Some of the world's most brilliant and able literarymen have been quite critical and outspoken in their condemnation of the notion of God and eternal life. Unfortunately, their testimonies have usually beenheard in their young, brash, productive years whenthey were very full of themselves and when the day oftheir death seemed far removed. It might profit us tohave the opportunity to learn from them in their declining days as they looked back and evaluated their lives from a high peak and broad perspective.SAMUEL LANGHORNE CLEMENS, better knownby his pen name, Mark Twain (1835-1910). "A myriadof men are born; they labor and sweat and struggle for bread; they squabble and scold and fight; theyscramble for little mean advantages over each other.Age creeps upon them and infirmities follow; shameand humiliations bring down their prides and then-vanities. Those they love are taken from them,and the joy of life is turned to aching grief. The burdenof pain, care, and misery grows heavier year by year. At length ambition is dead, pride is dead, vanity isdead; longing for release is in their place. It comes atlast—the only unpoisoned gift earth ever had for them—and they vanish from a world where they were of no consequence; where they achieved nothing, where they were a mistake and a failure anda foolishness; where they left no sign that they haveexisted—a world that will lament them a day andforget them forever" (Autobiography, Vol. II, p. 37).BERTRAND RUSSELL (1872-1970). "Why shouldyou suppose I think it foolish to wish to see the people one is fond of? What else is there to make life tolerable? We stand on the shore of an ocean, crying to the nightand the emptiness; sometimes a voice answers out ofthe darkness. But it is a voice of one drowning; and in amoment the silence returns" (Autobiography p. 287). ROBERT G. INGERSOLL (1833-1899). "Death is anarrow vale between the cold and barren peaks of two eternities. We cry aloud and the only answer is thewailing echo of our cry" (oration given at the grave ofhis brother).GEORGE BERNARD SHAW (1856-1950). "Thescience to which I pinned my faith is bankrupt. ... Itscounsels which should have established the millennium have led directly to the suicide of Europe. I believedthem once ... In their name I helped to destroy thefaith of millions of worshippers in the temples of athousand creeds. And now they look at me and witnessthe great tragedy of an atheist who has lost his faith"

(Too True To Be Good).

W. SOMERSET MAUGHAM (1874-1965). "When I look back on my life ... it seems to be strangelylacking in reality ... it may be that my heart, havingfound rest nowhere, had some deep ancestral cravingfor God and immortality which my reason would haveno truck with" (The Chicago Daily News, January 26,1964).

These have been testimonies of atheists as theyfaced the bleak abyss of death and looked back on a lifeso lauded by others but now so strangely meaninglessto themselves. Let us share just one more personaltestimony. It was written by a man of immense intellect, great ambition (though not selfish), andgenuine literary achievement. He was also a man whounderwent great personal sufferings and grossmiscarriages of justice. He said in his old age: "For Iam already on the point of being sacrificed; the time ofmy departure has come. I have fought the good fight, Ihave finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown ofrighteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge,will award to me on that Day, and not only to me butalso to all who have loved his appearing (2 Tim. 4:6-8).This is the testimony of a believer!

The school principal, a member of a large, liberal(digressive) church of Christ, was discussing one facet of his philosophy as a school principal when he said,

"It is often easier to get forgiveness than it is toget permission." When an extraordinary situation arose he would do what he thought was best and then,if the superintendent or others in authority objected,he (the principal) could apologize and seek their forgiveness. Frankly, with the complex and oft timesconflicting rules handed down by bureaucrats at alllevels of government such a philosophy was probablyvery efficient. Such is not being recommended, but theworkability of such is recognized.

The thing that bothers me is the emergence of thisphilosophy ("It is often easier to get forgiveness thanit is to get permission.") in matters religious. Brethrensearch in vain for authority from the New Testament (permission) to build and maintain humanly devisedinstitutions to do the work of the church. When permission is withheld (no command, approved apostolic example or necessary inference) they go ondeclaring that it is a "good work," and that the Lordmust surely be happy with their efforts—if not, Heforgives so easily.

Saints search the New Testament for "permission"to make the local congregation a social center (dinnersin the basement, TV rooms, ping-pong tables,gymnasiums, etc.), fail to find a hint of permission,ignore New Testament condemnation of such (1 Cor.11:22), but go onward, ever onward confident thatGod will forgive IF they have done ought that was wrong. After all, forgiveness is easier to get than permission.

Others, closer to home, reason in much the samefashion. Knowing that it is wrong (sinful) to forsake"our own assembling together" (Heb. 10:25) they takejobs that "necessitate" their missing worship services. The job is not for necessities (food and clothing, seeMatt. 6:25-33), but for the good life, for spendingmoney, to get some of the extras that society offers. "Surely," they reason, "the Lord will forgive me sinceI had to work."

Permission to (un)dress as the world is not forthcoming (1 Tim. 2:9; Rom. 12:2) but skirts anddresses with suggestive, provocative slits up the sideare in style,, and forgiveness is so easy to obtain so ....

When I first encountered the philosophy, "It is ofteneasier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission," Iwas shocked since God's children are to serve their "masters according to the flesh ... heartily as unto theLord" (see Col. 3:22-24). My shock turned to sadnessand sorrow when I realized that the cheapening offorgiveness to make it a replacement for authority(permission) in secular matters was (is) in keeping withtheir service "unto the Lord" (Col. 3:23).

WHERE DID HE TELL US HOW TO DO IT?

Not long ago in a talk with a preacher in anotherstate, the subject of church supported benevolencearose. He had come to hear me preach one night in ameeting although he preached for a congregationinvolved in practices which I could not endorse. Ourconversation afterward was pleasant though it wasevident we were not in accord on many things. Likewriters and debaters of 25 years ago who advocatedfinancial support from churches to private relief organizations, he wanted to know just where the Bibletells us "how to do it"?

We have been told that James 1:27 says to "visit thefatherless and widows" and that the passage does notsay how it is to be done. It was strange a quarter of acentury ago, and still is, that this argument should bemade when none of the brethren who oppose churchsupport of such organizations have ever argued overthe "how." The issue was, and is, the question of"Who" and not "How." For example, in James 1:27,the one charged with the care of the fatherless andwidows is the same one who is to "bridle his tongue"(verse 26) and who is to "keep himself unspotted fromthe world" so that "this man's religion" will not be invain. The context here indicates that the "who" of this passage is an individual. The church as a body is not even under discussion. As to what method of administration the individual shall choose in visitingthe fatherless and widows, the passage says nothing.

1 Tim. 5:16 deals with relief of widows indeed. "If any man or woman that believeth have widows, letthem relieve them, and let not the church be charged;that it may relieve them that are widows indeed." The "who" of this passage is clearly indicated. The "manor woman" who has widows is to relieve them so the church will not be charged in order that it (the church)may relieve "widows indeed." Here the church entersthe picture. If the church is to relieve "widows indeed", it is understood by all that some method willhave to be employed. There will have to be a place ofcare, supervision, provision and the necessary amountto accomplish all of this. But the point is that thechurch is charged to administer this relief. The onlyunit God ever ordained through which the church cando anything is the local congregation with its ownelders and deacons (Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:1-3).This means that the elders will oversee the methods used and the expenditure of the Lord's money.

This is not done when a congregation supports abenevolent organization. The board of directors decides on the place of care, personnel and provisions.They oversee the matter. The board is not the "how"but another "who" than the church under its elders. Brethren need to learn to distinguish between organization and method. When the church relievesthose for whom it is responsible, it must employmethod. But when the church contributes to an organization, then that organization itself is not amethod or "how" but another entity which still mustdetermine the method to be used.

The question resolves itself to this: which organization did God appoint for the work? Did heordain the church under the oversight of elders, or didhe ordain another governing unit (a board of directorschartered by the state)? Which "who" (organization) must employ the "how" (method)?

There are various methods which might be used inrelieving those who are the charge of the church. Theymight be supported in their own house, or one securedfor that purpose. They might have to have qualifiedattendants to administer medicine or other care. But the selection of the care and administration of the matter must be under the oversight of the elders of thechurch. If elders cannot oversee it, then what makesit the work of the church? The relief for the poorsaints in Judea was sent "to the elders", not to someJudean relief society (Acts 11:27-30).

The charge that some of us are seeking to bindmethods is a straw man. It was a false argument 25 years ago. It has not improved with age. But we doinsist that the church as purposed in divine wisdom,is adequate under its own elders to do everythingGod authorized the church to do. God did not bind "how" the relief is to be administered, but he certainly did bind the "who."

