THE NEW FREEDOM By David Edwin Harrell, Jr.

(The first speaker on the 1970 Florida College Lectures was David Edwin Harrell, Jr., professor of history at the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. His subject was, "T he New Freedom." The value of this subject deserves a greater audience than that which was present when he spoke, even though the auditorium was overflowing. I asked brother Harrell to allow us to publish the entire lecture in aseries in Searching The Scriptures. He gladlygranted permission and provided this manuscript. I commend this series of studies by brother Harrell. — H. E. Phillips.)

It may well be that every generation has felt that its time was one of peculiar urgency. The young have been "going to the dogs" for ages and old folks have been "set in their ways" since, I suppose, old folks appeared. The youthful quest for "freedom" varies from generation to generation in extent, but all of us are capable of recognizing the emotion.

But the "new freedom" which has so captivated the mind of young America may well be a more profound and permanent revolution than mere adolescent rebellion. It is the product of full grown intellectual currents; the new freedom is not simply thephilosophy of the younger generation; it is the culmination of a century of western thought. I believethat one can appreciate the candor and honesty ofthe proponents of the new freedom when he considers the shackles they wish to be free from. On theother hand, the poverty of the philosophy of freedom in modern society is that it fails to supply any sense of direction.

For a full century now the intellectual world ofwestern man has been in transition. The Age of theEnlightenment, an historical epoch which spans approximately the years 1500 to 1850, has been coming to an end. In many ways modern thought has returned to the more pessimistic and realistic bases of the medieval and ancient worlds.

The Age of the Enlightenment was a fascinating and perhaps unique period in world history whenmen were confident of their own ability to solve the problems of the world through the use of the supreme gift to man, reason. The Enlightenment, or Age of Reason, was a period of heady optimism andunbounded confidence in the ability of man to learn all the rules of nature and ultimately control his universe. People felt that the world was "progressing" toward some ultimate state of perfection — an idea not shared by people in earlier periods. Man was considered to be a rational animal and consequently inherently good; if he misbehaved, it was becausehis innate rationality had somehow been twisted by his environment. Perhaps this is enough to suggest the mood of the Enlightenment mind; much of themood still remains in the world; we all have imbibed of E nlightenment ideas.

Two of the practical products of Enlightenment philosophy have been political and religious liberalism. Political liberalism is rooted in the philosophical optimism of the Enlightenment. Political reform assumes that man is good and that the use of reason can solve his weaknesses. All evil is the product ofenvironment and can be removed by a rational manipulation of society. The idea of progress is inherent in the concept of the "great society."

Religious liberalism comes from precisely the same sources. The religious liberal is preeminently concerned about reconciling his religious stance with the current dictates of reason; faith is a concept heneither understands nor appreciates. The liberal religionist is enslaved to the old Enlightenment confidence in man and his dignity. An obvious list of general convictions follow: sin does not exist; evil is the product of environmental misfortune; this world and its problems should be the sole concern of Christians; salvation from sin and spiritual life are irrelevant to rational man. And so, the social gospel. The social gospel is simply a religious expression of Enlightenment liberalism, in the same way that the "great society" is a political expression of Enlightenment liberalism. Any religious group, whatever it may think of itself, that concerns itself fundamentally with the problems of this life is in themainstream of the western liberal tradition.

Insofar as this has been the intellectual framework of modern man for several centuries, the Christian has always found it an inadequate one. I believe that every basic idea coming out of the Enlightenment is in violation of scriptural truth. While wehave sometimes, perhaps harmlessly, harbored these ideas within a Chr istian context, they do not fitneatly and they can be harmful to our basic understanding of the Christian system. In fact, I havbeen preaching against all of these assumptions for years; long before I knew that philosophical radicals had pronounced themselves free of them.

Man is not good but he is sinful and stands desperately in need of salvation. In the book of Romans the Apostle Paul spends over two chapters at thebeginning of his argument to convict that "there is none righteous, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10). And whocan doubt the sinful nature of man who reads: "For [ know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwellethno good thing: for to will is present with me; buhow to perform that which is good I find not" (Rom. 7:18). The world is not progre ing toward some bli ful end designed by perfectable man. The world is the home of struggling sinful men who seek to find and serve their maker. The optimistic complacency of modern man has not been unlike the deceitful smugness of the Jews; they both failed to graspthe depth of human need and the hopele ness of the human predicament.

Before analyzing the radical attack on Enlightenment liberalism, let me digress a moment to pointout that faithful Christians have long recognizedthe Biblical error and religious perversion inherent in such a position. This misunderstanding of mahas caused the misunderstanding of God's solution to man's needs. My need is spiritual, not social; God's plan is spiritual, not social. The gospel is the "power of God unto salvation" (Rom. 1:16) ; the mission ofJesus was to "seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). Physical security and material ble ing have not been promised to the Christian, butrather the promise of a better country for those that seek it. The Lord's declaration that His kingdom was "not of this world" (John 18:36) is the ultimate scriptural denial of the a umptions of the social gospel. The social gospel is the fruit of the materialistic spir it of the age; it is rooted in shallow optimism and haughty rationalism and is a denial of the authority of the scriptures and the imperatives of the spiritual life.

It is ironic that many of my brethren have jumped aboard the fashionable bandwagon of social gospel-ism and liberal thought at the very moment when itis increasingly becoming a less fashionable place tobe. The avante garde Church of Christer who in the 1970's is trying belatedly to find religious relevance in programs of recreation, entertainment, community welfare, psychiatric counseling and family planning is, in the first place, hopele ly out-manned bythe more experienced, better-heeled, and more sophisticated denominations around him; and, in thesecond place, the whole liberal ship is sinking. The intellectual community is forsaking liberalism. Those who have wanted so badly to find a place for their religion which would be intellectual respectable now find that their religious liberalism is neither acceptable to God or man. (To Be Continued)

Good reading material is a great asset in developing the individual, in preserving the home as it should be, and in the salvation of the lost. The printed page is a mighty weapon for good and for evil. It is one of the most potent means of communication between men of contemporary times as well as withmen and women of centuries past. What is written lives long after the writer has passed the ways of all men. This communication of minds and ideas by wayof the printed page is powerful because it can be read and reread by hundreds and thousands of people nowand in future times.

