"God is dead" is the latest craze to which we are being subjected in man's head-long plunge into complete infidelity. There is a movement on at presentamong a number of students at Wesleyan College(Methodist affiliate) in North Carolina, with "Godis dead" as their principle tenet.

There are at least two ways to view this statement. (1) Consider the question as to whether Godis actually living. (2) Consider the question as towhether God is dead (separated) because of man'ssin.

The statement itself and the sentiment attached to it by those who advocate the "God is dead" idea,shows that they mean that God is no longer existent.Implied in the statement also is the thought thatthey at one time recognized that God lived. It wouldbe impossible for one who never lived to die.

The Bible abounds in evidence that God lives — that He is the author or giver of eternal life to others. God must be eternal if He is to give untoothers eternal life; otherwise, the thing given wouldbe greater than the giver. "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). God is referredto as the eternal God in Deut. 33:27. How could He be dead if He is eternal? In Titus 1:2, the apostlePaul said that God promised eternal life. How could He make such a promise unless He is eternal? In Isaiah 57:15, God is said to be "The high and loftyOne that inhabiteth eternity." How is this possibleif He is dead? In Isaiah 9:6, God is said to be "Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Scores of passages like this could be presented from the word of God to prove that God lives and shall ever live.

However, there is a sense in which God is dead.He is dead as far as the wicked are concerned. Because of their sins, they are separated from God(Isaiah 59:1-2). To those who know not God Heis dead.

Basically, the trouble is not with the studentswho are rallying to the theme "God is dead." Thebasic problem lies in the fact that those studentshaven't been taught the word .of God. How can those "Bishops" at Wesleyan College hope to control theactions of such young people, and cause them to believe in God when they themselves deny God's wordon almost every hand? The Bible plainly teachesthat justification does not come as a result of faithonly. Yet, a prime doctrine of the Methodist Churchis the justification of the alien sinner by faith only!(Methodist Discipline Book, Page 27) The "Bishops"efforts to try to halt such a step toward a completedenial of God's word on the part of the students, nodoubt will be futile. They have sat so long at thefeet of those men who were supposed to be teachingGod's word but all the time denying it, till theirwords now will sound like vain jangling. Too longhave they denied God's plain truth.

One cannot successfully defend God's deity, Hisomnipotence, His omnipresence, and His omnisciencewhile at the same time failing to recognize a responsibility to do what His word enjoins. The Bible cannot be defended in part. It must be accepted in thewhole. No infidel who only believes the Bible in spotscan successfully defend it. Complete infidels aremade by those who partially believe the Bible. If onedoes not intend to accept and carry out the responsibility bound on him by the Bible, he will see infidelsas the fruit of his labors, if he attempts to bind part of the Bible and rejects the other part. Unless ALL THE BIBLE is believed, unbelief is the result.

So we aren't surprised (saddened, but not surprised) to hear modern students cry out that "Godis dead." It is just a natural result of that whichthey have been taught. It is also in keeping with the trend of the times.

Evolutionary theories are being taught in manyplaces, not as theories, but as facts. Yet, not onesingle shred of evidence is being presented as proofof the veracity of the theories. It is amazing howeasy it is for some to change theory to fact. But thisfits in with the philosophy of the day. But evolutionary theories eliminate God from the picture entirely,and reduce men to mere animals. When you reducemen to animals, then they become like all the otheranimals. An animal can kill another animal and it doesn't bother him. Do you suppose this is why thereis such a spirit of crime and murder in the worldtoday?

So, actually, this idea of "God is dead" has beenprevalent with the evolutionist all along. The onlydifference is, to the evolutionist, God just neverexisted.

With this latest craze, we are again reminded just

how far our nation has departed from God. May He

have mercy.

of the

LECTURE PROGRAM OF FLORIDA COLLEGE

January 24-27, 1966

SPECIAL ON ONE TAPE

Of special interest and importance — three lectures on Evolution, very ably delivered by Paul Foutz. Everyone should hear these lectures on this vital subject.

Only $3.00

An outstanding lecture on "Perversion of Justice" byRoy Cogdill. Due to the length and wealth of thislecture both sides of the tape were required to recordit. A vital subject well delivered.

Only $3.00

ANY TWO LECTURES ON ONE TAPEMake Your Choice

The World in Revolt— An Overview............. Claude WorleyThe Revolt Against the Bible ............................. Yater TantProper Use of Science ....................................... Art Dowell"They Made Lies Their Refuge" ..................... Jimmy TutenThe New Morality .......................................... Barney KeithLicense, Responsibility and Intelligence

Freedom .............................................. C. D. Hamilton

Revolt Against Doctrine as Basis of

Fellowship .............................................. Bryan VinsonRevolt Against Morality— Love Without Law .. Frank PuckettThe Christian in the Midst of Revolt................. Lloyd MoyerStanding on the Other Side .................... Choice BryantIndividual Conscience and Group Action ........ Sewell HallSpiritual Health and Recreation ...................... Cecil WillisRevolt Against Governmental Authority ........ Ferrell JenkinsII Tim. 2:2 "Commit Thou" ................................ H. S. Owen"Rather Reprove" ............................................ Charles HoltMaking God in Man's Image ..................... James P. Miller

Recorded on new strong 1 1/2 mil. Mylar tape ofgood quality. This is new weather resistant tape, recorded on both sides at 3 3/4 speed and can beplayed on any recorder using a 7" reel.

Each tape (two speeches) — $3.00

Entire Program (10 tapes) — $27.00

Order from:

PHILLIPS PUBLICATIONS

P. O. Box 17244Tampa, Florida 33612

Have you renewed your subscription?

If not, do it today!

CAUSING DIVISIONS

The Holy Spirit by Paul said: "Now I beseech you,brethren, mark them which cause divisions andoffenses contrary to the doctrine which ye havelearned; and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17). The church of our Lord has always been plagued by divisionsover one thing or another. There seems to be a neverending stream of innovations that cause stumbling"contrary to the doctrine", and a continual need forspeaking forth the power of God — the gospel — both to the saint and sinner.

I came across an article from the pen of brother

M. C. Kerfees in the Gospel Advocate, February 17,1916, page 163 — fifty years ago, dealing with thisvery matter. I think it would be well to reprint itjust here:

CAUSING DIVISIONS AND OCCASIONS OF STUMBLING

BY M. C. K.

Division among the followers of Christ comes fromtwo separate and distinct sources. First, it comesfrom teaching and urging things which he doesnot require. Now, guilt is always involved in bothcases; but in the former it attaches to those whorefuse to accept the things taught and urged, whichin the latter it attaches to those who do the teachingand urging.

Our Lord himself declares that he came to make division in the former of these ways. We give the fact in his own bold and solemn language: "Thinknot that I am come to send peace on earth: I camenot to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set aman at variance against his father, and the daughteragainst her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matt. 10:34-36.) "Think ye that 1 am come to give peace in the earth? I tell you,Nay; but rather division: for there shall be fromhenceforth five in one house divided, three againsttwo, and two against three. They shall be divided,father against son, and son against father; motheragainst daughter, and daughter against her mother;mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, anddaughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." (Luke12:51-53.)

Thus he distinctly declares that he came to senda sword and division; to array the members of thesame family against one another, and to create division among them in spite of the tenderest of allearthly relationships. But, in the light of the context, and, for that matter, in the light of all the word ofGod, it can plainly be seen that division, in all suchcases, is brought about not by the reckless and wanton spirit which presses its opinions or anythingelse which is not required of men by the Lord, but by solemnly presenting what is thus required and by its acceptance on the part of some and itsrejection on the part of others. Division in suchcases must come, but the guilt which it involvesalways attaches to those who refuse to accept thethings required.

Now, it is a lamentable fact that in all ages of thechurch there have been those who disturbed its peace and harmony by causing division in the secondof the ways here named. Strange indeed must be theinfatuation which seizes one who will thus deliberately create division among the followers of Christ.In one of the many private letters received onthe current baleful and regrettable controversy, athoughtful brother says:

"How any lover of the peace and unity among thebrethren can ever bring himself to see that he oughtaffirmatively to urge any idea or notion to the disturbance of the peace of the church, except thosethings that are vital to the salvation of the people,is more than I have ever been able to understand. Brother Boll himself admits that his notions, whatever they are, are not at all vital to the salvation ofpeople. This it seems to me would have held him backfrom the exploitation of his notions. But there is apeculiarity about the course of those who becomeimbued with some new idea. It overwhelms the individual till it becomes, in his mind, the beginning andend of all else."