Recent Deaths

A. H. STAGGS—This beloved gospel preacher workedfor many years in southern Indiana and Kentucky. Hepreached at one time for the Gardiner Lane congregation in Louisville. About 6 weeks ago hepassed away while living in Florida. While his healthhad been failing for sometime, he was helping a smallcongregation until a few days before his death. Funeralservices were conducted in Sellersburg, Indiana byFrank Ingram with burial in Nashville, Tennessee. We express our sympathy to the remaining members ofthe family.SHIRLEY STAUFFER—After a long battle withcancer, Shirley Stauffer, wife of gospel preacher L. A.Stauffer of Kirkwood, Missouri, fell asleep in the Lordon Sunday, July 12. Her radiant spirit, courage andconfidence left an example for her husband, childrenand all who knew her. She was an excellent teacher and through her work in camps operated by Florida Collegeshe influenced the lives of countless young people whofeel the loss keenly. Many congregations and individuals have been blessed through the faithful service of the Stauffers and share with L.A. and the children the sense of loss. May the God of all comfortsustain them as they now ponder their many preciousmemories.

There was a woman of Canaan who came to Jesus to

plead for the recovery of her daughter. Her behavior on

that occasion was such that our Lord was led to say:

"O woman, great is thy faith" (Matt. 15:22-28). Does

he find great faith when He looks into our hearts? If so,

how great is it?

Is it great enough to continue through all the attacksand ridicule that come from this unbelieving and ungodly world? The crime rate is increasing rapidly,the divorce rate is alarming, fornication and drunkenness are accepted as ways of life. Each personfinds a desire within himself to conform to the waysof the crowd rather than to be cut off from the crowd.

Is your faith strong enough to fight back? We havebeen asked to contend for the faith. We are to be able to give an answer to those who ask a reason for thehope that is in us (Jude 3; 1 Pet. 3:15). The faithfulchild of God is able to teach or speak so as to leadothers to believe (2 Tim. 2:2; Rom. 10:17). This sin sickworld is in great need of more people who have greatfaith. We have no room to think that it might be toogreat. There is no record of any one's having a faith that is too great. How could that be?

Is your faith great enough to cause you toconfidently and boldly apply the principles of the word of God to your own life? The same measure of faith that would cause us to contend boldly and earnestlyfor the faith that was once delivered to the saints should surely cause us to obey every command andheed every warning delivered to us by holy men whowere guided by the Holy Spirit. If we can so heartilyrecommend it to others we should be willing to practice what we preach.

It is inconsistent and hard to explain, but there havebeen men who were very effective teachers of truthwho became immoral while preaching the truth. Theysay and do not. It might shock many of us if we knowhow many have appeared to be children of light by thethings they said but are actually children of darknessin their behavior. Why do some fornicators preach thegospel? It would seem that any such person would giveup one or the other. Our Lord was dealing with publicteachers who sat in Moses' seat when He gave so manysharp rebukes in that last week of His life (Matt. 23).They loved the praise of men and other such thingsmore than they loved the Lord Himself. In fact, the leaders among the enemies of Jesus were priests,scribes, and rulers in the synagogues. Could similarthings be true in our day? Enough teachers of thegospel are caught in ungodliness to let us know thatthis is a real problem.

Is your faith great enough to cause you to hungerand thirst after truth? Those who gladly receive theword by obeying it and teaching it would surely beeager to learn. Do you know of teachers who go toclasses unprepared to teach? Do you know men whostand to preach who are poorly prepared? Can we thinkof enough excuses for our ignorance? A lack of Bibleknowledge is very evident in many places. These teachers who lack knowledge evidently lack the powerof discernment to recognize error when it is taught. There is great danger of apostasy when the teachersand leaders do not have their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace. It is time to be filledwith alarm because there is not much evidence of Bible knowledge today, even among likable people who takemuch responsibility in church work.

A rush of worldly concerns consume the time ratherthan Bible study. Television, games, and other formsof recreation compete for our time after the day's workis done. In what percentage of the church families isBible study a point of special emphasis in the day'sactivities? This lack of knowledge may show up incareless behavior and speech. It may dull the edge ofboldness and firmness in the teacher. Faith comes by hearing the word of God so where there is littleknowledge and study there is little faith.

The man of great faith is not ashamed of thetestimony of the Lord. He is eager to understand it and to live in harmony with it. Great faith is alive and active. A man may say he has faith, but he may fail todemonstrate it by his activities.

The man who loves the truth will find great joy in itspromises and see the wisdom in its precepts. Manywho are called Christians may find almost all theirpleasure in something this world offers. America seems to have gotten beside itself in excitement overathletic events, boating, fishing, and even over theofferings of Hollywood. A day only has twenty four hours, and a week has only seven days. When can wefind time for the most important things? The churchitself is made up of many people who are caught up inthe whirl of things that interest the unbelievers. Thebeauty of holiness, the hope of glory, and the power ofthe gospel may hardly be noticed by these busy peoplewho know of things that interest them more. Whereare our priorities?

Christ has advice we need, precious promises toencourage us, and many needed warnings, but there islittle offered to the man of little faith. Knowledge andfaith come by the same time consuming effort. The great joy and consolation that came to Paul in prison are not available to people whose thoughts and deedscenter in material or worldly things. Do we realize the peace He offers? Have we no understanding of the joythat comes to the more devout? We cannot do everything, so we should select things of eternal valueto fill more of our time. How great is your faith?

How many times have you heard some fellow say, inexasperation with some situation that has developed or something unbecoming that someone else has done, "There ought to be a law!"? Did you ever stop tothink about this statement a bit? Just about everytime this statement is made, if one will do a bit of searching he will find out that there already is a lawrelating to the very evil that has proved so disturbing. In fact, if you check it out, you will find that God,Himself, has given a law or made a statement thatdeals with the problem. Lets take a look at a few examples.

Have you ever seen a person who was characterizedby such slovenliness, who was so slipshod in his work, infact, who was just simply so downright lazy that youwere more than a little tempted to say, "There oughtto be a law against a feller bein' that lazy!"? The fact is,there is more than a little said in God's Word about the sluggard or his disposition. The statements arequite pointed. Solomon wrote: "How long wilt thousleep, O sluggard? When wilt thou arise out of thysleep? Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, A little foldingof the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come as arobber, And thy want as an armed man" (Prov. 6:9-11). Paul gave some rather strong language directedagainst those who will not work: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, If any will notwork, neither let him eat" (2 Thess. 3:10). We have a lotof "dead-beats", leeches, and "spongers" in our society who live off the productivity of the industrioussegment of society. I think it would be good to apply the rule that was given by Paul to the Thessalonians.A little hunger might cure a lot of laziness. So—in thisparticular area, if you feel that there ought to be a lawdealing with the problem, there already is.

More than once I have run into such a gross displayof immodesty or undress that I have found myselfsaying, "There ought to be a law against such indecentexposure!" But, come to think of it, there already is. Folks just do not pay any attention to it. Or at leastmost folks don't. But here it is, plain and clear, righton the pages of Holy Writ: "In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, andgold or pearls or costly raiment: but (which becomethwomen professing godliness) through good works" (1Tim. 2:9, 10). There it is. God saw the need for such a law and gave it to us. Let's respect it!

Did you ever see a sister just about take complete control of a class, a mixed class, and do more teachingfrom her seat than the man who was standing on thefloor trying to teach the class? Did you ever, out ofsympathy for the teacher and the class, think, "Thereought to be a law against a woman's dominating theclass in that fashion."? Well, you won't have to botherpassing such a law. It is already in the Book. Paulcalled for a disposition of reserve and restraint on thepart of a woman. "Let a woman learn in quietness withall subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, norto have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness" (1Tim. 2:11, 12). That should be sufficient for one who issatisfied with the Lord's word in the matter.

Were you ever tempted to say, "There ought to be alaw,'' when you see some fellow with disgustingly long hair walking down the street or riding by on hismotorcycle? The Holy Spirit saw fit to deal with thisproblem too. He guided the pen of Paul to reveal thesewords: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, ifa man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him? (1 Cor.11:14). Many people do not see the shame of it, but ifthey had read their Book and believed it, theywould. Or, perhaps, I should say they see the dishonorand shame of it, but they ignore it in order to go along with the crowd. It is still a shame!

Have you ever groaned within when you arewatching TV and you see a young gang of "rebels"throwing rocks and bottles at the police? Surely, thereought to be a law against such conduct! To make suchan observation is almost ludicrous. Certainly, there issuch a law. Peter dealt with the matter of civil government and the respect that should be showntoward those who represent it: "Be subject to everyordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether to the king, as supreme; or unto governors sent by him for vengeance on evil-doers and for praise to them that dowell . . . Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king" (1 Pet. 2:13, 14, 17). The beloved brother Paul also wrote concerning civil government and our attitude toward it: "Let everysoul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and theythat withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. ..Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due;custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor towhom honor" (Rom. 13:1, 2, 7). Agents of civil government, when fulfilling their divinely appointedrole, are "ministers of God" (Rom. 13:4, 6). We mustrespect them and be in subjection to them.

