KITCHEN TABLE CONVERSIONS

No, I'm not promoting the denominational propaganda of "salvation by faith only." We all understandthat such is false doctrine and opposed by Scripture.Neither am I suggesting that we mimic the Mormonsand other cultic groups and launch out on the evangelistic trail of knocking on every door in the city (personally I've never observed much success coming from randomdoor knocking with attempts made to convert person X whom we have never seen before and who has never seen us. isn't it a little strange that we are eager to talkto people we don't know and hesitant to reach out to those we do know? Maybe I'm wrong and I'm sure there are exceptions but that's been my experience.) There must be another way. I believe there is.

I hate to say this but many churches of Jesus Christare dying. I said "many," not all. Some are thriving andgrowing and making an impact in their communitieswith the Gospel. These brethren are on the west coast,the east coast, in the south as well as the mid-west.Geographic locations don't seem to be a help or a hindrance to brethren who have captured the zeal of New Testament Christianity. Don't tell me that people today aren't interested in what the Gospel offers. I know better. Could it be that we have said-"Times have changed. . . " "Things are different. . . " "It's not that wayanymore... " so long that we have actually believed it,and thus excused our inactivity and spiritual stagnation?

Here's what I think. I think people are tired of denominational pablum that makes a mockery of God's simplearrangement. People are tired of ecclesiastical hierarchies and church synods and councils which insult human intelligence by claiming that man can't really comprehend Scripture. And people are tired of churchesthat offer nothing but a social atmosphere and existsolely for the benefit of those seeking entertainmentand recreation, food and frolic. People are looking for a religion based on Bible, rooted in an appreciation fordivine authority and filled with people who are enthused about living life (in the real world) on the mountain peak of human potential. Who else can offer themthat? Pentecostalism can't, for it's pure emotionalism. Denominationalism can't, for it preaches moral ethicswhile ignoring basic Bible doctrines. Catholicism can't.Crossroadsism can't. Cultic groups can't. BUT MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST CAN! I really believe that. Do you?

We have got to find a way to get the Lord's messageout of the four walls of the church building and into thehearts and homes of people who are hurting. For too long we have sat in our buildings and waited for thecommunity to flock on in and they haven't "flocked."("Woe are we. . . people aren't interested in the Gospelanymore. . . ") And do you know what we preachers doabout it? We lambaste the brethren for their failure to do more "personal work." We criticize and complainand condemn other Christians because they aren't bringing people to services, they aren't teaching homestudies and they aren't. . . (I think you get the point.) I'll lay it on the line-we preachers are part of theproblem. Too many of us like to lay everything offonto the brethren but (and correct me if I'm wrong) aren't we the brethren, too? Take a good look at Matthew 23:1-4. Let's not be guilty of doing that.

On the other hand, preachers can't do it all nor should they be expected to. In fact, churches that depend onlyon the preacher to save the unsaved will be in for a disappointment. I've actually heard people say-"Youpreachers have more opportunities than anyone else.. ." I DENY THAT! Do you know how many non-Christians I deal with on a daily basis? Few! Outside of a few business contacts and neighbors the majority of folks I deal with consistently are Christians (and believe me, I count that as a privilege and a great fringe benefitto my work). But that limits me. And that limits everypreacher and that's why congregations that depend onthe preacher to do all the reaching out will experienceminimal growth. (I really didn't mean to get into all ofthat but one thought led to another and...) Back to the point Even though we preachers can't do it all, the realquestion is: ARE WE DOING ALL WE CAN? I'll confess that I don't measure up and I can do better. How do you see it?

Have we gotten to the place where we have forgottenhow to take our Bible and sit down in a humble home and talk to folks about the Lord? I don't necessarilymean going door to door to strangers we have neverseen or heard about before, I mean people we know,people who have visited our services, people who know somebody who know somebody who contacted us. AREWE DOING ALL WE CAN IN THE ONE ON ONE SITUATION OR ARE WE ONLY ENAMORED WITH THE CROWDS OF SAMARIA? (Next time youhave a moment why not go back and ponder Acts 8.)

