Fortunately!

No, I'm not one of today's rebels ranting against the "Establishment" (euphuism for society). Nor am I presently concerned about these. I am writing about the Nov. 8, 1971 vote in the United States House of Representatives which brought about the(temporary) defeat of the so-called "prayer amendment."

The "establishment clause" of the First Amend

ment to our marvelous Constitution reads, "Congress

shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

House Joint Resolution 191 (the "prayer amend

ment") reads, "Nothing contained in this Constitu

tion shall abridge the right of persons lawfully as

sembled in any public building which is supported

in whole or in part through the expenditure of

public funds, to participate in non-denominational

prayer."

Many have been needlessly confused over the Supreme Court decisions of 1SS2 and 1963 concerning prayers in public schools, believing prayers have been forbidden. This did not happen; rather, they did prohibit required prayer, and any prayer directed by government officials. Since that time, various groups have foolishly pressed for "the right ofprayer in public schools" as if this right no longer existed. It does! Among the most vocal and effective has been the "CITIZENS FOR PUBLIC PRAYER," a Roman Catholic front group led for the last eight years by Roman Catholic priest Robert H. Howes. The "prayer amendment" was sponsored by Rep.Chalmers P. Wylie of Ohio. After being successfully bottled up in committee for a long time, it was finally forced out for floor action by a Petition ofDischarge (which requires 218 signatures of House members). Due to a fortunate combination of holidays and House of Representatives rules on whenbills petitioned out of committee may be considered, it did not come up for a vote until Monday, Nov. 8, 1971. T his was fortunate because it gave to those who love freedom of worship and were willing to do something to save it time in which to marshal the opposition. Since the bill was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution, its passage required a two-third's rather than a simple majority.

It was stopped by 28 votes. Close! Close!

Examination of two portions of this innocent-sounding resolution will show the very great danger to the freedom we love. Notice, ". . . public building which is supported in whole or in part through theexpenditure of public funds . . ." and ". . . nondenominational prayer." Any building which accepts direct or indirect subsidy from any governmental unit (in-cluding church buildings provided police and fire protection without payment of taxes or an equivalent for such protection) would fall under the control of public officials to the extent of requiring "non-denominational prayer" be allowedin it. It would take the courts some years to produce a clear-cut decision as to what this meant, but the ultimate would be that prayer determined to be "nondenominational" by the controlling public official in a particular place would be the authorized andrequired one. Elders, preachers, saints, are you ready to have some public official tell you what prayer you can, and even more importantly, can not havewithin the four walls of your building ? This is establishment of religion! And I'll give you oneguess as to which religion swings enough political"clout" to have the deciding voice in what is, andwhat is not "non-denominational prayer."

Brethren, I have correspondence from national

legislators openly proclaiming their support for

this, or a subsequent effort to authorized "non

denominational prayer" in "public buildings." It has

been said that all that is required for evil men to

triumph is for good men to do nothing. T his is

especially true as far as this "prayer amendment"

is concerned. I am not saying our representatives

and senators are evil, but willingly or otherwise,

many are submitting to political pressure from men who are.

I am not urging churches to involve themselves in politics, but individual Christians in some circumstances must. As long as we are in the world, though not of the world, we need to do what we can to keep this old ball livable. Peter twice (Acts 4 and 5) indicated the only limitation to a Christian's obedience to government was when such placed one in opposition to God. Paul, in Romans 13 said gover nment was for our protection. I n Matthew 22Christ told us to render to Caesar (civil government) that which is Caesar's. This specifically applied to paying taxes but in principle teaches us wehave an obligation to the government under which

we live, to help it maintain its God-ordained course and purpose.

Do not think because this attempt has been beaten back Roman Catholicism will give up. This group is extremely persistent, sometimes devoting centuries to achieve its ends. It will not stop trying to take away our precious freedom of worship, our legal right to serve God after the New Testament order until it is made so clear that Catholicism cannot fail to understand we will not put up with it. I suggest a strong letter to your congressman and two senators would go a long way toward helping them resist the pressure of the emissaries of Rome. I have noobjection to Roman Catholicism requiring its own prayers in its own facilities of its own people. I have severe Scriptural objections to it imposing such on

others, especially on me and mine.I am appalled little or nothing has been said or written among brethren on this obvious danger to

our privilege of worshipping God unmolested in

spirit and truth. If we are not careful, we may some

day find this taken from us or our children, and

going the route of Northern Ireland to Spain, won

dering all the time, "What happened?" If we value

what we have, we need to wake up, and soon.

Or perhaps, judging from the unconcern of so

many indicated by lack of devotion (failing to as

sembly, etc.), the loss of such freedom might be ex

actly what we need to shake us out of our apathy.

Historically, the church has always prospered spiri

tually during persecution, and this might be the very

thing for us now. How about it, is this the goad for

us? If not, if you are already spiritual, better get

with the letter writing.

John 4:24 will never be so precious to us as when

we are forbidden by law from doing it.

I AM GRATEFUL

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to all ofyou who have sent financial aid in helping clear upsome of the accumulated indebtedness of twelve years publishing Searching The Scriptures. Nearly 14 of this debt was cleared by the generosity of many of you who have shown an interest in our efforts to spread the word of God. By the grace of God and your continued help in sending subscr iptions we shall continue to spread the gospel of Christ and smite error wherever it may be found

Several young men have prepared good material to be published and offered the profit, if any, to aid in publishing Searching The Scriptures. Others havepromised to send one new subscription each monthThis is of great help

By the purchase of literature, Bibles, books, songbooks and other equipment and supplies used bchurches you can help us continue with this goodwork. The sale of tapes of debates, lectures, sermons and the New Testament also provides necessaryfunds to meet the ever climbing cost of publishingSearching The Scriptures.