No "lover of peace and unity among the brethren"will ever do such a thing unless, as just stated, heis seized by some strange infatuation; but instead of this being an extenuation, it is an aggravationof the offense. It is deplorable, too, that when menbecome thus dominated by the spirit of strife thatis willing to rend the body of Christ, they lose allsense of shame over the outrageous spectacle whichthey present to the world. In the Literary Digest,February 5, 1916, we find the following report ofsuch a scene:

"It a little town on the Atlantic Coast a church divided, a writer in the Christian Work (New York)tells us, "the outgoing element erecting their building just across the alley, which the town has namedHell's Alley," while the two factions, with no senseof shame, attend their respective churches, conducting prayers and songs and preaching and worship.

Surely such men in such a situation, if they willpause and seriously reflect for a moment, do not expect their "prayers and songs and preaching andworship" to be well pleasing to God or to be heardby him. These "Hell's Alleys or separation," saysthe Literary Digest, are in "our various denominations," and the unholy strife goes on. As if in defianceof the Most High himself, men continue to presstheir opinions and speculations and the revoltingspectacle of strife and division continues. The onlyeffective remedy for it is the divine remedy given by Paul to the church in Rome: "Now I beseech you,brethren, mark them that are causing the divisionsand occasions of stumbling contrary to the doctrinewhich ye learned, and turn away from them." (Rom.16:17.)

When the bishops of the churches throughout the country and the churches under their leadershipshall adopt this remedy, then, and only then, will themouth of such disturbers of Zion be stopped. Thishigh-handed sin of disturbing the peace of God'speople has the distinction of being classed with theseven things hated by Jehovah: "There are sixthings which Jehovah hateth; yea, seven thingswhich are an abomination unto him: haughty eyes,a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood;a heart that deviseth wicked purposes, feet that areswift in running to mischief, a false witness thatuttereth lies, and he that soweth discord amongbrethren." (Prov. 6:16-19.)

Surely all who retain and regard for the cause ofGod will pause and reflect.

TAPES OF THE

MILLER-WALLACE DEBATE

Clear and complete tapes will be available of the Miller-Wallace Debate, Tampa, Florida, August, 1965, recorded at 3 3/4 speed. These tapes can be played on any tape recorder. One tape for each night. Proposition first two nights:

"It is in harmony with the Scriptures forchurches of Christ to build and maintain benevolent organizations for the care of the needy, suchas Boles Home, Tipton Home, Tennessee OrphanHome, Childhaven, and other Orphan Homes andHomes for the Aged that are among us." G. K. Wallace affirms — James P. Miller denies Proposition last two nights:

"Such an arrangement and cooperative efforton the part of churches of Christ for the preaching of the gospel as the 'Herald of Truth' is without scriptural authority."

James P. Miller affirms — G. K. Wallace denies All Four Nights — $12.00 Any One Night

— 3.00order from

PHILLIPS PUBLICATIONS

P. O. Box 17244 Tampa, Florida 33612

THE DIVINE CHURCH VS HUMAN ORGANIZATIONS

The church of Jesus Christ was established on the day of Pentecost a perfect institution, Acts 2. It wasdesigned by the very mind of God to do all that heintended for it to do, both in work and worship. Itexisted without the additions of man-made organizations for centuries. It needed no improvement fromman for it was the handiwork of God.

The problem of institutionalism first appeared forthe Lord's people in the form of the missionary society. The first meeting was called in the city of Cincinnati in the year of 1849. This human organization was the product of man and an addition to the perfect church of Christ. It was established to preachthe gospel, a work God had given the church (I Tim.3:15). Brethren in western Kentucky and westTennessee rejected this departure from the perfectchurch of the Lord.

The first human institution to assume a work in relieving the needy appeared just over fifty yearsago in 1908. In Acts 6 when the widows were to beprovided for, the apostles told the church to seekout seven men and they would appoint them to thiswork (Acts 6:3). The church is to relieve those whoare widows indeed (I Tim. 5:16).

From this beginning just over fifty years ago,human institution after human institution has sprung up all to be supported by the blood-brought church and all without one verse of authority in theword of God.

Today churches are told that they can support allof these man-made organizations with the Lord'smoney. The colleges seek the funds of the churchesto support all of their activities. This includes basketballs and basketball uniforms, band instruments,and buildings of stone. Those who ask for the authority for taking the money given into the treasuryand turning it over for such endeavors are told thatno Bible authority is needed. Hospitals, youth camps, orphan homes, homes for the aged and other humanenterprises come in the same class.

If this practice continues it can only mean thatGod's people no longer speak where the Bible speaksand they are no longer silent where the Bible issilent. Chapter and verse for what they teach andpractice is a thing of the past and they have departedfrom the doctrine of Christ (II John 9,1 Cor. 4:6).

The mission of the church is to preach the gospeland save lost souls. The Lord did not die for basketballs and basketball teams. Congregations are indanger of losing their identity as the church of theNew Testament. Those who cry out against thesedepartures seek to save the blood-bought church for

which our Savior died. You owe it to your soul and to the purity of the

church you attend to investigate these matters that

threaten to destroy the church of the New Testa

ment.

"You are doing a great work teaching the word ofGod through Searching The Scriptures." — Sam W. Garrison, Nashville, Tenn.

"Enjoy reading the fine pieces by loyal brethren. I am thankful for so many faithful brethren who takeGod's word for full authority." — R. C. Swindell,Nashville, Tenn.

"We enjoy very much our Searching The Scriptures. All articles have been very timely as to the problems we have today." — John F. Burkhart, Barstow, Calif.

"Enclosed is my check for the renewal of my subscription to your good paper. Keep up the good work."

— Jesse Johnson, Louisville, Ky.

"We love your paper so much we wish everybodycould read it... Hope you can help us help others likebrother Roy Crocker helped us." — Margaret andNoble Foss, Pell City, Ala.

"I enjoy the paper very much and feel that anyonewould profit by reading it. I certainly don't want tomiss a copy." — Mrs. C. H. Carter, Trenton, Tenn.

"Please keep up the good work. This is the verybest paper I have ever read. — Rudolph Jenkins,Bowling Green, Ky.

"The increase of Searching The Scriptures is a justone. It is worth $3.00 a year and I enjoy it very much.Keep up the good work." — Frank Chumley, Columbia, Tenn.

"Searching The Scriptures gets better all the time.You and brother Miller are to be commended; you aredoing a wonderful work." — D. W. H. Shelton,Tampa, Fla.

"I enjoy it very much. You have some very goodlessons in it." — Randall Elrod, Colorado City, Texas.

"I continue to enjoy very much the paper . .. MaySearching The Scriptures continue to grow in theyears ahead." — Jesse M. Kelly, Altus, Okla.

"I was given a paper, Searching The Scriptures, byone of our preaching brethren, J. C. Roady. I like itvery much." — Lyle A. Berry, Olney, Ill.

"Have enjoyed the paper very much." — L. S. Barry, Del Rio, Texas.

"Please extend my subscription for another year. I am a 'charter' subscriber and continue to appreciatethe paper and the good work it is doing." — R. L. Morrison, El Centro, Calif.

"I enjoy reading the paper so much and wish it was possible that you and brother Jim could make it aweekly instead of a monthly." — W. L. Foshee, Bowling Green, Ky.

"Thanks so much for your efforts in putting out a good paper for the purpose of teaching truth." — Billy Jackson, Buchanan, Texas.

"Here is my subscription for that wonderfulSearching The Scriptures ... . May the Lord continue to be with you in this wonderful work." — Maude Fielding, Plant City, Fla.

"I enjoy Searching The Scriptures very much. Prayfor us in our effort to teach the truth in this area."

— Mrs. Mary Harris, Arlington, Va."My wife and I enjoy the paper very much. Keepup the good work." — C. N. Harrell, Miami, Fla."I want to continue receiving your good paper." —

Donald R. Givens, Novato, Calif."We enjoy Searching The Scriptures very much."

— Horace Neely, Elizabeth City, N.C.

"We enjoy reading your paper and discussing theteaching it contains. Please extend our subscription for another year." — Delmar P. Coffield, Richmond, Va.

"Please send me your fine paper." — Edgar C.Walker, Shepherdsville, Ky.

"My wife and I appreciate the good work that youand brother Miller are doing with this paper andsincerely hope that you may continue to keep up thegood work." — G. H. Wilson, Conway, Ark.

"I enjoy your publication very much. I feel it canbut do good." — Lloyd Knight, Livingston, Tenn."Searching The Scriptures is one of the best papersI receive. It must continue in its promotion of truth."