We all need to read to develop life and purpose. Our goals change from time to time. T his may bgood or it may be bad, depending upon the way wechange and the motive for the change. Perhaps noforce is so great in bringing about the change oviews and life as the printed page. Reading is to themind what feeding is to the body; it strengthens the understanding just as exercise strengthens the body. Unless we choose good reading matter and exercise our minds by reading, we will shrink up to nothing as time goes on. We and our children will read something. Whatever is at hand will be read,and if it is not the kind of mental food that will develop us, we and our children will suffer as the result of reading that which will change us in thewrong direction. This is not to say that we should not read all facts concerning any subject, but if wchoose the trashy and evil reading matter that now floods the markets our minds and attitudes will descend to the level of this thinking

The Scriptures direct us to read and study theword of God as the basis of life. We obtain the faith that will save by reading the word (Rom. 10:17).It will make a man perfect unto every good work(II Tim. 3:16,17; I John 2:15). It will purify the soul in obeying the truth (I Peter 1:22,23). We are to read the word to understand it (Matt. 24:25)Paul told T imothy to "give heed to r eading..."(I Tim. 4:13). There is no doubt but that men must read to know the truth-of God. Those who read the Scriptures to know and obey the truth are considered noble by God (Acts 17:11)

All men do not read with the same purpose in mind. Some read just to kill time. This kind of reading never gets much past the moment their eyes scan the pages. Others read to try to prove a position they already hold. This is not reading to learn, butto justify. T his kind of reading never enlightens the individual to new knowledge, and, consequently,his life and purpose will not be renewed when it needs to be renewed. Others read just to accomplish a record for themselves. "Daily Bible Readers" often accomplish nothing more than just that — reading a few lines each day to be able to say on Lord's day"I am a daily Bible reader." There is a wide difference between "reading" for the record and "reading"to understand.

Reading is an individual matter just as eating orexercising the body is an individual matter. In this present age it is the growing practice for a few to set themselves up as judges to determine what thepublic should and should not read. This is a form ofcensorship that robs us of personal freedom. Suppose someone should elect himself to decide for you that you should not read the Bible: only read what he says about the Bible. Would you accept that? Bwhat law or logic should one decide what you should or should not read in religious matters but not in all other matters? If one has the right to judge for you what to read in religious matters, he has the same right to censor all your reading material. Would you think it healthy for you to read only what some man decides for you to read, Catholics govern their members in this way. Certain books are forbidden to be read by Catholics. As a Christian yoinsist that Catholics should be informed by readingall they can on subjects pertaining to Catholicism and Chr istianity. But in turn are not you in thsame boat as a Catholic if you let a man or group ofmen decide what you shall read and what is forbidden to you?

Among members of the church today there is aneffort to classify men, books, papers and tracts, and stamp approval or disapproval upon them. A 'veryfew men act as the judges of what shall and what shall not be r ead by the major ity of the chur ch.

Is it po ible to know what truth is when all theevidence is not heard? Our system of justice requires that all the evidence for and against a per son charged with any crime be presented and examinedbefore sentence is pronounced. What would happenif the judge decided against any evidence that was contrary to his own personal views ? Suppose he forbade the jury to hear any evidence presented by thedefendant and allowed only the prosecution to present evidence? Could the jury decide the truth of the case upon this basis?

You owe it to yourself to read and study all thevidence in any matter to judge for yourself whattruth is and error it. I have read many books andworks written by infidels, atheists, agnostics, modernists, evolutionists, and radicals, and shall continue to read them. If they have any truth I want to know it. Of course, with the Bible open before me, I am further established in the truth of that book by reading what the enemies of the Bible have to say and then reading what the Bible has to say. This, I believe, is the only way to fully know thtruth. A few seem to think Paul's statement to Titus regarding elders doing their work of stoppingthe mouths of those who subvert whole houses is to forbid any one to hear them or read their writings. This is not the case as the verse shows. "Holdingfast the faithful word as he hath been taught, thathe may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers" (Titus 1:9). Some were vain talkers and deceivers whose mouths must be stopped. T his was to be done by holding the truth and presenting the truth against error so as to convince the gainsayers and stop the mouths of deceivers. This passage does not authorize elders or anyone else to censor what another hears and reads. It authorizes the elders to use sound doctrine against the error to overthrow it.

Searching The Scriptures is a monthly journal dedicated to that very effort — "searching the Scriptures" to be approved before God. We pretend onlyto study the word of God with the readers to ascertain the truth of God. Its pages are open to a free and frank study of all Bible questions in the earnest and honest desire to know the truth and to obey itPersonal sarcasm and insults are not permitted simply because that is not in harmony with the spirit of Christ. We attack error with all the force of our ability wherever it may be found, but we will have no part in the attempts to revile others simply because we do not agree with their position on theword of God.

We believe this paper will furnish good readingmaterial for you and every member of your family.We are not presenting a creed for any man; we onlywish to study with you the scriptures which willmake a man perfect to every good work. You deserve to study all you can on scriptural matters in order to know the full truth touching any subject. Donot let another decide for you what you shall or shall not read. Read all you can on any subject. We are not suggesting that you drop any religious readingmaterial now coming to you; we only ask you to addSearching The Scriptures to that which you are now taking and measure all you read by the word of God. If it is in harmony with

QUESTION: (Ed. Note: For the sake of brevity,I am adapting the following questions so as to comprehend several others from the same letter towhich reply was made in the February i ue ofSearching The Scriptures.) Does the word "faithful" in Titus 1:6 refer to children who are faithful to their father — in subjection to him — or to those who are faithful in the sense of having obeyed thegospel? If a child departs from the faith at college age or when he leaves home, does this disqualify thefather as an elder? — R. G.

ANSWER: There are some who hold that the expression "not accused of riot or unruly" is appositional, and, therefore, explains "faithful children." Hence, they conclude that the meaning is subjectionto their father. This position I believe to be untenable. Truth is made more clear in the A.S.V.: "having children that believe." It has the same application as in II Tim. 2:2: "And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, thesame commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." I believe that Titus 1:6 lays down three distinct and definite qualifications,namely, "children that believe," ". . . not accused of riot," and "or unruly." The conduct" of one "accused of riot" is that like the Gentiles or heathen before conversion. Peter refers to this conduct in the following words: "Wherein they think it strange that ,ye run not with them into the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you" (I Pet. 4:4). This qualificationshows that the Lord did not want, as an elder, onwhose children were pagans or whose conduct was like the heathen. They must be Christians and act accordingly. "Unruly" means one not in subjection to authority. This would include parental authorityas well as all other duly constituted authority

When these qualifications are considered in thelight of I Tim. 3:5: "(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)," they show that an elder must be one who has demonstrated his ability to influencthose under his jurisdiction in the right way. These qualifications are both positive and negative. Positively, the elder's children must be "believers" —i.e., Christians. Notice, however, the verse does not say all of his children must be believers. I conclude,therefore, that children not old enough to be Christians would not disqualify one as an elder, if others were Christians. Observe also that, negatively, thqualifications exclude one whose children are accountable and are not "believers." Such would not be in subjection to duly constituted authority, hence"unruly." Furthermore, if one's child be "accused of riot" — if he prefers having a gay time with theworld and is doing so rather than being a Christian,he fails of the divine qualification.

