AM I THEREFORE BECOME YOUR ENEMY?
H. E. Phillips
When the apostle Paul wrote by the Spirit the epistle to the churches in Galatia, he asked: "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you thetruth?" (Gal. 4:16). Some very strong things were said by Paul — their removal to "another gospel" and their false teachers were directly spoken of bythe apostle, yet Paul assured them that it was in nosense a personal pleasur e to have to shame them.Now, was he to be looked upon by them as an enemy just because he told them the truth about their departure from the faith?
It is an act of kindness, an expression of love, asign of sincerity, to tell another the truth, even when it "hurts" the one to whom the truth is told. Gospel truth, more than any other, tends to makeenemies of those who tell it to erring and sinful men. This is an experience that many of us haveknown who preach the gospel of Christ. There are many former friends who now consider us enemies for no reason other than that we told them the truth of God's word.
T her e ar e possibly thr ee differ ent things about telling the truth to sinful men that make the hearers consider the bearers of truth as enemies: (1) Ithurts personal pride and ambition of most people. They consider it a personal attack rather than anattempt to help them. (2) It requires more sacrifice than the individual is willing to make to repent andcorrect the error. It sometimes demands a completedenunciation of the very things or persons that caused the sin to begin with. (3) Truth is usually considered to be what one believes rather than what God says. To say that we tell someone the truth about a certain matter is not usually convincing tohim because he denies that we are telling him thetruth. His view of the matter is that truth is what he already believes, and error is what we are trying to get him to accept. Truth, of course, is determined by what God says and not by speculations andopinions.
I have known men and women in years past whowere considered the closest of friends, but who nowstand so far apart as not to even speak to eachother. This parting of the way did not result from an evil act by one toward the other. It came aboutbecause one told the other the truth touching spiritual things, especially regarding some of the current problems involving the church. One of the most regrettable things to me is that some who now consider me their enemy were once my best friends and closest brethren in the Lord's work. They encouraged me in the preaching of the very things that now make me their enemy. T his is by nomeans an unusual experience to me; thousands of brethren know exactly what I speak of in this matter.
Let us note two or three things about this passage in Galatians 4:16. First, Paul did not ask, "Haveyou become my enemy because I tell you the truth?" It was not from Paul's point of view that this alienation between himself and the brethr en in Galatia existed. The one who preaches the truth is doing so for the purpose of helping the one in error. Paul did not write to these brethren because he did not love them, but because he did love them and wantedthem to be blessed by the truth.
I have been accused of writing or speaking because I did not love certain ones. If it were true that I did not have any love for them, it would be far easier for me to leave them alone and not even waste the energy on them. If I knew of a step that was missing in a dark stairway, and one whom I did notlove was appr oaching that stair way, how could I better express my dislike than to tell him nothingof the missing step and let him fall? On the other hand, if I saw one whom I loved approach, howcould I better express my love and concern for himthan to stop him and tell him the truth about themissing step? But he might say to me (if he wanted to climb the stairway more than he wanted thetruth): "You are my enemy; you do not love mebecause you are trying to keep me from doing what I want to do." T his, of course, is childish, but it is exactly the same in principle as the truth of the gospel in saving those who are lost.
Second, Paul asked: "Am I BECOME your enemy . . . ?" In plain words, "Have I ceased to beyour friend?" He had become their enemy at some time and for some reason. The reason stated is: "because I tell you the truth." T he time was between his teaching the gospel to them at first and as he now writes to them.
In Galatians 4:13 Paul tells about his first preaching the gospel to them. At this time they had received him tenderly. His infirmity in the flesh did not keep them from receiving him "as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus." He also says that atthat time they would have "plucked out" their owneyes "and have given them to me." T his was the affection they held for Paul when he first preached the gospel unto them, but now he asks, "Have I therefore BECOME your enemy . . . ?" Paul did notchange his preaching. Any other gospel was condemned (Gal. 1:6,7). The time between his first preaching to them and the time of this epistle Paul writes, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ untoanother gospel; which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ" (Gal. 1:6,7). Somebody had perverted thegospel of Christ and the Galatians had been "removed" to another gospel. Paul spoke against this change to "another gospel" and became their enemy.
But the Galatians may have said, "Oh, we havenot changed. We believe the same old gospel youpreached to us. We have learned more and havegrown under these teachers of Judaism. But you,Paul, are the one who has changed." Now whatdifference does it make whether one changes or not if truth is at stake? Paul admitted his "change" inthis very letter, but not a change from what he pr eached to them in the beginning. "For ye haveheard of my conversation in time past in the Jews'religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it..." (Gal. 1:13,14).But Paul is showing that he had changed FROM the very traditions of Judaism that they were nowchanging toward. He taught them the gospel truth after he had learned it. Paul had changed! It is no point in proof to claim that "I have not changed."Sometimes to make such a claim is to admit continuing in error. But the Galatians had "changed"by turning back again to the "weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" (Gal. 4:9).
Paul had BECOME their enemy because he toldthem the truth about their change from the true gospel to "another gospel."
T hird, Paul asks if he has become their enemy"because I tell you the TRUTH." The "truth" meansdifferent things to different people. Mathematical truth must be determined by the science of mathematics. Scientific truth must be determined by theproved experiments and conclusions of science — the facts of science and not the theories of scientists. Gospel truth must be determined by the New Testament of Jesus Christ. Any gospel that does not come from the New T estament is not the truth. Infant baptism is not gospel truth because it is nottaught in the New T estament. Keeping the law of Moses is not the truth which Paul preached because it is not taught in the New T estament. T his is the heart of the issue between Paul and the churches of Galatia. False teacher s had invaded this ar ea with the law and their traditions and had "bewitched" the Galatians not to obey the truth. Paul exposed these false teachers and teaches the truth. For this Paul asked if he had become their enemy.
One of two choices is before the person who hasbeen told the truth. He can accept the truth andrepent of his sins and obey the truth, or. he cancontinue in the sin and consider the person who tried to teach him the truth as his enemy. Our best friend may be the one who "hurts" by telling us the gospeltruth, but if we consider the truth, our friend willnot become an enemy because he tells us the truth. "Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful" (Prov. 27:6).
Another year is gone and a new one is before us. We begin with this issue our sixth year and the subscribers have increased each year. We are grateful to all who have been of such great help in circulating this paper in an effort to encourage a more careful study of God's word. During the past year a large number of new congregations were started in many parts of the country. Several faithful gospel preachers have been sent into new fields with adequate support, and a large number have turned from the trends toward apostasy.
T her e ar e many of you who ar e now r eceiving this journal for the first time. A friend or relative has subscribed for you for the coming year in the hopes that you will continue to receive it by renewing when your subscription expires. If you knowsomeone who might be interested in receiving asample copy, please send us their names and addresses.
** *
Brother Irven L ee of Jasper, Alabama will begin a series of articles on Family Relationships as taught in the Bible. The first appears in this issue. I am sure you will enjoy and profit by the study of these good lessons. Brother Lee is the editor of Sword Of Peace, a monthly paper published in Decatur, Alabama. He is well known across the country as asound and capable preacher of the gospel. He isexceptionally well qualified to write on the subjectwe have asked him to deal with.
Brother William Lewis of St. Petersburg, Florida will also begin a series of articles on the church. Brother Lewis is also a very capable preacher, sound in the faith. We are certain you will enjoy andprofit from these articles.
** *
If you have not yet sent in your renewal, please do so at once.
DO SOMETHING NOW!
This religious paper must have your subscriptions to continue to do the good it has done in the past to encourage a search for eternal truth. Good intentions will not help, be a friend and co-worker with us by sending three subscriptions with your own renewal — all four for only $7.50. Do it now! If every subscriber will do this, we can give you the best religious journal for 1965 that we have ever produced. We need your help.
Think how much good you can do with $7.50 for a whole year! If you are unable to subscribe for any but yourself, send us five names and addresses of prospective subscribers to whom we may send sample copies. Every subscriber can do this. Do not delay attending to this matter.