— Horace E. Huggins.

"I enjoy very much reading and studying the many fine articles in your publication each month." — Thomas L. Smitherman, Houston, Texas.

"I am just past 89 years and I hope I will live to read your paper two more years at least. I think yourpaper is among the best in the brotherhood and youand brother Miller are to be complimented for yourefforts to present the truth to the readers of yourfine paper." — D. B. Whittle, Palmetto, Fla.

"I enjoy reading your paper and look forward toreceiving it each month." — W. G. Britt, Indianapolis, Ind.

"I do enjoy the publication very much. It is a sourceof much very good reading." — Norman W. Fisk,Merced, Calif.

"I've run over my time a little, but I don't want to miss Searching The Scriptures." — Mrs. RogersCope, Sparta, Fla.

"Enjoy the paper very much. Keep up the goodwork." — Flavil Wallace, Pontiac, Mich."Searching The Scriptures is a paper full of goodarticles." — R. R. Givens, Susanville, Calif.

"An excellent publication for truth — forever publish it regardless of fame or favor." — E. Max Gregory, Orlando, Fla.

"We enjoy reading the paper very much. I think itis a wonderful paper." — Alberta Cameron, St.Petersburg, Fla.

"Was so happy to read the article by James Vandermolen ... Wish the paper was weekly." — L. L. Applegate, Vernon, Fla.

"I do enjoy Searching The Scriptures so very much.Don't want to miss even one copy." — Mrs. Rose Jonas, Palmetto, Fla.

"You both are doing a fine work." — Opal Smith,Tampa, Fla.

"I have enjoyed Searching The Scriptures for overtwo years and see from some of the articles in thepaper itself that much good is being done and hopeand pray for the best of everything for you both inpreaching and writing." — Floyd Smith, Shepherds

"I get several papers but none are better thanSearching The Scriptures. I wish it came more often."

— J. G. Jones, Crestview, Fla.

"Thank you for your wonderful lesson 'Importance of Good Reading Material,' published in the November, 1965 issue of Searching The Scriptures.The church at Forest Hill, 1208 West 41st Street,Richmond, Va., is now reading and studying God'sword more than ever in the past, we believe. Thetruth always stands out more beautifully when compared to error. How could we ever see the beauty of the rainbow without the clouds in the background?We have taken particular notice to Hosea's statement— My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. We have evidence that we have been strengthened and have made steady growth, spiritually,numerically and financially.

"I do not think I ever knew about the publicationof Searching The Scriptures until brother James P.Miller came here to help in a meeting about two orthree years ago" — W. A. Lyell, Richmond, Va.

"I have never written to tell you how much I appreciate Searching The Scriptures. I think it is oneof the finest papers I have ever read. I especially likethe fine articles by you and brother Miller, and theAnswers For Our Hope by Marshall Patton. I knowthat your efforts will be repaid a thousand-fold. Keep up the good work." — John D. Barnes, Bessemer, Ala.

"I would like to commend you and brother Millerfor the fine work you are doing with your paper,Searching The Scriptures." — John T. Hendrix, Fullerton, Calif.

"I continue to enjoy and profit from readingSearching The Scriptures, and appreciate the goodwork you are doing in publishing the paper." — Eugene Crawley, Russellville, Ala.

W. W. OTEY, CONTENDER FOR THE FAITH

A history of controversies in the church of Christ from 1860-1960

by Cecil Willis

A biography of one of the greatest gospel preachers of this century — William Wesley Otey. A well documented book with some of the most pertinent and important information bearing on the present issue in the church today and its development through the years.

425 pages $4.00

Order From:

PHILLIPS PUBLICATIONS

P. O. Box 17244 Tampa, Florida 33612

FOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS. FOR $7.50

In view of several questions submitted to me in person of late involving the same subject matter, Isubmit the following questions and answer:

QUESTION — Do the "love feasts" (II Pet. 2:13;Jude 12) justify fellowship halls and social mealsprovided by some churches today? Does I Cor.11:17-22 relate to a perversion of these "love feasts"?Does Paul give or imply endorsement of such void ofits abuses?

ANSWER — One popular concept of I Cor.11:17-22 can perhaps best be stated in the words ofthe following quote:"They had introduced what was called a love-feast, in which the church met previous to observing thecommunion to partake of a common meal. Thismeal was furnished by provisions brought byeach member of the church. The poor brought as they could, while the rich brought bountifully,and all were supposed to share of the commonmeal. But they brought their factious disputes intoit, and instead of all eating it as a feast common toall, it was partaken of in a factional spirit. Therich would eat without regard to others, hence some were hungry. The sensual would drinkwithout regard to sobriety, hence some weredrunken and certainly unprepared to properly eat of the Lord's Supper which followed. Thus thewhole occasion was terribly debauched into a disgraceful orgy of sensuality. It was this sort ofthing that Paul was rebuking, because it was nota fitting prelude to the Lord's Supper" (Melvin J. Wise, THE ALL-SUFFICIENCY OF THE GOSPEL AND OTHER SERMONS, p. 73). While the author of the above statement does not relate,except by implication, these verses to II Pet. 2:13and Jude 12, there are many who do. Furthermore, many do hold that the "love feasts" were just suchmeals as is described in the above quote, void of the abuses mentioned therein. Even the author of the quote seems to think such meals, void of abuses, met with divine approval and constituted "a fittingprelude to the Lord's Supper." Upon this basis someseek to justify socials, banqueting, fellowship halls,etc., provided by churches. That these or any otherverses of the New Testament justify such, I deny.My reasons follow.

While scholars generally (there are noted exceptions) hold the view that the "love feasts" (Agapae)were common meals observed by the apostolic churchpreceding the Lord's Supper, there is no evidence in the Holy Scriptures. That some such meal was common among Christians from the second centuryon none will deny. The issue is, Are such authorizedin the Scriptures?

I Cor. 11:17-22 — even void of the abuses referred to — does not prove it. There is no evidence here that Paul referred to two meals — -the "agapae" and theLord's Supper — the former preceding the latter.From a careful consideration of the whole of verses 17-34, we learn that only one meal is under consideration, namely, the Lord's Supper. The Corinthianshad perverted it. Paul shows how they had corrupted it, and teaches them how to observe it"worthily."

Paul tells them that their coming together filledwith a party spirit (vs. 17-19) made it impossible toobserve the Lord's Supper. In the next verse (20)he begins with the Greek "gar" which means "thereason being." The reason was twofold: 1) A factious spirit — eating without regard to others — instead of partaking of it together and thereby making it a common celebration, 2) their intemperance.They ate and drank to excess and thereby turnedthe Lord's Supper into a festive occasion comparable to the festivals among the Gentiles.

Most of the members of the church at Corinth were recent converts from heathenism. They hadoften observed feasts in honor of idols with all revelry. It was easy, therefore, for them to bringtheir former concept of celebrating a feast into thechurch. In view of this the questions that follow inverse 22 are very much in order: "What? have yenot houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye thechurch of God, and shame them that have not?What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this?I praise you not."

When Paul said, ". . . and shame them that havenot?" he points out another essential to the proper observance of the Lord's Supper. They were partaking of a feast in cliques (vs. 18, 19) — some perhapsrich, others poor. In the heathen festivals eachbrought his own food. The implication here is thatthey were doing the same, hence, the rich by their abundance were embarrassing the poor. The Lord'sSupper on the other hand was to be a common meal — one in which all jointly participated and sharedtogether. No wonder Paul said, "I praise you not."

You will notice that, in verse 23 Paul begins againwith the Greek "gar" showing that the reason hepraised them not was because of what he had received of the Lord on the matter of observing theLord's Supper. Their manner of observance differedfrom what he had received of the Lord. This shows further that only one meal is under considerationby Paul, otherwise the two would not be so connected by the conjunction "gar."

What are the "love feasts" of II Pet. 2:13; Jude12? The only feast of which I can read in the HolyScriptures involving the church is the one aboutwhich Paul wrote in I Cor. 11. This feast is in memory of the greatest demonstration of love the world has ever known. When properly observed by saints,it binds them closer to each other with ties of love. It was founded in love, is maintained by love, and itbegets love in all who partake of it "worthily." Theexpression, therefore, is a fitting description.

I know that scholars write freely of what wascalled the "agapae" among early Christians identi

fying it as a common meal. For this concept, however, remember we are dependent upon secular history. Inspiration does not so identify it. No doubtthe practice grew out of similar situations and thedisposition which Paul sought to correct at Corinth.Remember, denominationalism started early in thechurch (I Cor. 1:10-13). Paul corrected this, too, in doctrine, but the practice continues. Scholars alsowrite freely of one bishop over a church, or onebishop over many churches, and this not long afterthe church was established, but such is unwarranted in the New Testament.