I do not believe that the departure from the faith of a child after he leaves home and is no longer under the jurisdiction of the father necessarily disqualifies the father as an elder. While it may raise some question as to background training and development, it does not, of itself, necessarily alter eitherthe character or conduct of the father. If the father influenced his children to obey the gospel and liveaccordingly while they were under his control, then his ability to rule well his own house has been established, and in that matter he should be respected as one possessing the required qualification.

I know that Prov. 22:6 says, "Train up a child inthe way he should go: and when he is old, he will notdepart from it." I also know that this is a proverb,and, therefore, is a maxim or a general rule to which there may be exceptions. As a rule the children of elders as well as children of other Christians, whenproperly trained, will thereafter walk in the way otheir training. However, now and then we find exceptions to this rule. Let us be grateful for the rule,though there be exceptions, and strive with all ourmight to practice it. The results are very gratifying.

INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC -THE PSALLO APPROACH

This is the fourth and last in a ser ies on instrumental music. I said from the beginning that instrumental music is not a dead issue. This culprit has come back to haunt God's people time after time. In our first study we discussed the "Psalms" approach to the question. The second consisted of the old "aid" argument made by many. The third was the "home" approach used by many people in the denominations arena. This final study is probably the more uniqueapproach of the better informed on the subject. It has a more distinctive and scholarly ring than th"home" or "aid" arguments. The argument pivots around the little word psallo. Instrumental music proponents insist that the word means to pluck onan instrument. T hus, if this be true it would not be a matter of choice but a matter of law! We would violate God's law if we did not buy and use an organ or some other instrument. Furthermore, as I see it,we would all have to play some sort of an instrument because if God said to do it we would have no choice in the matter. When the aid argument proponents talk about instrument they usually say that it is permi ible but not mandatory. You can take it or leave it! But if Psallo means what some of my friends say we have no choice but to learn how to play some sort of instrument. I don't believe it could be arguedthat just one person could play for all of us. If such be so, one could both sing and pray for us and we could sit back and do nothing. Who could believe itThe problem of "Psallo" comes in the field of sematics. It is used in its various forms five times in the New Testament. Eph. 5:19, "Making melody" (psallontes) ; Rom. 15:9, "Sing" (psallo); I Cor. 14:15, "Sing: (psallo) used twice; James 5:13, "Sing praises (psallein). The problem of "Psallo" is found in its root meaning and its change in applied meaning down through the centuries. All scholars are united in the root meaning of the word. With oneaccord they say it means to pull, rub, strike, vibrate,twang, etc. W. E. Vine in his word studies says theword "Psallo" means "Primarily to twitch twangthen to play a stringed instrument with the fingers,and hence in the sept., to sing psalms, denotes in the New Testament to sing a hymn, sing praises; Eph.5:19, "Making Melody." You will notice somethingin the definitions of most of the lexicographers. Theywill give an Old Testament meaning and then a New Testament meaning. For example, Mr. Vine said in the Septuagint it could have meant to sing with harp. Now everyone knows the septuagint referred to the seventy ripe scholars who translated the Old

Testament into Greek. This took place about B.C.

170. Notice after he talks about its meaning in theseptuagint he then says, "Denotes in the New Testament to sing a hymn, sing praises." You will notice he did not mention the instrument in his New Testament meaning of the word! This is why not one single translator ever translated the word "psallo" ameaning playing an instrument in the New Testament. Mr. Thayer in his lexicon says about the same thing. He says, "Septuagint, for niggan, piel form of nagan, and much oftener for zumner, piel form of zamar — to sing to the music of the harp." Now let us notice what he says it means in the New Testament. He says, "In the New Testament, to sing hymn; to celebrate the praise of God in song." Not one word about playing an instrument in the New Testament definition of the word. Thus, "psallo" like many words must be understood in context. For example, the little word "eis" in the New Testament has different meanings and has been translated such by the scholarship of the world. This little word has been translated "unto," "to," "into" and many other ways in the New Testament. Baptist preachers seem to get confused as to why one little word could betranslated so many different ways. But the scholars knew why. The word "eis" is translated "into" when it mentions baptism into Christ or his Body (Gal.3:26-27). When A. T. Robertson, a Greek grammarian, was asked why the New Testament says we are baptized into Christ but believe on the Lord his answer was: "Into is not in the preposition itself butcomes from the accusative case, the verb of motionand the context." This is why your New Testament says we believe on the Lord but are baptized into him. The scholars who translated your New Testament knew their Greek. Now the same is true of "psallo." If this word in the New Testament meantto play an instrument, why didn't one of them say so? T he answer is obvious; they knew the word inthe New Testament has no such connotation.

T he root meaning of the word was to plucktwang, etc. The scholars in giving its meaning gave several illustrations. They spoke of the carpenter pulling his line; a hunter pulling his bow string anda musician stroking the strings of his instrument. Thus they give both the verb and the object. Because of this many have jumped to the hasty conclusion that the word always means playing an instrument. This is not so. In Eph. 5:19 Paul tells us what is to be psalloed. He says, it is to be with theheart. The word baptize means to dip but the element must be named or we would not know. In the New Testament the one baptism is to be in water which is named in Acts 10:48. If God had not told us what to be baptized in, we could use milk or tar. The same is true with psallo. We must have something mentioned to psallo or it could be a carpenter's chalk line or the hunter's bow string. Since the NewT estament tells us it is the heart the matter should be settled for all who love the Lord and his word.

CLUB RATE SUBSCRIPTIONSFOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR ONLY $10.00SEND THEM TODAY!

THE PROBLEM OF PREJUDICE

On the wall of my study hangs this motto: "Don't Confuse Me With Facts! My Mind is Already Made Up!" I did not hang this motto there because I believe it contains the right principle for living. To the contrary, I placed it there to serve as a reminder that honesty demands that I not make decisions or reach conclusions until all pertinent facts have been considered. Prejudice is a form of intellectual dishonesty. It is pathetic that the unwritten code of the religious world is exactly as the motto states. Peoplemake up their minds as to what they are and whatthey believe and then refuse to be disturbed withfacts!

