THE LORD'S SUPPER

Edward Fudge

Some say the Lord's Supper is the most important of Christians' activities on the first day of the week. Others do not like to elevate it above other scriptural acts. But all can agree with Luke, who, in describing the first century church at Troas, said that on the first day of the week, "disciples came together tobreak bread" (Acts 20:7).

The supper of the Lord is not sacramental. The word "sacrament," in its Latin etymology, meant simply a "sign" or "pledge." Due to the influence of the Roman Church, however, the term has come to mean a different thing today. In Catholic theology, the sacramental system is part of a complex doctrinal storehouse, backed by the doctrines of meritorious works and a treasury of grace. Greatly over-simplifying the doctrine, Catholic theology is that the priest can, through administration of thesacraments, transfer divine favor from the "treasury of grace" (built up by the good works of Mary, the limitless good works of Jesus, and the good deeds of all the saints), to the spiritual "account" of theperson receiving the sacrament. This doctrine, with all its accruements, is foreign to the Bible.

Christians would do well, though, to examine their own notion regarding the sacramental value of theLord's Supper. When a child of God puts forth special effort to "make it for the Lord's Supper," though either unable or unwilling to participate in the other Lord's Day activities, does not this suggest a sacramental idea in that person's mind? Would it notrather be correct to say of the Lord's Supper, as of other Christian acts, that its spiritual value comes from its nature as an act of faith — an act of responsive obedience to a divine word?

As with other ordinances of the Lord, much can be learned about the meaning of the Lord's Supper from a study of the terms used by inspired writers to describe it.

COMMUNION

This is already a familiar term to most readers. It is one of the words which, in English translations of the Scriptures, stands for the original koinonia,and its basic idea is "sharing," "joint participation," or "fellowship." In the Lord's Supper, the Christian has fellowship with the body and blood of his Lord (I Cor. 10:16). This communion is in a real sense a "fellowship supper" — with the Lord Himself!

EUCHARIST

The noun form of this word is not used in the New Testament Scriptures of the Lord's Supper, although the Evangelists (Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:17,19) and the Apostle Paul (I Cor. 11:24) use its verbal form ("to give thanks") in describing the institution of it by Chr ist.

Thanksgiving (Eucharist) was the usual designation of the Lord's Supper in the post-apostolic writings of the early church (of. Didache 9:3-5; Ignatius to Philadelphians 4), and was the term preferred byUlrich Zwingli, the Swiss reformer and contemporary of Martin Luther.

For Zwingli, the Lord's Supper is essentially Eucharist, thanksgiving. It is a joyful remembrance and public acknowledgement of all that Christ has done for us. Taking part in it, weopenly proclaim that we are numbered amongthose who live on Christ's benefits (Jaques Courvoisier, Zwingli: A Reformed Theologian). As those who, in Christ, enjoy "every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places," Chr istians should certainly be aware of and thankful for Him and His sacrifice as they partake of His supper.

LORD'S SUPPER

Probably the most commonly used term amongChristians today, this expression, too, is full of meaning for the one who will give it due thought. The first word, "Lord's," stands for a Greek word used onlytwice in the New Testament Scriptures. Paul speaks of the "Lord's" Supper (I Cor. 11:20), and John ofthe "Lord's" Day (Rev. 1:10).

The original word, Kyriakos (from which theletters k-y-r-k became ch-u-r-ch), was not this uncommon in the ever yday wor ld of Paul and John. It meant "lordly," "imperial," or "kingly." Deissman cites a temple-wall inscription from Egypt (68 A.D., during the ministries of both Paul and John) which uses the term of "imperial" finances, and the "imperial" treasury (Light From the Ancient East, p.358).

In his use of "Lord's Supper," Paul signifies that it is a Royal, an Imperial occasion, and that Christians should approach it with due awe and reverence.

BREAKING OF BREAD

Since this expression is used also of a common meal, its meaning (Acts 2:42,46; 20:7,11) must bedetermined on some basis other than the term itself. (Nor does the use or lack of the definite article "the" help here, as no two occurrences are exactly alike.

For both Jews and early Christians, though, the idea of a meal in common meant more than mere satisfaction of hunger. To eat together symbolizedin a special way a fellowship with one another (of.Jer. 41:1; Psa. 47:9; Acts 2:42; Gal. 2:11-13). During the annual Pa over feast of the Jews, a cup was set aside at each table for Messiah, in case he should come that very night. The Jews, like today's millennialists, expected an earthly kingdom, and as part of its glory they expected a great Messianic Banquet (of. the insight this gives into the "Feast" parables of Jesus)

In this light, the statements of Jesus during thLast Supper (and keep in mind its background significance) become more meaningful. Thus "the breaking of bread" should remind Christians that it is the Messianic Banquet, and this reminder should fill their hearts with pleasure and gratitude on beingincluded in such a glorious event.

When one understands this memorial feast to be a communion, with Christ's own body and blood; anoccasion for thanksgiving, for all His ble ings; aroyal supper, with the King Himself; and a breakingof bread, in intimate table-fellowship with the Messiah, he can see and say the truth expressed in astatement made long ago by Justin Martyr:

For not as common bread or common drink do we receive these, . .. but... as we were instructed by Jesus Christ (First Apology 66:2). And the inspired words of the Apostle to the Gentiles gain even more meaning, when he said:

But let a man prove himself, and so let him

eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For he

that eateth and dr inketh. eateth and dr inketh

judgment unto himself, if he discern not. . .

(I Cor. 11:28,29).

798 E. N. Tenth

Abilene, Texas, 79601

_________________________ ______________________________Page 3

Verse" for individuals cooperating in "religious" matters. I again replied to his letter in the June,1967 i ue of Searching The Scriptures.

In July, 1967 I received still another letter from this gentleman asking about the same question. Ithought I had said enough to convince anyone on thismatter and thus did riot reply to this letter. Now inOctober, 1967 he writes again about the same matter. In order that you might know the question towhich he refers in the above letter I reproduce hisletter of July, 1967.

July 1, 1967Dear Brother Phillips:

I n your editor ial of June 67 you admitted thaboth individuals and churches must have authorityfor what they do in religion, yet when I ask yoabout individuals from one congregation cooperating with individuals from another congregation your answer was "what difference does it make so long as they are acting as individuals." This is a typicalDenominational answer — What difference does it make?

Why don't you show by the scriptures that members of many congregations did cooperate? Then you will be giving scriptural authority for what youor [sic] doing. I am still waiting for the book, chapter and verse.

Could a congregation order a subscription oSearching the Scriptures for each of its members if each member acted as an individual in furnishingthe three dollars ? Could they make one order do the job or would each individual have to order separately ?

Signed

In the April, 1967 i ue of this paper I replied tothe first letter from this man. I pointed out that Christian was one who belonged to Christ 24 hours a day and every day of the week. He has a relationship to others in the family realm, but is still a Christian (I Tim. 5:8,16), in the civil realm (Rom. 13:1-7),in the business realm (Eph. 4:28; James 4:13), inthe social realm (Rom. 12:17-21), and in the church assembled for worship and edifying (I Cor. 11:17-34;14:26-28). I gave Paul, Barnabas and John Mark as examples of individuals working together in preaching the gospel (Acts 13:13; 14:26,27). After goingto Jerusalem Silas went back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. Paul took Silas with him and Barnabas took John Mark. Here are two individuals (Paul and Silas), one from Antioch and the other fromJerusalem (though it cannot be definitely established where Paul was a member), working together (cooperating) in preaching the gospel. I went further in that editorial to show that neither Paul nor Silas were churches — they were individuals acting as such.