One further observation is worthy of note. Scholars who write of the "agapae" among the earlyChristians as a common meal are careful to pointout that it was provided by the rich for the poor;that from such demonstration of love and from jointly partaking of it they were all bound togethermore strongly in love, hence, "love feasts." Thus,this identification of "love feasts" from secular history shows the meal to be one provided by individuals— certain individuals — rich individuals — and not by the church. Even this is a far cry from whatbrethren are trying to justify today with theircommon meals and fellowship halls which are provided by the church.

BOOKS BY W. CURTIS PORTER

Quibbles That Backfired— Contains three sermons at Florida College several years ago. These are outstanding denominational arguments that Porter turned on his opponent. Hehad a large number of debates with all sorts of falseteachers.

Price — $1.00

Sermon Outlines, Volumes I & II — Sermon outlines W. Curtis Porter used through the years of his preaching.

Price Set of 2 vols. — — $2.00 $3.75 Order from: PUBLICATIONS P. O. Box 17244 Tampa, Florida 33612

PHILLIPS

CONGREGATIONAL COOPERATION

of the

CHURCHES OF CHRIST

by

H. E. WINKLER

A well arranged and documented book of 158 pages dealing with church sponsorships, centralized power and control, orphan homes and Herald of Truth. Diagrams and charts help emphasize the truth.

$1.00 per copy order from

PHILLIPS PUBLICATIONS P. O. Box 17244 Tampa, Florida 33612

"THE GREATEST OF THESE"

The church at Corinth had been torn asunder bydivision. They were fussing over preachers, spiritualgifts, fornication, idols and perhaps other things.Paul didn't "throw in the towel" and walk off but rather sought to correct the error within the confines of this sinful congregation. He used firmness,patience and love in getting the job done.

It seems that one of their great difficulties wasover spiritual gifts. He dedicated three chapters toa discussion of this problem. In I Corinthians 12, henames the gifts; in I Corinthians 13, he tells howlong they would last and in the fourteenth chapterhe tells us of their use. It seems that they cherishedthe gift of speaking in tongues more than any othergift. The ones who couldn't speak in tongues becamejealous of the ones who could, and the ones whocould speak in tongues became arrogant because ofthis ability. This caused friction in the church, whichled to hate. Paul, knowing of this deplorable situation, wrote the following in 1 Corinthians 13:"Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels,and have not charity, I am become as sounding brassand a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the giftof prophecy and understand all mysteries, and allknowledge; and though I have all faith, so I couldremove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed thepoor, and though I give my body to be burned, andhave not charity, it profiteth me nothing." He closedthis wonderful chapter by saying, "And now abidethfaith, hope, charity, these three; but the GREATEST OF THESE IS CHARITY."

The peerless apostle wanted the brethren at Corinth to know that regardless of their great abilityto use spiritual gifts, they had to show LOVE forone another or else they were nothing! This sameprinciple applies to brethren in the church of theLord today. Elders, deacons, preachers and all needto heed this warning from the pen of Paul.

Several years ago when the fight on the current issues broke out many articles were written on love.Brother Jimmy Lovell, out on the west coast, andseveral others, wrote on this important subject. Theysought to get members of the church to embracecertain innovations under the disguise of LOVE. It was implied, in such articles, that if we loved oneanother we should espouse almost anything perpetrated upon the church by false teachers. This wasa false concept of love. True Bible love has no compromise. As a result of such writings many conservative brethren became gun-shy of LOVE! It wasconsidered by some a gesture of compromise to preach too much on love. Some, to the present timebecome suspicious of any man who preaches on love.They feel he has grown soft and will not fight. Brethren these things ought not so to be. We shouldnever be reluctant to preach on such a great theme,just because some false teacher endeavors to slip infalse doctrine by prostituting its true meaning!

As a result I am afraid that a generation hasgrown up not knowing the true meaning of LOVEfor one another. Paul said, "But if ye bite and devourone another, take heed that ye be not consumed oneof another" (Gal. 5:15). There is entirely too muchbiting and devouring among conservative brethren.I maintain the basic cause of this is that we are not preaching and practicing love. In so many placestoday I hear of brethren fighting over nothing butpersonalities. I firmly believe, like Paul, that a mancan stand for the truth, and even die for it, and yet manifest love for his fellow man. Not too long ago abrother said, "Brother Hogland, we got straight onthe issues and now we spend our time fightingamong ourselves." This is indeed sad, but in manyplaces we must admit it is true. Elders fight elders, preachers fight preachers and deacons fight deacons.Nine times out of ten it is because someone failed to LOVE as the Lord directs. Certainly the Bibleteaches all of us to be good soldiers and fight againstsin and error. But so many times we start fighting the individual rather than sin! It is mighty easy tostart a fight with a brother and then hide under thedisguise of fighting sin.

Paul personified love in this text. He said, "Lovesuffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; lovevaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behaveitself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easilyprovoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity,but rejoiceth in the truth." Gentle reader, love mustbe a part of our lives or we will never make it toheaven. Baptist preachers think there is a contradiction between GRACE and WORKS. They don'tfeel that one can be saved by both! It seems thatsome of my brethren think there is a contradictionbetween FIGHTING AND LOVING. Brethren, aman can fight and still love. He can also LOVE andstill FIGHT! So let us love one another with a pureheart. Remember Paul said, "Now abideth faith,hope, LOVE, these three; but the greatest of THESEIS LOVE."

THIRD NIGHT

"It is scriptural for a congregation to aid or supply a home (an organization) in the care of the indigent by the supplying of money from its treasury."

Affirm: Don McWhorter Deny: Paul Brock

McWhorter opened his affirmative speeches withthe thought that Brock was either a God-send or afalse teacher sowing discord. McWhorter also emphasized in his speeches that he was interested indiscussing the "principles" behind the issues. Brockpointed out in reply that it was not possible to havethe "product" without the principle and that if theproduct was wrong, the principle was wrong.

McWhorter used several charts in an attempt to"prove" that the work of the church was one thingand the work of the home another. He stated that the church discharges her obligation by contributingto a home. In his summary, he showed God gavetwo institutions, both divine, one to do the work ofthe church and the other to do the work of the home. Brock agreed that the home and the churchwere two different institutions, both from God. Buthe emphasized that such homes as Childhaven andlike institutions (as specified previous to discussionin Gadsden, Ala.) were the ones under consideration.He insisted the debate was not over the privatehome, but the organizational type. He showed fromBaxter's tract the type of home under consideration would stand or fall with the college (tract: Questionsand Issues).

The highlight of Brock's first speech was the introduction of the charter of Greater ChattanoogaChildren's Home, Inc. When he read from thecharter, it could be seen the board is allowed to support several types of organizations with money received from churches. These included "Any benevolent or charitable undertaking, as a lodge of Masons, OddFellows, hospitals for the sick, houses of refuge or correction, orphan asylums," even "testing for public safety" and "establishing, maintaining and conducting a home or homes for white children of school age."This was strongly emphasized by Brock. While thelocal school (Boyd-Buchanan) could not receive money from churches, why could not the board receive it and in turn support the school? waspresented by Brock.

The introduction of the charter of the Chattanooga home had a marked affect on McWhorter. Helacked the ease and poise of the other speeches. In a fumbling attempt to reply, he charged that Brockobjected to the incorporation. Of course, Brockpointed out in his following speech that this wasnot the objection, but the organization it representedwas what was being opposed. McWhorter furtherstated the charter to be only a legal description of what they intended to do and that Brock had perverted it. On the fourth night, Brock stated the lawof Tennessee does not require the statements as putinto the charter of G. C. C. H., Inc. and gave Tennessee Orphan Home charter as an example.

When McWhorter tried to prove his propositionby past practices and belief of brethren, Brock gaveFloyd Decker as an example of leaving the Christianchurch years ago because of the same type societieswe have today. The "fact of evolution" was shown by the emergence of the first home in 1909 and therest since then.

A "total situation" argument was given by Mc-Whorter by his using several scriptures on differentpoints and concluding his arrangement was approvedby all of the passages. Brock gave an example of the use of scriptural terms in which you can come upwith an unscriptural arrangement. The expression"Tabernacle Baptist Church" was shown to makeuse of three scriptural terms, but the arrangementresulting was unscriptural. McWhorter made lightof this on Friday evening, but did not answer theargument.