I guess the biggest discouragement in all of this isthat there is so much to do and so little time. Balancinga busy schedule, preparing lessons, writing articles,taking time off for the family-all have to be consideredand all deserve quality and quantity time. We muststudy to meet God's approval (2 Tim. 2:15) and thattakes time (it does no good to invite people to a feastwhen we haven't taken the time to prepare the meal!),but we must also guard against the condition of self-inflation to the point where we feel that we are too important to walk with Phillip down the Gaza road.

I'm thankful to God for men like Dick Blackford,Rodney Miller, Wayne Chappell and a host of otherswho have influenced my life and shown me that peoplecan be taught and led to the Lord, that congregationscan grow and that the preacher's greatest thrill is notpreaching to a packed house on Lord's Day morningbut, rather, experiencing the joy of a late night kitchentable, an open Bible and a favorable response to the age-old question: "What doth hinder you from being baptized?"

EVENTS AT THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST

The promise of the second coming of our Lord hasproduced many beneficial results. It offers hope to thefaithful and instills fear in the ungodly. While the righteous can confidently say "Even so, Come Lord Jesus",for the wicked such a prospect is fraught with terror, for"our God is a consuming fire." It is the expectation ofHis coming that stimulates evangelism. We do not know when He shall come and therefore it is urgent thatwe be ready at all times. We must reach all we can withthe gospel message "while it is day." This hope challenges us to devotion. "Every man that hath this hopein him purifieth himself" (1 John 3:3). In light of Hiscoming Peter said "What manner of persons ought ye tobe... " (2 Pet. 3:11).

While the doctrine of the second coming of Christ issuch a vital part of scripture, it is a shame that falseteachers have so confused the minds of people as toexactly what is to take place at His coming. Let's see if we can set the record straight.

The second coming of Christ will be the end of the world. "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief inthe night; in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with ferventheat, the earth also and the works that are therein shallbe burned up" (2 Pet. 3:10). In the context of that passage we learn that this deals with the "promise of hiscoming" (verse 4). Right now, the world is "reservedunto fire against the day of judgment" (verse 7). The"day of the Lord of verse 10 is the day that fulfills the"promise of his coming." It is the day when all thatpertains to this earth will be destroyed. That playshavoc with the schedule arranged by dispensationalistswho have an elaborate menu arranged for what willhappen on earth after the second coming of Christ.They speak of his coming in different stages, of rapture,tribulation and a literal reign upon a literal throne inliteral Jerusalem for a literal one thousand years. But the Bible teaches that at the second coming this earthand the works therein shall be "burned up." Jesus left inclouds, and according to angelic promise, will return inclouds (Acts 1:9-11). Paul said we will meet him "in theair" (1 Thes. 4:17).

Well, what about the "new heavens and new earth"? Whatever that will be, this present earth will not beassociated with it, for this present heaven and earth "shall be burned up." The expression "new heaven and anew earth" is used to describe a new dwelling placewhich God is preparing for his own. The coming of theLord is the end (1 Cor. 1:7-8).

All the dead shall be raised at his coming. Speculators tell us there will be a thousand yearsbetween the raising of the righteous and the wicked.But Jesus said "The hour is coming in which all thatare in the graves shall hear his voice and shall comeforth; they that have done good, unto the resurrectionof life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation" (Jno. 5:28-29). The same"hour" the righteous come forth is the same "hour" thewicked come forth. There is no thousand year periodhere between the raising of the righteous and the wicked. 1 Thes. 4:13-18 does not teach it, either, for thatpassage only deals with the issue of the righteous dead as opposed to the living in Christ at the time ofhis coming. The subject of the wicked dead was noteven mentioned in 1 Thes. 4.

At his coming the kingdom will be delivered up to God. "But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered upthe kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shallhave put down all rule and all authority and power" (1Cor. 15:23-24). Instead of taking up rule and authority at his second coming, Paul said he will "deliver it up tothe Father." Something is dreadfully wrong with thetime-table of the speculators.

His second coming will be the end of preparationto meet God. The parable of the wise and foolish virginsof Mt. 25:1-13 teaches that when the master returned, "the door was shut." Then the time of preparation will be ended. False teachers hold out false hope to unconverted Jews by teaching that thedoor will left cracked open enough for them to haveanother chance to get in. But the time to prepare for hisreturn is while the master is in "the far country", not after he returns from it. That is when the door will be shut. There is no room left for a thousand years between the return and the accounting of the servants. Such teaching as we hear so frequentlythese days runs counter to what the Bible teachesabout God's impartiality. He treats Jew and Gentilealike and offers the same gospel to both. It is wrong to teach Jewish people to glory "in the flesh."