Prejudice is denned as: "Preconceived judgmentor opinion; unreasonable predilection or objection;esp., an opinion or leaning adverse to anything without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge" —Webster.

Christ was often confronted with the problem ofprejudice. Concerning such people he said, "For this people's heart is waxed gro , and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should healthem" (Matt. 13:15). This same statement was used by Isaiah and applied to the people of his day, anPaul later applied it to some who heard him (Acts 28:25-27). This is a good description of a prejudicedmind, and these statements, applied to people in different ages, shows that this is an old and commonproblem among men. During the life of our Lord on this earth, many had made up their minds concerning the Messiah who was to come and when he did not fit their concepts and preconceived opinions, instead of facing the facts and changing their minds,they rejected and killed him. Christ was a victim ofprejudice!

People often reveal a blinding degree of prejudicwhen they hear something which is contrar y twhat they already believe. We see this evidenced in Paul's preaching to the Jews. Apparently they were listening with interest and respect until he used the wrong word. The record says, "And he (Christ)said unto me, Depart, for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. And they gave him audience untothis word, and then lifted up their voices, and said,Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live" (Acts 22:21,22). Whahappened to bring about such a change in attitude and action? Paul said the wrong thing! He shouldnot have mentioned the Gentiles, for the Jews were prejudiced against them. I have seen people react in the same way. Maybe they were listening carefullyuntil I said something which they didn't like; something contrary to their preconceived opinion. Youcan mention a human name, mechanical instrument, sprinkling a baby, giving, or maybe some human institution and some people will turn you off. You cantell when they do, for they will drop their heads, start thumbing a song book, filing their nails, playing with the children and watching the clock. They are finished, and so far as they are concerned youmay as well stop pr eaching. T hey have tuneyou out.

We like to think that all prejudice is found in denominationalism, but this is not true. Some of mbrethren are the most prejudiced people who ever walked on God's good earth! I can prove this bydisplaying a large stack of papers which I have received back from brethren over the past fifteen years with the word "Refused" written across them And I even had to pay the return postage on themI wonder if some brethren would listen to BOTH sides of a phonograph record.

I have spent much time trying to analyze such people as those just mentioned — people who are so prejudiced that they refuse to read or hear anythingcontrary to what they already believe. When a magets in that condition, it seems to me that one of three things is true: 1. He knows all there is to know on the subject. 2. He is incapable of learning. 3. Heknows that he is wrong and doesn't intend tochange. Since the average person does not know all there is to know, and is capable of learning, the answer must be found in number three.

When I reach the point that I refuse to hear, read or consider anything which I don't already know and accept, I never will know anything else! And if perchance there is some truth that I have not alreadylearned, I will never know it. What a shame.

To be perfectly honest, there is some prejudice inall of us. To refuse to recognize this is to reveal that it is true. I find it difficult to consider and study every problem, i ue and individual with a completely honest and unbiased mind and attitudeDon't you ? Be honest now. We must recognize this problem and work to correct it. It is even difficult to read and study the Bible honestly. If we are notcareful, we will find ourselves interpreting a verse by looking at it through yesterday's understandingof it or some conclusion formed without proper consideration of all facts, or even without considering our additional knowledge gained by a study of thBible. Without losing or discounting the benefit ofour knowledge of the Bible, I feel that there is asense in which we should read each verse in out daily study as if we had never read it before. By sdoing, we will take a fresh, new look at it. We willnot give it a cursory reading with the feeling thawe already know what it means.

Too many minds are like good concrete — thoroughly mixed and well set. But, like an umbrella, themind is of little value unless it is open. James Harvey Robinson said, "Of all human ambitions an openmind, eagerly expectant of new discoveries and ready to remold convictions in the light of added knowledge, is the noblest and rarest." Someone else has said, "Prejudice is a robber which many of us entertain in our hearts. It robs us of generous feelings which we should have for others, and leaves us the tormentings of hate; by shutting our eyes andstopping our ears it robs us of many precious truths,and leaves us the dross of our distorted opinions; itrobs us of light, and shuts us in the darkness of our own ignorance. No other robber can leave us so poor."

Have you allowed prejudice to rob you of the truth of God ?

In II Pet. 1:2, we encounter a word which is of great importance to the Christian. We might translate it "full-knowledge," but this would leave theimpression that we refer only to complete masteryof the facts. Therefore, the title of this study is suggested as a po ible sense of this word to which we have reference. Knowledge, of course, but notmere mental acquaintance with facts; full-knowledge of course, but not inexhaustible knowledgeThis knowledge that Peter talks about so familiarlyis the knowledge which plumbs the depths of themind and the heart and constitutes a firm foundation upon which to rest our faith and hope.

Certainty is a treasure — in religion, in all things. It enabled Paul to say "I know him whom I havebelieved, and I am persuaded that he is able to guard that which I have committed unto him against that day" (II Tim. 1:12). To be sure is to have boldne and courage and patience. This fact is so obvious in Paul's life, for he was likely waiting for the executioner's blade when he penned the above words.

How does certainty come? With some, gradually;with others, as a sudden light. The kind of certaintyPaul had was based on knowledge and cannot be hadwithout knowledge. "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to beashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (IITim. 2:15).

God's word furnishes us with this prized possession, because it tells why man exists, what will happen after this existence, and how we can prepare for it.

Who has not heard one say "I know this is right"? We do not say that the possession of this feeling makes a thing right. We are saying that this certainty, based upon the truth is wonderful to have.

Certainty gives the martyr his resolve, the saint his hope. Certainty makes the path the Christian treads a little brighter.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED IN PROOF OF EVOLUTION

MUTATIONS (No. 4)

Mutations do not improve: they are detrimental,harmful and lethal (Con't.). In view of the refrain that echoes throughout biological writings regarding the "raw material of evolution," it comes as somewhat of a surprise to find that the great majority of mutations are deleterious. There is complete unanimity on this among men of science! Anynumber of references might be cited on this pointCurtis, for example states, "Certainly the vast majority of mutations must be deleterious." Muller says, "Blind chance, made in any complicated organization, are nearly always harmful." Martin affirms that, "out of many thousand known mutations, Huxley was able to pick about 15 that might conceivablyhave an evolutionary survival value." Crow makes the point that any human activity which tends to increase the rate of mutations "raises serious health and moral problems for man." There is little doubtthat agents known to produce mutations are injurious to living matter. Hence, rather than givingrise to more viable and fit forms, it would seem, onthe basis of these facts, that a destructive for ce would be exerted on all living organisms exposed to agents producing mutations. This material, withreferences cited, found in B.S. Newsletter, Aug. 15,1966, p.4.