*****
SPECIAL CLUB OFFER TO JANUARY 31,1965
With every club of four subscriptions you will receive FREE a copy of Sermon Outlines by A. W. Dicus. This book contains 122 sermon outlines used by brother Dicus through the years. His interest in Searching The Scriptures and its circulation has caused him to graciously offer these fine outlines free with every club of four subscriptions. Get your free copy today.
X Please send my free copy of Sermon Outlines by A. W. Dicus with this club of subscriptions.
AN EXPOSITORY DICTIONARYOF NEW TESTAMENT WORDS
W. E. Vine This book is a valuable wor k to the Bible student. It is a standard work based upon a firm textual and grammatical foundation with renderings of the words and phrases of the New Testament from both Authorized and American Revised Ver sions, and against the backgr ound of the original Greek. It is a dictionary, a concordance, and acommentary in one volume. Price— $11.95
THE NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY by William Hendriksen
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, 505 pages ................... $ 6.95PHILLIPIANS, 21 8 pages ..................................... 5.95I & II THESSALONIANS, 21 4 pages ................ 4.50I & II TIMOTHY & TITU S, 404 pages .................. 6.00REVELATION — MORE THAN CONQUERORS,
285 pages ..................................................... 3.50
All five volumes — $25.00
THE BIBLE STUDY TEXTBOOK SERIES-COMMENTARIES
Used as wor kbooks and teaching manuals
GOSPEL OF JOHN, VOL. I, by Paul Butler ....... $4.95 ACTS MADE ACTUAL, by Don De Welt ........... 5.95 ROMANS REALIZED, by Don De Welt .............. 4.95 STUDIES IN I CORINTHIANS,
by T. R. Applebury ..................................... 4.95
GUIDANCE FROM GALATIANS,
by Don Boatman ......................................... 3.95
EPHESIANS— THE GLORIOUS CHURCH
Wilbur Fields ................................................ 3.95
THINKING THROUGH THESSALONIANS
Wilbur Fields ........................................... 4.95
PAUL'S LETTERS TO TIMOTHY AND TITUS,
Don De Welt ............................................... 4.95 HELPS FROM HEBREWS, Don Boatman .............. 5.95 LETTERS FROM PETER, Bruce Oberst .................. 3.95 REVELATION — THE SEER, THE SAVIOUR AND
THE SAVED, John D. Strau
............................ 5.95
All eleven volumes — $48.00
HARPER CLEARBACKNEW TESTAMENT
TP61 x — Black genuine leather, limp............................................. $6.50 TP 65x— -Black genuine leather, half-circuit, red under gold edges. $7.50 TP 66x— Black genuine leather, half-cir
cuit, leather-lined to edge, red under gold .............................. $8.50 TP 67x— Black hand-grained morocco,
half-circuit, leather-lined to edge, gold edges ............................ $10.00
COMMENTARIES
Here is a most attractive set of New Testament commentaries restoring the very best that has been offered through the years. Each book is handsomely and uniformly bound in simulated leather covers. Welcome addition to every library.
THE FOURFOLD GOSPEL--J. W. McGarvey and P. Y. Pendleton— A harmony of the four Gospels arranged to form a complete chronological life of Christ. Divided into title sections and subdivisions, with comments interjected in the text. 769 pages. _______________ ...... ________ ........................ $3.75
COMMENTARY ON ACTS-J. W. McGarvey — This outstanding commentary is original in form, broad in scholarship, and truly conservative. A "favorite" of teachers, students, and ministers. 560 pages. $3.75
COMMENTARY ON ROMANSM oses E. Lard-With a revised Greek text, compiled from the best recent authors, and a new translation. This scholarly author has set forth Paul's meaning without regard to what that meaning favors or disfavors. 488 pages. .— $3.75
COMMENTARY ON THESSALONIANS, CORINTHIANS, GALATIANS, AND ROMANS. W. McGarvey and P. Y. Pendleton— A companion volume to "The Fourfold Gospel". A most practical and helpful exposition. 555 pages. _____ $3.75
The greatest victories which it is po
ible for one to win in this life consists of victories over self, and these are won when we surrender our wills to Christ. He is the Captain of our salvation and in his army are no conscript soldiers. He gave himself for our sins in order that he might redeem to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works, and thpeople he came to redeem are required to give themselves to him as volunteer soldier s for his cause. He never lost a battle, and won his greatest victorywhen his enemies thought he was vanquished. T hus it will be with all who obey the gospel and keethemselves unspotted from the world.
Like their leader, these soldiers will always bvictorious, though the world will not regard theirvictories. A demonstration of this is found in the case of Paul, the close of whose earth-life was grand and glorious. When called of Christ he held no conference with flesh and blood; when entreated bbrethren with tears not to venture to Jerusalem he said that he was willing to die for Christ. To the Philippians he wrote that he counted all things loss for Christ. When he came to die he said, "I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departureis at hand; I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith" (II Tim. 4:6,7). Then looking forward into the future he said. "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown ofrighteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judgewill give me at that day: and not to me only, butunto all them also that love his appearing."
When Paul thus wrote he was about to close his eventful life, and his language shows that he had no regrets concerning the past and no fears concerning the future. This was the most glorious victoryfor him; and thus to close our earthly pilgr imagewill be the most glorious victory which it will bepo
ible for us to secure. I marvel that the majorityof men today are not as concerned with the victoryof faith as they should be. I marvel that so many inthe church are so unconcerned with the good fightof faith.
"Would you please renew my subscription tSearching The Scriptures? The articles are of thevery best to help keep our feet on the straight andnarrow way." — Kermit Puckett, Clintwood, Va.
"I have taken the publication, Searching The Scriptures, for several years, and have yet to find an i
ue that I did not enjoy. You have the distinction of writing, what is in my mind, material which is not only edifying, but a pleasure to read. I am grateful for your efforts." — Wallace H. Little, Mesa,Arizona.
"Enclosed my check for new subscription t"Searching The Scriptures. I have never taken thepaper, but hear much good about your efforts. Iknow that I shall enjoy the fine articles." — Dana Halstead, San Antonio, Texas.
"Keep up this very good work and may the Lord bless you in His work." — Ronald A. Gla
, Green Bay ,Wisc.
"I continue to enjoy the paper and offer my commendation for your work." — J. R. Snell, Laurel,Miss.
"Here is a list of subscriptions to your fine magazine Searching The Scriptures." — Mrs. Opal Smith,Tampa, Fla.
"Enclosed is my subscription to your good paper. I think it is wonderful as it stays with God's word without addition or subtraction." — Ida Holt, Lynn,Ark.
"Keep up the good work."— Ward Hogland, Greenville, Texas."Searching The Scriptures is one of the best." —Robert Welch, Louisville, Ky
"I enjoy the paper ver y much and am in accord with most of the articles printed in it." — G. A. Anglin, Paducah, Texas.
"Thanks again for continuing to send SearchingThe Scriptures. We appreciate the good work yoand brother Miller are doing .. . In my opinion, itis one of the best. Keep up the good work." — BobbyWither ington, Owensboro, Ky
"I appreciate the fine work you are doing throughSearching The Scriptures. It is one of the finest papers I receive." — Clayton M. Adams, Columbus,Ga.
GROUNDS UPON WHICH WE CAN REFUSEFELLOWSHIPJimmy Tuten, Jr., St. Louis, Mo.