DO THIS ONE THING FOR US

Many have written and asked, "What can I do to help?" There is one easy job that you can do with little cost and effort: Send just one subscription to a friend or relative. This will accomplish two things at the same time: help the one to whom the paper is sent, and help us in doing a better job in sending forth the truth. We need your help. Why not do this today

Again, I sincerely thank each of you for youfinancial help and encouragement over the past three months.

H. E. Phillips

AN EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY

OF NEW TESTAMENT WORDS

by W. E. Vine

T his standar d work originally appeared in four volumes, but now available in one volume. A valuable aid to any serious student of the New T estament. Price $13.95

"PAUL'S TRIP TO CORINTH"

On the nights of October 25th and 26th of 1971, it was my privilege to meet F. I. Stanley in a debate at the DeSota congregation in the Dallas area. The discu ion was motivated by the divergent views of brethren within the confines of the congregation. Brethren of what is commonly called the liberal persuasion asked F. I. Stanley of Houston, Texas, torepresent their position and brethren who are sometimes known as conservative asked me to represent them. It was a r ather informal type discussion. Many preachers and brethren from the Dallas area attended.

I would like to take up the main pointsof controversyin this short discu ion: Brother Stanley took the position that since both evangelism and benevolence came out of the same treasury based on I Cor. 16:1-2,that the pr inciple gover ning them is the same. Hetherefore, pointed out that since churches sent to churches for benevolence the same could be done for evangelism and thus the sponsoring church concept. This was refuted by showing that acts of worship are found in Acts 2:45 — apostles' doctrine, fellowship,breaking of bread and prayers. That according to thlogic of brother Stanley since all of these acts are inone verse and have to do with worship, the principle governing them would be the same. If that be so, wcould eat the Lord's Supper on Thursday night since we can pray at that time! This seemed to upset Brother Stanley, since his main argument was predicated on the above principle. No attempt was made to refute the Acts' two arguments.

Brother Stanley also took the position that the Greek

words "eis logon-dosis" and "lepsis" in Phil. 4:15 sorta

put the church at Philippi into the bookkeeping

busine . That they took money from other churches

and paid Paul. I replied by quoting from Vincent in the

I.C.C. When he said, "The matter is expressed in a mercantile metaphor." He means that the question of money given and received did not enter into his relations with any other church. The Philippians, by their contribution, had opened an account with him. Others like Lightfoot dismiss the metaphor and render eis logon as "regards" or "with reference to." This has cla ical but not N.T. precedence" Page 148. He then quoted Thayer who said, "Here Paul, by a pleasant euphemism, refers to the pecuniary gifts, which the church bestowing them enters in the account of expenses, but he himself

in the account of receipts" (Page 157). These quotations from Vincent and T hayer seemed to disturb brother Stanley even more. He replied in his next speech that some of the scholars like Thayer wereprejudiced in their rendering of words and could not always be accepted. He remarked on how few peopleunderstood the Greek and that it was best to staywith the E nglish. I pointed out that it was Stanleyand not Hogland who introduced the Greek.

Brother Stanley also took the position that the Greek words hote ekselthon which are rendered "when I departed from Macedonia" meant that Paul had left Macedonia and arrived all the way down atCorinth in Acaia. He then tried to join II Cor. 11:8 "I robbed other churches" to Phil. 4:15-16 and came up with the incredible idea that a number of churches were sending to Philippi and Philippi in turn sent money to Corinth and Corinth in turn paid Paul! Ireplied by pointing out that brother Stanley had aleast three assumptions in his affirmation. First,that Philippi collected money from other churches. Second, that Philippi sent to Corinth. T hird, that Corinth paid Paul. I then told the people that brother Stanley would make a fine debater if we would lethim get away with a umptions. I also pointed outhat scholars were divided over hote ekselthon, that some felt he was still in Macedonia and others felt he might have left. I emphasized that even if Paulhad left one couldn't get him down at Corinth fromthis text to save his life.

I tried to impress on the audience that no manhas the authority to tie the two above scriptures together without some Bible evidence to do so.

Brother Stanley also asserted that in sending direct to a preacher, a preacher could become a church boss and dictator. He said according to Hogland,

E. R. Harper could have collected several million dollars for a television program himself. This assertion was turned into a tail-spin by going to Phil4:15-16 and pointing out that a preacher didn't have the right to collect one dime from a church exceptfor his needs. Paul called this need wages. It was pointed out that a television program was the need of the church and not the need of the preacher.

This is not intended as a complete review of thedebate, but it does cover the main points discussed.

HEARTFELT RELIGION

Many have accused those of us who just claim to be Christians, nothing more than Christians, onot believing in heartfelt religion. It seems that the reason this is true is because we do not believe in a bench-jumping, floor-rolling, hysterical type ofservice. The truth of the matter is, we DO believein heartfelt religion — but we also believe in dointhings decently and in order, as per I Cor. 14:40.

FROM ONE EXTREME TO ANOTHER

Many churches of Christ today are involved in"meeting, eating" (the Lord's Supper) and goinhome to live their lives of rushing about until timefor them to stop the rush for a few minutes the next week to meet, eat, and start the vicious circle all over again. Seemingly, they could care less about the fact that God is not in their lives, in the services etc. that they engage in. Many times they are so tired from all of the rushing, trying to get all othe material wealth and worldly comforts they caacquire, they sleep through the lesson. Then oneday, their conscience begins to bother them andthey get all excited because they have not beenworshiping God as they should, they begin to blameeveryone else because there is no "spirit" in the services and do as Pat Boone and others have done,go off the deep end in the other direction, to thother extreme — casting away "truth" in favor of "spirit". The thing we need to remember is that Jesus included BOTH "truth" and "spirit" in Joh

4:24. "God is a Spirit: and they that worship himmust worship him in spirit and in truth." In this study we want to deal with four aspects of the Bible heart. (1) What is the heart. (2) The character ofthe heart. (3) The exercise of the heart. (4) Thchange of heart.

WHAT IS THE HEART?