The affirmative argued that churches sent andreceived from one another when the need was spiritual and gave Colossians 4:16 as an example. Brockshowed this to be not an example of one churchsending funds to another church, but the methodused by the apostles to make truth known to bothcongregations.

McWhorter used II Cor. 8 and 9 and Acts 11 as proof of his proposition in his first speech of theevening. He would not accept these scriptures as the same type proof the first two evenings whenused by Brock. "Verily, the legs of the lame are unequal."

FOURTH NIGHT

(Same proposition as Third)

This concluding night was opened by McWhorteremphasizing the importance of the issues and that we must use the word of God (truth) to decide. Heannounced he did not agree with Baxter and acceptedno man as his authority.

McWhorter tried to parallel "faith only" with"saints only." Brock pointed out in reply that hetook only what the Bible revealed, that is, the Bibleteaches there are other things to do besides believeand yet the Bible teaches the early church only relieved needy saints from her treasury. (An amusingsidelight occurred at the first of the debate. A Baptist preacher, known by McWhorter and severalother brethren, was in attendance the first two evenings. McWhorter had repeatedly referred to Brockand those with him as being "like the Baptists."This Baptist preacher told McWhorter after the discussion that it was he (McWhorter) that was like the Baptists. The preacher pointed out they sendtheir money off, a little here and a little there, justlike those standing with McWhorter. On this point,McWhorter introduced charts on James 1:27; Eph.5:27; II Cor. 9:12-13. These passages were explained by Brock and several authorities were producedthat pointed out "all men" included only saints inII Cor. 9.

To relieve the pressure brought to bear by the

charter of G. C. C. H., Inc., McWhorter launched out on a tirade against Lakeview as a harbor forMasons. He further charged the church was run byFreemasons. Since McWhorter had offered time to Brock several times to "prove" something, Brockoffered him one minute to name the Mason runningthe church at Lakeview. He pointed out that although he opposed and preached against the Christian being a Freemason, that does not change thecharter of G. C. C. H., Inc. Having so much troublewith the Chattanooga home, McWhorter asked Brock in his final speech if he would agree to support Childhaven if he would agree not to support G. C.

C. H., Inc.

In his final speech, McWhorter attempted to parallel opposition to individual communion glasses withthe opposition to church-supported institutions. Heagain stated the church could not do the work ofthe home. He further suggested he was not defending the abuses of the home and of the Herald ofTruth but he was obligated only to uphold the"home." In conclusion he re-introduced and read all of his charts time would permit.

This concluding night brought the discussion to a close with Brock showing:

1. All that McWhorter would have the church to do is raise money.
2. The many inconsistencies in McWhorter's position and teaching.
3. The type of home involved in the proposition wasnot a private one, but an organization.
4. The wrong involved in the sponsoring church andorganizational homes. Brock stated the error involved and pointed out some things not wrong(such as incorporation).The closing remarks were used in re-emphasizing

the points made in the debate and pleading with all to investigate.

We should be thankful there are yet those willingto stand and defend their teaching and practice.Debates do good and accomplish a purpose enjoyedby no other medium. In the words of a former elderat the Ridgedale church in Chattanooga, "Why notall stand fast in one spirit, with one soul strivingfor the faith of the gospel," and thus neither opposenor tolerate, but encourage, the most effective andconsistent method of teaching all Bible subjects ofpublic moment involved in the existing state of controversy"? (P. W. Stonestreet).—

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

SPEARS-HALE DEBATE J. T. Smith,Oklahoma City, Okla. On March 28-April 1, 1966 Dudley R. Spears and Lewis G. Hale of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma will discuss the following propositions in the 10th and Francis meeting house:

March 28, 29: "The Scriptures teach that there isan exclusive and binding pattern of cooperationamong churches for evangelism which is violated by the Herald of Truth type cooperation."

Dudley R. Spears will affirm.

Lewis G. Hale will deny.

March 31, April 1: "It is in harmony with theScriptures for churches of Christ to build, maintainand regularly contribute money to such benevolentorganizations as Tipton Home, Boles Home, andother orphan homes and homes for the aged that areamong us."

Lewis G. Hale will affirm.

Dudley R. Spears will deny.

Charles F. House, P.O. Box 641, San Luis, Arizona— During December I enjoyed perhaps one ofthe finest experiences I have ever enjoyed in mywhole life; the experience of being in Spanish speaking congregations with more than a dozen members.December 6th, Marvel and I left by VW bus for a3 week's trip visiting churches and brethren in NewMexico, Texas, and in the state of Tamalipas, OldMexico. We were trying to find a willing, qualifiedyoung man to help in the local work at San Luis R. C.Sonora Mexico. God provided him. He is Luis Trevino from Reynosa, Tamps., who began local workwith us January 16, 1966. During the trip, Marveltaught one class of children and I preached or spokepublicly a total of nine times.

Andres Gutierrez, faithful preacher at MexicaliBaja California Mexico, reports three baptisms during January. Andres is being supported by Brawleyand Montebelo, California.

David Arellamo preached in my absence duringour trip. We got home December 25th. I am writingthis report from a sick bed where I have been confined for over a week with the flu, but thanks unto God brother Luis Trevino is doing a remarkable jobwhile I have been down. Brother Gabriel Ortiz, 925

N. Orange, Fallbrook, California, 92028, has lost

support. He presently earns only $285 per month. He needs $300 per month or more. Write him formore details.

Earl Hartsell, P.O. Box 335, Leesville, La. — This week will conclude six months work with the church in Leesville, La. We have seen a steady increase sinceour coming last August. In that time 15 have beenadded to the number of faithful disciples here. Onewas baptized, six restored, and eight identified. Theattendance has increased by 50% and the contribution has almost doubled. The first week in May several gospel preachers from this area plan to go toAlexanderia, La., and try to start a New Testament church there. This is a city of 50,000 with only twochurches that wear the true name. One of these is Premillennial and the other is Liberal. The prospectof starting a sound congregation has brightenedsince John Tyler, a faithful brother, has movedthere. John is the state manager of a life insurancecompany and a very talented and sound gospelpreacher. He is driving 55 miles to worship with usand will do so until we can get something started atAlexanderia. Should any reader know of anyone who has moved to that area who might stand for thetruth, please send me their names and addresses.Also, if you know of any young man who will be stationed at Fort Polk, let him know that we will seethat he has a way to services if he will call me. Thephone number is: 239-9314.

Vestal Chaffin, 102 Park Ave., Dickson, Tenn.37055 — Early Monday morning, January 31, themodest, yet commodious and comfortable meetinghouse of the Academy Street church here in Dickson, was completely destroyed by fire. The origin ofthe fire is not known. The fire spread throughout thebuilding so rapidly it was impossible to save anything. My entire library, which I had built over aperiod of 28 years, was completely destroyed. This,of course, included many things that are impossible to replace, such as records of my work, letters, notes,outlines, and numerous other things. The buildingand my library was partially covered by insurance,but not nearly enough to replace either.

The church here had made the last payment on its indebtedness last March, and since last August,we have been fully supporting a preacher in a needyfield, and were planning to fully support another assoon as a suitable man could be found. This will have to be postponed for the present. We are planning torebuild as soon as possible. Plans have been madeto meet in the Oakmont school building until ourbuilding is rebuilt. Brethren, pray for us.

William H. Lewis, 2986 So. Roena St., Indianapolis, Ind. 46241 — From February 14-20 I did thepreaching in a meeting with the Gilbert Avenuechurch of Christ, Evansville, Indiana. There was onerestoration.

This congregation consists of about 25 members.The work there is not self-supporting. Near the first of March, brother E. C. Kotenbah will begin full-time work with this congregation. His support has beenraised, but this congregation is badly in need of aplace to worship. They now meet in an old storebuilding, but they must move in the very near future, as this building will be torn down to make way for a new street. Too, there is a large expense inmoving brother Kotenbah from the state of Washington to Evansville. The brethren there feel thatbrother Kotenbah is the man for this work, as hepreviously worked with another congregation in that city.

If any one is in a position to help these brethrenin their fight against the digression that has sweptthe churches today, please address all mail to: Mr.Tom Hendricks, 1409 Washington Avenue, Evansville, Indiana, 47714. Help would be appreciated andcertainly is needed. The work here at LaFayetteHeights continues to be both profitable and enjoyable.

Elden Givens, 636 Maple Dr., Cincinnati, Ohio45215 — One was baptized and three have been restored here in the Evendale congregation in recentweeks. The congregation has been in its new meetinghouse for almost 2 months. It is located north of Cincinnati, 3789 Glendale-Milford Rd., which is By-Pass Hwy. 50. Our gospel meeting will be April 18th24th, with Cecil Willis preaching.