(Continued fr om Last Month)
Even though it is admitted that we can ceaseto recognize people who violate certain principles (i.e., with reference to the Deity of Christ), it is said that "withdrawing fellowship" is not in the Bible, hence "you cannot put one out of fellowship." We will frankly confess that the exact expr ession is not in the New Testament, but we fail to see how this play on words helps, for the principle thereof is clearly taught. There are certain grounds uponwhich we can refuse fellowship to certain individuals. Since accepting God's revealed standard ofTruth (2 Jno. 9; 2 Pet. 1:3) is the basis for fellowship in the first place, the continuation in the Truth by means of active participation in the things enjoined therein constitute the basis for continued fellowship. How else are we to interpret 2 John 9? It says, "whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He thaabideth in the doctrine of Chr ist, he hath both thFather and the Son." T his embr aces mor e than just the teaching with respect to Christ's Deity.It includes all that God "hath in these last daysspoken unto us by his Son" (Heb. 1:1-2). All theLord taught personally and all that He has revealed unto His apostles constitutes His doctrine. "Doctrine" refers to the teaching of certain individuals (1 T im. 6:3; Col. 3:16; Matt. 7:28; Lk. 4:32), inthis instance, that of Christ. The teaching of Christ is revealed in the New Testament, and beyond theNew Testament there is no Truth or doctrine (Jno. 14:26; 16:13,15). Practices engaged in by "believers in the Deity of Christ" which are not found in the New Testament are certainly not within the bounds of the doctrine of Christ. Since fellowship with God and Christ depends upon one's continuing to embrace the teaching of Christ, those who fail to remainwithin its limits have no fellowship with those who faithfully "walk in the light." The inspired writer says, "if we say we have fellowship with him, andwalk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth; but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 Jno. 1:6-7). While "withdraw fellowship" may be anexpression not found in the New Testament, onecertainly can refuse to fellowship another whom weknow is not walking according to the precepts of God. Those who do not embrace Truth have no fellowship with Jesus Christ. Under these conditions, how can we have fellowship with that person ? This is certainly a matter of "doctrinal error."
The matter is clearly illustrated in 1 Tim. 4:1-3. Departing "from the faith" and turning aside to"doctrine of devils" involves doctrinal matters. Paul condemns these people, and he certainly has no fellowship with them. Since what the Apostles bound on earth is bound in heaven, we must condemn those who practice those things condemned by the Apostle Paul. We must have no fellowship with them. There can be no fellowship in matter s that ar e contrary to "sound doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:10). In fact, we arecommanded to reject those who hold not to thedoctrine of Christ. Inspiration says, "if there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receivehim not into your house, neither bid him God speed" (2 Jno. 10). If we fellowshipped all who believe inthe Deity of Jesus regardless of affiliations, wewould violate 2 Jno. 10. Our loyalty to Christ and our refusal to fellowship those who embrace error is God's way for one to be "nour ished up in thewords of faith and of good doctrine" (1 Tim. 4:6). One cannot amalgamate the conflicting doctrines of the sects and claim Biblical fellowship with them. Instead, we are to "withdraw" ourselves from those who walk not after the "tradition (Divine ordinance, jt) which he received of us" (2 Thess. 3:6).
CONCLUSION
There is no fellowship amid the area of conflicting doctrines and practices. To encourage fellowship of the sects is to encourage liberalism, and to rob the church of its distinctive plea and character. If we take the position that there are children of God in all the sects, then we throw the towel into the ring and cease to fight the good fight of faith- It would be fruitless to continue to try to convert those of the denominational world. Such would cause us to abandon the citadel of faith, and join ranks withthose who seek to bring about a merger of thesects. Should such take place, Matthew 7:21 wouldstill stand: "Not everyone that sayeth unto me,Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven;but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Italics mine, jt).
QUESTION — Does I Cor. 14:34, 35 forbid women to ask questions and make comments in a Bibleclass composed of both men and women? Please explain also I Tim. 2:11, 12. — K.H.
ANSWER — Neither of the above passages forbid women to participate in the discussion of a Bibleclass composed of both men and women, if they act in harmony with the fundamental principle governing such. An example of this principle, as set forth in both references, should clarify the matter.
The context of the Corinthian passage shows that the order (I Cor. 14:40) of a general assembly inwhich the revelation of truth wag made and theedifying of saints was done under the direct influence of the Spirit is the primary thing under consideration. In such assemblies women — even though they were inspired (Cf. I Cor. 11:5; Acts 21:9) — were forbidden to participate. Had they done so, they would have been out of place as women in relation to men because of God's order. The nature of this meeting and its transactions made it man'sresponsibility. Hence, women were to keep silence;they were not permitted to speak, but were commanded to be under obedience (I Cor. 13:34). Furthermore, this was not anything new for Paul added, "as also saith the law." The same principle governing order here is the same principle that governed order under the law of Moses. Of course, since the passing of the age of miracles, we have no such assemblies today. However, let everyone note thatthe principle governing the order under consideration here applied under the law; it applied in this particular meeting, and it applies today! Let everyone learn the fundamental principle involved in this order and be careful never to violate it. Notice that Paul said "as also saith the law." Whatever the fundamental principle is, it may befound in the law. Paul stated it clearly in our text when he said, "they ar e commanded to be under obedience." He stated it more clearly perhaps in the other passage submitted by our querist: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adamwas not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (I Tim. 2:11-14).
The law makes it clear that by order of creation the woman is under obedience to man. After the fall of man the law makes it even more clear: "... and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and heshall rule over thee" (Gen. 3:16). E ven the fall ofman is accounted for upon the grounds of womangetting out of her place of subjection to man andacting with unwarranted independence. Thus, God's
order for woman is under obedience, in subjection — not usurping authority over man.
These verses do not forbid women to teach. If so, they contravene other passages authorizing themto speak or teach, e.g., Titus 3:5; Col. 3:16; Acts 18:26; 21:9. Women speak and teach in the general assembly when they sing, confess Christ, or confess their sins. However, in none of these acts is she out of her place as woman in relation to man. She takes the place of no man and no man can take her place in these matters. She is under obedience — the control, direction, and authority of man. God's order prevails.
Likewise, she is under obedience when she participates in the class arrangement wherein teaching is done by the question and answer method. Here is an arrangement the design, plan, and objective of which differs in many ways from the assembly of I Cor.-14. Even the very method and type of teaching differs. Hence, some change in order might be expected so long as the fundamental principle under study is observed throughout. Such a class does notpartake of the nature of the assembly of I Cor. 14.Furthermore, in such a class she is under the control, direction, and authority of man — the teacher. Or, at least, she should be. I think I have seen somewomen take over the class with their forward and domineering attitude and conduct and thereby violate the fundamental principle under study. T he restriction imposed on women in the matter of speaking and teaching spiritual things does nothave to do so much with place as with conditions and circumstances under which they teach. She mayteach a class of women, children, and perhaps under other circumstances so long as she does not takethe place of man — usurp his authority. For this reason she cannot teach a class of men. Such an arrangement would demand direction and control on her part over the men that contravenes God'sorder. For the same reason she can not be a public proclaimer of the Word — a preacher. He is commanded, "These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority — "epitage"— (Titus 2:15). T he woman on the other hand is commanded to be under authority— "hupotage"— (I Tim. 2:11). God's order must not be violated. It has prevailed from creation.
One of the dangers that the Lord's church faces in many places is that of having those within her membership who became such, or of those who are becoming members because of their desire for personal gain. In many communities the Lord's church may be the largest church in town, or there maybe mor e local churches in a given town than there are those of the denominational bodies. In such instances, it may be popular to be a member of the church of Christ. Where this is the condition, there are those who are entering into or already have done so, not because of any convictions on their part thatthe church is God's plan, but to be identified withfaithful Christians affords many contacts for personal gain.
In such instances, men in business see good potentials in making a success at their jobs becausethey can call upon the members of the church tosell them their products. Were some denominationthe largest body in town, they would just as soon be a member of that denomination. T hese people look upon the L ord's people as a way to further their cause. A person remarked to me one time thatit was the thing to do to be a member of the Lord's church in Nashville, Tennessee. This person wasspeaking from the standpoint of making contacts and being well known because of being a member of the church. But if it is the thing to do to be amember of the Lord's people in Nashville, it is thething to do to be among the people of God regardless of where one lives, whether it is popular or unpopular, whether the church has 10 members in town or 10,000 members in town.