His coming will institute the judgment of all men.Mt. 25:31-46 shows that when he comes he will sit on the throne of his glory and will separate the wicked fromthe righteous. Notice the order in the passage: hecomes in glory, then he shall sit upon his throne, beforehim shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separatethem. This passage leaves no room for a thousand years between his coming and the judgment of all men.

The first coming of Christ accomplished all God meant for it to do. His mission of salvation is complete(Eph. 1:7-10). His revelation is complete (Jude 3). Hisauthority is now complete, he has it "all" (Mt. 28:18).His kingdom is complete. The Colossians were in it (Col.1:13). John was in it (Rev. 1:9) It cannot be moved (Heb.12:28). His throne is complete (Rev. 3:21). Not long before his arrest, trials and crucifixion, Jesus prayed to his father and said "I have finished the work thou gavest me to do" (John. 17:4). Then in verse 11, he said"I am no more in the world!" Every millennialist wouldhave to argue with the Lord on that, for they are justcertain that he was mistaken about it and that he will be yet in the world for a literal 1,000 years. Their problemis that they do not understand the book of Revelation,much less the 20th chapter of that great book. They do not know the difference between literal and figurativelanguage in the Bible. They have a false concept of theprophetic books of the Old Testament which provide thebackdrop for the symbolism of the book of Revelation.Not understanding that, they seize upon the thousandyears out of a passage which assures victory for thecause of Christ in the interest of martyred saints, and then based upon a view of that passage, weave an elaborate web of speculation which bends and twists thewhole Bible out of shape to make it fit this notion.

The Lord is coming for the purposes stated in thisarticle, plus a few other things the Bible teaches which space forbids our treating here. It will be to our eternaladvantage to watch and pray and maintain constantreadiness for the trumpet to sound and for all thingstemporal to end.

THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER (Part 1)

Part of the process of learning how to pray is tounderstand the efficacy of prayer. Knowing that powerand effectiveness teaches us to pray.

As a whole God's people today are not a prayingpeople as they ought to be. It seems that we are not asprayerful as the saints of old. C. R. Nichol once said,"Prayer is less engaged in today, so far as we can Team,than in former ages." One reason for that may be thatwe have failed to realize the efficacy of prayer. ForbesRobinson observed, "a man's power in the spiritual world is measured by his prayer."

We shall consider in this article that God answers prayer and some of man's erroneous views of that. In the one to follow we shall study the providence of God.

God Answers Prayer

The Bible plainly states that fact. If we believe the Bible, we believe God answers prayer. Look carefully ata few passages. James said, "The effectual ferventprayer of a righteous man availeth much" (Jas. 5:16). Inthe next two verses he illustrates the effectiveness in relating the case of Elijah praying for it not to rain and it didn't. Then, he prayed for rain and it did (vs. 17-18).Jesus said, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and yeshall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you... If yethen, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto yourchildren, how much more shall your Father which is inheaven give good things to them that ask him" (Matt.7:7-11). Peter said, "the eyes of the Lord are over therighteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers" (1Pet. 3:12).

Prayer will do good. James said that prayer "availeth much" (Jas. 5:16). He didn't say that it availsto the full extent of our wishes. Nor does he say that itavails to grant the things for which we ask. Yet, thetext does promise that it does much. To illustrate, whenone fires a rifle it accomplishes something. He maymiss the target, but the bullet still has force. It may donothing but split open the air or dig up the ground.But, it does something. So, every prayer has power. Itdoes something. It may miss the mark for which weaimed, but it does good.

Every prayer receives an answer. This does not mean that our prayers are answered immediately orin the way that we desire. It will be answered according to God's desire and will. The answer will either be yes, no

or wait awhile. We can be assured though that God in

someway responds to the prayers of the righteous (1

Pet. 3:12).

Sometimes the answer is "no". Paul prayed three times that God would remove the "thorn in the flesh",but God's answer was "no" (2 Cor. 12:7-9). Davidprayed that his child wouldn't die, but he did (2 Sam.12:15-23). We must reconcile ourselves to the fact thatGod does not always grant the request we make. When such is the response, that doesn't mean God didn't answer. He answered, we can be sure, but just not theway we wanted him to.

