation in T exas was supporting the preacher for this "needy" work. So far, so good. But, the name of that congregation in Texas rang the proverbial bell — it was 5th & Highland in Abilene, T exas. Upon further investigation, it was learned that the "needy" congr egation in Michigan was sending a contribution to 5th & Highland, sponsor s of a nationwide T V and r adio pr ogr am. Yet, at the same time, 5th & Highland was begging millions of dollars from sister congregations for its project.

Now, if you have lost track of the Lord's moneyat this point, think how confusing it would havebeen if we had decided to send a contr ibution to the place in Michigan and one to the Herald of Truth in T exas. We would be placing our money under the oversight of the elders at 5th & Highland; they, in turn, would be sending some of their finances tothe support of a preacher in Michigan; the congregation in Michigan would be sending some of its finances back to 5th & Highland; we would besending some of our finances to the congr egation in Michigan. We just couldn't do it without adding tothe existing confusion, for if no other scripture were violated, it would certainly violate I Cor. 14 :33,40.No, I haven't over stated this case; in fact, I havetried to simplify it. Only the Lord could figure outwhat happened to his money in the shuffle. If a business wer e to juggle money like this, it would beinvestigated for misappropriation of funds, to say the least. We are the stewards of the Lord's money.

Incidentally, in case any brethren are interested in conser ving the L or d's money, it should be pointedout that while all this money was being shuttledthrough the mails, expenses were being deducted for salaries, office equipment, advertising, and postage. It reminds us of the story told during World War I: a soldier had to make a payment on his farm backhome, so he wrote a letter to God and addressed it to the YMCA. Some of his buddies found out about it and took up a collection, but could only raise $90. T he soldier appreciated the $90, but wrote another letter to God, and told him not to send any more money through the YMCA for it had withheld $10.Be not deceived, the gift horse has to be fed.

A SOLUTION

I'm not an E instein, but I think I have a solutionthat will be more efficient and less expensive, notto mention a lessening in strained relations between brethren. I warn you though, the plan may be toosimple tor some. It is evident that brethren haveleft the Scriptures a long time back on the sponsoring church question, so maybe I can get mysolution across by telling another appropriate story. As the story goes, a man had a flat tire, and in the process of changing tires, he misplaced the lugswhich secured the wheel to the hub. He beganwalking toward town, and was hailed by an inmatein an insane asylum. When the inmate asked where he was going, the traveller r eplied that he was going to town for help. The man who was supposed to be "crazy" suggested that the other take one lugfrom each of the other three wheels, place them onthe fourth one, and drive into town.

Now, if congr egations would do their own wor k at home to the extent of their ability before asking for help from others, and stop launching elaborate programs which over-obligate themselves and thewhole brotherhood, the solution is at hand. T he fact remains that the mission of the church was accomplished in the first century without themachinery which we think is so essential. T he gospel was pr eached (Col. 1:23), and the needywere helped (Acts 11:28-30), and the church wasedified (Acts 9:31). The mission and organization of the church are unchanged.

THE ONLY RISK

There is only one risk to be taken if we follow the simplified method. We will have to forfeit any glory, praise, or preeminence that we might gain by being a "sponsoring" church. Also, we may be charged with not believing in cooperation if we don't getinvolved in some of the sponsoring projects that aresweeping the brotherhood. I'm led to believe, inview of the inefficiency and extravagance of some efforts, that congregations just make a token contribution to keep from being stigmatized. Nomatter what men might say, we ought to believe that God's wisdom is better than man's (1 Cor. 1:27), and the quality of being and doing right is more to bedesired than the praise of men. (Jno. 12:42,43.)