These individuals who are members of the church because of personal gain pose a problem to thechurch because they measure everything from theviewpoint of the dollar. If the ungodly are to be disciplined, they want no part of it and will usually let it be known that they do not appr ove, becausethey know that if it is learned that they stood behind the truth in the practice of discipline some of their contacts would do business with someone else. When any other problem comes up these gainseeking people can always decide on the solution tothe problem by looking as how it will affect them. I am convinced, as well as other preachers, that onereason many brethren have chosen the path of institutionalism and the social gospel of modernism inthe church today is because they can see that it ison that side where the money is. And if they hadbeen able to see where they could have made mor e money, then they would have taken their stand with truth.
The faithful child of God should not let these personal gain seeking people affect his stand for truth because these kind of men also lived in the days of Christ and the apostles. Jesus Christ while here on earth was constantly followed by people whowere not interested in what he had to say but inwhat they' could get out of him from a material standpoint. So it is today with many in the church. We might not be able to know each of these, but weneed not forget that the Lord knows (II Tim. 2:19).Christ can look into the hearts of men and know exactly for what reason they follow him. After many days in his preaching the multitudes continued to follow him, Jesus said, "Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye dideat of the loaves, and were filled" (John 6:26).These were not interested in following Him because they knew by His miracles that he was the Christ, (John 3:2; 20:30-31), but because they had their bellies filled by his miracles. And when they ceased to profit by following him, they stopped and wentaway (John 6:60-66). Just so today, when these in the church cease to profit by being in the L ord's chur ch they tur n to the" denominations of men.
Men who follow the Lord for personal gain need
to have pointed out to them that they are perishing,that they are lost in that condition. In Acts 8, there is the record of a man who attempted to profit withthe Lord's way and he was told in no uncertain terms that his soul stood in danger. Peter said unto him, "Thy money perish with thee,... thou art inthe gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity(Acts 8:20-23).
Men should follow Jesus regardless of the number knowing that there never will be many in comparison to the number in the world, (Mat. 7:13-14), thatwill follow Jesus. We should follow Him when we are in the majority or the minority. We should always follow Jesus. My fr iend, why do you follothe Christ? For personal gain? Or because you are convinced from the testimony from the New Testament that he is the Christ of God? May it never be said of us that we ceased to follow Jesus when we ceased to gain mater ial wealth by so doing.
EVEN ROMAN CATHOLICS MUST DEPEND UPON 'PRIVATE JUDGMENT'!
Students of Holy Scripture are sometimes maligned and ridiculed by Roman Catholic believers because the Papal followers allegedly have an unerring Pope to follow in matters of faith and morals, etc. Those who depend upon God's word, as did theBereans (Acts 17:11); as did the New Testament Christians (John 20:30-31) ; as Paul instructed Timothy (II Timothy 3:16-17 and 2:15); as did the Colo
ian Christians (Col. 4:16) ; as did the Thessalonian Christians (I Thess. 5:27 and II Thess. 3:14). .. not only have ample inspired precedent forfollowing the written word of God, but we're in excellent company as we obey the writings of God (I Cor. 14:37 and I Cor. 4:3).
THE HIERARCHY TEACHES CATHOLICS TO AVOID PRIVATE JUDGMENT!
In 1870, when the Vatican Council passed thePapal Infallibility Decree, a scholar who had been a Catholic priest for 49 years wrote:
"In future every Catholic Christian when asked why he believes this or that can and may givbut one answer: 'I believe or reject it because the infallible Pope has bidden it to be believed or rejected' " (J.J.I, von Dollinger, Declarations and Letters, pp 100). Cardinal Manning wrote:
"T he appeal to antiquity (T hus to the Bible. LWM) is both a treason and a heresy. It is atreason because it rejects the divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy becauseit denies that voice (of the Pope.) to be divine" (Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, 4tedition, page 238)Cardinal Manning later made this statement even
stronger when he wrote: "The appeal from the living voice of the Church to any tribunal whatsoever, human history included, is an act of private judgment and treason because that living voice is supreme;and to appeal from that supreme voice is also a heresy because that voice by divine a
istance is infallible" (Daily Telegraph, Oct., 8, 1875).
FOR A CATHOLIC TO ACCEPT THE BIBLE RATHER THAN THE POPE IS TREASON!
Yes . . . it's there in bold black and white on page5, of the Daily Telegraph. If the devout Catholic APPEALS to ANY source whatsoever, for religious information, OTHER than the 'living voice' ... the Pope... then that devout Catholic is declar ed GUILTY OF TREASON AND HERESY! Is it anwonder that otherwise sincere and intelligent Catholics are scared-to-death to think for themselves?
But we maintain .. . that EVEN the most devout and most faithful Roman Catholic has HAD TO EXERCISE 'PRIVATE JUDGMENT' sometime in their lives.
(1) The Devout Catholic believes that there is a God . . . but he MUST have judged or concluded this ... even as a child, for himself. (2) The devout Catholic believes that Christianity comes from God. . (3) The devout Catholic also believes that Christ promised an infallible source of authority for believers of all future centuries to follow.The foregoing three basic, fundamental premises are also either accepted or rejected by those who embrace any shade or degree of so-called Christian faith. The atheist, agnostic or skeptic has rejected them, but persons who have accepted them, did so and do so upon the basis of PRIVATE JUDGMENT! And, in this respect, and to this point, there is nodifference between the devout Catholic and an equally devout non-Catholic believer.
Incidentally, THE BIBLE clearly teaches the above three basic truths. Here, however, the departure begins .. . because, (4) The devout Catholic has been convinced, and has accepted it, that theINFALLIBLE SOURCE OF RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY, resides within the 'living voice' of the Church of Rome! THIS THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH . . . but, since it is treason and heresy for the believer of the (4th) premise to use the Bible as aseparate source of religious authority, the Catholic believer from this point forward .. . forever... resigns the use of his or her 'private judgment' andunquestioningly accept the decrees of the Hierarchy!
Once the devout Catholic has crossed the thresh-hold to complete and total thought-control on allmatters of religion and spirituality, then he or she is indoctrinated into the thinking that all others who STILL RELY upon the freedom of speech, judgment and worship . . . free under God ... "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." . . . "Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth!" . . . (we repeat) ... the devout Catholic considers all of us who rely upon the freedom to think and reason concerning these matters, to be entirelylost. . . wrong . . . incorrect!
Therefore, we have penned this brief study. The Catholic cannot afford to forget that once . . . sometime in the past... per haps almost as an infant...
before mature mental ability had been reached . . . that they had to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES! They supposedly have been kept free from making any errors by their infallible Pope since that time .. . but how can they be sure that their mentaldecisions of 'private judgment' led them to a true and authentic institution, ordained of God?
The fact of the matter is ... that the devout and sincere Roman Catholic, made a grave error in'private judgment' when they accepted the (4th) premise, i.e., that Christ set up the 'Papal succession theory' and that the Popes are incapable of committing an error in doctrine, etc
Devout Catholics may ask . . . "If Christ didn't establish the Papacy, then WHAT IS THE INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY? Here's the answer:
"... These are written that ye might believe thaJesus is the Chr ist, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (John 20:31). '
Peter wrote: "... The word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospelis preached unto you" (I Pet. 1:25)
"Study to show thyself approved unto God, aworkman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightlydividing the word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15)
"Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth" (John 17:17). IT ENDURES FOREVER!! Itwill never be replaced except at judgment!!
BEGIN AT HOME
Our nation is plagued with delinquency amongthe youth and among the adults. There is much talk about juvenile delinquency, but we should never overlook the fact that these youths were innocent children a few years ago before they were influenced so seriously by the world the adults control. The vulgar, money-loving men and women have created an atmosphere which contaminates and defiles the hearts of the innocent. It is a vicious cycle. Onegeneration defiles the next.
What can we do about this condition? T he two of us — you and I — will not be able to do much about this nation's ills, but we ought to be able to help little. We might write to Washington and make suggestions. Some have suggested they think that more of us "good" people ought to write to Washington.My impr ession is that my letter to Washingtonwould not be worth the cost of the envelope. The paper, ink, stamp, and time would be a total lo
. Let Washington do what it will. Let states do what they will. Let the P.T.A. do what it will. We wish them all well in any worthy endeavor, but the children we wish to save are at home under the influence of the parents or the hireling or roaminthe streets. I suggest we talk to parents rather than to the senators. Spend time with the children rather than in an effort to find a legislative solution. Some who "Write to Washington" may neglect their ownchildren. Parents, you have a good place to begithis task of making America better. Start there inyour living room with the little one who would so much like to sit in your lap for a private talk withyou. He needs your time more than Washingtoneeds a letter.