The Bible "heart" is not the little, throbbing,muscle located on the left side of the chest whose function it is to push the blood through the bodyThe heart, morally and religiously speaking, is the affections of the mind. In Matt. 6:20-21 we read,"But lay up for yourselves treasures in heavenwhere neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, anwhere thieves do not break through and steal: for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Of the Greek word kardia, that is here translated "heart", Mr. Thayer says, "the soul or mind,

Page 5

as it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, passions, desires, appetite, affections, purposes, endeavors" (Thayer's Greek-Lexicon, Page 325).Hence, Jesus said, though we must live here, our affections are to be in heaven. We are, in fact, so commanded by God. "Set your affections on things above, and not on things of the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." It was said of Absalom that he stole the "hearts" of the people. We see immediately that he stole their affections, cf. II Sam. 15:6.

The word "heart" is also used in a more comprehensive sense. It means, "the mind, the understanding, the whole moral, inner man." Cf. Luke 24:38Rom. 10:10.

THE CHARACTER OF THE HEART

The Bible draws a very dark picture of the unconverted heart. In Jer. 17:9 we read, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wickedwho can know it?" And, Jesus said in Matt. 15:1819 "But those things which proceed out of themouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies;" Hence the character of the heart is exhibited in the conduct of a person. In Matt. 12:34-35 Jesus said, “O generation of vipers,how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.A good man out of the good treasures of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things." This teaching of Jesus was demonstrated in the case of Simon the Sorcer in Acts 8. When Simon thought hecould buy the gift of God with money we learn that he was told that he had "neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight oGod. Repent therefore of this thy wickedne , andpray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart maybe forgiven thee" (v. 21-22). Thus, the words of our mouth tells others what is in our heart. If we fill our hearts with good things, good things willcome forth. If we fill our hearts with evil things,evil things will come forth. Therefore the character of the heart is demonstrated by the words of ourmouths. (Next month, The Exercise of the Heart.)

"FORSAKING THE ASSEMBLING OF OURSELVES"

In the early days of Christianity, the inspired apostles had to exhort brethren to assemble andrebuke those who were negligent

"And let us consider one another to provoke untolove and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much themore, as ye see the day approaching" (Heb. 1024,25).

What are some of the sins and dangers involved

— directly and indirectly — in forsaking the assemblies of the saints?

1. You disobey a divine commandment. Brethren should be less concerned about what "the day" wa(whether the destruction of Jerusalem, the Lord's day, or the judgment) and more concerned aboutwhat the apostle enjoined upon them. I've knownsome who were very concerned about the "day" mentioned in the verse, and yet they were not too concerned about assembling on any day! The command, stated negatively, was to assemble with the saints. And the word is not assembly, as having reference to one particular service, but the "assembling ofourselves together."
2. You fail to meet your appointment with thLord. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:20).
3. You disrespect the Lord's will that you break bread on the Lord's day (Matt. 26: 26,27; Acts 20:7).
4. You neglect your spiritual development (John 6:53; Heb. 5:12-14)
5. You fail to engage in other items of scriptural worship (John 4:23,24)
6. Generally speaking, those who forsake the assemblies fail to contribute as they have prospered (I Cor. 16:2)
7. You fail to assist the church in its great mission.
8. You fail to stay prepared to meet Christ should he come or should you die (Matt. 24:44; Heb. 9:27)
9. You may lead others astray by the influence you have over their lives (Matt. 5:13-16).
10. You "crucify the son of God afresh, and puthim to open shame" (Heb. 6:6)
11. You count the blood of the covenant wherewith you were sanctified an unholy thing (Heb.10:29). (Note this verse in context and how it is

Page 6

connected with the line of thought which began in verse 23.)

12. You are on the road to complete apostasy adescribed by Peter: "For if after they have escapedthe pollutions of the world through the knowledgeof the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are entangled therein, and over come, the latter end is wor se with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way ofrighteousness, than, after they have known it, tturn from the holy commandment delivered untothem" (II Peter 2:20,21)

I have often suggested that an effective safeguard against such apostasy is to study the Bible daily,pray to God often, and attend all services of thechurch. When a Christian begins to neglect any othese, he is in danger of spiritual death.

THE LORD WAS THERE, WERE YOU?"I came to the services Sunday.I walked up and down the aisle;I noticed your seat was vacant." Said the Master, with a smile. "Yes, I was at home," I answered,"Some folks from up the way,Drove down for a week-end visit,So we stayed in the house all day." Or, "I had an awful headache." Or, "I had a roast in the pan." Or, "We overslept that morning,But we go whenever we can." "I went to the morning service Not over two months ago,But so much work must wait till Sunday, there's no time for church, you know." Looking upon me sadly,The Master began to speak,"My child, are there not Six other days in the week? If all the other children Should treat me the same as you;The assembly would be deserted,Then what would lost sinnersdo?" I saw I had grieved my Master,As slowly he turned away,And I vowed He'd not find me absent,Again on His holy day.

— Author Unknown

AN AD HOMINUM ARGUMENT DEDICATED TO

THE "BRILLIANT, CONSECRATED,

QUESTIONING" STUDENTS OF FLORIDA

COLLEGE WHO MAY ADMIRE

BROTHER KETCHERSIDE

When I picked up my mail last week, much to my surprise, there was a gift volume from brother Carl Ketcherside, plus the April 1972 i ue of Mission Messenger. I surmised correctly that the single i ue must contain a report of his recent visit to Florida,and since I was away when he spoke at the invitation of the congregation where I worship, beingiven the opportunity both to state his views and to be criticized by brother Robert Turner and others,I read the article "Florida Lectureship" (pp. 61, 62)with interest. My surprise was quickly transformed into indignant rage when I read impersonal descriptions of myself (I must have been included since noexceptions were made) as a "dogmatic" preacher and instructor, a "legalistic" ethicist whose morals are determined by "financial rope-holders," a teacher of"casuistry," a compromiser of conscience, a contender for the "like precious prejudice," and so on.Soon, however, reason took control of my emotions,while brother Ketcherside let Harry Pickup Jr. "have it" (under the impersonal designation "the brother"), accusing him of using the " 'guilt by association' technique" in his lecture. Brother Ketcherside says, "He equated my position with neo-orthodoxy, existentialism and situation ethics, linkingmy rather obscure name with such important figures as Charles Clayton Morrison and Karl Barth."