This did not satisfy the gentleman and he wrote

another letter stressing the point that I could not

prove that Paul, Barnabas and Silas were from dif

ferent congregations. Well, he is in a difficult posi

tion because he cannot prove they were from the

same congregation. Where is the "book, chapter and

verse" that shows they were from the same congregation ? We know they did cooperate in preaching the gospel

In the June, 1967 i ue I replied again to the same question in these words: "When the brother asked me, 'Do we have to have a pattern for what churches do but not for what individual christians do in the realm of religion?' he overlooked the fact that this question was answered in the passages he said I used to prove that Paul, Barnabas, and Silas cooperated in preaching the gospel. This is the precedent for individuals (not churches) to cooperate. I do not see how being members of the same congregation affects in any way the cooperation of individuals."

In the closing paragraph of the June article I said,"Both individuals and churches must have authorityfor what they do, but in some cases the individual is permitted to do what the church is not permitted to do. Being members of different congregations in noway affects the authority for the action of the individual."

But this did not satisfy the brother; he still wants "book, chapter, and verse" for individuals cooperating who were members of different congregations. In his letter of July 5, 1967 he asked: "Why don't you show by the scriptures that members of manycongregations did cooperate ? Then you will be giving scriptural authority for what you or [sic] doing. I am still waiting for the book, chapter and verse."

Since nothing I have said proves anything to this gentleman, may I ask him: Will you show by thescriptures that individuals cooperating in a religious matter must be from the same congregation ? When you do you will be giving scriptural authority fowhat you are doing. I want "book, chapter and verse."

Now to his letter of October 13, 1967. "If individuals can cooperate religiously through an institution such as 'Searching The Scriptures' why can't theycooperate through a 'Mi ionary Society' so long as they keep the Church out of it?" There could be no"Missionary Society" such as you indicate withoutthe involvement of churches. The "Missionary Societies" of the Christian Church and some churches of Christ exists as unscriptural cooperation of churches, or "centralized cooperation" of churches. T hat is what the Missionar y Society is, and if churches were kept out of it there would be no Missionary Society. In a very broad sense of the word a "missionary society" is any association of people in a common work or interest. A "missionary" is anyone sent on a mi ion, and "society" is a group opeople joined together in the same interest. The Fire Department of any city is a "mi ionary society" in this sense of the word, but certainly no one has this in mind when he speaksof the "Mi ionary Society."

One more time I am going to answer this man'squestion and if he cannot see the point I can do no more for him. First, there is a difference between individuals acting and churches acting. If this gentleman does not admit this difference, I will have tobegin here to teach him. I have assumed from hisletters that he recognizes this difference. This verse clearly establishes this fact. "If any man or womanthat believeth" (this is a Chr istian) "have widows,let them relieve them, and let not the church" (this is something in contrast to the "man" and "woman" that "believeth") "be charged; that it" (the church)

"may relieve them that are widows indeed" (I Tim.5:16). Now have I given "book, chapter and ver se" for the difference between the action of individuals and the church ? If not, I do not know how to establish anything by the wor d of God.

In the second place, the children of a widow are to care for her that the church may not be charged. Must these childr en all belong to the same congr egation before they can cooperate in caring for their widowed mother? My mother is a widow and I havefour brothers in the flesh. According to I Timothy

5:16 we all have an obligation as individuals and not as the church. We are not all members of the same congregation. Now, must we all be members of thesame congregation before we can cooperate as individuals in caring for our mother if she needed it? Caring for widows is classified as a "religious" work in James 1:26. I T imothy 5:16 char ges individuals in certain situations to do this "religious" work thatthe church be not charged. Individual children of a widow may cooperate in caring for her needs. I wantthe "book, chapter and ver se" that r equir es these individuals to be in the same congregation before they can cooperate in caring for their mother.

Again I ask, What difference does it make whether those individuals who cooperate belong to the same congr egation or not? "T his is a typical Denominational answer" will not answer this question. If twoindividuals acted together (cooperated) in giving aidto a needy neighbor, what difference would it makewhether they were Democrats or Republicans? The wor k they ar e doing has nothing to do with their relation to a political party. If they were acting as apolitical party it would make a difference, but individual action in cooperation with another has nothing to do with political affiliation. The same is true with congregational membership. If the action is congregational, it makes a difference which congregation those who ar e acting belong to. But if the individualacts as an individual with other individuals, this is not the chur ch acting and it makes no diff er ence which congregation the individual may be a member of.

The "book, chapter and verse" for individuals cooperating in a "religious" work who are not members of the same congregation is I Timothy 5:16; Acts 13:2, 5; 13:13; 14:26,27; 15:22; 15:36-41 and manyother s.

OUTLINES OF FLORIDA COLLEGE LECTURES 1968

Detailed outlines of each speech delivered at the 1968 Florida College Lectures.

Price: $2.00

Order from:

PHILLIPS PUBLICATIONS

P.O. Box 17244 Tampa, Florida 33612

"May God bless your efforts to teach His word."

— G. W. Hunt, T uscumbia, Ala.

"I wish you the best of everything. I enjoy Searching The Scriptures so much."— Mrs. W. F. Gideon, Brilliant, Ala.

"I appreciate your efforts in sending forth such afine publication as Searching The Scriptures. I likethe quality of the paper."— Carroll W. Puckett, Montgomer y, Ala.

"I enjoy reading Searching The Scriptures, especially its policy of hearing both sides of a question."

— David Fraser, Clermont, Fla.

"So glad you are continuing to publish your fine paper, Searching The Scriptures. I do appreciate your humble and sincer e manner of upholding the tr uth while exposing error. Please keep it up!"— A. G. Boaz, Montebello, Calif.

"I enjoy r eceiving your publication ver y much andbelieve it to be one of the very best teaching mediums in the field today. I hope you and brother Miller have many more years to continue the good work you are doing."— Col. James F. Lewis, Palmetto, Fla.

"I have enjoyed reading the paper; it has been much help to me."— W. J. Baker, Duck River, Tenn.

"I think Searching The Scriptures is second to none in its sound teaching."— C. T. Palmer, New Madrid, Mo.

"Still enjoy Searching The Scriptures and think it is the best one in the brotherhood." — D. W. H. Shelton, T ampa, Fla.

"May God bless you, brother Phillips. 'Keep onkeeping on' in the good work you are doing in Searching The Scriptures."— Leo Rogol, Miami, Fla.

"May your nobility in His wor d continue and increase for years to come."— Max Gregory, Orlando, Florida.

"You are both still doing a wonderful job in yourwork in publishing this fine gospel publication,Searching The Scriptures. May God bless you withgood health."— Opal L . Smith, T ampa, Fla.

"You brethren are doing a good work with Searching The Scriptures."— Doyle Banta, Athens, Ala.

"We enjoy reading 'Searching The Scriptures' each month. Keep up the good work."— H. H. Gantt, Wauchula, Fla.

"Thank you very much for your fine publication,and we look forward to the good articles during 1968, which brother Phillips outlined in the November, 1967 issue. Your efforts are appreciated."— Calvin

C. E ssar y, Roy, Utah."Your paper is excellent."— J. Ed Nowlin, Decatur, Ga.

"I want to take this opportunity to commend youand brother Miller for a job well done in producing Searching The Scriptures. It is one of the very finest papers among us. I firmly believe that the sacrifices made by both of you have been, and will continue tobe, richly rewarding in many ways."— Herbert Knight, Shreveport, La.

"I have enjoyed the paper very much, and hopethat you continue to print God's truth to a lost anddying world. May the Lord bless you in your work."

— Jackie L . Hinkle, T ampa, Fla.

GOSPEL PREACHERS JOIN THE SECTARIANS

Brother H. E. Phillips has asked me to write for a while in Searching The Scriptures under the heading of "Signs of Apostasy" which I am glad to do.In order to accomplish what is intended by this column, you who read this column can be of help. Would you send me bulletins, newspaper articles and other information which show some of the things that brethren are doing in departing from the Scriptures. Be sure that these are well documented — name of paper, date, page number, etc. are important. Senthese to me at 318 Kings Highway, Murfreesboro,Tenn. 37130. My thanks to you for your help in this matter.