Actually, I think the congregations which are deserving of financial assistance are suffering because of the wave of sponsoritis and mail-order begging that is sweeping the country. Some congregations are so disgusted with mimeographed (and sometimes elaborately printed) pleas for financial help which fill the mail boxesthat they fail to answer the pleas that are actually worthy. We should ever encourage the congregations which are financially stronger to helpthe weaker. As an example of our unequal efforts, Icite the following: on the front page of a paper published in T exas, ther e was a big splash about a $500,000 addition to an existing church building, and a small picture and article onthe same page mentioning the need for $10,000 tobuild a complete building for a small group in aforeign country. I could not help but think how nice it would be if the one congregation had spent only$490,000 on its "addition", and sent the other $10,000 to the place in need. It is high time thatsome of us stopped thinking "I am rich, andincreased with goods, and have need of nothing," and blowing our trumpets about how charitable weare, while needy brethren right under our noses will rise up to condemn us in the judgment. (Rev.3:16,17.) The argument that the "big" congregations have to get themselves in shapebefore they can help others is about as applicable as claiming that we need a color TV set to relax our nerves before we get in our new Cadillac to gohelp the needy. None of us are guiltless, and allcan do better. Now is the accepted time.

KOINONIA, "FELLOWSHIP," — No. 6

"PARTNERSHIP IN THE GOSPEL"

In further investigating the use of koinonia in the New T estament it may be noted that in Phil. 1:5koinonia denotes a partnership in the work of Christ. It is perhaps difficult to distinguish this usage from that of koinonia in Acts 2 :42. In fact, Lenski thinks the usages are the same . ( R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatiansto the Ephesians and to the Philippians, [Columbus, Ohio: T he Wartburg Press, 1946], p. 708).

It seems to the writer, however, that the context of Phil. 1:5 (as well as other passages dealing with the Philippian church) gives to koinonia the meaning, "association in suffering and persecution, and in the furtherance of the Gospel." Paul isprobably not primarily thinking of his own partnership with the Philippians in material goods, for he would hardly have exulted in this, Phil. 1:3, 4. He is rather thinking primarily of their ownpartnership with each other. Paul mentions their participation in bonds and in the furtherance of the Gospel in 1:7.

Vincent asserts that the koinonia is not with the Philippians, for that would call for the Greek preposition meta, "with," which, he says, is used to express koinonia with people. But John uses meta to expr ess koinonia even with God (I Jno. 1:3).

"PARTNERSHIP IN THE SPIRIT"

It may be, as Lietzmann points out, that "no exegetical skill" can give us certainty as to theexact meaning of "fellowship of the Holy Spirit," (II Cor. 13:14; Phil. 2:1). (Quoted in Alfred Plummer's Commentary on II Cor., p. 384). If the phrase is a subjective genitive in Greek the idea is "aSense of partnership that grows out of the direction of the Spirit." If, on the other hand, the phrase is an objective genitive in Greek the idea is "sharing in the various benefits of the Spirit"; that is, sharing with the Spirit in his presence, comfort, guidance, etc. Both alternative interpretations are, of course, in accord with the general teaching of the New Testament, but it is rather difficult toknow precisely what sense the apostle has in mind in the passages.

It may well be that "spirit" in Phil. 2:1 does not refer to the Holy Spirit; however, most commentators seem to think that it does. There is no article in the Greek; the text simply says"fellowship of spirit." It is possible that the writer is simply referring to a spiritual partnership in contrast to a merely physical one. If "spirit" refers to the Holy Spirit we have the sameproblem that is involved in the passage discussed above (II Cor. 13:14).