BIBLE LECTURESHIP

Park Hill church of Christ 1900 Jenny Lind Ave.Fort Smith, ArkansasMarch 13-19, 1966

7:30 nightly

March 13: Guthrie Dean, Fort Smith, Ark. — "The

Christian's Attitude Toward God And

The Bible." March 14: Billy Moore, Butler, Mo. — "The Chris

tian's Attitude Toward Time." March 15: Dudley Ross Spears, Oklahoma City,Okla. — "The Christian's Attitude Toward Himself And His Family." March 16: S. Leonard Tyler,Pine Bluff, Ark.— "The Christian's Attitude Toward Others In The Church." March 17: Ward Hogland, Greenville, Texas — "The

Christian's Attitude Toward Those With

Whom We Disagree."March 18: Eugene Britnell, Little Rock, Ark. — "The Christian's Attitude Toward Authority."

March 19: Judson Woodbridge, Rogers, Ark. — "The

Christian's Attitude Toward Worldly

Possessions." All are invited to attend.

Guthrie Dean

Edwin Hayes, Box 146, Fultondale, Ala. 35068 — After three and one-half years with the good church in Palmetto, Florida, I have moved to Fultondale,Alabama, to work with the church here. The church is at peace, and standing for the "Old Paths" underthe oversight of two God-fearing men as elders. The work is encouraging, but with much to be done. Webelieve though that with much work, prayer, andthe help of our God, it will be accomplished. Bill Lambert of Cookeville, Tennessee, is to be with usthe last of March in a gospel meeting.

GOSPEL MEETING

Bobby K. Thompson, Miami, Florida, will be thespeaker in a gospel meeting at Forest Hills meetinghouse beginning March 13th and continuing through March 20th. The Forest Hills congregation, Tampa,Florida, continues to grow steadily spiritually andin number. Be sure to remember these dates and attend this meeting if at all possible.

CATHOLIC ADMISSIONS...COPIED FROM A CATHOLIC HISTORY BOOK

The following excerpts are taken from a twovolume work entitled: "The Public and Private History of the Popes of Rome, From the Earliest Periodto the Present Time," by Louis Marie de Cormenin.It was translated from the French and published inthe United States in the year 1846. The copy towhich I have access was formerly in the conventlibrary of the Sisters of St. John the Divine, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Although the author was a Roman Catholic, he did not allow his religious profession to blind himto some of her failings. In fact, the author evenaccepted as factual the legend of the 'Popess Joan'as if she had actually existed .. . a fable which we ourselves do not believe to be true. Although we donot, therefore, accept all his statements, nevertheless, we feel that considerable credence may be placedin his writings wherein legends, myths, and traditions are not primary factors to be weighed.

We copy as follows:* * * *

"During the seventh century, the bishops of Romecommenced extending their dominion, spiritual andtemporal, employing by turns craft and audacity;they humbly bow the head before the masters of theempire when these latter are powerful, and revoltagainst their authority when they see them conquered by their enemies, or unable to punish them.It is true that the emperors drew upon themselves,by their faults, the hatred of the people and the contempt of the clergy; first, by abasing themselves tosustain theological theses, and then by espousing themost ridiculous quarrels on the dogmas of Catholicism; and finally, by doing that which was mostodious, by pushing the violence of their controversieseven to the persecution of the unfortunate, who heldadverse opinions to theirs. In the midst of those idledisputes, the material interests of the provinces wereneglected, and the citizens who were separated fromthe creed of the monarch, naturally accustomedthemselves to regard him as an enemy, and soughtto free themselves from his yoke.

"The popes profited by this infatuation of the emperors for religious questions, and rendered the disputes between them and their subjects more violentand bitter, now by ranging themselves on the side ofthe princes, now by adopting the opinion of the subjects. They thus acquired a real power, which theyknew how to render more and more formidable, byleaning it for support on superstition and fanaticism.

"The consequence of this state of things was, thatthe shades of ignorance covered the entire world.The popes even prohibited the faithful from learningto read, under penalty of excommunication. By their orders the monuments of antiquity fell under the

axes of the priests; the most precious manuscripts

were cast into the flames by Vandals, wearing the

tiara, and humanity can only veil its face to deplore

the rich treasures snatched from her.

"Thus the sublime doctrines of Jesus Christ became trampled upon, despised, spit upon. Thus theintention of the Revealer was interpreted! The popes substituted their caprices for the laws of the Bible,and preserved the authority they had usurped byfraudulently employing the name of Christ to oppress men. At length their boldness became such,that they dared to say, 'People, listen! We, who are the interpreters of Supreme Wisdom, declare to you,that truth flows from our mouth; that we have theright to impose on you our belief; and he who shallnot preach and teach that which we preach and teach,shall be excommunicated, were he Jesus Christ himself!!'

"The pontiff who commences the series of Romanbishops of the seventh century, was the Tuscan, Sabinianus ... Anastasius, the librarian, informs usthat he was the nuncio of Gregory at the court ofMaurice; and that he was chosen by the clergy, not as the most worthy to govern the church, but as themost capable of augmenting the power of the priests,and the splendor of the pontifical throne" (605 A.D.,

pages 133-34). * * * * "The struggles and intrigues which followed the

death of Sabinianus, prolonged for a whole year the

vacancy of the See of Rome.

"At length the faction of Boniface the Third pre

vailed. He received the episcopal ordination, and was

elevated upon the apostolical chair. Born in the holy

city, and deacon of this church, he had been sent,

during the pontificate of Gregory, to the court of the

emperor, in the quality of nuncio. This proud pope

was the first who dared to bear the title of universal

bishop, so long refused by the Roman pontiffs to theGreek patriarchs.

"At this period Phocas (Emperor of the East)governed the .empire. This prince, irritated againstCyriacus (Patriarch of Constantinople), who had refused him admission into the church after the murder of the empress Constantina and her daughter,resolved, in order to avenge himself on that prelate, to elevate the See of Rome above that of Byzantium,and nominated Boniface as universal bishop of allthe churches of Christendom.

"The pontiff immediately convoked a synod, andcaused it to confirm the title which the emperor had given him, by declaring the preponderance of hisSee over that of Constantinople. This same councilprohibited the renewal of the intrigues which tookplace for the election of the popes, and ordered thatthe clergy, the grandees, and the people, should assemble three days after the death of the bishops ofRome, to name their successors.

"Boniface also decreed that the nomination of pre

lates, in all the kingdoms, should not be canonical

until after confirmation by the court of Rome. His

bull commences in these words: 'We will and

ordain that such an one be bishop; and that you shall

obey him without hesitation in all he shall command

you..'

"Thus the authority of the successors of the fish

erman Simon increased in a single day by the will

of an execrable murderer, and the popes raised themselves from obedience to despotism (page 134-135). Boniface the Third, notwithstanding the decrees of ** * *

"The disorders which were the precursors of theelection of a pontiff recommenced on the death ofBoniface the Third, notwithstanding the decrees ofthe last council, and retarded for six months thenomination of a new pope. At length intrigue andsimony elevated to the pontifical throne a priest ofthe Roman church, who took the name of Boniface the Fourth. He was the son of a physician namedJohn, and had been educated from his youth by themonks, who had instructed him in the knowledge ofthe Sacred Scriptures. Thus, to show his thanks tohis old companions, he overwhelmed them withriches, and spread his favours over all the religiousorders.

"The tyrant Phocas, desirous of preserving theaid of the bishop of Rome, offered to Boniface thePantheon, built by Marious Agrippa, son-in-law ofAugustus, thirty years before the Christian era, and consecrated, formerly, to all the divinities of paganism. The pontiff thankfully accepted the offer of theemperor, and transformed this splendid building intoa Christian church, which he solemnly dedicated tothe Virgin, under the name of our Lady of theRotunda.

"Mellitus, bishop of London, came at this periodto Italy, and assisted at a council held by Boniface,in 610, to determine rules for, and the form of, government of the English churches" (page 135).

** * *

Concerning Honorius I, the seventy-second bishop of Rome, 625 A.D. This pope became a heretic, subscribing to the Monothelite heresy. "Honorius, deadin the odour of sanctity, was not at first censured byany ecclesiastical authority; but some years afterthe sixth general council (Third Council of Constantinople, 680 A.D. L.W.M.) declared that this pontiffwholly participated in the impiety of Sergius. Hisletters were publicly given to the flames, with thoseof other Monothelites, and the fathers exclaimed,'Anathemas upon Honorius the heretic' The Seventh(II Council of Nicea, 787 A.D.) and eighth (IV Council of Constantinople, 869 A.D. L.W.M.) ecumenicalsynods confirmed this judgment, and declared thatpopes were not infallible!!" (page 139).