Then I recalled Paul's words, "Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself" (Rom. 2:21) ? Hurriedly I scanned the article againand noticed some interesting "guilt by a ociation" techniques used by brother Ketcherside himself. Heequated my positions (supposedly mine, since againhe made no exceptions) with partisanism, factionalism, dogmatism, racism, legalism, monasticism,lack of conscience, and casuistry. I do not know all the intricacies of logic, although I have taught ibefore, but all of the catch-words used by brother Ketcherside represent a fairly clear example ofsophistical reasoning. At least I trust, since the future of Florida College, according to brother Ketcherside, "lies not with the administration or facultybut with the students, some of whom are brilliant, consecrated, questioning, and fed up with the casuistry essential to maintain any monastic-type structure," that these brilliant young people know enough

Page 7

logic to detect loaded words that seem to impl

"guilt by a ociation."

There is something else I should add. It is true that many of the rules enforced by Florida College are those that appear to be acceptable and desirable to the majority of the parents of our students, i.e.,to the brothers and sisters who are the "financial rope-holders" of the institution. I see no shame inthis; in fact, God help us when our brethren nolonger influence our code of conduct on campus, forthen we will have betrayed their trust.

Brother Ketcherside concludes with this open-door policy, "Since the only kind of brethren I have on earth are 'brethren in error' I intend to go amongall of them — regardless of variety." Just what is he implying here ? I doubt that he means to say that everyone else is in error except himself, since he has so much "love" and "humility." If all brethren are in error, then certainly his own teaching on fellowship is worthy of cautious examination as a possible error. As for myself, I might go among all mybrethren — regardless of variety, but quite obviously conscience (I pray God mine is not seared yet!) demands that I go for many different reasons: sometimes I go to exhort and encourage them;among others I go to take issue, even in debate if necessary; or else I go among them to learn their point of view. My conscience, despite the many compromises brother Ketcherside seems to think I make as a teacher at Florida College, not only will not permit me to participate in many things which some brethren call worship or which they engage in as the Lord's work, but also incites me not to a ociate myself with them when such matters are pressed. If by taking this stand I am linked with a"sect" which is everywhere spoken against as being narrow-minded, then so be it.

SEND A CLUB TODAY! Three Subscriptions For $10.00

Living Voice Tapes of

THE KETCHERSIDE-TURNER EXCHANGE

in Tampa, Florida

Januar y 25, 1972

The full exchange between Carl Ketcherside andRobert Turner and the panel discussion including FerrellJenkins and Harry Pickup, Jr. with questions from the floor which lasted nearly three hours are now available on open reel, cassette or 8-track tapes.

7" or 5" reels are $5.25 each for the full discussion on one reel.

Cassettes ar e $4.95 each and two tapes contain thefull discussion. Total price for cassettes: $9.90.

8-track cartridges are $4.95 each and it takes three for the full discu ion. Total price for 8-track cartridges: $14.85.

THE LORD'S SUPPER

One of the acts of worship that is peculiar to the New Testament and to the New Testament church is the eating of the Lord's Supper.

INSTITUTED BY CHRIST

Jesus instituted his supper at the pa over feast (Mt. 26:17-30). At that feast "as they were eating,Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, angave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, andgave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remi ion of sins." (Mt. 26:26-28; see also Mk. 14:22-25; Lk. 22:17-20). When the pa over was observed, leaven was not to be found intheir houses (Ex. 12:14-15). The bread used bJesus was therefore unleaven bread, and thus the reason for unleavened bread on the Lord's table today. He used "the fruit of the vine" (Mk. 14:25)also. The "fruit of the vine" is also called "the cup" (I Cor. 11:25).

BY REVELATION

Paul "received of the Lord" that which he delivered unto the Corinthians (I Cor. 11:23). When we eat the Lord's Supper we (1) remember Christ,I Cor. 11:25; (2) show the Lord's death till he comes again, I Cor. 11:26; (3) examine ourselves, I Cor. 11:28; (4) discern the Lord's body, I Cor. 11:29and (5) eat when we "come together" I Cor. 11:33.These matters were delivered to Paul (I Cor. 11:23)and he revealed them to Corinth and we are to follow them also.

FIRST DAY

We learn the time the Lord's Supper is to be eaten from the approved apostolic example of the brethren in Troas (Acts 20:7), the time being the "first dayof the week". Other passages tell us concerningother matters as they relate to the Lord's Supper but we rely entirely on one approved example for the time of eating. Brethren have recognized this important point and taught it through the year s.

Brother Roy E. Cogdill said, "We have in the scriptures an express command for its observance,for Jesus said, "This do in remembrance of me." I Cor. 11:23, 24. He did not expressly stipulate,though, in the record given to us, the specific day,if any, upon which this institution was to be, or is to be, observed. We learn that from the practice of a congregation assembling for such worship in theNew Testament. Acts: chapter 20 and verse 7—"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread ..." Here wehave the church at Troas assembling to break bread, observe the Lord's Supper, on the first day of theweek. Paul was present and took part in that worship. This is New Testament example. The church of our Lord under apostolic approval and guidanceassembled on the first day of the week to break bread. There is no example of them ever assembling upon any other day of the week for this purpose. They assembled only upon the first day of the week to break bread. Hence, we learn that breaking bread in the assembly of the saints, in the worship of God, can be done with divine approval only upon the first day of the week." (Cogdill-Woods Debate, pages 14-15.)