Even the popular BSCS "Yellow" Biology SchooTextbook admits, pp. 158, 611, "Most mutations are harmful; that is, they upset the carefully adjusted physiology of the organism. — One of the most curious aspects of mutations, as a source of raw material for evolution, is that two characteristics of the process seem at first sight to make it improbable as a source of the heritable variety that we knowexists in species. These two characteristics are: (1The extreme rareness of mutations, and (2) theharmful nature (to the organism) of most mutations." De Beer says, "Many of them (mutations —P.F.) had lethal results and killed the organisms that carried them — far from conferring improvement in adaption, the mutations seemed to be pathological and provided no explanation of how adaptions arose and became perfected. The result — was during thefirst 20 years of the 20th century the evolutionary studies and theories were in a state of chaos and confusion."Chas. Darwin, p. 182. Dowdeswell in The Mechanism of Evolution, p. 30, states, "Of the manymutants detected in the labor atory, all ar e either recessive or 'semi-dominants,' and the majority cause harmful physiological effects. Hardly anhave ever been observed which could po ibly bbeneficial to an organism under wild conditions." Muller (already cited) said, "In MORE THAN 99% of cases the mutation of a gene produces some kind of harmful effect, some disturbance of function." Scientific American, Nov. 1955, p. 58.

Dobzhansky admits, "A majority of mutations,both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations, produce deteriorations of the viability, hereditary diseases and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve asevolutionary building blocks" (my emph. — P.F.).Genetics and The Origin of Species, p. 73. This same evolutionary scientist, an authority in genetics, also admits that "most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophilia usually show deterioration, breakdown anddisappearance of some organs. — the deleterious character of most mutations seems to be a very serious difficulty." Evolution, Genetics, and Man, p.1500. Also see B.S. Newsletter, Nov. 1968, p. 2

Bonner says "Mutation means a chemical changein the gene structure and all PROGRESSIVE ADVANCEMENT must ultimately be by mutations,"but Crow affirms that "Mutations and Mutation rates have been studied in a wide variety of experimental plants and animals and in man. There is ONE general result that clearly emerges: almost all mutations are harmful — from those that kill the carrier to those that cause only minor impairment. — A mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body andsuch a change in the highly integrated system ofchemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it — they would usually be detrimental." See Twilight of Evolution, pp. 43-44.

Curtis, of the Brookhaven National Laboratorysays, "Certainly the vast majority of mutations must be deleterious, so if the organs of older animals contain appreciable number of cells which are carrying mutations, it is a virtual certainty that the organs are functioning less efficiently than theyotherwise would" (ibid. p. 39). Mayr also declared,"It can hardly be questioned that most visible mutations are deleterious. Since mutants are weaklingsit is obvious that they have little chance of survival,and can never become progenitorsof a new species.

E. W. McBride says, "Creatures with shrivelled-up wings and defective vision, or no eyes, offer poormaterial for evolutionary progress (my emphasis —P.F.). Even if they can be reared under laboratoryconditions the chances of their survival in the wild state are practically NIL." See Evolution or Creation by Prof, of Zoology H. Enoch, who also says,"Mutations are mostly degenerations and whether gene mutations or chromosomal aberrations theyonly lower the viability and competitive power of the species EVEN IF favorable mutations are accumulated" (pp. 75, 82). R. E. D. Clark says, Darwin: Before and After, p. 131, "It is generally found thatwhen large mutations occur, it is exceedingly difficult to keep the new individuals alive even under laboratory conditions — in nature they would almost certainly die at once" (my emphasis — P.F.). P. E.Hughes declares, "such sudden changes in chromosome structure, so far from being adaptive, are 'usele , detrimental, and lethal.' " He then says the evolutionists cannot explain their dogma as a process of steady and progressive inevitability, but as dependent on the chance appearance of genetical'freaks' upon which Natural Selection, that undefined and undemonstrable omnipresent and omniscient'something,' must then seize in the cause of organicadvancement" (The Problem of Origins, p. 16.McBride is of the opinion that laboratory muta-tions are no proof whatsoever that mutations had anything to do with the formation of species. Hequotes Fisher as saying that the explanatory content of the theory of evolution only reaches its absolute zero with the mutation theory. Hooten admits that a complete dependence upon such a theory oevolution involves incredible absurdities. For last three references, see Evolution (15th Ed.), p. 41,also Klotz in Genes, Genesis and Evolution, p. 306.As a final reference on the harmful and lethal nature of mutations (what they cause) I suggest all whocan, read Prof. Graebner in God and The Cosmos, pp.244 to 248, as he speaks, and quotes others, about"the defects of eyes and wings, deformities, reduced vigor and resistance, the weak, the halt, the moribund, the abnormal, the monstrous, reduplicated legs and abnormal abdomens, degenerate eyes and wings or NONE at all, the crippled, etc. "Evolution arise bya process of repeated losses? It is inconceivable" (Dr.Lotsy). "How could NEW species arise from a LACK of characters?" On the whole it is certain that the overwhelming majority of gene mutations are not adaptive, not progressive, but the reverse! (To be concluded on Mutations)

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (I Cor. 1:17a)

This statement is sometimes thrown out without too much argumentation as somehow discreditingthe teaching of baptism for remi ion of sins. Howcould baptism be necessary to salvation if Paul was sent not to baptize but to preach ?

ANSWER

1. Paul does not say he was not sent to baptize for remission of sins. He says he was not to baptize, period! Therefore, if this statement discredits baptism for one purpose it discredits baptism altogether.If it is against baptism for remission it is also against baptism for any other purpose. Question for the Negative: T hen why do you baptize at all? His logic destroys his own church since one cannot getinto it without baptism.

2. Question: Well who was ? Paul says he was not sent to baptize. But a whole lot of baptizing was practiced in the New Testament. That must havebeen somebody's job. Paul is just saying that wasnot his job.

1. That, of course, is the point of the passage. It was not necessary for Jesus to appear to Paul on the road to Damascus to make a baptizer of him. Anybody could administer baptism. But Paul was sent to preach. T hat was his job. He sometimes did the baptizing too. But that was incidental and not Paul's main work.
2. It is not baptism itself that is depreciated. It is the work of administering baptism that is of somewhat lesser importance than preaching.