I have seen rebellious children do just about everything but spit on their parents and I am sure thatthis has happened also. "There ought to be a law," wemay say. There is, in both the Old and New Covenants."Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this isright. Honor thy father and mother (which is the firstcommandment with promise), that it may be well withthee, and thou mayest live long on the earth" (Eph,6:1-3). See also Ex. 20:12 and Deut. 5:16. God saw thatthere was a need for such a law and He gave it. Let us teach our children to respect it. They will be the betterand the happier for it.

I am sure that the Lord does not call upon me to hold in respect those who will not shoulder their responsibility as parents. A mother and father who will abandon their children to someone else to raise, are not worthy of the name "mother" and "father." There have been many instances in which children have literallystarved to death physically simply because of the inhumanity of their parents. But there are many morechildren who are starving to death spiritually. "Thereought to be a law, " someone says. Well, there is. Paulwrote, "But if any provideth not for his own, andspecially his own household, he hath denied the faith,and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim. 5:8).

Rending asunder the body of Christ is a terriblething. Fomenting strife and division and contention isa great hindrance to the progress of the cause ofChrist. The way some folks behave in the church, theattitudes they manifest toward their brethren,—"There ought to be a law." Well, friend,there is. When Paul found division and strife among the brethren, he wrote, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them. For they that aresuch serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly; andby their smooth and fair speech they beguile the heartsof the innocent" (Rom. 16:17, 18). There is a sense inwhich one can never destroy the kingdom of Christ. It shall stand forever. But one may destroy its well-being.In local instances, one may cause it to sicken and die.But woe to him who is responsible for the evil that iswrought. Paul stated succinctly, "If any man destroyeththe temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the templeof God is holy, and such are ye" (1 Cor. 3:17).

Many young people, and older ones too, will go tobed with just about anybody who asks or consents.Marriage is out of date for some. Just "shackin' up" ispreferred. The situation is bad and getting worse.Many who marry seem to regard marriage as a sort of"trial-and-error" proposition. Try them a while and ifyou do not find them to your liking ship them out andorder another one. Many hearts are broken. Many livesare ruined. "There ought to be a law," one may say.There is. "Let marriage be had in honor among all, andlet the bed be undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Heb. 13:4). Fornication is listed byPaul among the "works of the flesh." He further tells us, "that they who practice such things shall notinherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:19-21).

In fact, we may think "There ought to be a law"against the wide prevalence of evil and wickednessthat is manifest in our society and the world today.But God took care of that thousands of years agothrough the prophet Enoch, the father of Methuselah,". . . Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied,saying, Behold, the Lord came when ten thousands ofhis holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and toconvict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought, and ofall the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken againsthim "(Jude 14, 15). God did not see fit to record muchthat Enoch said, but what He did record has plenty ofimpact. We are not left in doubt in regard to whereEnoch stood on the matter of ungodliness. I am gladthat God let us have this much insight into the mind ofa man who was so upright in character that "God tookhim" (Gen. 5:24). Enoch did not "pull any punches."Neither can we if we are going to please Him.

When you feel moved to say, "There ought to be alaw," take a look into God's Word. You will find that where a law was needed, God has already taken care ofthe problem.

EVIDENCES OF DIGRESSION

From time to time I have often pointed out evidencethat some churches of Christ are departing from the teaching of the New Testament. Many of these lessonshave fallen upon deaf ears because as Jesus said of some in Mt. 13:15, ". . . this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyesthey have closed, lest at any time they should see withtheir eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

Some will say, "Well, the only difference betweenyou and other brethren is just over the orphan homequestion." This shows that somebody does not knowwhat is going on.

A church in Nashville, Tennessee, hired a full-time coach, different kinds of recreation are engaged in, andall of this provided by the church. A church in Memphis, Tennessee built a lodge out in the forest, spending thousands and thousands of dollarsfor such items as cabins, a fishing lake, a swimmingpool, and other such things. These two facts bythemselves should prove to one that there is moreinvolved in the controversy within the churches ofChrist than just what is called the "orphan home" question.

But this is not the basic trouble within the church of the Lord. An Old Testament example will show thevery attitude and what the Lord said of it. You will recall that when the children of Israel were in Rephidim that they murmured against Moses andsaid, "Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us upout of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattlewith thirst?" Moses took the matter to the Lord in these words, "What shall I do unto this people? Theyare almost ready to stone me." The Lord said untoMoses as recorded in Exodus 17:5-6, "Go on before thepeople, and take with thee of the elders of Israel; and the rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take inthine hand, and go. Behold, I will stand before theethere upon the rock in Horeb; and there shall comewater out of it, that the people may drink. And Mosesdid so in the sight of the elders of Israel."

Upon another occasion when Israel was in need ofwater, this time they were in Kadesh, as recorded inNumbers, chapter 20. Israel again came and complained unto Moses and Aaron about their havingno water. They came "unto the door of the tabernacleof the congregation" and the Lord spoke to Moses,

saying, "Take the rod, and gather thou the assemblytogether, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak yeunto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forthhis water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water outof the rock: so thou shalt bring forth to them water outof the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation andtheir beasts drink" (Num. 20:8).

But what did Moses do upon this occasion? Hegathered the congregation together before the rockand said unto them "Hear now, ye rebels; must wefetch you water out of this rock? And Moses lifted uphis hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: andthe water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also."

Notice the charge that God made unto Moses andAaron, "Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shallnot bring this congregation into the land which I have given them" (Num. 20:12). God charged them with unbelief. The problem in the church today in unbelief.

The Broad Street church in Cookeville, Tennessee once planned a "1600 seat auditorium, with a matching educational space including a day school, off-street parking, and finally a nursing home." The plansfor the first unit "call for 325 seat chapel to be used astemporary auditorium, fellowship hall which can double as a gym and three class rooms designed for usein a Christian day school. .. . Part of parking area nearfellowship hall will be designed for recreation area."Now what is this church of Christ in Cookeville, Tennessee going to do that the Bible authorizes which requires a gym and a day school?

From the bulletin of the Broadway church of Christ in Lubbock, Texas October 20, 1963 is the announcement of one of the elders elected as the "Chairman of the Elders" and another elder is elevated to the "Vice-Chairman of the Elders." In what passagein the word of the Lord do you read about Chairmanand Vice-Chairman of Elders?

In a North Atlantic Christian magazine in 1963,I read, "A Nation-Wide Youth Rally will be held inNew York City August 18-24 sponsored by the Washington Heights church of Christ. Some 800 young people are expected to attend this Rally tomeet and discuss the various problems of youth inthe 20th century. The Rally will be under the directionof Howard U. Johnson, minister of the Washington Heights congregation. Various prominent figures have been invited to attend the opening of the Rally, including Dr. Martin LutherKing. In order to accommodate the large numbers,the facilities of a nearby Baptist Church have beensecured for the meetings; the leadership of this Baptist Church has been in touch with the Washington Heights Church through contacts madethrough the Herald of Truth radio program."

Brethren, do you think it is just the orphan homequestion that is the difference between members in the church of Christ. Here is a church of Christ, in contactwith a Baptist church, and the way they got in contactwith each other was through the Herald of Truth. Furthermore, they had a denominational preacher to come speak to the church of Christ, and that speaker wasnone other than "Dr. Martin Luther King".

The church of the Lord has digressed into apostacyfurther than anybody would have ever thought. It isout of a love for your souls that I am trying to get youto wake up and not let institutional preachers sell youa bill of goods all wrapped up under the pretense of"faithfulness to the Lord" when the inside of the package plainly reveals it is digression, sectarianism, apostacy in complete dress.

We are calling brethren to come back to the Bibleand for "a thus saith the Lord" for the old time kind of gospel preaching, with book, chapter, and verse for allthat we do. Preachers among us at one time were menof power, men of persuasion, and men of conviction;but these same men today have lost all the power, theconviction, and ability they ever had to preach thesimple Gospel of Jesus Christ. They will boldly affirmthat they believe in debating and will even boast ofhaving had debates, yet when one challenges themfor a debate, they run from the polemic platform.

If it be said that no apostle ever signed a formalproposition or that Jesus Christ never did such, do weunderstand that when propositions have been signedthat this was wrong? My friends, I tell you what no apostle of Jesus Christ nor Jesus Christ would haveever done; they would not have let anyone challengethem week in and week out, month in and month out,year in and year out, and not come face to face withhim and expose his false doctrine with all of the powerand conviction of the word of God. It is enough tomake every faithful child of God sick to hear menaffirm that they are great defenders of the faith, whenall of them put together do not evidence the convictionsof any of the apostles.