Erroneous Views That Deny

That God Answers Prayer"Prayer is merely a glorified pep-talk." Some think that the only good accomplished in prayer is that itspurs us on to greater zeal. Such a concept comesfrom a heart that has little or no faith in its creator. The passages noticed earlier in the article affirm that prayer does more. However, if this concept were correct, then the heathen would benefit just as muchfrom prayer as the Christian. Likewise, prayer offered to an idol or a fence post would be just as effective.

"God can't answer without working miracles." It is possible that this concept comes as an over-reactionto Pentecostalism, thinking that since God doesn't work miracles today, he just does not work today.We put limitations on God to the point that he is to usno more than what the heathen's god is to him. Howdo you know God can't answer prayer without working a miracle? Could not God who was able to create the world from nothing work in his universe within therealm of natural laws?

Naturalism says that everything is predeterminedand fixed. Thus, God will not change a thing. The concept says that God has now removed himself far fromthe world; having wound us up like clocks, he just setsback and watches us tick. This theory says that all thathappens is a part of the natural course of events and that God's hand has not and will not change a thing.

Again, If we believe in God and the Bible at all we can see that this concept is erroneous.

Prayer used as an emergency device. Some onlypray when they are deathly sick or some family memberis ill or in some major crisis. When that prayer isn't answered as they thought it should be, they havedoubts about the power of prayer. Obviously, these do not "pray without ceasing" (I Thess. 5:17).

These are a few of the modern day views that say inessence that God does not answer prayer. We, the people of God, believe otherwise.

RELIGIOUS SUPPLY CENTER WATS LINE

(All States but KY, Alaska & Hawaii) 1—800-626-5348

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE By Marshall E. Patton

PROPOSITION: The Scriptures teach that the

innocent person (free of fornication) who has been

put away without God's or his/her approval and

against whom adultery has been committed may

remarry.

According to the arrangements of this debate, thisarticle brings my part of this discussion to a close,except for a very brief rebuttal. According to the rulesof honorable debate, Brother Phillips will not introduceany new material in his third negative.

In closing his last article (second negative) BrotherPhillips levels some charges against me which I feelobligated to answer, not just in self defense, but also inthe interest of truth and the exposition of error. I had rather he had left such judgment to the readers of thisexchange. Furthermore, I had rather he had identifiedin particular that which would sustain his charges instead of making assertions. However, the fallacy ofsuch charges are exposed in the brief review that follows.

Brief Review

In my first affirmative, I made an argument and gaveproof that Matt. 5:32b cannot apply to ANY divorcedperson, but only to a particular "her." My argumentinvolved the innocence of the husband in this verse and the innocence of the put away wife in 32a which innocence proves that the put away "her" of 32b was one against whom no fornication had been committed. Therefore, to apply this part of the verse to anyone elseis to misapply the word of God. I even illustrated thisargument with a chart, the point of which Brother Phillips completely missed and misrepresented my intended use of it, as I pointed out in my last article.

Brother Phillips, in your reply to this verse, you nevertouched this argument. You exposed no error. You didnot even deny the innocence affirmed. Yet in spite ofthis proof to the contrary, you continue to apply it to "anyone—everyone" and that without making any argument to prove it. I will let our readers answer thequestion, Who is really guilty of "assertions"?

In my second affirmative I made an argument andgave proof that Matt. 19:9b, like Matt. 5:32b, cannotapply to ANY put away person, but only to a particular "her." My argument involved the meaning of the Greek "kai" translated "and" which is a copulative conjunction connecting the a and b part of this verse. I gaveThayer's two possible meanings only one of which ispossible in harmony with the context and all else revealed. The two possible meanings are: 1) Sequential,i.e., the b part follows in sequence—"in addition" or "after" the events of part a, and 2) Adverbial, i.e., "likewise," which means the situations of a and b part arealike. In this instance both the husband and the putaway wife marry when no fornication is involved beforetheir remarriage. My argument proved that only meaning No. 2 is possible, and, therefore, cannot be applied tothe person of my proposition. I also used charts toillustrate this.