Brother N. B. Hardeman, said in some sermons in the Ryman Auditorium, from Oct. 16-31, 1938,"Brethren, does the Bible teach Christians to observe the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week ? You answer, "Yes." Now, have you stopped to think just how that is done, and how the Bible teachesit? Christ told the disciples, and so did Paul, "Take and eat" and thus we are commanded by direct statement to eat of the bread and to drink of the fruit of the vine. But I just want to ask some of you "old-timers" where did Christ ever say, "Eat of theLord's Supper on the first day of the week?" Had you ever stopped, brethren, to meditate upon a thing like that? Where is the command to partake of iton the first day of the week? I can find you a command to eat of it, and to drink of the fruit of thevine, but where is the direct statement to do that on the first day of the week ? And do you know that the fellow that knows where that is not present tonight and has not been here and is not going tocome? Now why? Because there is no such statement in the Bible, and I trust none of you brethren, will get shaky over Brother Hardeman's announcement of the fact. Yet, the Bible teaches — mark it

— the Bible teaches the observance of the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week. But how does it teach it? Now here is the way: By giving us anapproved example of the brethren at Troas meeting on the first day of the week to break bread. Therefore, that example of their doing it under the direction of the Holy Spirit comes with all authority. Now, if I would meet with God's approval, as did they, I will do likewise, and on the first day of theweek partake of the supper of the Lord. What is my authority? A heaven-inspired example!" (Hardeman's Tabernacle Sermons, Vol. 4, pages 53-54)

Brother Gus Nichols said in 1950, "L ikewise, there are approved examples authorizing certain things for which there are no commands. There is no command, as such, for Christians to observe the Lord's Supper ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK; but we have approved examples of theearly Christians doing this (Acts 20:7; 2:42). These examples have all of the authority of a divine command; for whatever the early Chr istians did byapostolic sanction or authority, is equal to a command." (Sermons by Gus Nichols, Vol. 3, page 79)

By necessary inference from this approved example we learn that we may eat the Lord's Supper at any time on the Lord's Day. The sum total of New Testament teaching is that it was eaten only on the Lord's Day and this becomes the exclusive pattern for the church on when to eat the Lord's Supper. Recently, we have heard of those eating ondays other than the first day of the week. Such is disobedience and does not constitute the Lord's Supper since it is not eaten with his approval on any other day than the Lord's Day.

FAILURE TO EAT

To fail to eat the Lord's Supper results in (1) some being weak; (2) in others being sick; and (3) still others being asleep or dead spiritually (I Cor. 11:30). For this cause every Christian should arrange to be present every Lord's Day to eat theLord's Supper unless hindered beyond his control. A Christian will not plan to absent himself from the assembly of the saints to eat the Lord's Supper inorder to engage in his own desires and pleasures.

Page 9

JUST A MAN

"And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him,and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. ButPeter took him up, saying, "Stand up; I myself also am a man" (Acts 10:25,26).

It has always been customary to heap praise andhonor upon certain men. Within limitations, this is right. The word teaches that some should be honored for their work or office. But we must never lose sight of the fact that men are just men.

1. Government Leaders are Just Men: We must render to them their dues (Matt. 22, Rom. 13:7). We must be subject to them to be subject to God(Rom. 13:1-5). But they are men. They do not constitute the ultimate authority.

Herod Agrippa I received with gratification thesycophantic shout of the people, "It is the voice of a god, and not of a man." As result, he was smitten by the angel of the Lord and gave up the ghost (Acts 12:22,23). In the most dramatic manner possible, it was demonstrated that he was just a man.

When the apostles in Jerusalem were given theultimatum "not to speak at all nor teach in thename of Jesus," Peter and John boldly answered, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." And later, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 4:10,19; 5:29).

2. Scientists, Philosophers, Educators are Just Men: C. S. Lewis wrote in a 1967 article (published posthumously) "Faulting the Bible Critics" .. . "while I respect the learning of the great biblicalcritics, I am not yet persuaded that their judgmentis equally to be respected."

In every area of learning, one will find if he investigates, that a great many conclusions are basedon presuppositions, not on real evidence. And since the modern mind tends to leave God out of the presuppositions, it usually winds up leaving Him outof the conclusions. But these men are just men.

Francis A. Schaeffer expressed it well in his recent book, "The Church At The End of The 20thCentury": "The problem is that you cannot trust the scientist just because he wears a white coat. It is as simple as that. Inside the coat he is still a man. And he is still a fallen man."

Jeremiah expressed it best: “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: It is not in manthat walketh to direct his steps" (10:23).

Science may represent man's search for objectivereality ... and philosophy his quest for metaphysical truth . . . but scientists and philosophers are just men. Let's not forget it.

1. Parents, Husbands, Wives — Are Human: We must honor our parents but obey them in the Lord (Eph. 6:1-4). Wives are to submit to their husbands but when conflict arises, we must obey God rather than men.
2. To follow loved ones into error and sin is not to honor them or their memory. True honor and concern demands that we do what we know is right andthen beckon them to follow the more noble example.
1. Preachers are just men: T hat is the lesson that Peter taught Cornelius. That is what Paul andBarnabas cried out in the city of Lystra when men were attempting to honor them as gods (Acts 14:15).

False teachers are men. One may possess the gift of gab and be described as "A super-salesman for the Lord" but if he does not speak as the oracles ofGod. he is a minister of Satan. He is a man, and ablind leader of the blind (Matt. 15:13,14).

True preachers and teachers are just men. Paulasked, "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, butministers (servants) by whom ye believed ..." and again ". . . learn in us not to think of men abovethat which is written ..." (I Cor. 3:5; 4:6). Gospel preachers are men. They are not infallible. They may err in many ways. They may become discouraged. They may be overtaken in faults. They may fall away.

When this happens, they who have their eyes on the preacher will likely fall away too. In every area of life, let's keep our eyes on God and remember that men are just men.