If I were to tell you that Tom O'Neal was the best quail hunter in this part of the country, you might bewilling to put some confidence in my word for a while;but the time would come, having heard so much aboutwhat I was supposed to be able to do, that you wouldlike to see it demonstrated. If when you called upon meto evidence my ability, I said one time that I decidednot to show it, another time I said I had a cold, anothertime I didn't have a gun, and another time I was completely out of shells, you would know that Icouldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

Many sermons have been preached on the subject ofWhat must I do to be saved? Comparatively few,however, to my knowledge, have been preached onwhat it means to be saved. Yet it is reasonable to assume that one will appreciate salvation to the extentthat he or she understands what is involved in the transaction. It is with the hope of assisting in a betterunderstanding of what is involved in being saved fromsin that this series of articles is written.

Salvation Is From Heaven

It must be recognized first of all, that salvation isfrom heaven. Paul ascribed salvation to God, "Who saved us, and called us with a heavenly calling" (2 Tim.1:9). But he also ascribed salvation to Christ, when hesaid, "Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world tosave sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15).

Salvation—The Purpose of Christ's Mission

From the beginning of his personal ministry, Jesusrecognized that the purpose of his mission to earth wasto save men from their sins. It was on that basis that he justified himself in his conduct in associating withsinners—some of them sinners of the deepest dye. Sowhen his enemies, who were ever on the alert forsomething in his life whereby they could discredit him,murmured and professed a righteous indignationbecause he had gone to dine in the house of Zachaeus,the publican, Jesus' reply was, "For the Son of man iscome to seek and save that which was lost" (Luke19:11). On another occasion he said, "For I came not tojudge the world, but to save the world" (John 12:47).

When the apostles went out preaching under thegreat commission, they preached Christ as the Saviourof the world. In a discourse before the Jews, Peter said, "Him did God exalt at his right hand to be a Princeand Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins" (Acts 5:31). The apostle John said ofJesus, "And we have beheld, and bear witness that theFather hath sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world" (1 John 4:14).

Salvation Defined

As with all subjects, it is well to have, at thebeginning, a definition of the terms used. Like otherwords of the English language, the word salvationtakes on various forms, depending on the grammatical use. There is the word, save, which isthe verb form, and used in the present, past, andfuture tenses—save,

saved, and shall be saved. Then it occurs in the activeand passive voices—save and be saved. This word,save, may be broadly defined as, To deliver from peril ordanger. The passive form, be saved, suggest the idea of escape from danger. The noun form, salvation, may thusbe understood as the process of saving, or the stateenjoyed by one who has been saved.

The word, saved, is sometimes used in the Bible withreference to deliverance from, or escape from enemies.The writer of Exodus tells us how that God parted thewaters of the Red Sea, allowing the children of Israel topass through, which the Egyptians assaying to dowere drowned (Ex, 14:21-29). The result is stated in thewords, "Thus Jehovah saved Israel that day out of thehand of the Egyptians" (Ex. 14:30).

The word, saved, is also sometimes used in the Biblein the sense of deliverance or escape from a wickedenvironment. Peter tells us that "the longsufferingof God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark wasa preparing, wherein few, that is eight souls weresaved by water, which also after a true likeness dothnow save you even baptism..." (1 Peter 3:20, 21).

This passage of scripture has given denominationalpreachers no little trouble in their efforts to explainaway its obvious meaning. They tell us that it cannotbe a figure of salvation by baptism, which requiresgetting into the water; whereas Noah was saved bystaying out of the water. This passage, however, doesnot say that Noah was saved from water. They missthe point there. It says that he was saved by water. But how were Noah and his family saved by water,when that same water destroyed all the rest of humanity? The answer, of course, lies in that fromwhich they were saved.

Look at the background. The sixth chapter ofGenesis tells us that man had become so wicked that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart wasonly evil continually. If the few righteous people that remained were to be saved from such as ungodlyenvironment, it could be accomplished only by thecomplete destruction of all the wicked. To that endthe flood was sent, and the waters of the flood thatdestroyed the wicked, bore up the ark and its passengers, and carried them to a new and cleansedworld.

It is in that sense that we are saved by baptism, andtherefore "a true likeness" of Noah's salvation bywater. As the waters of the flood carried Noah and his family to a new and purified world, so also baptism isthe dividing line where we leave the old world of sin and enter Christ. Paul said, "For as many of you aswere baptized into Christ, have put on Christ" (Gal.3:27). It is in Christ that we find forgiveness of sins(Eph. 1:7). In Christ we are a new creature where oldthings are passed away, all things are become new (2Cor. 5:17).

From the above definition and examples of salvation, it follows that salvation from sin is thedeliverance or escape from the guilt of sin and its justpenalty. Paul reminded the Thessalonians that theyhad been "delivered from the wrath that is to come" (1

Thess. 1:10). Peter told those to whom he wrote thatthey had "escaped the corruption that is in the worldby lust" (2 Peter 1:4).

The Dark Background

Just as one who has recovered from a serious illness can appreciate his return to health, only as he understands the gravity of the disease from which herecovered, so also we can appreciate salvation, only aswe view it against the dark background of sin with itsimmediate consequences and its ultimate punishment. Sin carries with it consequences both here and hereafter.

1. Sin separates man from God. Isaiah said,"Behold, Jehovah's hand is not shortened that it cannot save; neither is his ear heavy that it cannot hear:but your iniquities have separated between you andyour God, and your sins have hid his face from you sothat he will not hear" (Isa. 59:1, 2). Paul describedthose who are without God as being also without hope(Eph. 2:12).
2. Sin makes man an enemy of God. To the Colossians Paul wrote, "And you being in time pastalienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works"(Col. 1:21). We are accustomed to saying that man,with God on his side, is able to face any crisis in life. Conversely, it is a fearful thought for one to realizethat God is his enemy, even though he has the wholeworld on his side.
3. The continued practice of sin makes one a bondservant or a slave of sin. Jesus said, "Whosoever committeth sin is a bondservant of sin" (John 8:34). It is asimple law of nature that persistent practice of anyvice will crystallize into a habit, or pattern of life. The one who persistently steals will eventually become acompulsive thief, stealing even things for which he hasno use. The man who persistently lies, will eventuallybecome a compulsive liar, seemingly unable to tell the truth. Through the prophet Jeremiah, God said, "Canthe Ethiopian change his skin? or the leopard hisspots? So neither can my people do good that areaccustomed to do evil" (Jer. 13:23).
4. Sin defiles man. On one occasion the scribes and Pharisees found fault with the disciples of Jesus because they ate with unwashed hands—a matterwhich the Pharisees were very scrupulous about doing.After pointing out to them that they elevated thetraditions of men above the word of God, Jesus thenturned to his disciples and said, "Perceive ye not thatwhatsoever from without goeth into the man, it cannot defile him .... That which proceedeth out of the man,that defileth the man. For them within, out of the heartof man evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts,murders, adulteries, covetings, wickednesses, deceit,lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness:all these things proceed from within and defile theman" (Mark 7:18-23).
5. Sin has eternal consequences. "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). This is not just the death of thebody. That comes to sinner and saint alike. The writerof Revelation describes it as the second death in the

lake of fire (Rev. 21:8). Jesus called it hell where the fire isnot quenched (Mark 9:48).

Good News

The word gospel, means good news. The good news ofthe gospel is that the sinner can be saved. It means that though separated from God by sin, he can be brought back to God. It means that though an enemy of God through sin, he can be reconciled to God. It means thatthough he has become a bondservant of sin, he can bemade free from that service. It means that though he hasbeen defiled by sin, he can be cleansed from its filth.Surely such news should be cause for rejoicing. And ithas been. When Philip met the Ethiopian eunuch on theJerusalem to Gaza road, the eunuch was much perplexedas to the meaning of the prophecy he was reading. Whenthey parted, the eunuch went on his way rejoicing in thesalvation he had found in Christ (Acts 8:39). When an earthquake shook the prison house in Philippi, the jailorwas about to kill himself. But before the night ended heand his house rejoiced in the salvation he found through the preaching of Paul (Acts 16:34).

THREE VIEWS OF ONE TEXT

The service had ended and the preacher, as was his custom, moved to the foyer to greet the people. A visitor upon leaving paused a moment and inquired,"Preacher, why do you folks observe the Lord's Supperonly on Sunday?" The preacher would likely havegiven one of three views for its observance. This would depend on where the church of Christ was located and thepreacher's view on Acts 20:7. View number one is that of the restoration movement. These grand old soldiers of the cross held to the view that Acts 20:7, of itself, was sufficient authority for the observance of the supper onSunday only. View number two came into existence in the late forties and early fifties. It had its birth soon afterthe sponsoring church. It consisted of the basic idea thatActs 20:7, of itself, was not sufficient authority for aweekly observance of the Lord's Supper. The thrust ofthe argument was that this passage needed either a command to back it up or other scriptures to sustain thebasic idea. Its purpose was to neutralize and perhaps counteract arguments against the sponsoring churches and the support of orphan homes in the brotherhood. Thethird view is that Acts 20:7, of itself, is not binding inany respect. That it permits one to observe the supper onSunday but would not eliminate its observance on anyother day. This view came into existence in the late sixties and early seventies as a result of view number twoand to give certain brethren more leverage in regard toinnovations within the confines of the church. These are the three basic views, and now as they say on a certaintelevision program "Will the real Acts 20:7 please standup?" Is it view number one, view number two or viewnumber three?