Brother Phillips, How did you answer this? You saidafter checking 35 translations you found not one thattranslated "and" so that "also" or "likewise" appeareither in the text or footnotes. Of course, not! Neitherdo they translate it "in addition" or "afterwards" which meaning is necessary to the position you hold. The issueis not how is "kai" translated, but what is it meaning?You replied, but did not answer the argument. You exposed no wrong in the argument. Yet, in spite of proof tothe contrary, you continue to assert without proof thatthe b part of this verse applies to "anyone—everyone."Again, I will let our readers answer the question, Who isreally guilty of "assertions."?

Since you question Thayer's definition of "kai," let megive a Bible example of its adverbial use meaning "likewise." In Mark 10:11, 12 we read, "And he saith untothem, Whosoever shall put away his wife and marryanother, committeth adultery against her. AND (Emp.—MEP) if a woman shall put away her husband,and be married to another, she committeth adultery."The word "And" which joins verses 11 and 12 is fromthe same Greek "kai" which joins a and b parts of Matt.

19:9. In this passage from Mark the obvious meaning is"likewise." What is true of the husband is also true of the woman and we do not need a lexicon or any otherauthority to see it.

In my first affirmative I made an argument and gaveproof that the "Whosoever" of the exception clause ofMatt. 19:9 INCLUDES the person of my proposition. Ifthere is any word that means "anyone—everyone," hereit is! The only persons EXCLUDED are those exceptedby revealed truth. I pointed out three exceptions andpressed you to find one more—one that would EXCLUDE the person of my proposition. I pointed out that unless you could do this, my proposition stands!How did you reply? You said, "Until brother Patton finds a "Whosoever' who can marry again (except the 'Whosoever' who puts away his spouse for the CAUSEof fornication), he has not proved his proposition."Brother Phillips, I do not need to find another "Whosoever." The one in the exception clause INCLUDES theperson of my proposition. The innocent person of myproposition puts away his/her guilty spouse for the CAUSE of fornication. You fail to recognize the all-inclusive meaning of "Whosoever." Until you show another exception—in addition to those I named—the person of my proposition in INCLUDED.

True, the "Whosoever" does not specify in particular

one who was already put away by human authority and

without God's approval—so What? Neither does it

specify in particular all the others which it includes and

the situations peculiar to each. Think what a list such

would make. The word "Whosoever" covers them all.

Remember, it just does not meet the issue to say that

such a person has already been put away. If so, then

human action contrary to God's will can take away a

divine prerogative! This human authority supersedes

the divine. Brother Phillips, you have not shown any

escape from this consequence.

These arguments and proof given on my part are not

"assertions, claims, unnecessary inferences." They are

not "misapplied scripture." They are not an "imagined

situation." I believe our readers can see that I have

made arguments and offered proof that continues to

stand.

Positions Clarified

Brother Phillips begins his second negative trying toset before our readers my position. In so doing he failsto do so fully and accurately. He attributes to me theaffirmation that "At a later time (the length of timewould have no bearing on the situation) the husbandremarries, thereby committing adultery." He knows that I refused to sign a proposition which he submittedbefore the debate which affirmed that the adulteryagainst the innocent person was committed "subsequent" to the putting away. The Lord did not specifyany time frame in which this adultery must be committed against the innocent in order to remarriage. Bywhat authority do we specify a time element? The innocent person might have had fornication committedagainst him/her before the guilty spouse put him/heraway—WHILE he/she was praying, hoping, and tryingfor reconciliation. The fact that the guilty spouse beatthe innocent person to the putting away does not take away the divine prerogative that previously prevailed.After all, the putting away by the guilty spouse was byhuman authority and without God's approval. It wasFUTILE so far as breaking the marriage bond inheaven is concerned. Even Brother Phillips has admitted this. Whether the fornication is committed before or after the putting away by human authority isimmaterial—the divine prerogative remains for the person of my proposition.

Now, I have corrected him, let us see if I can clarify his position. If I fail, he will correct me.

A husband who has been scripturally married to hiswife comes home one day with his secretary by his side and with whom he has committed fornication and announces to his wife that he is through with her; that hethereby puts her away, and that he is going to marry hissecretary. Because he was the first to say, "I put youaway," his innocent wife is doomed thereafter to celibacy. Even if she, because of his fornication, rushes tothe court and filed for divorce, it would be to no avail sofar as her having a right to remarry is concerned. Iunderstand that Brother Phillips believes that civil au

thority is beside the point so far as "putting away" is

concerned. Furthermore, it would make no difference if

fornication were committed after he SAID, "I put you

away." She became a put away person who can never

remarry when he SAID, "I put you away."