George E. Smysor, Mulvane, Kansas — The Mulvane, Kansas, Church of Christ will have a changeof ministers effective June 1, 1972. Brother Ross

O. Spears, who has faithfully served as minister for the past four and a half years, is taking a short rest from active regular preaching to recuperate from recent illne , after which he will resume regular work again. Brother Richard A. Holloway, who has been with the church in McAlester, Okla., is movingto Mulvane to serve the church there.

H. L. Bruce, Colorado Springs — Four were recently baptized at Northeast in Colorado Springs. There is a real fine dedicated couple here who would like to adopt a child. If any of you readers know of one that is now, or, that soon will be available for adoption you can contact me at P. O. Box 9071, Colorado Spr ings, Colorado 80909. Phone (303) 5976375. I will put you in touch with the couple whwants to adopt the child.

Robert W. LaCoste, Cooper, Texas — The church in Cooper, Texas is happy to report that within aweek 28 souls were restored to the Lord. These 28 had become lukewarm and indifferent like the church at Laodicea. We are grateful to God for the power of His gospel. When in Cooper, worship with us.

Herbert L. White, elder Eastside church of Christ,2930 Avon Road, Louisville, Ky. 40220 — We are a new congregation of about 125 people and growing.We would like to contact a preacher of a few years experience to work with us. Address correspondenceto the above address.

DO YOU WANT TO HELP A GOSPEL PREACHER IN MEXICO?

I am needing "Visualized Bible Study Series" (personal work film-strips) by Jule Miller, Spanish edition. Also Spanish sound recordings or manualand projector. Can any church or individual helme ? Please write in English or Spanish to: Armando Ortega Mata, Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz No. 1905Chihuahua, Chihi, Mexico.

Don and Diana Davenport, 2800 Ridge L ot 106,Springfield, Ill. 62702 — We have recently moved tSpringfield, Ill., from Montgomery, Ala. There is not a sound congregation here. There are two liberal congregations. We have been told that there was asmall group of Christians meeting here a few years ago, but have moved, been transferred or stopped meeting. Anyone knowing of Christians living here,or moving to Springfield, please have them contact us at the above address or phone 544-2679.

Gary D. White, 4620 Preston Highway, Louisville,Ky. 40213 — After laboring with the Preston Highway congregation for over three years I will beleaving the first week in July. Anyone interested in the work here should contact the elders at the above address or by phone. They are Carl Peterson, 9695532; and Harry Perkins, 366-3639.

I will begin laboring with the Br andon Ave.church of Christ, Columbia, S. C. This work just started in the middle of January. They are right inthe middle of churches which teach the false doctrines of centralization and institutionalism. I will need outside support since these brethren are not presently in a position to fully support a man. Any one or church interested in this work please call me at 969-0110, or write me at the above address for complete information.

Donald G. Collins, 2005 Wisconsin Ave., Joplin,Mo. 64801 — The new congregation in Sheldon, Missouri is progressing in a fine way. The brethren are planning to have a gospel meeting May 8-14, and I am to do the preaching. We would like to take this opportunity to invite all in driving distance of Sheldon to come and be with us in this gospel effort. Your presence and encouragement will be greatly appreciated by those brethren.

James Lynch is working with this congregationand doing an excellent job. He is in need of about two hundred dollars ($200.00), a month's support. Ifyou are in a financial condition and disposition tohelp in this difficult area, it would be money wellspent in the Master's Cause, and it would be greatly appreciated. You may contact: James Lynch, Rt. 1Sheldon, Mo. 64784. Phone 884-5272.

Earl Gene Bailey, Johnson City, Tenn.— The members of the congregation here are presently lookinfor a man to work full time. We are desperately ineed of leadership and have a will to work and grow. We are self-supporting and have approximately 70in attendance. Our present preacher, brother Joe Flemming, is having to relocate for reasons of bad health. He will be leaving about May 1

If there is any way you might help us, due to your vast circulation, in finding someone we would deeply appreciate it. We will look forward to hearing from you.

THE LORD'S WORK IN JAPAN

Charles Gentr

C.P.O. Box 179 Nagoya, Japan 450

The work here continues to be encouraging. The Japanese people continue to show an interest in learning the truth. Our Bible classes are progressing both

in attendance and interest. In the month of January

we had five visitors. Four of them had never heard

a lesson taught from God's Word. Our Bible study in

Osaka has been most encouraging. This month there

were eight present. Four of these were university

students who desire to study the Bible. The next

Sunday there were eleven present at the worship

service in Osaka. This number included four men

three women, two children and two university stu

dents ; one of these heard her first le on from God's

Word the evening before.

We want to express our sincere appreciation for your continued help and interest in the Lord's work in Japan. Your many cards and letters of encouragement continue to come. Some of those sent by sea mail in early December are just now arriving, if you are wondering why you have not received a reply.We continue to solicit your prayers.

RELIGIOUS DEBATE

There will be a debate between brethren JosephCox of Louisville, Kentucky and J. T. Smith of Conway, Arkansas. It will be held in the Iroquois HigSchool Auditorium in Louisville on May 22, 23, 25,26, at 7:30 each evening. These brethren will bediscu ing the scripturalness of the local church materially helping those who are non-members. Brother Smith will affirm that the local church may materially help only those who are saints. Brother Cox will affirm that the local church may materially help saints and others. For those coming from out oftown, the Iroquois High School is located on Taylor Blvd. south of Watterson Expressway.

PREACHER NEEDED Blue Ash, Ohio

We will be in need of a gospel preacher 1st of July.Anyone interested please call 1-513-791-3527 or write to Church of Christ, 4667 Cooper Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242.