I know the task of seeing the precious baby girl become the virtuous woman whose price is far above rubies is a difficult task, but it is worth the effort. How can a father in this vulgar age bring up a son in the way he should go? How can we see that son become a man after God's own heart? Maybe wecould talk to the elders! Some tell the elders that "We are going to lose our young people if we dnot do something for them." What should the church do? Should it be expected to take this fearful responsibility off the hands of parents? Can we find any suggestion in the sacr ed wr itings that thechurch should provide for the social life of theyoung, or that it should direct their play, and feethem the hamburgers they like so well? No!
The great need of the young is not for anothergame or party. They hardly have time to come hometo eat and sleep enough now, even in communities where the church has not built its "fellowship hall" or "youth center." Many denominations have tried to make the world better by entertaining the newldiscovered group called "Teenagers." Their fellowship halls, in many cases, have become dance halls. Is this what our nation needs? T he work of the church is to teach. It is to teach the young and itis to teach the old. Yes, the church should do something for the young people! It should teach them! They need the same lessons that all the rest of us need. This need is desperate. Let the church do its work well.
If Congress will pass laws and the churches will build "youth centers," will delinquency cease? The answer is No! Books are full of laws and the "fellowship halls" are numerous among denominations. Our brethren are ready to copy this social gospel plawhich infidels suggested in vain. Our "youth ministers" will help some learn soft ball rules, but thadoes little for the soul. If the church moves more and more toward material display, entertainment,and foolishness, it will miserably fail in .the soul-saving, busine
, and will even fail to be a moral uplift society
Let the church carry out the great commission while fathers bring the children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Let mothers help their children know the sacred writings from their childhood days. If every man trains his child in the wayhe should go there will be no crime. This, unfortunately, will not be done, but you can train yours,and help, maybe, with others.
What can the preacher do for the young peopleHe can preach the whole counsel of God. This is the way to be pure from the blood of all men. Allyoung people need to hear sermons on all Bible principles. The preacher can preach to parents, too,and help them know the truths in verses like thefollowing: Titus 2:3-5; Ephesians 6:4"; Proverbs 22:6; I Timothy 5:14; II Timothy 3:14,15; Deuteronomy 29:29; Deuteronomy 6:6-9; Proverbs 13:24;Hebrews 12:5-11; and Psalms 127:3-5.
"IF IT COULD BE ANY OF MY BUSINESS"
One of the reasons I know many people are reading Searching The Scriptures, is because of the mail received. I wrote an article some time ago about myconversation with brother Gayle Oler at Boles Home. I have r eceived a gr eat deal of comment on thatarticle. It was said years ago, that one could sayanything he pleases about the church, but if he criticizes our(?) institutions he had better take cover! Itseems that this is so. I received a letter from brother Roger W. Hawley, who preaches for the East HillChurch in York, Nebraska. York college is located there and this congregation has a membership of about three hundred. Here is the letter. Dear brother Hogland,
"I had the pleasure of meeting you about fourteen years ago in Morrilton when you came over fromFort Smith to perform the wedding ceremony for the Reynolds' girl. Since then I have heard of youfrom time to time.
"I recently read an article by you under the title of "About Ten Thousand Dollars." It concerned Boles Home in Quinlan, Texas. I was interested in thecomments' you had to make r egar ding the home.
"Your article, however, raised in my mind a question or two. If it could be any of my business as afellow Christian, I would be interested in knowingif you have found an opportunity to take homeless children into your own home? I would also be interested in knowing if the congregation for whichyou preach is making any provision for the care of the fatherless. I have a good friend, Faye Starr,who when I saw him, was of your point of view regarding the care of the fatherless. Although he and I differed in regard to the care of these children, I found myself deeply respecting Faye because hebacked up his point of view by taking three or fourchildren into his own home. This, it seemed to me, made his convictions stand out ver y str ongly.
"I shall be looking forward to hearing from youand to be happy to hear your point of view on the questions I raised as well as anything else you maywish to add. I hope things are going well with you."
A brother in Christ,
Roger Hawley
I want to thank brother Hawley for his letter. Ihave written him a personal letter, but since manypeople have been disturbed by the same questions I want to make this public. What I am about to say may seem a little rude but it is not intended thatway. Brother Hawley says if it could be any of his business he would like to know how many homeless childr en I have in my home. Well, actually it isn'tany of his business! Now before you judge me pleaseread the reasons why it isn't any of his business.
Here they are: First, one's ability to take care of homeless children has to do with his money. It is limited by his bank account or finance. Certainlyever yone knows that a per son couldn't take car e of a child without money!
Now, what would you think of a person who would walk up and ask to see your bank statement? Or what would you think of the person who would askyou how much money you had — or the value of your property. You would probably tell him to get lost, that such was none of his business. When aperson implies to me that I should have orphans in my home when he knows nothing about my ability or opportunity he is treading on private territory. Brother Hawley made the same mistake of manyin the church. He said that brother Starr had backed up his view and made his convictions stand out as a result of taking children into his home. This implies something which isn't so! It implies that anyone who opposes orphan asylums like Boles homemust, in order to be consistent, adopt one or more children. Who said so? Where did this start? I deny the assertion. I maintain that under some circumstances it would be sinful for a person to adoptchildren. Every command of God is limited byABILITY AND OPPORTUNITY. Brother Hawleymentioned opportunity but left out ability. It is implied by some that every person could rear at least one orphan. I deny this. Some of my brethren aren't able (financially) to do a good job of rearing their own. Paul said in first Timothy five, "If any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is wor se than an infidel." What about the man who adopts children knowing fully well he cannot support them? Wouldthis not be sinful? If not why not? Let us take thecase of brother Starr. I am sure that brother Starr had both the ABILITY and OPPORTUNITY to care for those children or he wouldn't have assumed the responsibility. Now let us say, for the sake of an illustration, that brother Starr was not financially able to care for even one child. Would this have made his position on making donations to Boles home weaker? Certainly not! His ABILITY doesn't have one thing to do with the scripturalness of Boles home or any other organization.
It is implied in these questions that everyone hasthe ability to care for some children. I deny this assertion and demand the proof. I have never denied that many in the church fail in caring for the homeless, widows and others. This is not the question. If people fail in their duty God will certainly punish them. But for me to go all over the country implying that James 1:27 teaches that ALL people must take children into their homes is foolish! There are a number of reasons why many cannottake care of children. It could be poor health, lackof money or an improper age. Whether one is ableto do this work is between that individual and God. One should never be guilty of teaching that James
1:27 teaches that everyone must help support a homeless child. In order for me to imply that oneshould have children in his home, it would be necessary for me to know about the person's health, age,finance and opportunity! This I do NOT know.
I notice in brother Hawley's letter he did notquestion any thing I said in the article about Boles
Home. I have answered the personal question and in a private letter I told him of the benevolent work this congregation has done through the years. Itamounts to a great deal. Brother Hawley said thatbrother Starr's convictions stood out strong whenhe took children into his home. I agree. But I notice that such conviction did not change brother Hawley.If I could produce thirty or forty cases of families adopting children, would this change brother Haw-ley? Certainly not! I can produce more than that.The thing he should be interested in is the teachingof the scriptures. It is wonderful to see the gooexamples of our brethren but such is not the standard of authority
Gentle reader, in closing let me remind you thaliberal brethren all over the country have impliethat James 1:27 teaches ever y man who does notgive to an orphan asylum is obligated to adopt one or more children. Such is absolutely false! No man can know enough about the business of his brother to sit in judgment on how many children he shouldadopt. Peter said, "But let none of you suffer as amurderer, or as a thief, or as an evil doer, or a busybody in other men's matters (I Pet. 4:15). Ithere is any matter under heaven which is ONLY between the individual and the Lord it is his ABILITY in the field of benevolence. Let us not be a busybody in other men's matters.