It is, indeed unfortunate that a uniform answer cannot be given with reference to this great text.Certainly, the Bible does not teach all three. It mightbe well in the beginning to give the text, "And uponthe first day of the week, when the disciples cametogether to break bread, Paul preached unto them."With no desire to cause consternation among brethren, I will discuss the three views.

View number one was espoused by men of therestoration movement. They held to the idea that Acts

20:7 of itself gave ample authority for the observanceof the Lord's Supper on the first day of the weekexclusively. They were not oblique to all passages onthe supper but knew that only one mentioned the TIME

element. When they read such passages as Phil. 4:9,this enhanced their conviction that apostolic exampleswere binding. Paul said, "Those things which you haveboth learned, and received, and heard and seen in me,do: and the God of peace shall be with you." It wastheir deep conviction that when Paul had given theinstruction to DO the things they had SEEN in himthat approved apostolic examples were definitely binding. They felt the Bible was explicit with reference to approved examples and ones which werenot approved. They were fully cognizant that someexamples were "bad" and not intended for emulation.For years the church of Christ had practiced theobservance of the Lord's supper every Sunday, basedon Acts 20:7. However, in the late forties and earlyfifties, new clouds appeared on the horizon. The clouds had embedded in them what was called the sponsoring church and orphan asylums which bringsus to view number two.

With the coming of the sponsoring churches, a newlook was taken at Acts 20:7. In 1958 a book called We Be Brethren was published and edited by J. D. Thomas, professor of Bible, at Abilene ChristianCollege. In this book, brother Thomas gives his expertise on our text. So that our readers may employ a degree of equanimity, I give a direct quote from the book on page 93. He hits the key note when he says,"Traditionally, we in the restoration movement haveaccepted the teaching of the examples of the Christians at Troas in the Acts 20:7 context as establishing definitely and unmistakable a pattern-authority to the effect that the Lord's Supper was tobe partaken of every first day of the week, and on thatday exclusively!" Thomas goes on to say, "Whenbrethren, however, began to question the practices thatwe had been following with reference to cooperationand orphan homes, and to claim there was a Biblical pattern limiting how cooperation could scripturally beaccomplished, this caused the question of the teaching onexamples to be placed under the 'microscope' for careful investigation and as we indicated earlier, someof our very good brethren came to the conclusion thatexamples do not teach binding matters at all."

Please note that Thomas, in the above, acquiesces toseveral vital things. (1) He admits that the men of the restoration used Acts 20:7 exclusively as pattern authority for the observance of the supper. (2) He admits that until the coming of the sponsoringchurches and orphan homes, the practice was neverquestioned. (3) He admits that it was put under the"microscope" when they were challenged with reference to the sponsoring churches and orphan homes. This proves beyond any doubt that these"good brethren" he speaks of would have never usedthe "microscope" if it had not been for their pet projectswhich were unknown in apostolic times. One does nothave to be astute to see the reason Acts 20:7 was putunder the microscope. It was the fact that the innovations in the church had been challenged.These brethren had the mental acumen to see their dilemma. If Acts 20:7, as an approved example, gave ample authority for the ex

clusive observance of the Supper on Sunday; then 2 Cor. 11:8 and Phil. 4:15, 16 gave ample authority toexclusively send directly to the evangelist and downgoes the sponsoring church! The same would be trueof the orphan homes based on 1 Cor. 16:1,2; Acts11:29,30 which authorizes sending directly to a church in the field of benevolence. Brother Thomas knew very well these examples either stand or falltogether. However, he still had a problem. The Lord's Supper on the first day of the week must be salvaged out of this complicated web. Brethren at this point were not ready to throw the Lord's Supper out the window. So the problem was toget rid of direct support to the evangelist and alsodirect support to a needy church in benevolence andyet save the Lord's Supper on Sunday. This was animpossible task but not for J. D. Thomas. He was the man of the hour. With the art of a modern Houdini and the audacity of a Goliath, he addressed himself to the task. To be as pragmatic as possible, I nowgive you another quote from his book. Page 96, says,"The full authority for the Biblical pattern of the TIME (emp. mine) of the Lord's Supper is based uponfour contexts: Hebrews 10:25; 1 Corinthians 16:1,2;1 Corinthians 11:20-26 and Acts 20:7." Please note he said the "Biblical pattern for the TIME of the Supper"was based on three texts besides Acts 20:7. How in the name of common reasoning could a text have anything to do with the TIME of the supper when theydo not mention the TIME at all? The three passagesmention assembling, the Lord's supper and giving onthe first day of the week but not one mentions theLord's Supper on the FIRST day of the week. This isthe real issue. It seems brother Thomas, operated under the delusion that any passage mentioning assembling, worship, the Lord's Supper or giving would be directly related to the TIME element. Such is faulty reasoning. I recall a Baptist preacher used this kind of logic with reference to foot-washing as an act of worship. Like Thomas hecompacted such passages as Jno. 13:5 and 1 Tim.

5:10 to vindicate his position on worship. He arguedthat Jesus had washed the disciple's feet and the widow had washed the saint's feet and since theywere all in the church, it is an act of worship in thechurch. The scriptures used by the Baptist lacked onething and that was the act of worship! Brother Thomas' scriptures for the Lord's supper on Sunday lack one thing and that was the TIME element which in this case was the first day of the week.

Kind friend, you may search your Bible from coverto cover and you will find only one text which mentionsthe Lord's supper and TIME and that is Acts 20:7.Finding scriptures on assembling, giving, etc. does notsolve the problem of TIME. Finding scriptures on foot-washing and hospitality does not solve the problem ofworship! In the field of polemics some of the old timedebaters called this sort of subterfuge "chasing rabbits." The reason for this title was that the real issue was sometimes smothered and even forgotten infavor of side issues.

The third and last view was a take-off from Thomas' book. In 1974 the Firm Foundation published a book by one Milo Richard Hadwin, entitled The Role of New Testament Examples As Related To Biblical Authority. A rather long title but one which expressesbrother Hadwin's views on our text. He sums up hisarguments on page 47 when he says, "This study hasconcluded that examples have no inherent authority torequire imitation. This implies that the mere fact thatdisciples at Troas came together to break bread uponthe first day of the week, does not require Christianstoday to do the same. To do the same would be permissible, at least but not required."

You will notice Milo Hadwin said the Lord's Supper on Sunday is permissible but not required. I completely disagree with this young man but I glory in his spunk. He threw caution to the wind, defiedhis professor and expressed his views. He wrote thisbook as a thesis for his master's degree. Frankly, I feelMilo Hadwin is more consistent than J. D. Thomas. Hadwin threw apostolic examples out the windowand never did bat an eye. Thomas, on the other hand,tried to cling tenaciously to Acts 20:7 in order to savethe Supper but tossed the examples of church cooperation out the window. At least Hadwin was consistent. This is one of the reasons he attacked Thomas' position relative to Bible examples. He sawthe inconsistency and capitalized on them.

Thomas, in feeling the impact of Hadwin's book has come out with a sequel called Heaven's Window, in which he tries in vain to patch up his original work, We Be Brethren. In this book he tries to refute what Hadwin said by coming back to a more conservativeposition. Where will all of this stop? Well, to a sincere child of God it has already stopped. He hasforgotten this foolish rhetoric and has made his wayback to the Bible.

"For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?" (Romans 11:34). There havebeen great minds in the world but none comparable tothe mind of Christ. The accumulated wisdom and intelligence of mankind compares to the mind of Christ as a grain of sand compares to the sandy wastesof the deserts of this world. Even Solomon in all his glory could not compare to Christ in this respect.

One of the most frightening things that can cross ourminds is the fact that the mind of Christ is so vast and deep that there is nothing that can escape its apprehension and perception. Even our own livesare open and bare to His knowledge. Christ knows theinnermost workings of the thinking, planning, motivation, and intentions of all men. He knows thequality of our faith, our profession and our obedience.

This staggering feature of the mind of Christ is demonstrated vividly in John 2:23-25. "Now when hewas in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day,many believed in him, when they saw the miracleswhich he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men. And needed not thatany should testify of man: for he knew what was inman." As if lying right on top of this event, oneimmediately knows that He has every right to knowwhat is in us for He participated in our origin (John1:3-4; Col.1:16).

Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time of the passover,an important feast day for the Jewish people. Heproduced many miracles early in His earthly life. Manyof them are not recorded and the apostle John takesspecial note of this (John 20:30, 31). Miracles, or signsas John calls them, were not designed to createfaith—they served to confirm that which is to bebelieved. It is by the miracles that they saw and weread about that faith in Christ is possible. Miraclesstrengthen our faith and our faith is to be in Christ.

Those who are converted to miracles or so-called miracles need then to have them perpetuated in orderthat they may continue to believe. Take the modern so-called "faith healing cult." Their vain and ungodlyefforts to duplicate or counterfeit some of the miraclesof Christ speaks loudly of their superficial faith. Theirunreasonable and tenacious clinging to such fakery isplain evidence that they do not believe in Christ—theybelieve in their version of "miracles."

Those who saw the miracles of Jesus differ from those of today who claim to believe miracles still are being performed only in that they saw actual miraclesfrom Christ. Those of today have never seen a realmiracle. These people "believed in his name, when theysaw the miracles which he did," says John. But Jesus did not commit himself to them. The reason why Hewould not commit Himself to them is said to be the fact that He knew all men.

This may seem strange to some people—especiallythose who preach that men are saved by the mere actof believing, before and without any further act ofobedience, but Jesus did not accept the faith of thosein Jerusalem as genuine. There is really a play-onwords here. The same word is used of both the peopleand the Lord. They "believed" (EPISTEUSAN) andHe "committed Himself" (EPISTEUEN). Godet explains it that Christ had no faith in their faith. They believed Him, but He did not believe them.Godet says, "He discerns the insufficient nature oftheir faith." (Commentary on St. John's Gospel, B. Godet, Vol. II, p. 40).

Why did the Lord reject their belief in Him? Heknew them. The word for "knew" here in the text is the ordinary word for becoming aware of certain facts. Butthe insight Christ has into the hearts of all men is notthat which came about by natural means. In the nextchapter His insight into the motives of men is illustrated in his conversation with Nicodemus. The same is true in chapter 4:29 with the Samaritanwoman, as well as with His disciples (16:30), Judas(6:70; 13:11) and Thomas (20:27). Jesus did not need toeven question mankind to know what men thought. Infact, He seldom asked questions, and I know of only afew instances that indicate that He truly wanted information. It is of interest also to notice that the definite article is present before the word man in vs.25, indicating man generally. Chapter three beginswith the statement that "there was a man", indicatingthe specific person of Nicodemus. By this we can inferthat Jesus knows man from generic to specific, frominside out, top to bottom, in every aspect of humanexistence. The fact that the article is there also maymean "the man from time to time with whom He had to deal." (B. F. Westcott).

One of the great proofs of the Deity of Christ is Hissupernatural knowledge of man. Only God can knowthe heart of man. God said to Jeremiah, "I the Lordsearch the heart, I try the reins, even to give every manaccording to his ways, and according to the fruit of hisdoings" (Jer. 17:10). The same is said in Jer. 20:12. Letus consider together just a few of the things we knowHe knows about man. Although He does not need thatanyone testify to Him of man, we need to know all wecan of what He knows about us.

1. He knows the nature of man. Jesus said of Nathanael, "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is noguile" (John 1:47). This was not merely a benevolentappraisal of the man—this was the expression of onewho could know the very nature of Nathanael. It wasenough to convince Nathanael, for he exclaimed,"Rabbi, thou are the Son of God; thou art the Kingof Israel" (vs. 49). But for a practical lesson we oughtto think of ourselves. Our Lord knows our nature. He knows who we are and how we are put together andhow we tick. Question: Are we trying to deceive Himby covering up our sins? Read Galatians 6:7,8.

1. He knows the fickleness of man. He rejectedthe faith of those in Jerusalem. They believed inHim because they saw the signs. He knew that thosewho were struck by the great phenomena He did would soon tire of the miraculous and drift awayfrom Him. Those who ate the fishes and loaves deserted Him almost before the scraps were gatheredup (John 6:66). Even among His own disciples Hesaid, "But there are some of you that believe not" (vs.64). No one could think that His disciples would doanything but stand and affirm their faith in Him, butHe knew better. He knew from the very beginning who would betray Him. But He still knows the fickleness of man. He knows of those of us in the world today who run hot for a while and then cool offrapidly. He knows of our hypocrisies and sham. He will as surely reject our empty profession of faithin Him now as He did those then.
2. He knows the mind of man. When we stop to consider, there is really very little that we know about ourown thought process. We know very little about ourown intellect, our emotions, our will. We know we havesuch things, but how much of the ingredients and workings of them can we really know? One evidence ofour ignorance of our own mind is the often repeated expression of a "heartfelt religion." Denominationalistsuse this to explain their sensations they experience intheir version of salvation. But Christ knows everything about our minds. He knows the source ofevery influence on us, every thought and action andthe birth of them. He likewise knows our feelings and their sources, our emotions and their effects on our actions. He knows these things when we cannot or willnot even perceive them ourselves. Perhaps if we could know what the Lord knows about our minds we would not be confused and bewildered on so many things inlife.
3. He knows the capacities of man. He holds man responsible for what he is able to do. Paul said asmuch when encouraging the Corinthians to a liberaldonation for the relief of the needy saints in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 8:12). The parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30) teaches us that our opportunities, commensurate with our abilities lay responsibility onus for which we are individually accountable. It isfearful to think that the Lord really knows our capacities in giving of our money to further Hiscause and then knows what we are actually doing. Heknows our capacity to grow in grace and knowledge.He knows our capacity to live the Christian life and our capacity to serve Him in all things, but also knows how far short of our capacity many of us arecoming.

The question of real importance from all this is, DoesChrist have faith in our faith? If He refused to commit Himself to those in whom He could see a superficialfaith, will He do us some special favor and overlook oursuperficiality? Christ will have faith in any faith thatobeys from the heart (Rom. 6:17). He has faith in faithonly when that faith is active in working His works.(Gal. 5:6). He has faith in the faith of those whose livesare truly changed by the power of the word of God."For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which yeheard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, butas it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe" (1 Thess. 2:13, my emphasis, DRS).

So when Jesus said, "I know my sheep," we know alittle of how deep and thorough that knowledge is. If we belong to His sheepfold, we must know Him also. We cannot know ourselves as well as Christ knows us,but we can know Him who does know all about us. It is now time to examine our faith. Are we converted to Christ and does He commit Himself to our professionof faith. God help us all to have the faith He willaccept.

Naboth the Jezreelite "had a vineyard" "hard by the palace of Ahab king of Samaria" (1 Kings 21:1) thatAhab desired,—deeply desired. He coveted Naboth's vineyard, actually, and that in transgression of thecommand, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor'shouse... nor anything that is thy neighbor's" (Exodus20:17). This transgression led him further into sin (read1 Kings 21) that would have been a disgrace to eithersubject or king and is a good example of the highest,socio-economically, sinking to the lowest, morally andspiritually.

The covetous spirit of Ahab teaches us that: I. A covetous spirit is unsatisfied with the most abundant possessions.

Ahab lived in the luxurious wealth of a king. He was"king of Samaria" (1 Kings 4:11). He lived in an "ivory house," and "built" a number "of cities" (1 Kings22:39). He wore the robes of royalty and, no doubt, enjoyed the daintiest delicacies Samaria could servefor its monarch. But when Ahab surveyed all his wealth, all his luxurious surroundings, all the trappings of opulence in which he was submerged, it was not enough. He had to have Naboth's vineyard.

Part of the tragedy of covetousness is that its prisoner is never satisfied. In another connection,Ecclesiastes 1:8 says that "the eye is not satisfiedwith seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing." This is true of covetousness,—as true as if Ecclesiastes had been specifically dealing with it. Covetousness will gobble up a thousand possessions and then demand more.

And this suggests, further, that part of the cause ofcovetousness is to be obsessed beyond perspective.Covetousness does not allow us to see things in theirproper relation to each other. The object of one's covetousness is, in general, the object of his consuming preoccupation. Ahab could not think of his fine home,his palace, the doubtlessly, well-groomed grounds and well-cared-for gardens framing them like a beautifulpicture, the large amounts of land he controlled. Hecould only think of a vineyard he did not have. Ampleprovisions never gratify the demon covetousness.

II. A covetous spirit gives way to petty childishdistress when it cannot have what it wants.

1 Kings 21:4 says, "And Ahab came unto his househeavy and displeased because of the word whichNaboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him; for he hadsaid, I will not give thee the inheritance of my fathers.And he laid him down upon his bed, and turned awayhis face, and would eat no bread."