In July, 1967, a referendum was conducted in Murfreesboro for the purpose of determining whethethe citizens wanted legal liquor stores or not. The legislature in the state of Tennessee passed laws this year which permitted each city to conduct such anelection.

When announcement was made that such an election would be conducted in Murfreesboro, I began at once to prepare material to show the truth aboutliquor whether legal or otherwise. Several of theChristians where I preach contributed money for me to put material in the local newspaper, to make aspeech in one of the schools and broadcast it over the radio and to circulate about 75,000 pieces of literature in opposition to liquor. Murfreesboro rejected legal liquor stores.

At the same time that I was opposing liquor,nearly all of the local preachers formed an organization for the purpose of opposing liquor. This was not done on the basis of the citizens of the town, but the preachers of the town did this. The Executive Committee was made up of Baptists, Presbyterians, another denominational preachers. Levoy Bivens, preacher for the East Main Church here and George

W. DeHoff, preacher for the Bellwood Church, were also on the executive committee of this organization.This organization was a RELIGIOUS organizationNow while one was opposed to liquor, what scriptural right does he have to join false teachers, menin religious error, to oppose or work for anything?If these preachers in the church could join the denominational preachers in this, why could they nojoin the ministerial a ociation?

In a copy of the local paper on July 23, an advertisement appeared in which were not only the names of nearly all the sectarians and denominational preachers, but also the names of nearly all thepreachers of the church of Christ.

In this newspaper advertisement and in the organization formed by these preachers, the Lord's church was made to appear as just another one of the human denominations of the day. The word would not knowthat there was any difference between the Lord's church and denominationalism.

Also, one of the meetings of the organization formed by these preachers was conducted in themeeting house of the Kingwood Heights Church of Christ, where John Renshaw is the preacher. Imagine if you can brethren having a service in which anyBaptist preacher could get up and have the floor to make a speech or any other denominational preacher could do the same. Do you think for one moment that Paul, Peter, or any of the other apostles would have permitted one of the false teachers of their day tostand in the place where the brethren met to worshipGod and be at liberty to make a speech? Do you believe that Paul or Peter or even Jesus would have joined up with the scribes, Pharisees, or the Sadducees in an effort to stand united with them in religion? Imagine Paul praying with the Pharisees of his day. Can you believe that Jesus would havejoined the Sadducees in prayer?

Gospel preachers have opposed upon scripturalgrounds the joining of denominational organizations with the sectarians. Now we have seen gospel preachers turn around and join up with them. The day will not be long until the gospel preachers will join thministerial a ociations and be in full fellowship withall of the denominational preachers in town.

In addition to this, these brethren urged churches to make financial contributions to this human organization. Yes, you got it right — churches of Christ urged to contribute to the same organization that the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches were contributing to. If brethren do this, it will not blong until they will be making contributions to thedenominational churches. And when the time comes that they do, how could these brethren object?

PLEASE NOTICE

If you have not renewed your subscription to Searching The Scriptures, please do so today. Please include your zip code with your name and address. We need your r enewal today.

OF THE LECTURE PROGRAM AT BELMONT AVENUE CHURCH OF CHRIST Indianapolis, Indiana February 6-11, 1967

"Preserving Our Distinctive Characteristics"

Robert Crawley, Lexington, Kentucky

"Preserving Distinctive Bible Doctrine" — A lesson

against modernism and theological liberalism. Robert Atkinson, Monticello, Kentucky:

"Preserving Distinctive Worship" — A lesson against

instrumental music, choirs, speaking in tongues in

worship, Thursday communion, etc. John Clark, West Chester, Ohio

"Preserving Distinctive Church Function"— A lesson

against church recreation, church entertainment, th

"Social Gospel." James P. Needham, Lou isville, Kentucky

"Preserving Distinctive Church Organization" — A

lesson against church organization larger and smaller

than the local eldership. Cecil Willis, Marion, Indiana

"Preserving Distinctive Morals" — A lesson against

worldliness, the "New Morality," "Situation Ethics,"

etc. Robert C. Welch, Louisville, Kentucky:

"Preserving Distinctive Bible Hope" — A lesson

against speculation and skepticism concerning the

end of time.

Six Lectures — Three Reels — $9.00 Order From: PHILLIPS PUBLICATIONS

P. O. Box 17244 Tampa, Florida 33612

Luther W. Martin was born July 31, 1919 in Wichita, Kansas. After graduating from High School inSpringfield, Mi ouri, he was married to Miss Jeanne Frances Reynolds of Berwick, Mi ouri on December 24, 1939. To this union were born five children, two sons and three daughters. The oldest son, Lynn

L. Martin, is married and is a song leader and preaches from time to time. Kurt is 15 years of ageand still at home. The oldest daughter is Mrs. JudyMiers. Miss Tara Lee Martin is a student at Florida College, and Marta Ann is 8 years of age and still at home.

Luther began preaching the gospel of Christ at Republic, Mi ouri, near Springfield, in 1941. Duringthe years from 1941 to 1945 he preached for numerous small town and rural congregations in the Springfield,Mi ouri area. During 1946 and 1947 he preached for congregations in Rockmart, Georgia and Lanett, Alabama. In the fall of 1947 he moved to Rolla, Mi ouri and preached there for two years, and eight years for the St. James, Missouri church and various small town and rural churches in the Rolla area. He has preached in meetings in many states in the nationand in Canada.

Luther W. Martin has given a lot of study tRoman Catholic doctrines. He has more or less "specialized" in this field and has a very good library onthis subject. He also has a collection of over 55 English versions and translations of the New Testament. His column over the years in Searching The Scriptures indicates his thorough understanding of Roman Catholic teaching and the truth of God's word.

Luther has been occupied in secular work whilepreaching the gospel publicly and through theprinted page. He has been a Radio Engineer and Radio Station Manager for about 30 years. He says,"I have always supported my family in secular work,and thus been able to preach for small churches without waging any kind of a 'begging' campaign — not that the laborer is not worthy of his hire — but I

have just preferred to do it this way."

Brother Martin owns Radio Station KTTR in Rolla, Missouri, but is in process of selling it. He also owns an interest in the May Printing Company, Rolla,Missouri, the firm that prints Truth Magazine andApostolic Doctrine. He also does the proof reading for both these publications.

Near the end of 1963 I asked brother Martin to write a regular column on Roman Catholicism, which he agr eed to do. Beginning in Januar y, 1964 he has been a regular and consistent writer for Searching The Scriptures. His work has been of the highestquality and true to the Book. He has also been a real personal friend in his encouragement to me in publishing this paper. Through his generosity a large number have received this paper for several, years. My profound thanks go to Luther W. Martin for his work of faith and labor of love in helping to makeSearching The Scriptures what it ought to be.

H. E . Phillips

CENTURY-OLD, CATHOLIC PROPAGANDA

"Propaganda" is defined as "Any institution or scheme for propagating a doctrine or system." Onlyrecently, a book published by Roman Catholic interests a century ago, came into my hands. This work is entitled, "The Lives and Times of the RomanPontiffs," by Chevalier Artaud De Montor. On March 30th, 1865, it was approved for publication by "John, Archbishop of New York." For years, this volumewas a part of the "Young Men's Sodality Library" or St. Joseph's Chur ch, St. L ouis, Mo.

A full page steel engraving opposite the title page of the book, shows an artist's imagination of howChrist delivered some literal keys to the apostlePeter, with cherubim approaching in the clouds, carrying the triple-tiara now sported by the Pope's of Rome, with the outline of "St. Peter's Basilica" in Rome, rising in a cloud above Peter's head, like a"pipe-dream" in the sky. To the devout Roman Catholic, the triple crown of the Popes, signifies their supposed authority over temporal, spiritual and purgatorial realms. But our primary interest in this book is not so much in its pictures, but in the written assertions ther ein contained.