HIGH LIGHTS OF THE BONNER-GAGE DEBATE Jesse G. Jenkins

David Bonner, preacher for the 6th and Meredith congregation in Dumas, Texas and Ralph Gage, of El Dorado, Arkansas, met in public discussion onthe nights of February 28, 29 and March 2 and 3.The debate was in Dumas, with two nights in the6th and Meredith building and two nights in the14th and Meredith building. The subject of Biblclasses and women teachers was discussed the first two nights, and the subject of congregational benevolence was discussed the last two.

The Class Question

Bonner had the first affirmative speech on thclass question. Recognizing that the basic error ofthe anti-class folk is relative to Bible authority, hespent some time clearly showing that Bible authority is derived by command, example, and necessaryinference; and that Bible authority comes to us in one of two forms — specific or generic. Bonner then argued that anything the church can support a man to do, the church can do; in fact is doing, as the church acts through its oversight, treasury, andagents. He pointed out that the church supported Paul to teach the word both publicly and from house to house, then concluded that the church was teaching the word both in the assembly and out of theassembly. He then pointed out that relative to assembly teaching he and Gage were pretty muchagreed, but that Gage made a mistake in trying tapply assembly regulations to teaching situations out of the assembly. He showed that the classes asused by 4th and Meredith were private, informal, outof the assembly teaching arrangements.

Bonner showed that the term teach includes a teacher, student, material, time, place, and arrangement. He pointed out that God has bound the teacher (a Christian), the student (mankind), and the material (the gospel) but that He has not bound thetime, place, or arrangement. He concluded that Gohad generically authorized the church to select thetime, the place, and arrangements for its teaching.He showed that there is authority for a gospel meeting, a bulletin, a debate, a radio program, or a Bible class in the teaching work of the church.

In response, Gage argued that the church canonly teach in the assembly. He denied that thteaching was in "congregational capacity" if not inthe assembly. He even said that if elders, acting as elders, went to the home of negligent members to admonish them, it would not be "congregational capacity." However, he said the church could teach the word over radio. When Bonner pointed out thatradio preaching was not "in the assembly," Gagcame up with a corker. He argued that radio teaching was "assembly" teaching. He said that the assembly was called by turning the radio on and tuningin the station, and that there was one man speakingto one great radio assembly. He compared radio preaching to an overflow crowd, with some in cars on the parking lot listening over a loud speaker. Bonner then asked him if the Lord's Supper could be taken in the "radio assembly" if it was on Sunday.Gage said that it could not, as it was not "that kind of an assembly." Bonner then pointed out that his radio preaching was not parallel to his overflow crowd, for Gage would admit the Lord's Supper could be taken by the overflow crowd! Gage never would give up this silly argument, but I don't think even his folks believed it.

Women Teachers

In Bonner's second affirmative he dealt with women teachers in some of the classes. He showed that the work women were doing in the cla es was first a work that God had authorized a local church to do, and second that it was a work God had authorized a woman to do. He used teaching younger women to illustrate. Since God has authorized both a church and a woman to teach younger women, itis right for the church to use a woman in this work.

Bonner showed that I Cor. 14:35 teaches "it is a shame for a woman to speak in the assembly," andpointed out that he and Gage were agreed on that. He insisted that we are as strict as Gage on woman's part in the assembly of the whole church come together. Bonner then introduced I Tim. 2:11-12,showing that it teaches a woman to be subject toa man in any Bible teaching situation. He pointedout that woman could not usurp authority over man even in a private, home Bible study

In response, Gage argued that Bible class teachingis "congregational capacity," and that in "congregational capacity" women are to be silent. Bonner agreed that the Bible classes are congregational action, but pointed out that they are private, group arrangements and not "assembly" teaching. He tried to show Gage his inconsistency in maintaining thathe only "congregational capacity" teaching is in the assembly, yet trying to make private, group arrangements "congregational capacity" teaching. It seemed clear enough, but I think prejudice kepGage from ever seeing the point. Relative to I Tim.

2:12 Gage argued that "I suffer not a woman to teach" meant in the assembly, and that "nor to usurp authority over the man" meant anywhere.He could not explain how he determined that half of the verse was specific (limited to the assembly)and half was generic (applicable anywhere). Htried to draw a parallel by changing two words in I Tim. 2:11-12, making it read as follows: "Let the women ride in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to drive, nor to usurp authority

over the man, but to be in silence." He then said: "Does that mean she can drive anywhere except over a man? T hat means she can not drive anywhere." Bonner then pointed out that Gage's "parallel" taught more than Gage was willing to accept. If the sentences were indeed parallel in meaning, andif Gage's sentence meant that a woman "can notdrive anywhere," then Paul's statement meant that a woman can not teach anywhere. Gage did not recover from this. Of course, the sentences are notparallel in meaning, as there is not the same relation between "drive" and "subjection" as there is between "teach" and "subjection." Then too, there is the conjunction "nor" (Oude) which is of great importance in determining the meaning of I Tim. 2:11-12, that is not even a factor in Gage's sentence.

Benevolence

Gage affirmed that the church has obligation thelp all the needy people in the world as it has opportunity and ability. But he used about one half of his time in his affirmative speeches talking aboutthe class proposition of the previous night. When he did get to his proposition on benevolence, hestarted by saying he never had studied the subject"until two days ago." And, believe me, it was evident that he was telling the truth. In his first speechhe hurriedly mentioned Matt. 5:44-45, Luke 10:3035, Romans 12:20-21, James 1:27, and Galatians

6:10. In Bonner's first negative, he showed thanone of these passages touched on the subject ochurch benevolence. Gage must have got the point,for he pretty well left them alone for the rest of the debate. Nine minutes before Gage's second affirmative was over he finally mentioned the first scripture on congregational benevolence. He read II Cor. 9:13,and argued that the contribution was for the poor 1 saints in Jerusalem and for all men other than saints who were in need. Bonner showed that in connection with this relief Paul stated seven times that it was for the poor saints at Jerusalem. Therefore, to have used the funds for any other purpose, no matter how worthy, would be misappropriation. He pointed outhat the funds from Gentiles were "not only to fillup the measure of the wants of the saints" (pooJewish saints), but beyond mere carnal relief to poor Jewish saints, "is abundant also by manthanksgivings unto God" on the part of "all" Jewish saints for the Gentiles' "professed subjection untthe gospel of Chr ist." Simplified, he showed that the money was raised for poor Jewish saints, sent to poor Jewish saints, and that this exhausted the use made of the physical funds. But that in addition to relieving the poor Jewish saints, the other Jewish saints were also befitted in that the relief created good will and thanksgiving on their part for theGentiles who had taken thought of the poor Jewish brethren. He concluded that only in this mannercould it be under stood that the gift went to another than poor Jewish saints.