Covetousness makes such demands on its captivesthat we are here presented with the spectacle of theking of Israel surrounded with regal luxury and monarchial finery fretting and blubbering because he doesnot own one vineyard! And if he can't have that vineyard, he will just fix Naboth. He will return to hisbedroom, lie down, refuse to eat, refuse to talk, and be"sad"(v.5).

This is not the manly and courageous leadershipIsrael would need and look for in her king. It is not thenobility in action that should be reflected by thenobility of position. It is downright childish. But it iscovetousness at work.

Christians should beware. Covetousness prevents maturity, hinders nobility, thwarts manliness, andreduces one to puerile silliness.

III. A covetous spirit is, often, unqualifiedly unscrupulous as to how its wishes are gratified.

In its obsessive drive to obtain the objects of itsdesire, covetousness will shamelessly use the mostdisreputable of agents. And in Jezebel, the wife ofAhab, covetousness had its agent.

Jezebel was a Phoenician, not a Jew, and was thedaughter of Ethbaal, an idol worshipper. Jezebelbrought with her into the house and life of Ahab heridol-worshipping habits and introduced Baal worship in Israel maintaining those who led in this idolatry. 1Kings 18:19 states that "the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the Asherah, four hundred" "ate at Jezebel's table."

But she had an irreversible antipathy to Jehovah and was an inveterate enemy of his prophets. 1 Kings

18:4 refers to the time when Jezebel cut off the prophets of Jehovah. And 1 Kings 18:13 refers to thefact that "Jezebel slew the prophets of Jehovah." Thiswas an extermination effort but "a hundred prophets"were "hid" "in a cave" (1 Kings 8:4) escaping murderat her hands.

When her beloved prophets of Baal suffered themiserable disgrace of defeat at Mount Carmel at thehands of Elijah and the true God, Jehovah, and weresubsequently slain at the brook Kishon (see 1 Kings13:40), Jezebel sent a message to Elijah saying, "So letthe gods do to me, and more also, if I make not thy lifeas the life of one of them by tomorrow about this time"(1 Kings 19:2).

Jezebel was a self-willed, ambitious, unfeeling murderess, ideally suited for the purposes of covetousness. For covetousness will often sanction deeds it does not

have the courage to do or to prevent. 1 Kings 21:7says, "And Jezebel his wife said unto him, Dost thounow govern the kingdom of Israel? Arise, and eatbread, and let thy heart be merry: I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite." And so she did through perjury and murder as recounted in 1 Kings

21.

Reader, can you believe that Ahab did not knowsomething abominable, wicked, and heartless— something he was too cowardly to do—was aboutto be perpetrated? Can you believe Ahab could nothave known had he wanted to? Ahab's covetousness held him back in willful ignorance while Jezebel, in brazen depravity, reached for the covetousends of Ahab's heart. Ahab may have been too chicken-hearted to do what Jezebel did but his covetousness accepted the gift of her immoral atrocity,no questions asked.

Covetousness will desire and accept, no matter howits obsessions are gratified. No wonder it is forbiddento God's children.

IV. A covetous spirit will grasp its prize eagerly notcaring how it has been acquired nor what problems itmay bring.

1 Kings 21:15, 16 says, "And it came to pass whenJezebel heard that Naboth was stoned, and was dead,that Jezebel said to Ahab, Arise, take possession of thevineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused togive thee for money; for Naboth is not alive, but dead.And it came to pass when Ahab heard that Nabothwas dead, that Ahab rose up to go down to thevineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it."

Observe that Ahab quickly went to "take possessionof" Naboth's vineyard. Without, apparently, a singlepang of regret wasted on the cruel fate of the righteousand harmless Naboth, without a single thought to Naboth's posterity, Ahab headed to Jezreel to immediately enjoy the possession of a new property. Does not covetousness cause a hardened stateof mind?

His enjoyment, however, was destined to be quicklydiluted. For while Ahab was surveying his new vineyard, the acquisition of which by whatever meanswas the only thing that could scratch his covetous itch,there confronted him, like an apparition from the otherworld, like "a ghost from a past he would like tobanish," God's prophet, Elijah the Tishbite. He couldnot have the vineyard without the consequences of themanner in which it was acquired. He heard Elijah say,"Thus saith Jehovah, Hast thou killed, and also takenpossession . . . thus saith Jehovah, In the place wheredogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine" (1 Kings 21:19, 20). In subsequentverses, Ahab is told not only that he will suffer evil butthat his family will be wiped out. Ahab thus learnsthat any acquisition secured by sin means peace is lost.For hovering over his head and festering in the back ofhis mind from that time on would be the sentence Elijah produced and he would be waiting for it to fall like Damacles' sword. And he would know peace nomore. His covetousness had driven him to acquire without regard to means and consequences.

V. The covetous spirit is blind to its true friends and its real foes.

When Ahab met Elijah in Naboth's vineyard, he

said, "Hast thou found me mine enemy? (1 Kings

21:20)."

Ahab's covetousness had perverted for him allrelations of all things. He did not really know thatJezebel was his enemy and Elijah his friend. He did notreally care what was right and what was wrong. Hisdriving compulsive covetousness for Naboth's vineyard blurred moral distinctions, disguised God'sprophet as an enemy of legitimate interests and dressed up Jezebel as a friend of innocent acquirement.

Covetousness and sin now make man think that the Bible is his enemy. Is the sign across the road that says, "Danger—Road Out," an enemy? Neither is theBible which says, "Put to death therefore yourmembers which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness which is idolatry; for which things' sake cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience..." (Colossians3:5, 6). And "So then am I become your enemy bytelling you the truth?" (Galatians 4:16).

The man who thinks that God's prophet is his enemyand who thinks that his finding him out is a calamity and a loss may be sure that an occasion of discovery offar more lasting effects is awaiting him someday.There is nothing more tragic, nothing more pathetic,than a human spirit confined with forgotten lies anddead transgressions. For there is always a forebodinguneasiness that there will be a just resurrection ofdeeds as well as a real resurrection of bodies. Ecclesiastes 12:14 says, "For God will bring everywork into judgment, with every hidden thing whetherit be good, or whether it be evil." And 2 Corinthians

5:10 states, "For we must all be made manifest beforethe judgment seat of Christ; that each one may receivethe things done in the body, according to what hehath done whether it be good or bad."

Think what it will be in the day of judgment for aman to be followed after by the incriminating companyof his own sins. Each fault he tried to forget and all thebadness he tried to buy will be there to point not only a finger of accusation to indict but also a finger of direction of punishment.

VI. The covetous spirit may be brought to mourning for its sins.

1 Kings 21:27 states that "when Ahab heard thesewords" (i.e., the evil the Lord was going to bring onhim) "that he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth uponhis flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and weptsoftly." In acknowledgement of this God said, "Seestthou how Ahab humbleth himself before me?. . ." (1Kings 21:29).

Not even covetousness, callusing as it is, was sufficient to shield Ahab when the force of Divine condemnation came crashing down on his conscience.Without offering any of those responsibility-denyingrationales, Ahab immediately caved in to the truthfulcharges Elijah made and the terrible consequences Elijah announced. The King, in spite of his recent sins,and in spite of the further deteriorations of his character, was still reached by God's message oftruth in plain, simple, and straightforward terms.

Most of God's people today could be saved from thecorruption that is in the world by lust if all teachers ofthe truth would do as Elijah did—straightforwardlypoint out sin and show its consequences. A preacher orteacher who will not do this and will, moreover, compromise God's truth and righteousness and lower its standards so as to be like the world about us does not deserve to be in the same heaven with Elijahat all.

This tragic account in the life of King Ahab showshow sin infected his life and took that of another. Sin is seldom a solitary tragedy. It is almost never an exclusively individual phenomenon. And this is partof its curse. Covetousness, as do most forms of sin,corrupts its possessor and damages his associates,often beyond repair. The ugliness of sin in general, andof covetousness in particular, is our spiritual instruction from this king's bad example,—from the covetous spirit of Ahab.

RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD

In view of the fact that we are commanded to "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15), I believe that if a proper division of Scriptures was madeby all those who are endeavoring to serve God, wewould eliminate much of the religious confusion in theworld today. For example, if we could just get peopleto accept the fact that Jesus lived and died under theLaw of Moses (as well as all of his disciples who livedduring that period of time) we would not have to continually try to get people to see that there is a distinction in what the "thief on the cross' had to do to be saved (in view of the fact that he was in the verybodily presence of Christ who could therefore say unto the thief, "this day shalt thou be with me in paradise") and what those of us who live today mustdo. For as we have already shown, Jesus (and thethief) both lived under the Law of Moses.

As we study and make a proper division of the Scriptures, we can readily see when the New Testament came into force. "For where a testament is,there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth" (Hebrews9:16-17).