THE STATED PURPOSE OF THIS HISTORY

"Many writers of learning, and several of the most distinguished bishops of the Church in this country, have constantly expressed a wish that a history of the popes, in the E nglish language, would be published, for the use of the laity." (Page 8, Introduc

___________________________Page 7

tion. Ibid.)

Note please, that this work is for the benefit of the English reading laity. Thus, any artistic or verbal embellishments that pictur es or wr iting could contain would be beneficial in propagandizing the RomanCatholic "layman".

THE UN-STATED PURPOSE OF THIS

A few sentences later, the writer of the Introduction, William H. Neligan, asserts: "The Christian Fathers, as individual writers and witnesses, theancient Church in her universal councils, with onevoice, regard the pope as sitting in the chair of Saint Peter. His prerogatives are as imperishable as thelife of the Church itself. He is the rock of the Church, the source of all jurisdiction and the centre of unity." Although the writer cited no historical evidence for his assertions, that we may demolish, may we r emind Catholics today, that: (1) The 'Christian Fathers' are by no means agreed in their writings relative tothe papacy which slowly developed and culminatedin Gregory I, in 606 A.D. (2) The 'universal' councils of the ancient church frequently disagreed with each other, and even sometimes anathematized eachother. (3) The idea of Peter having a 'chair', i.e.,seat of authority, comes not from the Scripture, butfrom the atmosphere of kingly authority such as wasexercised by political rulers. (4) The only prerogative enjoyed by the apostle Peter, was that of initiallypresenting the gospel of Christ to the world; first tothe Jews at Jerusalem; and, secondly, to the Gentiles at the home of Cornelius. After that time, Paul theapostle wrote by inspiration, that he (Paul), was not one whit behind the very chiefest apostles. Peter enjoyed no lasting or continuing prerogative, different to or separate from, the other apostles. (5) Even though the Scriptures teach that "That Rock was Christ," this Catholic propaganda claims that Peter was the "Rock of the Church." (6) Peter (and hisalleged successors) is said to be the "Source of all jurisdiction." Even though the Bible quotes Christ as having ALL the authority in heaven and earth, this Catholic work credits Peter and the popes with ALL jurisdiction.

T he timing and content of this volume is obviously designed to assist in pr opagating the myth of papalinfallibility . . . and five years after it was written, such a dogma came into being.

CATHOLICISM'S HABITUAL MISAPPLICATION OF SCRIPTURE

Matt. 16:18— "Upon this Rock I will build myChurch, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Catholicism asserts that the "Rock" is Peter and his supposed successors; and, that the powers of hell would not subjugate or conquer "it", the church. In such an exegesis, Catholicism completely misses the

meaning, in her effort to read into the passage, some

thing that was never there. Christ had been questioning the disciples as to His

identity. First, He asked who the general publithought Him to be. next, He asked the disciples themselves as to their evaluation of Him. After Peter acknowledged Him to be the Chr ist of God, thfamous statement copied above, was recorded by Inspiration. Christ was the Rock, and His very divinity was the subject under consideration. The fact that He was the Divine Son of God, would be demonstrated by the fact of His resurrection . . . the power of the unseen world itself, would be unable to prevent His triumph over death. All of Satan's power would notprevent His resurrection and the subsequent estab

lishment of His church.

Thus, the supposed continuing existence of Cathol

icism is not at all referred to in Matt. 16:18. Nor was

Peter (a pebble) to be substituted for the massive

ledge of rock (Christ), upon which the church was

to be founded.

CONCLUSION

The foregoing treatise is only a brief glimpse into the inaccuracies of Catholicism's fabricated history,and her ill use and abuse of Holy Scripture.

Luther W. Martin

"God Forbid!": No. 2

It has been observed that the expression "God forbid" occurs fifteen times in the New Testament; thatfourteen of these occurrences appear in the writings of Paul; and that ten of the fourteen instances in Paul are found in Romans.

Also, it has been pointed out that the words "God forbid" in the writings of Paul are always found as an answer to a question. Most commentators believe that Paul uses the phrase to express his abhorrence of some conclusion that one might erroneously draw from what he has stated.

Rom. 3:4

In the writings of Paul, the first occurrence of the words "God forbid" is found in Rom. 3:4. The expression is given in answer to the question, "shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect ?" KJV. Paul expresses his horror at the thought thatsome might conclude that the rejection of Christ bythe Jews would nullify or cancel out God's Messianic promises. To the contrary, God will fulfill his promise to the patriarchs relative to the ble ing of the worldthrough the seed of Abraham; and He will do this in spite of the fact that the Jews, as a group, rejectedthe Messiah when He came.

In a broader application of the same teaching, imight be stated that God will fulfill His promise of eternal salvation to those who are faithful to Him,regardless of the unfaithfulness of others.

Rom. 3:6

In Rom. 3:6, "God forbid" answers the question,"Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance." KJV. Again, Paul registers a strong objection relative tthe thought that God could or would be unrighteous. The fact that God had cast off the Jews as a race did not argue that God was unrighteous. To the contrary,it only argued that God was administering justice and judgment. In other words, a failure to punish unrighteousness would be a perversion of judgment

In a broader application of the same teaching, iought to be remembered today that justice and judgment demand that God punish sinners; just as justice and judgment demand that God reward faithfulne .

Rom. 3:31

In Rom. 3:31, "God forbid" answers the question,"Do we then make void the law through faith?" KJV. Paul has argued that justification is throughthe faith of Christ; not the works of the Law. This is not to argue, however, that the faith of Christ is contradictory to the Law. To the contrary, the faithof Christ fulfills the Law.

THE CONTEMPORARY KETCHERSIDE

NO. 1

J. Edward Nowlin

Brethren who have known, heard, or read after

W. Carl Ketcherside in years gone by are aware of his unscriptural teachings and of his use of hardlanguage in trying to defend them. However, he nowgoes about the land bearing an olive branch, claimingto have changed, and inviting all segments of the"restoration movement" to join him in burying thhatchet so that all can join forces to fight "hunger,famine, nakedne , dope addiction, alcoholism, prostitution . . ." and so forth. In MISSION MESSENGER, September, 1967, he thinks he is answering "ALetter From Texas" as he sets forth his oft-repeated assessment of the brethren and formula for unity.In this article, he states that he wants to be patientwith brethren, and we think he will not mind if wepoint out the following obvious flaws in his case.

KETCHERSIDE'S SUPERIORITY

Like all false teachers, Brother Ketcherside lays claim to superiority. In his estimation, he has matured in his thinking to where he does not confuse community with conformity. He implies that manof us have not matured to this point, that our interpretations and attitudes are destructive of the unityfor which Christ prayed, and that we are caught upin the throes of the factional spirit without even

knowing it. He says he will try to help us out. Joe Smith found and translated some "golden plates." Mr s. E llen G. White had a "vision." Mar y Baker Glover Patterson Eddy stole old Pat Quimby's thunder and discovered a "Key To The Scriptures." Jehovah's Witnesses claim to have a kingdom message for the "little flock." The Pre-Millennialists used to talk about R. H. Boll having cor ns on hisknees from praying so much and of the "deep things of God" revealed to them by the Spirit. But Ketcherside has "matured" in this thinking!" This must have taken some effort, but it sounds like Paul'shuman wisdom of I Cor. 1 and 2.