One other thought. Brethren are wrong to followFoy E. Wallace, Jr. in seeing an ellipsis here. To make Paul say, "Christ sent me not only to baptize,but also to preach the gospel," is to force him to say exactly the opposite of what he does say. It makes him say, "Christ did send me to baptize — but not only to do that."

HEBREW WORDS OF CREATION: PART 2

In our last article, we discussed the Hebrew word BARA'. The word is translated 'created' meaning to create that which had no previous existence. It is never used of human production or "joined with anaccusative of the material" (Delitzsch, Comm. on the Pentateuch, Vol. I, p. 47).

BARA' is only one of three words used in the creation account which describes Divine activity. The other words are 'ASAH and YATSAR. The meaning of the word 'ASAH is 'Make' (cf. Gen. 1:7; 8:6;Ex. 5:16; 20:4; Deut. 4:17; Isa. 44:24). YATSAR is translated 'Form' (cf. Gen. 2:7-8; Psa. 94:9; Isa. 43:21; 44:10; 45:18).

There are two significant observations from theabove scriptures describing the difference between BARA' and the words 'ASAH and YATSAR. First, while BARA' means to create "out of nothing," both of the other words assume pre-existing material. Second, both words are likewise used of God andman. BARA' is used exclusively for the creative work of God.

On the first pages of Hebrew Scripture, we find the unconditional statement that God created, made and formed all things created in the heavens andupon the earth.

DIFFERENT USES OF THE WORD "FAITH"

There is a multiplicity of notions that people have regarding the word "faith." Some think that because they believe a thing to be so religiously, it is therefore true. In fact, even though a thing may be one's opinion, he may convince himself it is true and believe it is in the Bible.

MEANING OF THE WORD "FAITH" AND ITS USAGES

In the New Testament the word "faith" means, "reliance or trust, and is translated from the Greek word pistis" (ISBE Vol. 2, P. 1088). This Greek word pistis is translated "faith" 239 times in the KingJames Version of the New Testament.

There are at least four different connotations given to the word "faith" in the New Testament. They are:

1. T hat which one believes to be wrong is called "faith" in Rom. 14:23.
2. The "system of faith" — the gospel that is mentioned in Eph. 4:5; Jude 3, and other passages.
3. The kind of faith James said demons had in James 2:10, which is nothing more than to give "mental assent" to a person or thing.
4. An obedient faith that saves.We want to examine these four different usages of the word "faith" as they are presented in the NewTestament.

THAT WHICH ONE BELIEVES TO BE WRONG

Paul uses the illustration of eating unclean (according to Jewish customs) meats to make his point in Rom. 14:23. In v. 17, Paul makes it clear that eating and drinking is not a part of the kingdom ofGod. In v. 21, however, he points out that we should eat no flesh if it causes a brother to stumble, or if he is made weak, or if he is offended by our example or our insistence that he do something he believed to be wrong. Paul says when one does that which he believes to be wrong, "he eateth not of faith — for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." In other words, if a man believes something to be wrong, whether it is wrong in and of itself or not, if he does that thing, he sins. Hence, in that sense, Paul calls it "faith."

THE SYSTEM OF FAITH

There is a system of faith that is called the "one faith" in Eph. 4:5. We are "to earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude v. 3). Involved in this system of teaching are the things God wants us to know, and these things come by hearing the word of God preached (Rom. 10:17.). In Rom. 1:16, Paul calls it the gospelof Chr ist. He equates the gospel with "the faith" when he writes to the church at Philippi; and whave a parallel passage to Jude v. 3 when he says,"I am set for a defense of the gospel (Phil. 1:17).

DEMONS KIND OF FAITH

In James chapter two, James points out a kind of faith that is worthless. He says the demons have this kind of faith. It is a faith that only gives "mental assent" or "lip service" to Christ and His word. But even the demons have a greater respect, says James,for God than those to whom he was writing. For notonly did the demons believe, but their faith caused them to tremble or shudder. They did not doubt theexistence of God. They believe in it strongly enoughto shudder.

In Robertson's Word Pictures, he tells us this word that is translated "tremble" (shudder ASV) mean"to bristle up, like Latin horreo (horror, standingof hair on end with terror) Vol. VI, P. 36. James' point is this. For the formalist who SAYS be believes, there is a dreadful awakening in store. There will come a time when "believe and shudder" will be true of him also who has "faith" apart from works. When we compare what James says of the demons with Matt. 8:29, this indicates a cognizance of their appointed doom.

James says this is true of those who fail to dowhat Paul bids them do in Gal. 5:6. We need a "faith that works by love."

OBEDIENT FAITH THAT SAVES

Perhaps the best way to show what we mean bthis statement is to note some passages of Scripture. What does it mean to believe? For one to truly believe (since the word means "reliance" or "trust")it thus involves trust in a person, that he will keephis part of the bargain that we make with him. In other words, we obey his commands — if he has any

— and expect the rewards that are promised.

This is clearly taught in several Bible passages. The jailer at Philippi, as is recorded in Acts 16:25-36,before he was baptized was told to believe. They preached unto him the word of the Lord (the process by which faith comes, according to Rom. 10:17) and TO all that were in his house. Now the question arises,what was the word of the Lord to an unbeliever? "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16). Hence, after the jailer and his household had been baptized in harmony with "the word of the Lord," Luke, the writer of Acts, said, "having believed in God" (v. 34). So his "trust" or "reliance" was shown WHEN he did what the Lord said, andthis was called "believing." Now, reverting to what James said, we see what he meant when he said,"show me thy faith without thy works, and I willshow thee my faith by my works" (James 2:18).

CONCLUSION

Everything the Lord requires of mankind is inherent in the word "faith." For we cannot say whave "faith" unless we have a love that will cause usto DO what God's word says. When we repent, we show our "faith." When we confess, we show our "faith." When we are baptized, we show our "faith." At that point, Jesus said in Mark 16:16, we are saved from past sins. Then when we continue faithful and DO what is required of a Christian, we show our faith (James 2:18).

May God help us to show our "trust" in Him bobeying the system of teaching, and never violate our conscience by doing that which we believe tobe wrong.

FRANK OWENS BELUE

by Thomas G. O'Neal

Frank Owens Belue was born September 1, 1919,in Tishomingo, Mi , and departed this life February 11, 1970 in Orlando, Fla. On November 17, 1944,he was married to Myra Baird and to this union were born two children, a daughter, Diana (Mrs. Mark Lloyd), and a son, Ted.