"SOUND" AND "LIBERAL" CHURCHES W illiam H. Lewis, St. Petersburg, Fla.
The church of our Lord is woefully divided today over the church support of HUMAN INSTITUTIONS that have set themselves up to do the work of the church, and the combining of the resources and talents of a number of congregations under the "over-sight" of a "sponsoring church," whhas ASSUMED the over-sight of some "brotherhood-wide" project in the field of edification orevangelism. There are honest and sincere brethren who teach that it is not a violation of the scriptures to do these things. There are honest and sincere brethren who believe that such is a violation of the organization and autonomy of the "local church," the ONLY organization known to the church of the New Testament (Phil. 1:1). There are those who consider these matters in the "realm of faith," whileothers consider them all in the "realm of OPINION." This difference has caused the body of Christ to bedisgr aced in the eyes of the wor ld, and has "set back" the church for generations yet unborn. Onthe one hand brethren who consider these things over which we are divided in the "realm of faith" CANNOT violate their conscience by having part in something which they believe to be wrong. Onthe other hand brethren who consider such things simply in the "realm of opinion" could, BUT WILL NOT, yield to the conscience of their brethren whoconsider such matters a violation of God's law, for the sake of the UNITY for which our Lord prayed as recorded in John. 17:20,21. Yes, the church is divided.
As a result of this division, different terms have been "coined" or "borrowed" in describing those with whom they may differ. On the one hand, those who believe in the church support of HUMAN ORGANIZATIONS and the "sponsoring church" arrangement, use such terms as "antis," "trouble makers," and "church busters," in an effort to discredit those with whom they may differ in these matters. On the other hand those who believe that the church support of HUMAN ORGANIZATIONS is a violation of the scriptures sometime refer totheir brethren with whom they differ as "liberals," while they refer to themselves as being "sound in the faith."
It is not the design of this lesson to study theuse, or the misuse of these terms as they are usedtoday. I am concerned only with the term "sound," when it is used with regards to preachers, congregations, and individual Christians. (I am not sayingthat preachers are not Christians.) Needless to say,but I consider myself as a "sound preacher." (What preacher doesn't? I consider the congregation with which I am working as a "sound" congregation. (What preacher doesn't?) But I am afraid that theterm "sound" to one "side" of the i
ues facing thchurch today has come to mean about what theterm "anti" means to the other side! It is a well established fact that the term "anti" refers ONLY to those who opposed the church support of HUMAN INSTITUTIONS, and the "sponsoring church" arrangement, such as the Herald of Truth, the GospelPress, etc., in the minds of far too many brethren. To those who are in sympathy with the church support of such things, the term "liberal" is appliedto them by those who oppose such. (I am not concerned with the merits or the demerits of the term "liberal" as it is used today. I have another subjectto study.) We all know by now that the term "anti" refers ONLY to those who oppose the two abovementioned things. To be "anti" something, is to bAGAINST it. Anytime a person is AGAINST something he is an "ANTI" in the true sense of the word. But to say that the term is rightly used when refering ONLY to the i
ues dividing the church todayis a MISUSE of the term. Common sense reveals that.
To be "sound," either as an individual, or a congregation, they must be opposed to MORE than the church support of HUMAN INSTITUTIONS and the Herald of Truth! We have gotten to the pointON. BOTH SIDES of the issues facing the church today, that the only thing that will make one an"anti" one hand, and be branded as "sound" on the other hand, is the stand we take on the i
ues facing us today
I think that it takes just a little more than opposition to the church support of HUMAN INSTITUTIONS, and the "sponsoring church" arrangements to be classed as "sound."
To be "sound" one must respect the authority ofthe scriptures IN EVERY RESPECT! I will give few examples of what I mean.(Continued Next Month)
". . . THEY REHEARSED ALL THAT GOD HAD DONE WITH THEM . . ."— Acts 14:27
IN LOVING MEMORY OFKATHERINE STEVENS
devoted wife of Grover Stevens, who past to her eternal reward while asleep in the early hours of the
morning of December 21, 1964
Funeral services were conducted by Robert Jackson (a close friend of long standing) at the Embry-Bosse Funeral Home on December 23. Burial was in Resthaven Cemetery
Katherine was well known in the Louisville area,her husband, Grover Stevens, having served as evangelist for the following congregations in thecity: Taylor Blvd. 6 years, Wendell Ave. 1 year, and Park Blvd. 2 years. For many years she had patiently suffered from various bodily afflictions until it was practically impo
ible for her to live a pain-free, normal life. Yet, in the midst of her numerous ailments, she maintained a vital interest in the cause of Christ, a forthright stand for the truth, and asense of humor that was always pungent and refreshing. Her bright outlook on life in the midst ofalmost unbearable suffering was a constant source of amazement to those who knew her.
She will be sorely missed by her husband, Grover;her children, Phillip and Sharon, and a multitudof admiring friends. To each of these we extend our warmest condolences, and for them are offered our most fervent prayers.
So far as humans are able to know, we believethe following scriptures are appropriate:
"Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they mayrest from their labors; for their works follow withthem" (Rev. 14:13).
"Precious in the sight of Jehovah is the death of his saints" (Psalms 116:15).
"For we know that if the earthly house of ourtabernacle be di
olved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, in thheavens" (II Cor. 5:1).
— JamesP. Needham in The Weekly Reminder
* * * (The editors and writers for Searching The Scrip
tures extend their deepest sympathy to brother
Grover Stevens and the children in their great lo
.
May God give them strength in this time of their
sorrow.)
STATEMENT FROM BROTHER WALTER MILTON
Brother Walter M ilton former minister of the Poinsette Drive church of Christ, would like for the church here at Merritt Island to know that he stands in opposition to the Poinsette Drive church of Christ in Cocoa respecting their eldership andgeneral laxity in conduct, and also respecting present i
ues which are dividing brethren.
He wishes it known that he repudiates all this and wishes to stand identified with the congregation here at Merritt Island and to be used, to further the cause of Chr ist.
Read to the Merritt Island congregation on December 6, 1964, at the morning worship hour bLee Gunter, the evangelist for the Merritt Island church of Christ.
Lee Gunter, Merritt Island, Fla.
Glenn L. Shaver, Oak Lawn, Ill. — I was at West Frankfort, Ill. in a gospel meeting, October 26November 4. I preached in a meeting here at SouthLaramie church in Oak Lawn, Ill., November 15-22. Nine were baptized, four were restored, and oneidentified with this congregation. The attendancewas good with visitors from various places eachnight. We believe that the saints were edified andGod glorified.
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS CHURCH OF CHRIST Dave Bradford Westvue Messenger, Murfreesboro, Tenn.
October 1, 1964, 7:30 p.m. marked the beginningworship service of the University Heights church of Christ in Murfreesboro (Tenn.). Since that timeprogress has been made which would be of general interest among brethren. Especially, would a report of progress be of interest to members at Westvuebecause of the part the Westvue church had in thebeginning of the church at University Heights, as well as the present preaching arrangements whichcall for Dave' Bradford, the preacher at Westvue, to preach one Sunday a month at the UniversityHeights church.
Of those now forming the University Heights church, twenty-two of these were formerly members at Westvue. T heir leaving was the culmination ofplans on the part of the elders at Westvue, together with the efforts of other Christians, to begin acongregation in the area of Middle Tennessee State College (which is soon to be called Middle Tennessee State University). The peaceful and good spirited separation was effected by the desire to begin another church in that part of Murfreesboro. The location is 1412 E ast Main Street which is just east of the main entrance of the State College. Several college students now worship regularly with this church.
David Arnold, Dave Bradford, Harris Dark, and Paul Hutcheson have been asked to preach one Sunday each month until arrangements are completed for one to work regularly with them as an evangelist. These, together with Jack Bailey, Jack Kelton,Earl Pribble, and Howard See have done the preaching so far.