* * * *

Concerning Vitalian, the seventy-eighth bishop of Rome, 658 A.D.: "In 660 the pontiff introduced intothe churches the use of organs, to augment the eclatof religious ceremonies" (page 152).

** * *

"The assembly (III Council of Constantinople, 680 A.D.) expressed its adhesion to these sentiments(opposing Monotheism), by loud acclamations. Theythen examined the general doctrine of the heretics,and the council rendered this judgment: 'After having examined with profound attention the dogmatical letters of Sergius of Byzantium, to Cyrus of Alexandria, and the replies of the pontiff Honorius the Firstto Sergius, we declare that we have found them contradictory of the doctrine of the apostles; the decreesof the ecumenical assemblies; the sentiments of thefathers of the church, and conformed in all pointsto the false science taught by the heretics.

" 'We condemn them as capable of corrupting thesouls of the faithful; and in rejecting these impious dogmas we anathematize their authors, Sergius Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, Theodore, and the pontiffHonorius, the First, as heretics, impious and sacrilegious ...'

"This condemnation of Honorius has been the stumbling-block of pontifical infallibility. As the partizans of the papacy could not deny the regularity, nor the authenticity of a sentence confirmed by thecourt of Rome, and rendered under the guidance ofthe legates of the Holy See, by an orthodox synod,they have endeavored to establish that this popehad not erred ... (page 159).

* * * *

"... After the death of the holy father (PopeConon, 687 A.D.), the people were divided into several factions. The arch-priest Theodore, at the head of his faction, penetrated into the palace of the La-tern, and caused himself to be chosen pontiff. Paschal, on his side, caused himself to be proclaimed thesuccessor of Conon to the throne of St. Peter. Each party assembled in arms, ready to sustain, by force,the bishop whom it had nominated. The strife hadeven commenced in the court of the church of Julius, when the principal magistrates, the greater part ofthe clergy, the militia, and the honourable citizensdetermined to act in the same manner as they haddone on the death of John the Fifth (685 A.D.). Theywent to the imperial palace, and proclaimed as pontiff a priest named Sergius who belonged to neitherof the two factions. Sergius seized his two competitors, Paschal and Theodore, and constrained them toswear obedience to him.

"He was himself soon driven from the holy cityby friends of Theodore, and obliged to take refugein Ravenna ..." (page 164).

** * * The Public and Private History of The Popes ofRome, From The Earliest Period to The PresentTime: Including The History of Saints, Martyrs,Fathers of The Church, Religious Orders, Cardinals, Inquisitions, Schisms, and The Great Reformers. ByLouis Marie de Cormenin. Translated from the French. Two Volumes. Philadelphia, T. B. Peterson,No. 98 Chestnut Street, One Door Above Third. Entered, according to Acts of Congress, in the 1846, by James M. Campbell, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the U. S., of the Eastern District ofPennsylvania.

THE PEOPLE'S NEW TESTAMENT WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES

B. W. Johnson

This new one-volume edition is the product of many years of dedicated study, research and insight. It contains the entire New Testament in both the King James and Revised Versions, inparallel columns for ready referenceand comparison. A verse - by-verse study on the same page with the text. A very popular commentary.

Single volume of entire N.T $5.00

DEPRAVITY

It is our intention to study some of the positions thatBaptist preachers hold and have attempted to defend in debate. Some of the positions are not held by allBaptists, but generally held by Primitive Baptists and those of Calvinistic Persuasion. When pressed, in public discussion, Missionary Baptist have defended Depravity, Limited Atonement, etc. We notice firstthe Doctrine of Depravity. In Manual for Baptist church by F. M. McConnell, Page 17: THE FALL OF MAN

"We believe that man was created in holiness,under the law of his Maker; but by voluntary transgression fell from that holy and happy state; in consequence of which all mankind are now sinners; notby constraint but by choice; being by nature utterlyvoid of that holiness required by the law of God,positively inclined to evil; and therefore under justcondemnation to eternal ruin, without defense orexcuse." There are several verses given in proof ofthe above citation. We shall notice some of the proof texts

Eph. 2:3 "By nature children of wrath— " Bynature here is the word, "Phusus." If this is dativeof cause of means let the Baptist preacher explainRomans 11:21 "For if God spared not the naturalbranches— ."

Kata Phusin kladoon According to Naturalbranches Natural Branches in Romans 11:24 — In verse 21 Phusis is the object of the preposition kata, but that does not change the meaning of phusis.The Jews were according to nature branches.Branches of What? God's Favor. If Eph. 2:3 proves Gentiles were born depraved then Romans 11:21-24 proves Jewish children were born without that depravity, and not one verse in the Jewish scriptures will serve as proof of depravity. TheJews were God's branches by nature.

Romans 12:1 "Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy acceptable to God." If Baptists are rightand the body is depraved and remains depraved afterconversion; How are we to present it holy? 1 Cor.

6:15 "Know ye not that your bodies are membersof Christ." Are we to believe that depraved bodiesare members of Christ? 1 Cor. 6:19 "Your body is atemple of the Holy Spirit." The Holy Spirit dwellsin a corrupt body.

We need to learn that we do not inherit acquiredcharacteristics. One cannot transmit acquired characteristics to offspring. We acquire righteousnessand it is not transmitted to our children. A man maylearn to be a skilled musician — that does not guarantee that a child of the skilled musician will be skilled in the field of music.

THE ELDERSHIP

In a previous article it has been pointed out thatthe editor of the Sentinel of Truth plagiarized thearticle "The Officers of the Church" which appearedin the first issue of that paper from a book, Questions Answered, Page 462-466, by E. G. Sewell and David Lipscomb.

In connection with the views set forth in the article, I have heard the editor of Sentinel of Truth preach these matters twice. One of these was on taperecording, a copy of which I have.

From listening to the tape, one of the basic fallacies is revealed in the editor's thinking, I believe. It is stated that we have an organized religion andthat Christians feel they have no work to do untilthey are assigned such by elders. Of course, if anyreally have this view they need to study their NewTestaments with profit and see that they have anindividual responsibility to teach anyone they contact the gospel so as to save their soul and to assistsuffering humanity as they have ability and opportunity to do so. Every Christian has this responsibility before and without any eldership assigninghim a particular task. Most gospel preachers havepreached this in lessons on individual responsibility.

A spirit of resentment is seen for elders when ourbrother editor calls them "bosses." It seems it is difficult for him to see that elders do not rule the church as some boss over secular employment wouldrule. If the views taken by the editor are true, I failto see where elders have any rule at all. Failing torespect the Scriptural rule of elders, the office isdenied, that is, there are no men in the church whorule in the commonly accepted sense. Thus, in thisarticle we ask the question: IS THERE SUCH ANOFFICE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?

Several passages are introduced in which the word"office" appears in the King James version. In each of these it is denied that the word "office" is an accurate translation; in fact, it is argued that there isno word for it in the original language. Particularlyis this said of I Tim. 3:1. In fact, several of theseideas set forth in Sentinel of Truth appear to havethe common ground that we do not have an adequateand accurate translation of the Scriptures. Catholicism, Mormonism, and the Jehovah's Witnesses believe there were inaccuracies in the versions existingand thus each of these put out their own translation to teach their own peculiar doctrines. Maybe Sentinel of Truth will do the same.

Anyone who has ever studied the matter of translating one language into another language knows thedifficulty with which one is confronted. It is notalways possible to accurately translate one word inthe original language into just one word in the translation. Often one word in the original language will require two or more words to accurately convey theidea. On this point, brother Robert C. Welch givesus this illustration in a recent article from his pen."For example, there is only one word in the Greekwhich is translated, 'contend earnestly,' in our common versions (Jude 3). Neither of these words alonewill fully convey the meaning of the one originalword" (Gospel Guardian, Dec. 16, 1965). The editorof Sentinel of Truth quotes W. E. Vine as saying,"In I Tim. 3:1, the word 'office,' in the phrase 'theoffice of a bishop,' has nothing to represent it in theoriginal," but W. E. Vine does not say this is anincorrect, inadequate and erroneous translation.