Although Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) had a great influence on the science and scientists of his dayand for over a thousand years afterwards, there were numerous individuals who rejected his teachings. Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) rejectedAristotle's theory of a vital force or a guidingintelligence in the workings of nature and, as amaterialist, attempted to combat the belief insupernatural forces ruling the universe. In this effort he opposed the Aristotelian argument of teleology, or the grand design or purposefulness of events. T here appeared to be a decline in ancient science long before the birth of Christ. History gives no clear reason why this occurred. With the beginning of the church and its rapid and widespread, there was more interest and concern over spiritual matters than scientific matters. Soon menbegan to attempt to harmonize the scriptures with their scientific opinions and difficulties arose. Such men as Augustine (354-430), and much later Thomas Aquinas (1225-1275) rejected the literal interpretation of the story of special creation as recorded in Genesis and suggested instead an allegorical naturalistic interpretation patterned after some of the thinking of Aristotle. The rise of Scholasticism in the thirteenth century led to thestudy of the writings of the ancients on nature. Much of this material was obtained from translations of work in Arabic, many of which had in turn beenderived from the Greek. In reaction against Arabian science and philosophy, the Roman Catholic Church in 1209 also forbade the study of the writings of Aristotle. This interdiction was later relaxed. This period marked the trend toward aliteral interpretation of the seven days of creation. The result was that for three centuries, from the sixteenth to the middle of the nineteenth,special creation was declared to be the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Diversity of opinion was denounced as heresy and discussion of the concept of evolution carried with it the risk of excommunication. T hey are a good deal more liberal in their thinking today. This is true of any man-made religion; there is the constant effort tokeep their religion "up-to-date", whether it opposes the scriptures or not.

COMMENTS TO EDITORS

"We appreciate the great and good effort you are making in producing Searching The Scriptures. Wewould like to do more if it were possible." — T he Ver nor Gowins, T ampa, Fla.

"Keep up the good work." — Bill Myers, Tarpon Springs, Fla.

"I appreciate your paper, and do not want to bewithout it. You brethren are doing a good work. You are sound in your teaching. Power be untoyou." — E . G. Creacy, Horse Cave, Ky.

"The paper has been fine all through 1962." — Rufus R. Clifford, Nashville, Tenn.

"I received a copy and truly enjoyed it. If forth coming issues are like the November one, I am sure much good will be accomplished. Keep up the goodwork." — L. L. Stout, Tucson, Ariz.

"I received a copy of Searching The Scriptures and found some very profitable reading in thevarious articles . . . Keep up the good work." — Frank Thompson, Hobbs, New Mexico.

"I enjoy reading the paper." — Curtis E. Flatt, Florence, Ala.

"We enjoy reading Searching The Scriptures magazine very much. Have learned so much from it. May you always stand for the truth as you are now. T here are too few gospel papers that do stand only for the truth." — Mr. and Mrs. Elliottt Hammerle, Haple Heights, Ohio.

"After reading Searching The Scriptures secondhandedly for the past several months I'd like to receive it regularly, also I'd like it sent to the friends whose names I've enclosed. I should like to commend you very highly on your book, Scriptural Elders andDeacons. I believe it is second only to its source, the New Testament, in the treatment of this very important subject of church organization .. . I appreciate your firm stand for the truth." — C. L. Wilson, El Centro, Calif.

"I am enjoying the paper very much. Keepsearching the Scriptures and teach them just as they are." — R. M. Palmer, Dyersburg, T enn.

"We would like to continue getting Searching The Scriptures. We enjoy it very much." — Clyde Dean,Nashville, T enn.

"A good friend of mine sent me a subscription for Searching The Scriptures about one year ago. I appreciate the quality of the paper. I am thankful for being able to discern the necessity for us to honor the word and stay within the commandments of our Lord. I was once in denominationalism. I do not care to return to it. Our position is not an easyor popular one but safe, as long as we r emain able to speak the truth in love. We pray that those responsible for your publication may ever be ableto do so." — W. H. Daniel, Baltimor e, Md.

In all the religious world there can be found nopeople who are as mistaken in regard to the trinityand the "one God Holine ." Their chief doctrine is that there is no God but Jesus and no baptism but in Jesus' name. They are brought in conflict witthe saints in several ways. First, they are zealous and willing to preach and even defend their doctrine whenever po ible and secondly, they teachbaptism for the remission of sins and necessary tosalvation. It is sad but true that sometimes in the public eye baptism for the remission of sins andnecessary to save is about all the world knows about the church and we are thusly thrown together. Also because of this fact on rare occasions they are able to convince some brother or sister that the onlway to baptize is to say, "in the name of Jesus," and thus cause trouble in the body of Christ. I know of a case of this kind at the present time where asmall church is troubled by a good man who has been deceived.