Max Ogden, Horse Cave, Ky. — The Bear Wallow church, near Glasgow, Ky., conducted a week's meeting November 16-22; with Arthur Ogden of Somerset, Ky., doing the preaching. One was baptized. MY EXPERIENCEThe year of 1964 has been one of experience to
me. I was called into a meeting where brethren "were having a discu
ion over present day i
ues where the church was divided. Four brethren were on the side with the issues and one was standingfor the truth. I was called in by the one who was alone, as a witness to the occasion.
When the four arrived a preacher was amongthem. About the first question asked me by thepreacher was: "Is the church where you preach 'ANTI'?" I asked what he meant by 'ANTT to which he replied, "Do you support Herald of Truth, anOrphan Homes?" I replied, "We have never supported The Herald Of Truth and do not contribute of the treasury to Orphanages." His next question was: "I want to know where you stand?" I replied,"I stand on the Book." I was asked for the meaningof the statement, to which I replied, "If you cafind one place in the Testament where any congregation ever sent a donation to any Orphanage or organization like Herald of Truth, then I am in favor of it." To which he replied, "T hat disqualifies yofrom being in this meeting." He informed my goobrother that unless I left the meeting he would nodiscuss the purpose of the meeting; so I had toleave.
I had a letter from a congregation requestingthat I be with them in a meeting in 1965. The letter was signed by the preacher and one elder. I answered the letter stating that I could be with them at the time they suggested. I stated in my letter that his congr egation was awar e of the fact that I preached only what I could read in the Bible, anddid not endorse any other practice. A few days later I was called by one of the elders asking that I forget about the meeting. I asked the reason why. He said that he would tell me when he saw me. I had preached much for this church. He did not see fit to tell me when he saw me.
L. L. Applegate, Cottondale, Fla. — A man 76 years of age was restored today, Lord's day, December 20. He was baptized six years ago at Nebraska Avenue in Tampa, Fla., but moved away and was overcome by the Jehovah Witnesses. He was with them two years propagating their error. When I showed him how erroneous they were and that theywould not meet me in debate, he came today truly repenting and asking the prayers of the church for him as he quoted James 5:16 for same. This makesthree baptisms and one restoration in Vernon, Fla.To God be the praise through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
D. E. Lively, Ruskin, Fla. — Foy W. Layton of Madisonville, Texas will be in a gospel meeting iRuskin, January 31 to February 14, 1965. This is an effort to start a new congregation, faithful tthe Book, in Ruskin, Flor ida. T he meeting will bein a rented building across from the Post Office inRuskin. We would be interested in contacting some self-supported preacher to move to this area andhelp in this new work. If any preacher is interested in this effort, please contact: D. E. Lively, Box 657Ruskin, Florida.
Daniel L. Tam, Punta Gorda, Fla. — The Punta
Gorda church of Christ concluded a very successful
gospel meeting, November 18. Our meeting lasted
10 days, with brother J. T. Smith of Wauchula, Florida doing the preaching each evening. We haone baptism and one person restored. We also hadvisitors from outside the body each evening of our meeting. We believe that many doors have beenopened for the work of the Lord through this series of efforts.
Dana Halstead, San Antonio, Texas — Our work is going along very good. Attendance up, baptism, restorations, and placing membership total of 2in four and one half months labor here. Carl Vernon did a good job here. He left the work in good shape.
Don Brown, Gardena, Calif. — The brethren here in Gardena are happy to report that the month ofNovember was one of special rejoicing here. Oneyoung lady was baptized and three other precious souls were restored to their first love.
Wiley Adams, Newport, N.C. — During October I held meetings at Paisley, Pa. and Moundsville, W. Va.Andy de Klerk held a fine meeting here November 8-15. One was baptized during the meeting and onetwo days later. Also recently three were restored here.
Wallace H. Little, Mesa, Ariz. — The South Mesa church of Christ, now worshipping at 146 East Glade Avenue, Mesa, Arizona, will hold a gospel meeting during the period February 12 through 211965, God willing. Brother Hubert Moss of Baytown,Texas will do the preaching. The brethren here exist as a local church because others, more numerous, saw fit to work from God's silence, rather than his word. This has brought us some growth, and some trouble. Our first gospel meeting in March, 1964showed the visible results of four baptisms and two restorations. Since that time, there has been one baptism and six restorations. However, seven havemoved to other locations, two have returned to thechurch where they worshipped prior to the existence of the South Mesa church, and two have departed our midst over doctrinal differences. The net, however, is that we are-larger, numerically, then wewere originally, and certainly much stronger spiritually. We need this gospel meeting to encourage us to grow, and to make us more aware of the concern we should have for a world lost in sin. We solicit your prayers and cooperation in this. If yoknow of any Christians in the Mesa, Arizona area, particularly those who are not attending worship,we would be very grateful if you would send the names and addresses to me at the address givenabove. A conscientious attempt will be made to contact all names provided.
Kermit Puckett, Clintwood, Va. — We have just finished a fine gospel meeting here at Clintwoodwith brother Martin Lemon of Franklin, Tennessee doing the preaching. This was made possible by thgood brethren of West End church. The preacher for Clintwood church is brother Leonard Salyerswho is partly supported by Eastland congregation in Nashville, Tennessee. The work goes well here and for this we ar e thankful to God.
Vernon R. Butler, Orange Park, Fla. — DuringNovember we had three restored to duty in the vineyard of the Lord. This is a small congregation but we have taken a definite stand against theerrors of the "Liberal" movement. We have a gospel meeting scheduled with brother Billy Murrell of Indianapolis, Ind., January 18-24, 1965. If you are traveling in this area, worship with us.
Bobby Witherington, Owensboro, Ky. — On September 27, 1964, the Southside church of Christ here in Owensboro met for the first time in their new meeting house, located at 2920 New Hartford Road. From September 28-October 7, 1964, we were engaged in a gospel meeting with brother James Needham doing the preaching. It was a good meeting accompanied by one baptism and seven restorations.
O. L. Mouser, Tullahoma, Tenn. — A new congregation in Tullahoma, Tennessee is in need of a full time preacher. There are 15 members with an average attendance of 28. Partial support has been promised. The work will be hard due to strong opposition from liberal brethren. If interested contact,
O. L. Mouser, Box 360, Rt. #2, Tullahoma,Tennessee 37388 or call 455-9425, Area Code 615.
Connie W. Adams, Orlando, Florida — I will spendthe month of February in gospel meetings in Norway. We had a part in the beginning of the work in that country in 1957 and thus have a close interest in it. I will conduct meetings at Lillehammer in eastern Norway where James C. Jones is laboring,in Stavanger where Bill Pierce preaches, and iBergen where we labored from 1957 to 1959, anwhere Bob Tuten now preaches. In addition to these meetings, the br ethren are arranging for me topreach several nights in Haugesund and Aalesund,both on the west coast of Norway. T hough it has been five years since we were there, I will still beable to preach in the Norwegian language. The goochurch here at Pine Hills will continue my salaryduring that time and my travel expenses will beprovided by Par Avenue in Or lando and by thchurch at Merritt Island. No sponsoring church isinvolved, just simple New Testament cooperation. We covet the prayers of all the saints in the interest of this work and for safety of travel together withsafety and protection for my family which willremain here during that time. The work at PineHills continues to be pleasant and to show progress. Recently we baptized two former Methodists and restored two.
Of all areas of supposed organic evolution, thone that has created the greatest interest and theleast data is probably that which concerns the evolution of man. In general, most evolutionists contend that man and the lower primates arose from a common ancestor. This contention makes it somewhat easier to emphasize likeness and disregard the differences in these supposed related forms. One ofthe major problems is the small number of fossils of these so-called pre-human forms. These that have been discovered are often only a few bones or bone fragments from which men have "built" the forms which they present as the ancestors of man. Onemethod which is used to show the evolutionary history by these fo
il finds is to measure and compare brain size and cranial capacity. This does not necessarily give an accurate measure of likeness or prove relationship. Even today there is a wide variety ohead and brain sizes than his father but this does not mean he is less intelligent. Brain size as compared to body weight is said to be a good indication of intelligence. This method of course cannot be used with fossil and is not quite as good as claimed even on living specimens. For example, itis said that a South American squirrel monkey has a brain weight of one seventeenth of its total bodweight while man has a brain weight of about onthirty-fifth of his total body weight. By using this method you can easily see that the squirrel monkeyis quite a bit more highly developed and intelligentthan man. As is the case so many times, what proves enough often proves too much.