Denying the office of eldership as taught in theNew Testament, the editor of Sentinel of Truth saysthe word "elder" means only those who are older,therefore, there is no office of elders, they are justthe older men. On tape recording, of the word "elder," he says older is "all the word meant in the OldTestament and that is all it means in the New Testament." Since the editor quotes W. E. Vine, I shallaccept his scholarship and quote him back to theeditor. Vine says the first meaning of "elder" is "anadjective, the comparative degree of presbus, an old man, an elder, is used (a) of age, whether of theelder of two persons, Luke 15:25, or more, John 8:9,'the eldest'; or of a person advanced in life, a senior,Acts 2:17, in Heb. 11:2, the 'elders' of the forefathers in Israel; so in Matt. 15:2; Mark 7:3,5; thefeminine of the adjective is used of elder women inthe churches, I Tim. 5:2, not in respect of positionbut in seniority of age." Then the second definition of elder Vine gives "(b) of rank of position of responsibility." Under (b) he gives three usages (1)among the Gentiles, (2) in the Jewish nation. Number three he says, "(3) in the Christian churches,those who, being raised up and qualified by the workof the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spiritual care of, and to exercise oversight over, thechurches. To these the term bishops, episkopoi, or overseers, is applied (see Acts 20, ver. 17 with vsr.28, and Tit. 1:5 and 7) the latter term indicatingthe nature of their work, presbuteroi their maturityof spiritual experience. The Divine arrangementseen throughout the N. T. was for a plurality ofthese to be appointed in each church, Acts 14:23;20:17; Phil. 1:1; I Tim. 5:17; Tit. 1:5. The duty ofelders is described by the verb episkopeo. They wereappointed according as they had given evidence offulfilling the Divine qualifications, Titus 1:6 to 9;cp. I Tim. 3:1-7 and I Pet. 5:2." Thayer, I believe,says essentially the same thing.

From the above it is clear there is in the New Testament church a group of men, when qualifiedby the standard set forth by the Holy Spirit, whohave the work of caring for the souls under themand overseeing and ruling the "flock of God amongthem."

Our brother not only doesn't respect the positionof elders set forth in the New Testament but he also doesn't respect the number there is to be within a local congregation. He said, on tape, that he is apastor and in one particular instance he was the onlypastor a local church had. His exact words from thetape are, "I have seen the time when I was the onlypastor there." Thus, the idea of one man rule is admitted by him. But the New Testament reveals that in every instance there was to be a plurality, not just one, in every congregation (Acts 14:23; 20:17,28; Phil. 1:1; I Pet. 5:1).

The idea that there is no such office as elders in the church originated in another age. It was answered then. The answer is still true today. From alittle book, The Eldership, by J. W. McGarvey, Iquote from page 9, "Is there an office in the churchcalled the Eldership?" In answer McGarvey said,and I quote some key portions due to limited space,"But there are some, who deny that the term elder

is ever used in the New Testament in an official sense. They hold that it always means older persons,and that the eldership of a church consists of theolder men of the church ... It is well known that the term elder is an adjective in the comparative degree,and that its primary meaning is older. When used as a substantive, it means an older person. The same is true of its Greek representative, presbuteros.. . The following statement is made concerning Pauland Barnabas while engaged in their first missionarytour: 'When they had ordained them elders in everychurch, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed'(Acts xiv:23.) The term here rendered ordained is cheirotoneo. It is compounded of cheir, the hand, and teino, to stretch forth, and its primary meaning is to stretch forth the hand. But from the fact that bodies of men frequently expressed a choice by an elevation of the hand, it acquired the meaning of to choose or to appoint by an extension of the hand; and finally it came to mean to appoint without reference to themethod of appointing. Such is the testimony ofscholars, and it is confirmed by the usage of theterm. It occurs in only one other place in the New Testament, where it is said of an unnamed brother whom Paul sent to Corinth with Titus, that he 'was chosen by the churches' (II Cor. vii:19). How the churches choose him, whether by a show of hands or in some other way, is not determined by this term, nor by the context. . . Substituting this definition for the term ordained in the passage we are considering, we read that Paul and Barnabas'appointed' for them elders in every church. Theseelders, then, were made such by appointment, butPaul and Barnabas certainly did not make older men by appointment; neither would the passage makecomplete sense if it read, 'They appointed for themolder men in every church.' To complete the sense, it would be necessary to add the office or position towhich the older men were appointed. The considerations show that the term is here used not in its primary sense, but in a sense which designated positionobtained by appointment. But an appointment putsmen into office, and elder is therefore the official title conferred by this appointment. . . The same conclusion follows from Paul's statement to Titus: 'I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in orderthe things that are wanting and ordain elders in every city' (Titus 1:5). The term here renderedordain is Kathisteeemi, the Greek word most commonly used in both the New Testament and theGreek version of the Old Testament, for appointingto office. It is used to express the appointment ofJoseph as governor over Egypt, and of the other officers under him, Gen. xii:33-34; Acts vii:10; for theappointment of David as ruler over Israel, II Sam.

vi:21; for the appointment of rulers over householdservants, Matt. xxiv:45; of a judge in civil jurisprudence, Lev. xii:14; Acts vii:27; and of Jewishhigh priest, Heb. v:l; viii:3" (The Eldership, Page 913). The reader may wish to order this book fromSearching The Scriptures. It is well worth the priceof $1.50.

In this article it has been my purpose to show that in the New Testament there is such an office as the eldership. In our next article, I shall note the ruleof this office.

In response to a recent article in Searching TheScriptures concerning the use of the church building,I would like to make a few comments.

First: We agree the church can build a meetinghouse to ... implement the divine mission of thechurch — preaching the gospel, edification, benevolence (Heb. 10:25; Eph. 4:16; Acts 6:1; I Tim.3:15).

Second: The type building with all its facilities isjustified ... upon the grounds of expediency (I Cor.10:23), to this I agree. Why do we agree? Becausefor these we have scripture.

Now, the problem is where is the scripture forthe church authorizing other organizations and individuals using the meeting house for purposes otherthan the church's divine mission? . . .

The article states the church may use the buildingfor that which comes within the scope of its divinemission. I agree. But what is the divine mission ofthe church? Preaching the gospel, edification, benevolence. Now, the article states marriage ceremonies come within the scope of its divine mission.We did not see a passage that would authorize such!Just a mere statement of someone does not prove thescripturalness of such practice. If the church's mission is to preach the gospel, edification, benevolence,where would a marriage ceremony fit either of thesecategories? If we take the position it comes underthe category of preaching the gospel — that would mean if we read a few passages of scripture, wecould have any. civil or social function in the building.Would it not? Now, if a passage cannot be produced,then we will have to conclude to use the buildingfor such practice would be unscriptural.

But again it is stated, if by others using thechurch building should be confused in the mind ofthe general public such use should be opposed. Whodetermines what is in the mind of the public? Now,suppose the mind of the public is not confused on these things, would it be all right? (There are somechurch buildings so far back in the woods the general public would not know what goes on.) The article assumed such practice is scriptural. Where is thepassage? Then reasoned from the standpoint ofexpediency.

It is also stated there are times when the building may be used by others without violation of scripture (Truth). Where is the passage? That is anassumption, not Bible proof.

Again it is said, "It is not so much what thechurch building be used for, but rather what may the church use the building for."

Try this!

It is not so much what may the collection be usedfor, but rather what may the church use the collection for. So long as the use by public schools doesnot involve the church, or the general public does not get confused over the way it's spent as church activity, it would be all right. But if the public got thewrong idea a perverted concept of the church andits mission would result.

You see, the same thing the building can be usedfor can also be said of the collection. The article said, the building may be used for that which comes within the scope of its mission. What is the church'smission? Preaching the gospel, edification, benevolence. I maintain the same can be said of the collection.

If the church can lend or rent its building to asecular institution or individual, then the churchcould lend or rent its treasury to a secular institutionor individual.

Now, the objection to this ... it places the church in a business that is outside the divine mission of the church.

The article also seems to say there is a vast difference between the church actually using the buildingfor teaching secular subjects consenting or biddingGod speed for others to use it (such as publicschools). II John 9,10 teach we are partakers when we bid others God speed.

Now, if it is all right for public schools to use thechurch building for teaching math and agriculture,etc., but wrong for the church to do it because itdoes not come within the scope of the church's mission, then I would like to ask a question. Would itbe all right for the church to be opposed to a banquetin the church, but allow or bid God speed the schoolto have their banquet there? But someone might saythat is not the same, because it is unscriptural forthe church to have banquets in or out of the building.Can't we say the same for church teaching secularsubjects? There could be an emergency in either case — school could burn and no place for the prom.

It is also stated the church can allow others (public schools) to use the building for teaching secularsubjects because the church is not involved — on the same basis the school could hold the prom there.