There are at least three answers to the error. I intend to deal with just one of them in this column and perhaps at a later date will have somethingto say about the others. I will however take the time to name the three solutions. First, the Lord had more names than Jesus. Secondly, the statement "in the name of Jesus", simply meant bhis author ity and thirdly, no set formula was used in the book of Acts. Any one of these would beenough to forever answer the false doctrine and practice of baptism in only the name of Jesus. Afourth answer is of course the great commission itself. Today I want to study the first, that simply they have ruled out the other names given to my Lord.

ISAIAH 9:6

It is a little strange that in the very passage these preachers use to prove that Jesus is the only Godthey also destroy the theory that he had only onname. Here we have five names by which Jesus will be called, and if they were not his name, then God has us calling him by a name that is not his. This calling was by God's authority so the old dodgethat these were not his names, but he was juscalled by them. I am called by my name for it is myname, and if I am called by any other it is an error. Who will accuse God of making an error when He said: "and his name shall be called, Wonderful,Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father,The Prince of Peace" ?

All of these names have to do with his government as the first part of the verse states. He was Wonderful for that was the nature of his kingdom. Nothing like it has ever been seen agaior had ever been known. It was set up without armies and swords based on love and understanding with heavenfor its goal. T he king of such a kingdom could notbe called less than Wonderful. He was named Counsellor because he gave this kingdom its laws. He was the author of eternal salvation, Heb. 5 :9. The name The mighty God was His because He was the Son of God. The Father called Him God in Heb.

1:8 and He had every right to what man would callthe family name. T he expr ession mighty had to do with the power He had and needed toestablish and maintain such a kingdom. Paul saysHe will return with mighty angels in the end oftime, 2 T hes. 1 :Y. He was called The everlastingFather for all authority or power had been givenunto Him, Matt. 28:18. Simply stated, God put althings under Christ save Himself and He is to havethe power that belonged to the Father until Hedelivers up the kingdom, 1 Cor. 15:27. To give "anexample, the father turns to the oldest son when he is ready to take a journey and tells him he is the father until he returns. This does not teach that there is no God but rather than one of the names of Christ was The Mighty God and another The Everlasting Father. Regardless of human reason the Almighty God said to call Him that for that is what He is in His Kingdom. The name Prince of Peace needs no comment. This was His office and He was a prince because He was the Son of the king of thuniverse, and peace for this was the nature of His reign.

NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES

The different names of Christ are given in several places in the New Testament. In Luke 2:21 we find this expression: "his name was called Jesus— ", inMatt. 1:23, " and they shall call his name Emmanuel." In the revelation of John in the 19th chapter and the 13th ver se, "and his name is called The Word of God. In the 19th chapter and 16th verse, "and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS." In each case the Greek word for name "onama" is the same,and is used as a noun.

CONCLUSION

It is my hope that these arrows for truth will not only reach the brother already referred to, buthat all men can see the folly of teaching that thereis no God but Jesus and no baptism save in Jesusname. The latter part of the statement can onlybe true when the authority of Christ is meant and the first part is false now and forever.

"THREE POUND CHICKEN LAYS A FIVE POUND EGG"

Harold Dowdy, Jacksonville, Fla

"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God."

The Christian Chronicle, August, 1959, stated in an editorial that in one week the Herald of Truth was to "reach more people than what it would takeour pulpits to reach in 64 years." Now that was some little time in the past, and during this per iod the country has been bombarded with "B. B. Baxter and his pals" as well as the liberal's "top notch" preachers. How has it turned out during the years ?