MISREPRESENTATIONS OF OTHERS

Like all other liberals, Ketcherside has trouble sticking to the truth when telling what others believe or practice. Here are some examples:

(1) DIVIDED OVER EVERYTHING. He says,"we ar e divided over ever ything from how to pass the Lord's Supper to the saints to how to take thegospel to the lost." He has traveled extensively and may have known of some situation where brethren were divided over how to pass the Lord's Supper to the saints, but this scribe has never -heard of such thing. However, he follows the same reckless pattern as all liberals in saying that brethren are dividedover how to take the gospel to_ the lost. T his is an effort to justify evangelistic societies under whatever name they may be found. In his mature judgment he should know that the issue in the cooperation controversy is not how to take the gospel to thelost; but who should do so. T he question of how is a question of methods; the question of who is a question of institutions. E vangelistic societies; such asHerald of Truth, Gospel Press, World Radio, UCMS, and the "sponsoring chur ch" ar e not methods; theyare brotherhood institutions which employ methods,just like local churches employ methods, and whichseek to persuade local churches to send them money to finance their methods. Those of us who stand for local autonomy have said this often enough for ever ybody to know the diff er ence, including one of mature thinking, and such a charge as he makes here is simply an oft-repeated attempt to muddy the waters. (2) DESTROYING UNIT Y. Ketcher side char ges those who insist upon speaking wher e the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent, with destroying the unity for which Christ prayed.This is the time-worn tool of all liberals. They start an unscriptural doctrine or practice and charge those who oppose it with cr eating division. When asked who was to blame for trouble over his millennial speculations, Robert H. Boll said, in Johnson City, Tennessee, "the fault lies with those who object."T o them, the criminal is not the man who sneaksinto the sheepfold and poisons the water supply; itis the man who catches him at it! (Compare Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis, and the society and instrumental music advocates of the past.) Dozens of meetings have been cancelled and preachers fired in the last 15 years when elders became panicky when some liberal, self-appointed informer whispered to them that a certain preacher, though for merly highly regarded, would split the church if allowed to preach. (3) FACTIONAL SPIRIT. Ketcherside says that those who stand for a "thus saith the Lord" are of a factional spirit, but are ignorant of it. Of course, his mature thinking helps him see this and he gladly points it out, though he says he is not boasting. Afactious person is one who is addicted to form parties and r aise dissensions in opposition to gover nment. To call one factious who respects the King of kings enough to insist upon obedience to His L aw, is pur e slander. It is on this basis that liberal churches today ar e disf ellowshipping faithful gospel pr eacher s andmembers who question their unscriptural practices. (4) PARTYISM. Ketcherside accuses by implication the brethren who wrote the letter of wanting to be lords over his conscience and commit him to partyism. A party is a number of persons unitedagainst others of a contrary opinion. This is the same as a faction, and we insist that those who contend for the scriptural pattern are not factionists. What theycontend for is not opinion. It is the faith (Jude 3). (5) INFALLIBILITY. Again, by implication,Ketcherside accuses the Texas brethren of claiming infallibility in deciding what is faith and what isopinion. Is everyone who claims to know the differ ence between faith and opinion claiming infallibility ? If so, the same char ge may be made against Ketcher side. T hose who live in glass houses should notthrow stones!

PROPAGANDA METHODS USED

One of the most subtle things about Ketcherside's article is his skillful use of well-known propaganda methods to per suade his r eader s. One technique of the propagandist is the use of "glittering generalities" in an effort to lead the reader or hearer to create devils to fight or gods to adore. Note the following:

"All of our factions, without exception, find iteasy to be charitable toward those who opposewhat they have. And all of them refuse to recognize those who have what they oppose." "In ever y case those who oppose what we have ar e 'antis' and those who have what we oppose are 'liberals.' With one exception every party in the restoration movement is regarded as 'anti' byothers; and with a single exception every party is regarded as 'liberal' by others." "... so our childish fighting continues from generation togeneration while the world around us is goingto hell."

"All of this points up the undeniable fact thatno man is a 'liberal' or an 'anti' because of where he stands, but because of wher e we stand as welook at him. The most extreme 'anti' to one is the most flagrant 'liberal' to another!" "The faith which saves (Romans 10) must be proclaimed to all; the faith which prompts oneto partake or to abstain from certain thingsmust be privately cherished. The first is produced by hearing the word of God; the second by listening to the voice of conscience." (Emphasis mine, J.E.N.)

Other such examples could be quoted from the articles and the errors contained in these are manif est, but without analyzing each separ ately, be itnoted that the obvious intent of these generalities is to lead the reader to look upon all differences between brethren as childish, foolish imaginations of a factious mind; a tempest in a teapot; hence, as devilsto oppose; and to lead him to adore the broad-minded, toler ant attitude of Ketcher side as he pullsthe mantle of charity over all aberrations of brethren. Since, according to him, we are all in error, the "anti's" are just as deep in the mud as the "liberals" are in the mire, and it behooves nobody to throw rocks at anybody. We ar e like the blackmailer whosays, "You can't tell on me because I know things about you!"

Then, to climax the whole thing, Ketcherside accuses the T exas br ethr en of doing the ver y thing hehas been doing, when he refers to their question about the difference between us and the Christian Church, by saying, "Such generalizations are silly, selfish and without warrant." So, if you happened tobe on his trail for using generalities, you were supposed to lose it right there and follow him to his spirited defense of the Christian Church people regarding lack of respect for the authority of Christ!

(Continued Next Month)

QUESTION — Will you please explain, in Searching The Scriptures, Habakkuk 3:3. I have heard that this, "God came from Teman" has been given for an answer when childr en ask, "Wher e did God comefrom." I believe this is teaching error on this verse. I very much enjoy your ANSWERS FOR OUR HOPE in Searching The Scriptures. T hank you kindly. — M. J.

ANSWER — T hose familiar with the context of Habakkuk 3:3 alr eady know that the above use of this verse is a gross perversion of truth. Certainly, children ought not to be given such an answer totheir question concerning the origin and existence of God.

Childr en should be taught, just as soon as theyare able to ask questions and reason concerning such matters, that God is an eternal, self-existent being. I realize that Atheists claim this is unr ealistic and unscientific. Remember, however, they can do no better in dealing with origins. They always start with something already in existence. With this start and a theor y, they r each their conclusions. T hese conclusions, however, are based upon a theor y withoutfoundation so far as origin is concerned. They simply cannot deal with the beginning. Every effect must be accounted for upon grounds of a cause sufficient to produce it. Yet, ther e cannot be an endlesschain of dependent causes. There had to be a first cause — an uncaused cause — that accounts for all else. T he Bible teaches this was God (Gen. 1:1). T his is the only sensible and r easonable explanation thatcan be given for the origin of things.

Habakkuk 3:3 is part of Habakkuk's prayer on the ver y eve of Judah's captivity by the Babylonians. God had made known to this prophet His impending judgment upon His people by bringing the Chaldeans to victory over them and the consequent period ofcaptivity. Instead of yielding to despair, Habakkukacquiesces to the divine will and prays with fervor, faith and hope. God had performed .wonders on behalf of His people in the past, some of which herecounts in this prayer, and based upon this the prophet expresses unwavering faith in God's righteous judgments and hope in ultimate glor y and victory for the people of the Almighty.

The prayer is in the form of an ode and abounds in historical allusions. Remembering that it is apoem will help account for some of the peculiar expr essions in it. T hese allusions ar e anticipative of future mercy, deliverance, and righteous judgmentat the hands of Jehovah. Among the allusions to thepast "Teman" and "Mount Paran" are mentioned. T hese then ar e places from which God's glor y hadshown and His mercy had manifested itself in days gone by. So much of that referred to involves the deliverance of Israel from Egypt and their journeyto the promised land. "Teman," according to McClintock and Strong, appears to be "the name given byE sau's distinguished gr andson to his possessions inthe southern part of the mountains of Edom. As the tribe increased in strength and wealth, they spread out over the region extending southward along theshore of the Gulf of Akabah, and eastward intoArabia." In commenting upon Josh. 15:1 concerning possible translations and meaning the same authority says further: "The wilderness of Zin extended up as far as Kadesh, and a part of it was thus allotted to Judah. T eman included the mountains of Edom as far north as Mount Hor, opposite Kadesh; and thus the territory of Judah reached to its extreme northwestern corner" (Vol. X, p. 243).