In addition to his wife and children, he leaves two brothers, Cullen and Aubrey; a sister, Mrs. BessieKremer, and his aged mother. A sister and father preceded him to meet the Lord.

Funeral services were conducted Saturday afternoon, February 14 at the meeting house of the Par Avenue church in Orlando, Fla. by Roy E. Cogdilland this writer before an overflowing house of friends.

Brother Cogdill spoke on the theme TO WHOMSHALL WE GO showing the confidence that theChr istian can have in the time of death and the emptiness left to those without hope. Precedingbrother Cogdill's excellent oration, this writer delivered the following eulogy:

MY FRIEND, FRANK

The book of I Samuel relates the beautiful friendship between two men, David and Jonathan. With the pa ing of Frank Belue I have lost one of theclosest friends I have ever had. He was my frienand I was his. We shared with each other the inner most thoughts of our hearts knowing that eacwould never betray that trust.

We shared so many things together. We worshipped together; we fished together; we visited together ; we ate together; we played pranks together;we enjoyed the good things of life together; and believe it or not, we even authored a small booklettogether, and by the grace of God we hope to spend eternity together.

T he best thing and the most important thing thatI can say is that Frank was a Christian. Now, nothing else matters — and it is the only thing thatmatters.

As a husband he was a Christian. His concern for Myra was that she be the very best wife and his concern for her was always for doing right. Hwanted for him and Myra to always under all circumstances to do what was right

As a son he was a Christian. He had the love, respect, and honor that a son should for his parents. Often he would tell me of the respect that he had for his father and mother and for the great work his father did as an elder in the church of the Lord. Like his brothers and sisters he did his part to care for papa and mama when they needed it most.

As a father he was a Christian. He took great pleasure in Diana and Ted. He loved them and loved to be with them. He took the time to be with them, to enjoy the things they enjoyed and to be a real pal to them. And then Diana presented him andMyra with their second son, son-in-law Mark, anhow he beamed with pride over the fact that he also preached the gospel in addition to being a doctor. T hey will always have pleasant memor ies of thegood times they spent together. Diana, Mark, anTed, you have a fine example to follow — walk in his steps.

As a Christian he was concerned about his fellowman. Several years ago upon arriving in Orlando late one night, I went with him out into the darkness to attend to the needs of the less fortunate. He was concerned with the salvation of souls. His home fed many gospel preachers who were preaching the wayof salvation to a lost world. While not a public pro-claimer of the Word, he saw to it that others were taught. Unknown to many, and maybe even to Myra,he would save some of his lunch money many times to buy stamps with which to mail out tracts, Searching the Scriptures, and Truth Magazine to those he had hopes of teaching. The writings in tract form of Roy Cogdill, H. E. Phillips, James P. Miller, Connie W. Adams, this speaker and others were sent to literally hundreds if not thousands over the years. Often people would receive a beautiful card whichFrank would show me before sending and tell mabout their problem and then say he wanted to letthem know someone was thinking of them

Frank loved the church and was concerned with its progress. One would not long be around himwithout his talking of Christ and the church. Even when he was sick in the hospital and I called londistance, he had to tell me something he had on his mind about the church.

To me, Orlando will never be quite the same. But then we all have another reason for seeking th"city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." May we this day be reminded of the fact that we too will one day follow Frank and may we so live as to be prepared when that time comes.

Earl E. Harris, 412 West King Avenue, Orlando,Fla. 32804 — Any congregation in the central Florida area desiring the services of an evangelist forLord's day services may write me at the above address. I desire to work with any brethren who are "earnestly contending for the faith." For information and references write Arno Anderson, 271Patty Road, New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32069.

Thomas Hogland, Box 320 Noblin Road, Route 2Cleveland, Mi . 38732 — I am now working withthe north Cleveland congregation here in ClevelandMi . Although small in number the congregation has a nice meeting house. Several fine congregations are having fellowship with me in this work. When in the delta of Mississippi visit with us.

NEW TRACT ON MARRIAGE

Irven Lee, P.O. Box 866, Hartselle, Ala. 35640, has published a tract on Preparation For Marriage. This is a 15 page, 3 1/2" x 5 1/22" tract that sells for 70 each. You may order from brother Lee.

Donald G. Collins, 4566 La Rue St., Dallas, Texas 75211 — I am moving to Joplin, Mi ouri about the20th of June, 1970, to work in establishing some congregations in the "Four State Area" — Southeast Kansas, Northeast Oklahoma, Northwest Arkansas and Southwest Missouri. If any reader ofthis paper knows of any one living in this area (except Rogers and Fayetteville, Arkansas, as there is a conservative congregation in each) with conservative views, please send me their name and address (just the name and town will do, if you do not knowtheir street address). Also, if any individual or congregation has a tent and/or foldings chairs that I could use in meetings, please contact me: Donald G.Collins, 4566 La Rue St., Dallas, Texas 75211. Or,the Kiestview Church of Christ, 3323 GuadalupAve., Dallas, Texas75233.

Mike Rogacs, 7711 Colony Lane, Fort Smith, Ark. 72901 — I am very willing and hopefully able topreach in some gospel meetings. I have been preaching full time for two years and am currently working with the Southside church in Fort Smith. Anycongregation interested may contact me at theabove address.

Elders, West Bradenton Church of Christ, Bradenton, Florida — We commend Gary Ogden whopreaches at Lawrenceville, Ga., but formerly oBradenton, on the excellent series of gospel lessontaught March 1 through 8th. He did an outstandingjob of presenting the gospel of Christ. His le ons were well prepared and were clearly and forcefullydelivered. Bro. Ogden may be contacted for meeting work at 9928 A W. National Cir., Tucker, Georgia30084.

C. A. Kirkpatrick, Tompkinsville, Ky. 42167 — In the spring meeting April 6-10 the following men will speak at the Lyons Chapel church in Tompkinsville:

B. G. Hope, Kenneth Green, Royce Chandler, Rodney Miller and John Clark. All in the area are invited to attend.

William C. Sexton, 2804 Lafayette, St. Joseph,Mo. 64507 — We recently had two baptisms at theTenth & Lincoln church. We have a meeting scheduled for April 13-19 with Earl Lewis of Macon, Mo. doing the preaching. We invite all who come to this area to worship with us.

G. O. Winland, 208 Maple Avenue, New Martinsville, W. Va. 26155 — I have been taking your paper since last July or August and think it is great. Itreveals the TRUTH and exposes error. I live in NewMartinsville, W. Va. and work with the church inLewisville, Ohio. The church there is new but we are now starting to show some progress. Our outside attendance is growing and they are sticking. Onfamily of five, father and mother and three children have only missed one or two services since startinglast October. Last Monday at 10:00 a.m. he calleme and said they would like to baptized. I assisted them in their obedience to the gospel at 2:30 thatafternoon. We have hopes of others soon.