Well, if according to the Christian Chronicle oneweek of H.O.T. equals 64 years preaching bycornfield preachers, and H.O.T. has at least "the very best preachers", throw in gratis all the work of non-H.O.T. preachers, and what do we have? BSeptember 17, 1961 everyone in the U.S. should have been a "Church of Christer" because of the work of H.O.T. And BY NOW there should be314,000,000 converts in the U.S. (Here is that pound chicken)

But surely the Herald of Truth has accomplished something! Yes it has been doing things. I do nothave their figures, but this is what has happenewhere I have been, all because of H.O.T.

1. H.O.T. has been on radio and television where I have worked for years, and there has been ONE contact because of it. (A Baptist preacher who wrote in for a le on on evolution, not the best con tact). This was in a new area where the church was just being established too, on T.V. too.
2. Because of the H.O.T. society, churches have been divided where I have visited. Debates, heart ache, lies, slander, and ugliness of all sorts, can be attributed directly to H.O.T. (Let's give them allthe credit they deserve).
3. Thousands upon thousands of dollars were drained from local church treasuries to get these "good" (agathos?) results.
4. Preachers and brethren, brothers and sisters,mothers and daughters, fathers and sons have been torn asunder. And why? Because of the gospel?Oh no! Because of a human missionary societycalled the Herald of Truth.

I remember the argument that PINE PLANKS were forbidden in the ark because God specified Gopher wood (Gen. 6) . I know the position of theapostle Peter about ASSUMED CENTRALIZEDPROJECTS (sponsoring church) for he stated thatGod had specified the scope of the elders' authority,and this limited to the local congregation (1 Peter 5). This is the reason H.O.T. is wrong, it goes beyond God's revelation (2 John 9-11). But even be-yond this it would seem that the ARK WOULD HAVE SUNK, if the "pine in the ark" substituters made the same kind of claims as the

H.O.T. proponents, with the same degree of success.

ANSWER: Our querist is to be commended for his interest in trying to determine when examples are to be followed without variation. In recent years liberal minded brethren have said and written much that reflects upon such an attitude. Some have denied the binding power of apostolic examples altogether. Some contend that examples are binding only when backed by a command. Of course, any approved example implies authority previouslygiven for the action, but it does not follow that thecommand authorizing it may be found in Scriptures. If so, the authority is established by the command and not by the example. So, in the finaanalysis, this position denies the binding power ofapostolic examples.

While we must recognize approved examples as a means of establishing authority we must also becareful not to bind more than what God intended.

In the light of all that is revealed the abovequestion demands a negative answer. The record of the institution of the Lord's supper is found in Matt. 26:26-29; Mk. 14:22-25; Lk. 22:19,20. While Johnomits the institution of the Lord's supper he does give a rather detailed account of other events related to the occasion. (Jno. 13ff) This occasion is not an example of the church observing the Lord's supper. Rather, it is an example of Jesus and the twelve observing the Pa over under the law. Onthis occasion our Lord took elements from the table and instituted His supper and taught in anticipationof the kingdom. Scholars, however, are careful topoint out that it was the custom of the Jews to sing some of the Psalms (the 113th through the 118th)during and at the close of the observance of thePassover. The hymn, therefore, was a part of thePassover observance and is not essentially related to the Lord's supper any more than some of theother events that transpired on that occasion. Furthermore, from Luke and John's account it seems evident that other events transpired between thesupper and the hymn.

Since there is doubt that the hymn immediatelfollowed the institution of the Lord's supper, and since it is not an example of the church action, and since it was the custom of the Jews to close the Passover with a hymn, we must conclude that there is no authority here for sequence in worship today so far as the Lord's supper and the hymn are concerned. I know of nothing in the Scriptures that authorizes sequence for the items of worship in thchurch today.

"THE LETTER TO THE CHURCH IN EPHESUS"

Curtis E. Flatt, Florence, Ala.

"Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write;These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of theseven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, anthy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, anhast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and

has not fainted. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thycandlestick out of his place, except thou repent. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of theNicolai-tans, which I also hate. He that hath anear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God." (Revelation 2:1-7).

The history of the church at Ephesus is told atgreat length in the Bible. The Apostle Paul stopped at Ephesus briefly on his second missionary tourand returned at a later time to stay for more than two years — until all Asia had heard the word of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19). It was to the elders of this church that one of the most touching appealsof the Bible was directed. (Acts 20:17-38). Then, it was also to this church that the book of Ephesians, the great treatise on Christ and his church, was written. Some of the great names of the NewTestament, such as Aquilla, Priscilla, Apollos, andTimothy are associated with this church. Finally, Christ saw fit to send one of the seven letters to this church. Let us make a study of that letter.

INTRODUCTION

In the introduction of each of these letters to the seven churches, the terms with which Jesus describes himself are unique. In each one he describes himself in such a way as to show that he is especially qualified to discuss that which is needed by each church. In this epistle, he describes himself as the one who holds the seven stars in his right hand and as the one who walks in the midst of the seven churches. The stars were the angels or the messengers of the churches. (Revelation 1:20). Since he held the stars in his hand, one must be impr essed with the fact that their sour ce of guidance, their hope, and their destiny were all in his hand. Not only did he have all this in his hand, but he also walked in the midst of the churches — was with them as they needed him and was well acquainted with their true condition.

I KNOW

He began by saying, "I know". How much thisshould have impressed them! What an impression that ought to make upon us today! Jesus knows.E arly in the ministry it was said of him: "But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any shouldtestify of man; for he knew all that was in man."(John 2:24,25). Nothing is hidden from Jesus. "Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and openedunto the eyes of him with whom we have to do." (Hebrews 4:13). He knew the real condition of thechurch at Ephesus. He knows the status of every church and every member of the church now.

I KNOW THY WORKS

Jesus said: "I know thy works." This is a phrase which he used in each of the seven epistles. T his was his way of informing them that he knew their deeds and their general conduct. He knew whatthey had been doing. He knew where they had beengoing. He knew what they had been thinking andsaying. He knew their works. He knows all thisabout us also.

I KNOW THY LABOUR

Jesus said: "I know thy labour." He knew thiswas a wor king church. T hey had such a goodexample before them. The "Apostle Paul had taught them publicly and from house to house. (Acts 20:20). All Asia heard the word of the Lord fromEphesus. (Acts 19:10). And, although it is not specifically mentioned, from the commendationgiven for their labours, we can be assured that this chur ch was seeing to the physical needs of saints as opportunity came ana as ability permitted, as well as teaching saint and sinner. Not every church could have this said about them, then or now.

I KNOW THY PATIENCE

Jesus knew of the patience of this church. The wor d patience carries with it the idea of stedfastness, continuance, and endurance. He knew thischur ch not only began well, but that it kept onkeeping on. The degree of its patience is pointedout in verse three: "And has borne, and has patience, and for my name's sake has laboured, andhas not fainted." Patiently enduring seems to beone of the most difficult of all requirements. Notonly must the church as a body be stedfast, eachChristian must continue (II Tim. 3:14), must endure (James 1:12), and must excel in patience(James 1:2-6).

I KNOW THY ATTITUDE TOWARD EVIL

The Lord knew this church wanted purity of life. He said: "I know . . . how thou canst not bear them which are evil." This evil may have been thesame evil associated with the evil people who were false teachers mentioned in the same verse. But,regardless of what the evil was, this church heldevil in abhorrence. To another church Paul said: "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth thewhole lump, Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened." (1 Corinthians 5:6,7). But it was not so with E phesus. No problem in the church today is greater than the loose attitude of many chur ches towar d evil. T he L ord knows this all too well.