Without trying to identify any event in particular, it should suffice to know that "Teman" brought totheir minds a time and place from whence God hadmanifested His glory for their good in days gone by. T his along with other allusions moved Habakkuk toexpress faith as strong as can be found anywhere in the closing words of this chapter: "Although thefig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off fromthe f old, and ther e shall be no her d in the stalls: Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will join in the God of my salvation. T he L or d God is my str ength, and he willmake my feet like hinds feet, and he will make meto walk upon mine high places."

Page 11

THE NATURE OF THE BATTLE

In our last le on, we lear ned that the Chr istian is a soldier in the army of the Lord. Certain facts are clearly implied in the divine use of the term soldier. Certain principles inhere in the term.

If the Christian's life is a battle or warfare, whatis the nature of the conflict and what are the governing principles ? We can understand the nature of the battle when we understand the nature of the kingdom of which the Christian is a citizen and in which he must fight

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if mykingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36).To what kind of fighting does Jesus here refer? Is this in conflict with his command to "fight the goofight of faith?" Certainly not. He is here speakingof carnal warfare; a war where his disciples woultake up arms and resist his arrest.

If the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, thenit is a spiritual kingdom. If it is a spiritual kingdom,its citizens must engage in spiritual warfare, anthat is exactly what we find revealed in the NewTestament.

The apostle Paul wrote: "For though we walk inthe flesh, we do not war after the flesh: For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mightythrough God to the pulling down of strong holds" (II Cor. 10:3,4). Here he draws the contrast between a fleshly war and a spiritual war. The primary difference is in the weapons, attitudes and motives. Where the carnal soldier uses the carnal weapons such as a gun or knife and desires to kill the body, the Christian uses the sword of the Spirit in an effort to save the soul.

Lest someone get the idea that the Christian is not adequately armed because he does not use carnal weapons, Paul hastened to explain that his weapons are mighty. He then shows what the spiritual weapon can accomplish. Hear him:

"Casting down imaginations, and every high thinthat exalteth itself against the knowledge of Godand bringing into captivity every thought to thobedience of Christ" (II Cor. 10:5)

Notice that the spiritual sword can cast down imaginations. Every doctrine, creed, philosophy oopinion on earth today which is contrary to the wordof God is simply some mail's imagination! He imagines or thinks that God wills this or that and then begins to teach it as the will of God. I care not what the doctrine may be, if God hasn't said it and the Holy Spirit hasn't revealed it, it is purely humaimagination .and the word of God will cast it down. Such human theories and speculations of men certainly do exalt themselves "against the .knowledgeof God." Once embraced, they are usually preferred to the will of God.

Every doctrine, philosophy or ideology on earth today is competing for and endeavoring to controthe minds of men. Catholicism, Communism, Atheism, and hundreds of sectarian bodies are spendingmillions of dollars in an effort to indoctrinate peoplwith their philosophy and way of life. But that is exactly what God would have his people do! That is why Jesus said, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations." Teach them what? Teach them the gospel of Christ. Why? That they might think as Christ would have them think. The work of the soldier of Christ today is the skillful use of the spiritual sword in cutting down false ideas and replacing them with thwill of the Lord. When this is accomplished, we havebrought the individual's thinking into "captivity" and he will then gladly submit to the authority of the King through obedience to his will. Simple, isn't it? Well, then, let's get to work at it. Let's teach our friends and neighbors the will of the Lord.

In Ephesians chapter six, the apostle admonishes,"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be ablto stand against the wiles of the devil." T he word "wiles" denotes craft, deceit or a cunning device.These subtle efforts can be resisted only by one whois adequately armed. The ancient soldier was notequipped for war until he had put on his armor. He wore a girdle, breast-plate, shoes with iron nails, helmet to protect his head, and carried a great shield on his left arm which was thrown in front of his body. Let us notice Paul's analogy and spiritual application of this armor:

1. "Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth." T he soldier 's girdle kept the armor in place and supported the sword. Truth holds the Christian armor and supports the sword of the Spirit.Without the truth one cannot stand, and it is significant to note that this is the first thing mentioned. If we are not right, the rest of the armor doesn't matter for victory will never be ours. Divine truth is the power by which the kingdom of God is built, extended and defended.
2. The breast-plate of righteousness. The breastplate covered and protected the most vital organs of the body. Unless the righteousness of Christ is over and in our hearts, we cannot succeed. If you want a scriptural definition of righteousness, here it is: "And they (Zacharias and Elizabeth) were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless" (Luke 1:6).

3."And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace." The Christian must be prepareand willing to carry the gospel to the world. Notice that it is called the gospel of peace. This world needs peace! Nations, races, homes and churches are divided and torn asunder. Jesus said, "blessed are the peacemakers." The apostle wrote, "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, andbring glad tidings of good things" (Rom. 10:15)

4. "Above all, taking the shield of faith . . ." The Roman soldier used an oblong shield some four or

five feet long to protect the body against the sword of the enemy. The Christian's faith must never give place to doubt. Without faith we cannot please God. A strong faith will quench, stop, and put out alldoubt and the whisperings and evil suggestions of the wicked and skeptical. The "fiery darts" were missiles hurled by hand, and unless they were stopped by the shield, they were very dangerous. The Christian is constantly on the receiving end of the fiery darts of the devil and his followers. If his shield of faith is strong enough, he can stand.

1. The helmet of salvation. The soldier wore a helmet to protect his head. Here it is called the helmet of salvation. T he consciousness that he has a Saviour who is "able to save unto the uttermost" gives the Christian soldier courage for conflict. "But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for a helmet, the hope of salvation" (I T hess. 5:8).
2. The sword of the Spirit. The Roman soldier's only offensive weapon was his sword. He was trained to use it skillfully. Can you imagine anything sharper than a sword? Yes, I can. The Christian's sword issharper. "For the word of God is quick (living) and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12). Sin and unrighteousness cannot standbefore the word of God!

I guess that you have noticed that there is nothing to pr otect the back! T her e is no place in the L or d's army for cowards. A long time ago, God said, "Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return and depart..." (Judges 7:3). God's people today cannotwin the battle by tur ning their backs upon sin andthe problems which confront us. The forces of satan will not compromise nor turn back. Neither can we!Let us put on the whole armor of God, unsheathe the sword of the Spirit, and face the enemy unashamedand unafraid.

"Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war; with the cross of Jesus going on before."

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 17244Tampa, Florida 33612

THE POWER OF APOSTOLIC EXAMPLES No. 4

This is the fourth, and last, in a series of article's on apostolic examples. If one discusses religion with a Mormon, he usually doesn't get very far. About the time one gets ready to hem him in with the Bible, hegoes to his book of Mormon. Most of one's effort has been useless, unless an agr eement can be achievedon the pr oper standar d of authority. Until this matter is settled one might as well save his breath. The same is true in the church. If we try to settle the issues of the day, we must first agree on how authority is established. This is one of the things which has divided us. If we affirm, to our brother, thatauthority is established three ways and he comesback and tells us that author ity is ONL Y established by direct command, we have come to the end of ourr ope. We can talk about Acts twenty and seven, or First Corinthians, eleven, eight all we want to. The fact remains that until we agree on how authority is established we become a voice in the wilder ness. Some may feel that I have spent excessive time onthis subject but it is my firm conviction that this lies at the very foundation of our faith.