Our readers know that I take sharp issue with this

position. On the matter of "putting away" my position

is made clear in my definition of terms given at the

beginning of the debate. Further, I believe that civil

authority is ordained of God for the protection of the

innocent (Rom. 13:1-4) and not to victimize the innocent

as per Phillips position, if his putting away were fol

lowed by civil action. I know that the innocent must

sometimes suffer because of the sins of the wicked, but

there is enough of this at best. My point is, Why make

the innocent suffer unnecessarily? I see this as a conse

quence of the position of Brother Phillips.

Misrepresentations

Brother Phillips misrepresents me when he says concerning Matt. 19:9b, "By implication brother Pattonhas placed an exception clause in the passage that is notactually in it. The "her" in brother Patton's proposition is not in this verse (I say, amen!—MEP). Yet he makesthis 'her' who is put away against her will andwhose husband has committed adultery or remarried an element that is necessary to prove hispoint." Brother Phillips, I have insisted throughout thisdebate that the person of my proposition is not in Matt.19:9b. I have used argument after argument— even charts to this effect. I do not need an exception clauseadded to this part of the verse to sustain myproposition. We both should leave it AS IT IS! The "her" of 9b is one against whom no adultery has beencommitted. That is why I have opposed your applyingthis part of the verse to "anyone—everyone"—even tothe person of my proposition. It is rather strange that you now admit that "The 'her' in brother Patton's proposition is not in this verse." What is even more strange is that before you complete your article, you turn right around and apply it and Matt. 5:32b, which says the same thing, to "anyone—everyone, including the person of my proposition. Now, just which time did you mean what you said?

Again, when Brother Phillips says concerning Matt.5:32b that "No persons other than the "whosoever" and"her" that is divorced is in this passage, I agree withhim. I wonder why he keeps applying it to ANOTHER person—even the one of my proposition, who, accordingto his own admission, is not in it!

Again, he misrepresents me when he says, "BrotherPatton equates the putting away with God releasingthe yoke." My point from the beginning has been thatwhen the person of my proposition was put away thatsuch did not effect the yoke or marriage bond in heaven.

Release Clause

Brother Phillips wants to know Where is the exception clause that releases a put away woman from theadultery of Matt. 5:32b; 19:9b; Lk. 16:18b who was putaway when no fornication was involved, with or without her will? I answer, There is none. However, if this woman was put away against her will and thereafterwas praying, hoping, and trying for reconciliation until adultery was committed against her, she may then exercise the divine prerogative of Matt. 5:32a and 19:9a.These exception clauses release such a person from the adultery of the b part of these verses.

Marriage-Bond-Yoke

Brother Phillips' arbitrary use of these terms confuses the issue and involves him in contradictions and inconsistencies. Let me show how this is so.

He acknowledges that marriage approved of God involves a personal commitment, "a covenant between aman and woman," and also "a divine element"—a joining "with a yoke that can be broken only by God. . . ";that "at death God releases that bond of marriage (Romans 7:2, 3; 1 Corinthians 7:39)." Yet, he ignores andexcludes this divine element in the matter of terminating the marriage. He teaches that the breaking of thepersonal commitment on the part of either the husbandor wife totally dissolves the marriage. He says, "Wherethis happens the marriage is broken. . . Whether approved by God or by the one put away makes no differences, the marriage is terminated; it no longer exists!"While he recognizes the "yoke" and "bond" in heaven ascontinuing, it is no longer called by him a "marriage bond" which is exactly what he called it before thebreaking of the personal commitment. Question,Brother Phillips: What kind of "bond" is it (the one in heaven) after the breaking of the personal commitment? If it is still a "marriage bond," then the MARRIAGE remains intact, untouched, and unaffected inheaven. If it is no longer a "marriage bond," then it hasbeen broken by someone other than God, which contradicts your former statement. It has been touched, effected, broken, and changed into some other kind ofbond— as yet we know not what kind to call it— and allof this because of human action by human authority onearth.