I KNOW THY ATTITUDE TOWARD THE DOCTRINE

The Lord knew this church wanted the truth and nothing but the truth. They did not have any timefor error or for those who taught it. He said: "I know . . . thou has tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars." (verse 3). He also said: "But this thou hast, thatthou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans which I also hate." (verse 6). The doctrine which is taught by the churches and to the church is important. The truth will make people free. (John 8 :32). The truth will guide Christians unto perfection. (II Timothy (Continued on Page 1 ])

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

L. A. Mott, Jr., Gainesville, Ga. — We have been here a month now and I believe we will enjoy a pleasant andprofitable work here. My new address is: 1254 Enota Dr., N.E., Gainesville, Ga. . . . E. L. Flannery reports that one wasbaptized in the Bedford, Ohio meeting in October, and onewas baptized in a recent meeting at Lake Wire in Lakeland, Fla. The work in Gainesville, Fla. is progressing and theyhope to begin their new building soon. . . . After three and one-half years with the Kenmore congregation in Akron,Ohio, P. J. Casebolt will be moving to Paden City, W. Va.about July 1.

Jimmy Thomas of Columbia, Tenn. was in a gospel meeting at Coral Gables, Fla. January 20-27 . . . Harry Pickup, Sr.was in a gospel meeting at Disston Avenue in St. Petersburg, Fla. January 20-29. James R. Cope labors with the DisstonAvenue church . . . Paul Brock of Lakeshore church in Jacksonville, Fla. was in a gospel meeting at OnecoJanuary 20-27. Olin Hastings preaches with the Oneco church . . . The following speakers were engaged by the East Hill congregation in Pensacola, Fla. January 28-Feb. 1: Granville Tyler, Sam Binkley, Hubert Moss, Jr., Jere Frost, and A. C. Grider . . . Frank Smith of Birmingham, Ala. was in a gospel meeting at Belle Glade, Fla. with the Southside church which began January 16. Roscoe Knight is now preaching at Belle Glade . . . Marshall Patton will be in agospel meeting with the Marietta congregation in Jacksonville, Fla. Jan. 27-Feb. 3. Harold Dowdy preaches at Marietta.

Connie W. Adams, Orlando, Florida. — Since the last report we have had 2 baptized, 4 restored and 12identified at Pine Hills. 8 of those identified left the church at Ocoee because of liberalism in that congregation. There are several other families greatly concerned about the situation there. The work here is peaceful and pleasant. Attendanceand contributions are moving upward. I was in a well-attended meeting at Lake Wales in October, and at Jordan,Ontario, Canada in January where 3 were baptized and 2restored. Hugh Davis was in a good meeting with us at Pine Hills in November.

SORGHUM ANYBODY?

In years gone by in Kentucky and Tennessee andother southern states the making of sorghum molasses was not only an art but a means of extra income with the farmer who had the mill and the "touch" to make them just right. A mule went around in those days to crush the cane and the cooking could be whiffed in the fall air for miles down wind when the syrup got hot. Brother Carl Owens in Henr y County, T ennessee, is still in the business of making sorghum, but not in the tiresome way of the past. The process is still the same and the results even better, but brother Owens has a modern mill enclosed in a modern building where the work can be carried on in any kind of weather and with the greatest efficiency. Brother Owensis an elder in the Sulphur Well church just out of Paris, Tennessee, and a faithful child of God. Atthe peak of the season he is assisted by his wife and son Joel, who is a school teacher. This is not an advertisement, but if brethren want to knowmore about this unusual occupation, they can write to Carl Owen, Rt. 1, Springville, Tennessee.

BOBBY LYELL

T he For est Hills congr egation in Richmond, Va., is a small congr egation of about 50members. In a church of this size ever yone withtalent has to be put towork. The picture at left is that of Bobby Lyell, the 14-year-old song leader who directed the singingduring my meeting,Bobby is not only a good song l eader , but plans to preach the gospel. He has a br other, Doug L yell, who is at FloridaChristian College and is already preaching. J.P.M.