WORDS THAT DIVIDE US: Concluded
"BELIEVE" Adherents of the "faith only" doctrine have ar
rived at that conclusion largely as a result of a
misunderstanding of the Bible meaning of the word"believe."
Our English verb "believe" is commonly thtranslation of the Greek verb pisteuo. This Greek verb is used in different senses in different contexts. For instance, the term sometimes means only, ithe absolute sense, the acceptance of the fact ofsomething. It is used in this sense in James 2:19b. Cf. the lexicon of Arndt and Gingrich, p. 666. As Thayer puts it, pisteuo sometimes means only "mere acknowledgment of God's existence," Lexicon, p. 512.In this sense, even the demons believe. And yet, this
is precisely the meaning that "faith only" advocates
must attach to the word in the plan of salvation
that they propose. Obviously the faith that saves
is not the faith of James 2:19b.
When the term "believe" is used of the faith b
which one embraces Jesus it means, according t
Thayer, "a conviction, full of joyful trust, that Jesus
is the Messiah — the divinely appointed author of
eternal salvation in the kingdom of God, conjoined
with obedience to Christ," "Lexicon, p. 511. In this
sense, "believe" and related words are used in in
numerable passages in the New Testament, John
3:16; Rom. 5:1, etc. In all the choice "faith only"
passages, faith is used in this broad sense of obedi
ent trust.
"WORKS"
It is commonly asserted by some that salvation does not involve works of any sort. This is an erroneous position that results from failing to observe the different meanings of the term "works" in different contexts.
The New Testament certainly does teach that we are not saved by works. This is obviously the meaning of such passages as Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16, etc.In these passages, however, the term "works" refers primarily to the works of the Law of Moses. It is fallacious to contend that these passages condemn all works.
It is also true that any work of human merit is disclaimed as a means of salvation. This is clearlythe teaching of such passages as Eph. 2:8, 9; andTit. 3:15. But, again, we cannot logically concludfrom this that all works of all descriptions are condemned.
The New Testament positively endorses a certainclass of works. These are the works of God: that is, the responsibilities that God places upon main the matter of human redemption. These requirements do not give ground for boasting; they do notoriginate in man's own mind. According to John 6:28, 29, the works of God include faith. Surely,then, it is apparent that not all works are excludedfrom our salvation. Further, it is stated in Acts 10:34, 35; and James 2:24 that our redemption is predicated upon a certain class of works.
THE 1964 GRIDER-TOTTY DEBATE
J. R. Snell, L aur el, Miss. E arly in 1963 brother A. C. Gr ider and brother
W. L. Totty met in a discu
ion of current i
ues in Meridian, Mi
. In the course of that discu
ion brother T otty challenged brother Grider to signother propositions for debate and agreed if he signedthe discu
ion would be held at the Garfield Heights building in Indianapolis, Ind. In the face of the prejudicial wording of the proposition, submitted by brother Totty, perhaps no one was more surprised at the signing than was Totty. Apprehensiveness was generally prevalent, even among those in agreement with Grider's position. Several feared irreparable harm to the cause of truth. Some evenwent so far as to impugn motives by suggesting pride and vain glory motivated the signing. Others charged poor judgment in his signing. However, areview of the highlights should establish beyond theshadow of a doubt that the situation was well handled even in the face of several admitted handicaps. It is the judgment of this writer that the truth was competently presented and that no adverse criticism of brother Grider is justified, evewith respect to this proposition and its defense.
Two nights, December 3rd and 4th, were devoted to the discu
ion. Brother W. L. Totty was in theaffirmative of the following proposition the first night, "The Bible teaches that it is in harmony withthe Will of God to take money from the church treasury to supply the need of destitute children." Brother A. C. Grider was in the negative. E ach speaker had three 20 minute speeches.
(Continued Next Month)
GARNER-GRIDER DEBATE
Albert Garner, Missionary Baptist, and A. C.Grider, will discuss four propositions of difference between them on January 18, 19, 21, 22,1965. The discussion will be in the city auditorium in W auchula, Florida located on Main Street. The propositions to be discussed will be:
"The Scriptures teach that water baptism isessential to the salvation of the alien sinner."
— A. C. Grider will affirm and Albert Garner will deny.
"The Scriptures teach that the alien sinneris saved at the point of faith in Christ beforeand without water baptism."— Albert Garner will affirm and A. C. Grider will deny.
"The Scriptures teach that a child of Godcannot so sin as finally to be lost in hell." — Albert Garner will affirm and A. C. Grider will deny.
"The Scriptures teach that a child of Godmay so sin as to be finally lost in hell." — A. C. Grider will affirm and Albert Garner will deny.
Remember the dates: January 18, 19, 21,22, 1965. This will be Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday of the third week in January.
TAPES TO BE AVAILABLE
According to agreements in this debate onlytwo recorders from each side will be permittedto make recordings of the debate. PhillipsPublications has obtained these rights and copies of the debate will be made available to all who want them. Professional equipment will be used and complete copies of each night'sdiscussion will be on one reel. New 1 1/2 mil"Mylar" tape will be used and the discussionwill be clear and can be played on any taperecorder. If interested, place your order earlyand you will receive your set a day or two afterthe debate. Orders will be filled as they arereceived. The price will be $3.00 per tape. Theentire debate will be $12.00.
Order from PHILLIPS PUBLICATIONS P. O. Box 17244 — Tampa, Florida 33612
MONTHLY PLAN
36 SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR $5 PER MONTH Send 36 subscriptions to friends, members ofyour congregation, relatives or those you wantto help teach the truth. You may have a bundle of 36 sent to you to distribute as you please.Many congregations are using this plan todistribute to those who want it. Send us yourlist today.
36 for only $5 per month
| "Relativism and Absolutism"...............................................................Harris Dark |
| "Moral Revolution in America" ...................................................... Claude Worley |
| Tuesday, January 26 |
| "Conscience Struggle of the Organization Man" ........................... Ronald Mosby |
| "Works of the Flesh" ............................................................................ Art Ogden |
| "Moral Implications in the Fall of Nations"......................................Homer Hailey |
| "Love not the Wor ld" .......................................................................... Foy Vinson |
| "Immoral Dispositions".....................................................................Stanley Lovett |
| "Base Causes of Divorce" .......................................................... Harry Pickup, Jr. |
| "Moral Responsibility of Communication Media" ....................................Bill Fling |
| Wednesday, January 27 |
| "Let it be Corban" ............................................................................ Howard See |
| "Morality and Spiritual Mindedness" .................................................... Jim Rury |
| "Moral Implications of Capital Punishment" ................................ C. D. Hamilton |
| "Moral Implications of Gambling" .........................................................Gene Frost |
| "Bribery and Perversion of Justice" ................................................... Ray Ferris |
| "Moral Implications of America's Public Health Enemy #4" .......... James R. Cope |
| Thursday, January 28 |
| "Fruit of the Spirit" ..................................................................... Steve Hudgins |
| "Morality and Judgment to Come".......................................................David Tant |
| "Moral Implications of Organized Benevolence"............................... Melvin Curry |
| "Why Florida College?" ..................................................................... A. C. Grider |
| Alumni |
| Alumni |
| "T echnique of the Big L ie" ........................................................ Robert Jackson |
| College Program |
Luncheon for visiting ladies, Noon, Thursday, sponsored by college girls. Luncheon for visiting men, Noon, Thursday, sponsored by college boys — Roy E. Cogdill, Guest Speaker.