Connie Adams is to be with us in a meeting thelast part of June. I will have time for two or threemeetings this year. Pray for us and the work at Lewisville.

Marvine Kelley, Drawer I, Newport, North Carolina 28570 — In the past 7 months there have been 75 responses to the gospel. This includes 28 baptisms and the remainder confe ions of wrongs and memberships. We have conducted a five day a weekradio broadcast for these 7 months. This week brings to a conclusion eight and one-half years of daily broadcasting in four different states.

We are averaging $320.00 a week in contribution. We are supporting, in part, the preacher in Boliva,

N. C. The congregation stands firm against the innovations, Herald of Truth, Orphan Homes, OlFolks Home, and support of the colleges from thetreasury

I have time for two or three meetings. We are interested only in our expenses and shall be glad tconduct meetings for any congregation standing for the truth. If we can be of a istance, please call or write us. Our address is P.O. Drawer I, Newport,

N. C. 28570. Phone number, Area Code 919 223-5626.

Reedus M. Baugher, 913 Hwy. 90 W., Chipley,Fla. 32428 — Since Januar y of this year we havebeen located at the above address, laboring with the Chipley church; and would like to take this opportunity to remind the readers that we will be available for some meeting work. We can be reached atthe above address. Our phone number is 638-1476,Chipley, Fla.

BIBLES AND BOOKSDo you need a Bible, commentary, reference book,sermon outlines, debate, or other religious books? We can get any book in print for you.

DRUGS

There is a great deal of concern in our present society about drugs and their use and abuse. This is regarded as a new and alarming trend that has appeared on the scene. However, at second glanceone would doubt this. Eccles. 1:9, "that which hathbeen is that which shall be; and that which hatbeen done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there a thing whereof it may be said, See this is new? It hath beenlong ago, in the ages which were before us."

Basically, drugs represent a way for an individual to blow his mind, step outside the real world, andfind relief from the stresses of life. This escape from reality is at once seen to be as old as the ages.

(1) Genesis 9:20,21, "And Noah began to be ahusbandman, and planted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine, and wasdrunken; and he wasuncovered within his tent." (2) Genesis 19:31, ".. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they madetheir father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose." There are many other examples of drunkenness in the Old T estament. T he war nings against drunkenness in the New Testament are also numerous. Romans 13:13; Galatians 5:21; I Corinthians 5:11, 6:10

Proverbs 31:4, "It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for pr inces to say, Where is strong drink? Lest they drink, anforget the law, and pervert the justice due to anythat is afflicted. Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto the bitter in soul: let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more."

Proverbs 23:33, "Thine eyes shall behold strangethings, and thy heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in themidst of the sea, or he hat lieth upon the top of a mast. T hey have stricken me, shalt thou say, andI was not hurt; They have beaten me, and I felt it not: When shall I awake? I will seek it yet again."

The biblical idea of drunkenness is that of

(1) impaired consciousness (and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose (2) irrational behaviour (he was uncovered in his tent)

(3) incoherent speech (thy heart shall utter per

verse things

(4) hallucinations (thine eyes shall behold strange

things

(5) inability to reason ( lest they dr ink and forget the law, and pervert the justice due to any thatis afflicted).

All of this is summed up in the fact that thability of one's mind to function is impaired. The extent of the impairment is determined by the degree of drunkenne . This may range from giddiness to coma.

The many admonitions to self-control, sober-mindedne , gravity, orderliness attest to the principlethat impairment of one's mind is the sin. It is notwrong to stone oneself with alcohol and alr ight todo it with some other chemical — it is wrong whatever its mechanism, when the purpose is to escape reality because it is painful or frustrating

Look up history.

So down through the ages there has been alcohol, marijuana, heroin, meprobamate, the barbiturates,LSD, speed, etc.

What br ings an individual to drugs ?

(To Be Continued)

Q. My daughter is a great fan of the Rolling Stones singing group. Is it true that one of them recentlybecame a father without bothering to get married?

— Mrs. B. M. R., Buffalo

A. Yes. Keith Richard and German actress Anita Pallenberg joined the handful of unblushing celebrities (such as Mia Farrow and Andre Previn, Vanessa Redgrave and France Nero, and others) to parent a child out of wedlock. The little Rolling Stone, Marlon, was born in King's College Hospital in Dulwich,London.

Source: T y Gardner's column in the Sunday paper

of Columbus, Ohio.

Those "unblushing celebrities" are contributingto and leaders in the moral decay of America, especially the morals of teen-agers! The trend of bachelor mothers and bachelor fathers really started withshow business people — pop idols, movie stars. The London, England borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which is the home of the unisex boutiques and swinging miniskirts, report 211 of every thousand births are illegitimate. This trend is the result ofour permi ive society!!!

America's permi ive society condones and tolerates moral decadence, disrespect for law, unbridled vulgarity, obscenity, blasphemy, perversion, anpublic desecration of our cherished ideals and symbols. T he major ity of citizens do nothing to stop such, nor do the denominations because their leaders are filled with this ungodliness, disrespect for the Bible, and have taught the members the same!!! The Lord's church in many places is filled with licentious.

Concerned Americans need to awaken because it was Patrick Henry who said, "Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is impo ible that a nation of infidels or idolaters should be a nation of free men.. . . A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom."

Though silence reigns from most Americans, thdenominations, and many churches of Christ concerning licentious, the God who created the heavens,the earth, and the fullness therein still says, "Let marriage be had in honor among all, and let the bedbe undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Heb. 13:4). "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are; Adultery, fornication,... of the which I tell you before, as I have also told youin time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:19-21)

Licentious is "lacking legal or moral restraints; esp.: disregarding sexual restraints" (Webster's).It appears that the United States of America is too far on the road to ever turn back and renounce licentious. Great nations such as Israel, Babylon, thMedes and Persians, Greece, Rome, France, anEngland traveled the licentious road and God brought their downfall!!! Such will be the case with America unless she returns to principles taught ithe Bible. Christians have nothing to fear nor worryabout though our earthy country travels the licentious road. God will take care of His people, but we, as the church of Christ and as individual Christians, must renounce licentious in practice as well as inspeech and thought for Heaven to be our Home.

P. O. Box 96 Hillard,Ohio 43026