CHURCH IN EPHESUS — (From Page 10 )

3:16,17). All the truth is needed. (James 2:10). Nothing but the truth will suffice. (Galatians 1:6-9). All churches would do well to ponder this church's attitude toward the doctrine. All churches would do well to take a good long look at the doctrine which they teach and upon which they stand.

I HAVE SOMEWHAT AGAINST YOU

The Lord knew one other thing about this church. He knew they had lost their first love, (verse 4). He held this against them. We can under stand this to a fuller degree when we call to mind what hesaid in verse five. He used the term first works rather than first love. T he evidence of love is obedience. (1 John 2:4,5). We are not told theparticular things in which they were deficient. However, whatever it was, it brought condemnation. We need to notice in this connection that it is possible to work and have that which is worked pr ompted by other motives than love. T his also brings condemnation. (1 Corinthians 13 :1-3). The striking lesson in this for all of us is that a church with all these good qualities could still be under condemnation. How frightful it is to think what the Lord would say if he were to write a letter to many of the churches today.

(Continued on Page 12 )

THINGS REQUIRED

The Lord required three things of this church. Remember: This church was to remember what their first love had done for them. They were capable of remembering. They had been able twithstand false teachers by being able to remember. (Acts 20:28-30). They were called uponagain to remember. There is so much value in remembering. Just think what we would do andwould not do if we just stop to remember. Repent: T his chur ch was also called upon torepent. This church was under the condemnation of sin. Repentance was the need of the hour. As long as sin exists upon this earth, either in the church or in the world, there will be a need to repent.Repentance is one of the conditions of forgivene . Do the first works: The third thing this church was called upon to do was to do as they had done even at the first. When a church is first established, it so often is filled with enthusiasm and zeal and with a sincere effort to do right. Then after a time, itso often develops that the church loses these fine attributes. Such is what happened at Ephesus. Hesaid: "Remember therefore from whence thou are fallen and repent, and do the first works."

WARNING

T he war ning which Chr ist gave to this chur ch was in the form of a threat. He told them: "E lse I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thcandlestick out of his place, except thou repent."God is tolerant with people who try. There wasmuch wrong with the church at Corinth and yePaul called them, "the Church of God which is at Corinth." (I Cor inthians 1:2). However, therecomes a time when God will disown a church. The threat is to that effect at Ephesus. Consecrated and dedicated Christians who are today affiliated with churches who are operating in open violatioof the mission and work and organization of thchurch, need to take heed to the threat which is given here. We might wait too long!

PROMISE

The Lord made a most gracious promise. He said: "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God." Whatever might be involved in this language, it is sure and certain that he promises spiritual joys in the Paradise of God for this church and all who will do as God commands.

FRANKLIN ROAD LECTURE SERIES

Delivered in Nashville, Tenn., October, 1959

Vol. I Give Us A King (Harris ]. Dark) .........$ .20 Vol. II Contending For The Faith and The

Organization of The Church(Charles M. Campbell) ............................20

Vol. III Speaking As The Oracles

Of God (Irven

Lee)...............................20 Vol. IV The All-Sufficiency Of The Bible

(E. L. Flannery)................................... .20 Vol. V Divisions, Who Is Responsible?

(James P. Miller)....................................

__________________ .20 Vol. VI According To The Pattern (Stanley J. Lovett) ............................. .20 Vol. VII Chur ch Cooper ation (Cecil B. Douthitt) .................... ................................. .20 Vol. VIII The Glorious Church And Its Purpose (Curtis Porter) .............................................20 Vol. IX The Care Of The Needy (HerschelPatton) ..................................................... .20 Vol. X The Individual Christian's Responsibility (Bennie Lee Fudge)...........20 Vol. XI When Should One Change?(James A. Allen) ..................................... .20

All 11 volumes $2.00

These lessons have been widely distributed and contain valuable information touching the "i ues" disturbing us today. All these men have a national r eputation for "contending earnestly for the faith." If you