While this point in our discussion has come up too latefor full discussion, especially in view of our limitedspace, I believe that much confusion can be cleared if weremember that the Bible speaks of marriage from different view-points—that of the world and that of heaven.While the Bible recognizes both and speaks accordingly, we must determine which by the context. Theverses cited by Brother Phillips can be easily understood this way. For example, the "unmarried" woman who needs to be reconciled to her "husband" in 1 Cor.

7:11 is "unmarried" from the viewpoint of the world,but still married from the viewpoint of heaven—otherwise, we have an unmarried husband, which involves a contradiction of terms. Again, in Matt. 14:3,4 Herodias was married to Herod from the viewpoint ofthe world, but was still the "wife" of Herod's brother,Philip—hence, still married to Philip from the viewpointof heaven, otherwise we have an unmarried wife, which involves another contradiction of terms.

I insist that human action by human authority canhave no effect upon a marriage formed in heaven fromGod's viewpoint! Therefore, the divine prerogative which God gives to the innocent person of my proposition stands—regardless of what is done on earth.

The Waiting Game

I answered Brother Phillips on the "waiting game" inmy last article. One thing he has not done—One thinghe cannot do—and that is pin on me the "waiting game"AS DEFINED in my definition of terms. This is the onehe is obligated to deal with, and so far he has left ituntouched. Read my former reply.

Mark 10:11

My answer to Brother Phillips' question as towhether I deny the argument attributed to me is, No.My point was that he ignored the argument I did makeand tried to answer one I did not make.

Furthermore, he has missed my argument on thisverse, and he has missed the point of the authorities aswell—even the ones he quoted. I have known all alongthat the Greek "epi" can be and sometimes is translated "with." If so, the reference is always to the second wife.If it be translated "against," it of necessity refers to thefirst wife. The meaning of "adultery" demands this. Note the following: "The (Greek letters—MEP) at theend of ver. 11 may mean either against, to the prejudice of her (the first wife), or with her (the second). Theformer view is taken by leading modern exegetes, thelatter by Victor Ant., Euthy., Theophy., and, amongmoderns, Ewals and Bleek" (THE EXPOSITOR'S GREEK TESTAMENT, Vol. 1, p. 409).

Brother Phillips made his first argument using"against" and I replied accordingly. If he wants to usethe word "with," that is all right with me. The adulterywould then be with the second wife, but by necessaryimplication it would be against the first.

May the Lord bless this debate to the establishment of truth, the exposition of error, the edification of souls,and above all to the glory of God.

THIRD NEGATIVE By H. E. Phillips

This is the closing article in this discussion, except fora brief rebuttal by each of us. I shall introduce no new material, but I will respond to the material already inevidence, including his third affirmative. It is not necessary that I take each statement or argument he made and examine it. Obviously, there are some things uponwhich we agree, some things that are repetitious, and tothe rest I have already replied.

Brother Patton has formulated a doctrine which he has been trying to prove by the Scriptures, but he hasfailed through three efforts. He stated the issue between us in his first affirmative. He said: "I affirm that there is a certain put away person who may remarry andthe proposition is worded so as to help identify thiscertain person. Brother Phillips believes that no putaway person may remarry, hence, the issue between us." The reader needs to keep in mind that this is theissue in this debate. He holds a position destined to bepopular with the public because most divorced peopleare seeking a way to remarry with approval. They welcome any creed that will appear to give divine sanctionto divorce and remarriage. I want no part in giving falsehope for remarriage to those who have been divorced for any cause.

Brief Review Reviewed

Brother Patton reaffirms that Matthew 5:32b "cannot apply to ANY divorced person, but only to a particular 'her.'" He said in his first affirmative that there are TWO putting aways in this verse: one for fornication(authorized in the exception clause), and one for somecause other than fornication. But brother Patton eliminates the putting away for other than fornication by hisprocess of argumentation, leaving only the puttingaway FOR FORNICATION. That is the only one he hasleft in Matthew 5:32. He says: "This putting away isdone by human authority and, hence, without God'sapproval." "Furthermore, this latter putting away isfutile so far as breaking the bond formed by God when He joined them in marriage." (First Affirmative). Thatleaves in brother Patton's position only ONE puttingaway in Matthew 5:32, the one for fornication. No other isreally a putting away. Please read again what I said inmy second negative on this point.