In this final article I will take up the last ar guments of brother Jarrell in North American Christian, a paper which he edits. He feels that approved examples are not binding (please see the last twoissues of Searching The Scriptures for his article and my reply). In the latter part of his article hesays, "If we must have 'approved example' or specific command for everything we do, then the following things which we usually practice would be sinful." He lists sixteen things and I shall take them up one at a time.

First, he mentions singing to non-Christians. The answer to this is found in number of places but Iwill mention only one. In I Cor. 14.23 Paul said, "If therefore the whole church be come together intoone place, and all speak with tongues, and ther e come in those that are unlearned or unbelievers (here is the non Christian) will they not say that ye are mad?" In this same assembly, wher e some spir itual gifts were being used, Paul mentions the non-Christians. Yet, in the same chapter he says Christians are to sing and pray with the spirit and understanding. T o sing with the "Under standing" is to sing so that both the singer and the audience may understand the song. He also said in the same assemblythat one hath a psalm (verse 26). In this assembly the non-Christian was to be taught. Paul said, "He is judged of all; and thus the secr ets of his heart mademanifest; and so falling down on his face he will

Page 13

worship God, and report that God is in you of truth." Thus, the non-Christian was taught, not onlyby prophesy but also by singing. We are told to teach when we sing (Col. 3:16). The conclusion is irresistible. We have: an assembly; the presence of a non-Christian ; the need for his instruction; the fact that some were taught TEACHING by singing in the assembly ; The singing is to be understood by both saint and sinner.

He mentions next having a song director. The answer to this is in the fact that we could not fulfill the command to sing without a director. Whether he sits or stands he is still the director. If we had no song director we would not know when to begin singing. We would have to sit around like a bunch ofquakers, waiting until the urge to sing hits up. This would be confusion and would violate Paul "decent and order" instruction. Our song service is badenough with a director, much less without one. The authority for a song director is in the command toSING.

Brother Jarrell's next objection is to the servers standing while pa ing the Lord's supper. I suppose this is what he means. The physical position of either the ones who serve or the ones who observe is not given in the Bible. The command to observe theLord's supper is authority for either the "servers" or the "observers" to sit, kneel or stand while observing the Lord's supper.His next objection is using the building exclusivelyfor worship or teaching. The authority for erectinga building is in the command to assemble, worship,teach, etc. The Lord did not legislate "where" this is to be done. However, after the building is erected, it must be used EXCLUSIVELY for what the Lord told the church to do! Any deviation from this is to prostitute the plan of God. Brethren in many places have turned their buildings into sanctified club houses! He objects next to having more than one congregation in a city or town. Evidently brother Jarrell hasn't read his Bible very carefully. In Rom. 16:5Paul says, "Likewise greet the church that is in their house." This referred to the house of Priscilla and Aquila who lived in Rome. So, not only did Paul mention the church in Rome, but also another congregation which met in their house. One plus one makestwo congregations in a town. However, finding this example would not be necessary since, the Lord did not put a geographical boundary on any congregation. If so, where is it? This would be closely kin tothe sectarian diocese.

His next objection is in regard to the church owning a church building. I answered this earlier in this article. The authority for a church building is in the command to assemble (Heb. 10:25). I would like to see a church assemble without a PLACE to assemble,wouldn't you

Next, brother Jarrell objects to preachers andothers performing marriage ceremonies. Most of the states allow preachers to do this. The Bible tells us to obey the laws of the land, and in order to get married, one must have the ceremony performed. The Lord has not legislated who is to do this; therefore it is scriptural for a preacher to do it.

His next objection has to do with calling eacother "Brother" or "Sister" and sometimes "Dr. Brown." In 2 Pet. 3:15 Peter says, "Our beloved brother Paul." It seems that brother Jarrell failed to read so many passages in his Bible. We havescripture for calling people brother. This was not used as a TITLE but as a relationship. As to callingpeople, in the church, "doctor" as a title, we have no scripture. If a person is a physician it would beproper to call him "doctor" as a profession. Just as we might call a man "carpenter" or "brick layer." Calling people by these names as a title is a bunch of foolishness and incompatible with the spirit of Christ.

His next objection is paying for services and goodsout of the treasury to non-members such as janitors,baby sitters and nurses. God tells us to use fruit of the vine, on the Lord's table. He has not told us where to buy the grape juice. We buy grape juice from grocery store and publishing houses, etc. This is lawful because of the command to use grape juice. building (which is scriptural — see above) must havecare. The authority to use a janitor falls into thesame category as erecting a building. Since the Lord hasn't legislated it doesn't matter whether the janitor is in the church or out. In regard to baby sitters and nurses, I feel that we have tried to put manyresponsibilities on the local church which should beborne by fathers and mothers. I feel that in theassemblies the mothers should be the baby sitters and nurses. If a child doesn't behave in the assembly,his mother or father should take him out and show him that he believes in the "laying on of hands."

The next objection is to having wedding and funerals in church building. I have already pointed outhat a meeting house is to be erected for the purpose of doing what the Lord commands. This includes teaching, edification and worship. When I perform a wedding or preach a funeral I am TEACHING theword of God. I have never done either without teaching. Therefore I fulfill the scriptural requiremenfor the use of a building. Some might object because the bride and groom or a corpse (in case of a funeral)is before me while I am teaching. What difference does that make ? I am still teaching the word of God. I have had many people, in the audience to go to sleepwhile I was preaching; does that make it unscripturalfor me to preach ?

His next objection is to congregational singing. I answered this in last Month's issue of Searching The Scriptures. Please see that i ue.

Brother Jarrell's next objection is to sending flowers, from the church treasury, to the ill and bereaved. Brother Jarrell might be surprised but I will agree with him on this one. I agree that we have no scripture, either by command, approved example or necessary inference for doing this. I feel that sendingflowers to sick folk and others is a personal matter and the church is not to be "Charged." Manychurches have started this practice without findinBible authority for it. I admit, that like the orphanhome i ue, it has "emotional appeal" but it is still out of harmony with the will of God.

He objects next to singing parts or harmony. The

Lord tells us to sing. He has not told us what to sing.

Some people, by nature, sing a certain part. The

authority for singing parts of harmony is in the

command to SING!

His next objection is to humming. Here again, I

will agree with brother Jarrell that we have no

scr ipture for this. I attended a service once wher e

this was practiced and it sounded more like a "hum

ming bird convention" that a worship service. This is

some more foolishness that "church of christers"

have borrowed from the sectarians which needs to be

stopped. It is sectarian to the core and I will not

defend such. The last thing he mentions is teaching by drawingsand photos. The command to TEACH means to con

vey a thought or idea to someone else. Under the

genus TEACH we may teach by oral demonstration,

write (as the Lord once did) or draw an illustration.

In doing this we are fulfilling the command to teach.

Therefore the authority for drawings is found in the

command to teach. This concludes four articles on this important sub

ject. My reply has not been a personal attack on

brother Jarrell. I have gone into detail on these

quibbles because many, who are not informed might

be led astray. It is my prayer that all will study the

Bible and not be led off by people seeking to justify

liberalism.

CREATION OR EVOLUTION?

I. A DEFINITION OF TERMS (Con't)

EVOLUTION. I am sure it is impo ible to find adefinition of Evolution which will be acceptable toevery scientist — even every evolutionary scientist. There is little agreement as to the mechanism ofevolution, its causes and the laws of changes underlying its process. Actually there is no "theory" of evolution, for there are many "theories" concerningthis word, what is involved in it and the processes relating to it. One authority lists 31 different "theories," including Buffon, Lamarck, the Darwins,Lyell, De Vries, Spencer, Wagner, Cope, Delage,Romanes, and many others.