If a person is to be converted to Christ today, hemust learn those things Jesus taught his disciplesafter his death, burial and resurrection. In Mark 16:1516 Jesus said, "Go ye into all the world, and preachthe gospel to every creature. He that believeth and isbaptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shallbe damned." Also in Luke 24:47 Jesus said before He ascended into heaven, "... Thus it is written, and thusit behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the deadon the third day: And that repentance and remission ofsins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.''

Understanding that this distinction in "laws" mustbe made if we are to become New Testament Christians, we will deal with this subject in our nextarticle.

THE NEWS LETTER REPORTS

"... They rehearsed all that God had done with them .. ."—Acts 14:27 Send all News Items to: Wilson Adams, 317Trinkle Ave., N.E., Roanoke, VA24012

REPORT FROM NORWAY

TOM BUNTING, Bergen, Norway—One year's work in Bergen,Norway has been completed and we now look ahead to the upcomingone. The past year's work has been hard and difficult. We have not been able to accomplish as much as we would have liked, yetprogress is being made. The time has passed by quickly and it doesnot seem like we have been here one year. During the year we havehad encouragements and discouragements. It has been a year oflearning and readjusting. Improvement has been made with thelanguage but we still have a long way to go in this regard.

Concerning the efforts and work during this past year includesabout 30 people taking the correspondence course. Of these, eighthave completed it and a few still continue. Unfortunately all of theselive in other parts of Norway rather than in our area. I have written45 single spaced pages answering questions the students haveraised in connection with the course. We have had many people inour home and we have visited in several homes. We have been able to arrange two home Bible studies which have lasted several weeks,one of which still continues. This class is with a young couple whoseem to be very interested but since they have no Bible backgroundit will take some time to teach them. There have been 16 largeteaching ads in newspapers away from Bergen and 3 such articles inthe Bergen paper. There have also been 23 small ads in the Bergen paper. We have printed one correspondence course and twelve different tracts in Norwegian. I have four other tracts and anothercorrespondence course written, but they need translating beforehaving them printed. Due to translation and printing being soexpensive we have to do things as finances permit. Hopefully bythe end of the summer or early fall we will have these ready. It makes it very difficult when all our material has to be translated andprinted new, for there are no publishing firms here in Norway.

For the distribution of materials and tracts we have built a portable tract display which we set up in different areas of Bergen. Each time we wish to set it up permission must be gainedfrom local authorities. We set the stand up on the sidewalk and passing people may stop and take whatever material they areinterested in. Usually there is a large headline or question at thetop of the stand which deals with the tracts found in the display. Sofar it has proven to be an excellent way to distribute material.

We have Bible study and worship services in our home, but fewhave attended. At first an elderly lady attended regularly for a fewmonths but has not attended since January. In February anAmerican family moved here and attended with us the few weeks they were here on government business. Other Norwegians havevisited but not returned. We have had one interesting contact witha man who lives 1 1/2 hours north of Bergen. I have had severalconversations with him by letter and we went to see him last month.He claims he is a member of the true church and from our visit it would seem he has a good understanding of the scriptures. Sinceour visit he has talked with me and asked that I send him copies ofall the tracts and correspondence courses I have and he is going totry to interest others in his community. In addition to this we are sohappy to have our middle son, Terrell, come and join us in thework here. He will be here for at least one year to help us in ourefforts. Just this one addition has been such an encouragement tous. Norway needs workers. I wish you could see how little work isbeing done in this country. This land has only one preacher trying toreach the many scattered people from the far north to the far south.There needs to be many, many more. One man can not be sent toone city in the country and then sit back and say "we have preached the word in Norway." Yes the work is difficult but I feelconfident that souls will be converted through the gospel, but it isgoing to take time. There is a trend of dissatisfaction among theyoung concerning the traditional religion—Lutheranism. Finding those who are

searching for the truth is the problem. Yes, NORWAY NEEDSWORKERS! Another family would give us a nucleus in the assembly. Is there anyone that is interested in accepting the challenge?

Shirley, Terrell and I send our greetings to all our brethren andfriends in the States. We want to express our sincere appreciation toall for the support both financially and verbally during the pastyear. Please continue to keep the work in Norway in your prayers.

PREACHERS NEEDED WESTLAND, MI—The church that meets at 35900 Palmer Road,Westland, MI (suburban Detroit), is seeking a full time gospelpreacher. The congregation numbers approximately 70-80 and are fully self-supporting. Anyone interested in working with us kindlycontact Frank Wiser, 2132 Sheldon Rd., Canton, MI 48187 (313-9813034), or Jack Nunn, 16902 Whitby, Livonia, MI 48154 (313-4640288).

New Congregation LAFAYETTE, TN—There is now a sound congregation inLafayette known as the Scottsville Rd., church of Christ. If anyonewishes to know more about this congregation, contact Sam Snowat Rt. 3, Box 102-B Lafayette, TN 37083. Or Bobby Patterson atStar Rt., Lafayette, TN 37083. PETER McPHERSON, 1265 5th Ave. S. Lethbridge, AlbertaT1J 0V6. In September I am moving to preach to Airdrie, Alberta(near Calgary). About a year ago some half dozen families began thework there (they lived in that area). They felt that a New Testament church should be planted in this new and growing community (Calgary's population is over 600,000 and increasingat a rate of 2,500 per month). This zealous group began this newwork with the hopes of getting a personal-work type preacher tolocate there and set about to help increase their number. I haveaccepted that challenge. I have been preaching for 15 years andbelieve I do my best work in a new work where we can start fromscratch. I want to devote my time and talents to working in homestudies, door to door calling, and personal evangelism. Please consider my family and me in your budget regarding monthly support. We will need to raise $1,000 per month above what thechurch here can help with. For references please contact: MarvinNerland (403) 328-0855, Roy Diestlekamp (416) 562-5519, or ConnieAdams (502) 957-2257.

P. J. CASEBOLT, 313 S. 4th Ave., Paden City, WV 26159. Mymeeting schedule for the fall of '81 is: Marrtown Rd., Parkersburg, WV (Sept. 14-20); New Cumberland, WV (Oct. 5-11); Fly, OH (Nov. 2-8); Middlebourne, WV (Nov. 16-22); Punta Corda, FL (Dec. 6-20). Iplan to leave the work at Cedar Ave. in Moundsville the last ofNovember. While in the Florida area, I will be glad to consider othermeetings, singing schools, or working with some congregationduring the winter months. TOM MALMBERG, North Fort Myers, FL—Just a note to let you know that the work here is alive and well. We have baptized twothis year and several families have left the institutional brethrento come and worship with us. The contribution has grown to thepoint that we are now helping support Bro. Ron Drumm in Naples, FL and Bro. Robert Bottorff in Pirtleville, AZ. We rejoice that recently we appointed brethren Vernon Ford and Glindle Johnsonas elders. We thank God for the desire and faithfulness of these men. At present we are looking forward to our fall meeting withBro. J. T. Smith from North Miami. Attendance this summer has reached the 120-130 plateau. During the winter we have seen asmany as 177 in the building. If you are coming our way please visitwith us,BILL PIERCE, 759 E. North Ave., Spencer, IN 47460. After almost two years with the Moultrie Rd,, congregation, I will move toSpencer, IN July 1. The church here in Thomasville is almost threeyears old and has made rapid progress. We have a debt free buildingand are almost self-supporting. There were 27 responses over thelast

Page 18

two years. Two of our men, Carlton Bassett (now working with the church in Monticello, FL) and Walter Marria (we started a blackcongregation and Walter preaches for them and is doing a good work but is still needing about $200 monthly support) are preaching full timeand three of our other young men are preaching once a month for asmall congregation near here. Our average attendance is about 35-40and contribution $350-$400. Bro. Curtis Pope will follow me in the work here.

PREACHER NEEDED WINDSOR, MISSOURI—The church here would like to secure the services of a full time gospel preacher as soon as possible. At the present time, all of his support would have to come from elsewhere. Ifinterested, write William H. Sewell, Jr., 2001 E. 6th St., Sedalia, MO 65301 or call 816-826-0799, or 816-647-3728 (Dale Boalan).

JEFF KINGRY, P.O. Box 26. Milton. VT 05468. Due to increasing financial demands, and insufficient support, I am reduced to

parting with some books from my library.TRUTH MAGAZINE: Vol. 1-23' $500GOSPEL GUARDIAN: Vol. 1-27 $400THE PRECEPTOR: Vol. 1-26 $400TORCH: Vol. 3-12 $ 80

PULPIT COMMENTARY 22 volumes $250 KIEL & DELITZSCH COMMENTARY $100 BARNES NOTES ON OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS $150

BARNES NOTES ON OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS $150 SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES: Vol. 7-16 $ 60 Call me at (802) 893-4825 or write to the above address.

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH BAPTISMS 238 RESTORATIONS 122 (Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)