In his affirmative on the benevolent question, Bonner read the nine passages in the New Testament on the subject, showing that in each passage saints were the object of the relief and that the local church administered the relief. Needless to say, Gage wasnot able to deal with his arguments.

One of Gage's most glaring inconsistencies wasthe fact that he argued the first two nights that no action was "congregational capacity" unless in theassembly, but the last two nights he argued thabenevolence was "congregational capacity" if one man picked up food out of the store room and took it to a needy family. Bonner pointed out that if thechurch can act through its agent in relief work, itcan act through its agent in teaching; therefore, some teaching out of the assembly can be congregational action. But Gage never would admit the point.

Conduct During The Debate

The conduct of both disputants was the best. Imoderated for Bonner, and Gage's brother moderated for him. Neither of us had to call a single pointof order. On the class question, Gage was about asgood as any man they have. T his was his 25th debate on that subject. But on the benevolent question,he was ver y weak.

Attendance was good with crowds ranging from about 200 to 300: There were 24 gospel preachers who came to stand with Bonner on the i ues discussed.

Will There Be More Debates?

Gage stated that either he, one of his two sons,his brother, or his son would meet anyone in debateon these subjects where endorsements could be had by both disputants. He was invited to come to Denton with or without endor sement from the anti-class people, but refused. I then asked him to invite me to come to El Dorado and a ured him I would come whether I got endorsement from some congregation there or not. But he evidently is not too interested in debating at home; at least no invitation

Page 13

was extended. But if any of you preachers are in atown where there is a congregation that will endorse Gage and want to engage him in debate, you mightcontact him.

1813 Carlton Denton,Texas 76201

Olen Holderby sent the following poem which was composed by a 14-year-old girl who has spent manyof her recent days in a hospital bed or days of recovery at home.

THINKING

I was lying around,In the stillness of the night,Thinking of the Saviour I've foundE ven though He is out of sight.

I know all about Him,To me He shines very bright,To non-Christians He is very dimBut, for Him I shall fight.

I was thinking of the creationAnd of the judgment,All the things for me He has doneTo be the Saviour of the world He was meant.

Thinking of Jesus' wonderful loveTo me He has shown,The Father I am reminded of,My heart and soul He does own.

I want Christ in meEvery day of the week, all seven,I want the key from T heeTo the Kingdom of Heaven.Susan Garvin

Our society is based upon free enterprise. A mancan obtain as much material wealth as he has the ability and opportunity. T her e ar e those in theworld that look upon a prosperous man as a successful man. It is as though the words successful and wealthy are synonymous. People find it hard tounderstand how one without great material wealthcan be considered successful.

Christians need to be careful concerning their views toward material abundance. There is certainlynothing sinful in being wealthy, but there is the po ibility of being led away following after riches. The wise man Solomon said in Eccl. 5:10 "He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; norhe that loveth abundance with increase: this also is vanity."

What Solomon said then applies now, and will always be applicable. The more we have, the more wewant. We are Never Satisfied! Paul in his writing to T imothy gave this war ning to those that woulddesire wealth "But they that will be rich fall intotemptation and a snare, and into many foolish andhurtful lusts, which drown men in perdition" (I Tim. 6:9). Then in verse 10 Paul declares: "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have ERRED from the faith,and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." It is easy to err from the faith if riches is foremost in our minds.

In this area we need to be very careful and guard our thoughts. Desiring material abundance must not be foremost in our thoughts and actions. If it is, wecannot be pleasing to God (cf. I John 2:15-17). Children of God cannot love the world. Love of God and the keeping of His commandments is number one in ever y Chr istian's life; it must be to a Chr istian! Paul said, concerning his material welfare: "Notthat I speak in respect of want: for I have learned,in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content" (Phil. 4:11). Paul is simply telling us, that no matter what our material status, we should be contenthappy, with it, under standing that whatever wehave is the gift of God. In the next verse, verse 12,Paul says: "I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound. . . ." Too many of us know only how to abound. When we see financial problems, our service to God is hindered. We worry about material things instead of serving Him. Again wcan gain knowledge from the writings of Paul. "I can do all things through Christ which strengthened me." Whatever may beset us, we can count on thestrength that Christ can give

Paul counted himself as privileged to have beeselected, and able, to proclaim the gospel of Christ. Although he had before been a persecutor, when hobeyed the gospel he gave his life to serve Christ. He completely understood that material wealth is unimportant. Paul, by his life, shows us the true meaning of Matt. 6:33: "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things should be added unto you."

Let us as children of God remember the things that are important. Those spiritual gifts from Godthat make us truly wealthy. Let your light shine so that we may show the world that spiritual ble ings in Christ are far more rewarding than all the material possessions of the world. We need to give more of our material possessions to God, that we mightnot covet that which we have. It will help us to be more spiritually minded, and work harder in His kingdom. Remember, the things we have been givenof God are given to us as stewards. There will come a day of reckoning, and then you and I must give an accounting for everything we have done with thatwhich has been entrusted to us. If Christ were to come this very instant, would He say to you, "Well done, thou good and faithful ser vant."?

Route 3, Box 49

Rochelle, Ill. 61068

HAVE YOU CHECKED YOUR EXPIRATION DATE? RENEW TODAY