I am sure, however, that all men, including all of my brethren, agree there is one definition we accept as true. There is one use of the term that is proper and we see it taking place today. I believe in andteach this kind of evolution. I speak of the definition that evolution involves change, growth, unfoldinand developing. Despite the universal acceptance of this definition as being correct and the fact all acceptthe reality of it in this sense, Dr. A. E. Schrank, headof the Dept. of Zoology in Texas University, said in the Houston Post of Aug. 22, 1964, "If you denevolution you deny that changes take place in organisms." But this is NOT the form, definition andteaching of evolution we reject and oppose. The fact that there are changes and growth in the natural realm is not the reason we are arrayed in battle onthe field of "Creation Versus Evolution" and I am sure the professor knew that to be true. The reason there is disagreement and controversy abounds (even among scientists) is NOT because there is varietyand change in the biological world. Instead it involves another definition we shall presently discu .

We know the Bible teaches evolution, in the sense that there are various stages of growth and development (Mark 4:28-29). We see this evidence of "evolution" in the development and maturity of the butterfly, moth, frog, rose and oak tree. As stated in our first article, every great oak tree today is the "evolution" of an acorn, by a natural law the Creator set in motion after "creative activity" ceased (Gen. and 2). We see this process also in the human embryoas it develops within the mother. ALL ACCEPT THIS DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION. Where we join i ue with others and reject their theories andtheir definition of "evolution" has to do with origins and first causes and whether or not there were separate and distinctive basic forms or "kinds" from the beginning or whether or not there was developmentfrom one (or a few) one-celled creatures, throughstages always moving from the lower and simple tothe higher and complex, up to all the forms we seetoday, INCLUDING MAN. We deny ANY progress or development from simple to complex from ANYof the basic, created, Genesis "kinds" up to ANOTHER and DIFFERENT "KIND." We deny "evolution" that says that something caused one "kind" (any major group, like the Families, Orders, Classes or Phyla) to bring forth ANYTHING except its own kind, as God decreed. And since we know Man was a Genesis "kind" (and he is our chief interest) the ONLY "kind" from whence he comes is another family of man — a man and woman, also as God decreed from the beginning after, by creative power, the first man and women came to be. In the illustrations previously used, I know the butterfly did not become frog, nor the rose an oak tree and that human embryocouldn't po ibly become and be anything but aHUMAN being.

We especially deny that man shares a common origin, ancestry and genetic kinship, with ANother form or lower being. He was never a reptile, anthropoid, amphibian or anything else but manMan (along with the other primates), did not come from a one cell piece of protoplasm; he did not comeinto being by any process (long or short) by thanimal route. He was a special and distinct CREATION and came from his Creator by the exercise of Divine Power. So the evolutionary dogma and "theory," asserted but not proved, has to do with origins common ancestry, descent and genetic kinship as it relates to man and the brute beasts beneath him. The two positions (Creation and Evolution) are diametrically opposed to each other. They cannot be reconciled, as much as the "Theistic Evolutionist" tries to accomplish it (discussed later)

In order not to be accused of giving a narrow and limited, or even slanted, definition of evolution we are going to quote quite a number, from a general cross section of society. These definitions will be from scientists, from many fields (such as naturalists

PLEASE CHECK YOUREXPIRATION DATEAND SEND YOURRENEWAL TODAY

geologists, biologists, zoologist, etc.). Statements as to the meaning of the term "evolution" will be givenby various professors and theologians. These will have to do with how the world came to be — what caused it — but especially the biological, i.e. life, both vegetable and animal, including man. These definitions will have to do with "atheistic" evolution, eventhough some are given by religious people, including preachers and Bible teachers. I am restricting these definitions to "atheistic evolution" for two reasons: "I intend to spend some time in future articles discu ing the "theistic" evolutionist, his position aninconsistencies, at some length, and (2) basically,there is little difference between them. Strictly speaking, as it relates to the things involved (origin,descent, genetic relationships), there is only onkind of evolution, the atheistic. If the theistic evolutionist is CONSISTENT he is an atheistic one (more on this later).

BOTH kinds accept the same NATURALISTIC development and progression from protozoa to man.(One popular high school biology textbook is titled "From Amoeba to Man.") Theistic evolution accepts the atheistic dogma of common ancestry and descent of ALL LIVING CREATURES, INCLUDING MAN. The theistic accepts the fact that man did "evolve" from the one-cell protozoa (amoeba is its genus) sponges, jelly fish, flat, round, and segmented worms,molluscs, star fishes, anthropods, tribobites, crustaceans, then to higher, more complex, marine life. Then his ancestors moved onto the land as amphibians, progressed on up to reptiles, various beasts of earth as anthropoids, lower primates as monkey, ape,chimpanzee, then half ape and half man (or, as Leaky prefers, "near man") finally to man. The theistic preacher and professor goes right along andaccepts this. BOTH theistic and atheistic teach theprocess of evolution and the route man traveled inthis same way. The only difference is that the theistic (from "Theos" — God) evolutionist just says "all ofthis happened in this way but God was behind it and the guiding hand. God did it but by the evolutionary process." It is the same old materialistic and naturalistic doctr ine just as much as that taught by themost dedicated atheist who ever lived.

As further evidence that this is what is involved in Evolution (the kind we reject and oppose), and that we have not misrepresented such in the slightest way, I suggest you refer to "Searching The Scriptures," Nov. 1966, pages 7-8, as my entire article (relative to my visit to the Chicago Museum of Natural History) quotes from the museum's literature,booklets, exhibits and display cases and their statements and claims are EXACTLY in harmony witwhat I have represented the "theory" of Evolution to be.

(In the next article all the space will be occupiedwith various definitions of the word "Evolution," taken from many sources.)

Have you renewed your subscription?

COGDILL HAS SURGERY

In February 6, 1968 Roy E. Cogdill underwent abdominal surgery in Pampa, Texas. His wife also had surgery about the same time. Both are doing well and are back home at 35 W. Par Avenue, Orlando, Florida. Brother Cogdill has had to cancel his engagements until June toregain his strength. Our prayers are that he and his wife will continue to progress until thehave returned to normal health.

MEETING IN 10MPKINSVILLE, KY.

I am to be in a meeting with the Grandview congregation in Tompkinsville, Kentucky, April 1-7,1968. I was born in Kentucky (near Bowling Green)and it will be a pleasure to return again.

H. E. Phillips

James P. Miller, 2523 West Diana, Tampa, Florida

— I am sure that readers of SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES will be glad to know that a trip to theCleveland Clinic and to the world famous Doctor Mason Sones, Jr. revealed that my wife, Bobbie, didnot have heart trouble at all. Many brethren were kind enough to show concern about the po ibilityof heart surgery. Her trouble was determined to be a cramping of the muscles of the chest around theheart which is painful but not serious. Both of us are sure that the many prayers of brethren were instrumental in this favorable report. She is back at her work at Florida College and we are so thankful.

Spring meeting will find me with the Riverside church in Nashville with Robert Jackson the last week in March. This is March 31st and with the Downtown Congregation in Lawrenceburg, Tenn.,the first two Lord's days in April. The dates are April 7-14. Brother Hershel Patton is the good preacher at Downtown. I hope to see many old friends and make new ones during these meetings. The month of June will carry a new experience for me. I will preach in a meeting where my son, Rodney M. Miller is the local preacher. Rodney works with the Haltom Citycongregation in greater Ft. Worth, Texas. They meet at 6101 Linton Avenue. When in Ft. Worth worshipwith them. I will be with the Lorraine Avenue church in Cleveland, Ohio in May.

THE GOSPEL IN SONG

Printed in shaped notes on gum paper. Size5 1/2 x 7 11/16 inches. "Our God, He Is Alive," "The Open Tomb," "A Place We Call Heaven,""A Precious Book." These are $.10 per copy. In quantities, $.05 each. Introductory copies to song leaders, gratis. Order from: A. W. Dicus,201 S. Greenfield Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33617.