Matthew 5:32 says the "whosoever" husband puts away his wife, "saving for the cause of fornication. . . " Brother Patton argues that this "put away" wife is notguilty of fornication, neither the husband. He says thisinnocent put away wife must wait until the husband commits adultery or remarries, THEN she may "putaway" the husband and be free to remarry. Question:What more does the innocent wife DO in "puttingaway" the husband than what the husband DID whenhe "put away" the wife? That question is not answeredby telling us what God DID. The Scriptures do not teach that God "puts away" anyone in marriage; thehusband OR wife does that. God may or may not releaseone of them from that which He has "joined together."If this innocent husband terminated the covenant and relationship of marriage, and that is all he can do, whatMORE can the innocent wife do, "who has adultery committed against her," subsequent to his puttingaway of the wife? There is nothing for her to put away.SHE can put away NOTHING because no marriageremains to terminate.

The issue is not resolved by saying that the firstputting away was not really a "putting away." Jesussaid in every case that the husband "PUT AWAY hiswife," and the wife "PUT AWAY her husband" (Mark10:11, 12). This putting away is for every cause, including fornication. The putting away of a put away personis impossible in view of the language of Jesus.

"Kai"

In this discussion, brother Patton has argued that the word "kai" in Matthew 19:9 has two meanings. He saysMr. Thayer says the first meaning is, "... It marks something added to what has already been said, OR (Emp.—MEP) that of which something already saidholds good; accordingly it takes on the nature of an adverb. . . likewise" (Second Affirmative). This seconddefinition is the way brother Patton wants to define"kai" in Matthew 19:9. But what is the difference between the construction of the sentences in Matthew

5:32 and in Matthew 19:9? The reason I ask is because he has argued in his affirmatives that the woman ofMatthew 5:32b is the "wife" of Matthew 5:32 a. If he is correct, then Thayer's first definition would have to begiven to "kai." Since the sentence construction is exactly the same in Matthew 19:9, what is there in thetext or context of the sentences that would make Matthew 19:9 different from 5:32 except that it is necessaryto brother Patton's position?

Brother Patton accuses me of questioning Thayer's definition of "kai." No, I did not question his definition.I questioned brother Patton's application of it. In histhird affirmative brother Patton uses Mark 10:11-12 when the word "kai" is used according to the seconddefinition that is given by Thayer. Why would this betrue? It is because the context shows that Christ is discussing two different parties who are doing the same thing.

Brother Patton wants me to find one who is EXCLUDED from the "whosoever" of Matthew 5:32a and 19:9a besides the three he gave in his first affirmative.The fact of the matter is, his three "exclusions" boil down to only two: 1. The put away fornicator. 2. Theperson put away for every cause. I do not have to findone who is EXCLUDED from the "whosoever" in these passages; he has to prove that his person is INCLUDED. It is brother Patton's position that is beingexamined. Let me identify the "whosoever" of these verses. The "whosoever" in part "a" of Matthew 5:32and 19:9 DID the putting away. This does not fit brother Patton's proposition because he was not a putaway person. The "whosoever" of the "b" part is the onewho marries the put away person, and in every case,without exception, he commits adultery; that makes theput away woman commit adultery.

Brother Patton says if the "put away person" of hisproposition can not "put away" the spouse who puthim/her away after fornication is committed, "... thenhuman action contrary to God's will can take away adivine prerogative!" That is not so! I dealt with that inmy second negative when discussing the meaning ofputting away. The "divine prerogative" belongs ONLYto that person who puts away his/her spouse FOR THECAUSE OF FORNICATION. To apply this to a personalready expelled from the marriage covenant and relationship for a cause other than fornication, when themarriage has been terminated, certainly rests on humanauthority. Brother Patton is doing just that:! It is totally false to talk about terminating a covenant-contract and relationship that has already been terminated. There is nothing to "put away" by the person who has been "put away."

Brother Patton's Emotional Appeal

I am amazed at brother Patton's appeal to sympathyand emotion by an example which represents neither hisnor my views on this subject. He presents a man who comes home with his secretary with whom he had committed fornication and tells his wife he is through withher and he thereby puts her away, and that he is going to marry his secretary. Because he was the first to say,"I put you away," his innocent wife is doomed thereafter to celibacy. Brother Patton, you know full well thatdoes not represent anything I believe and teach, and itcertainly does not represent your position. The readerscan read my negatives and I know I have never said orimplied that "putting away" consisted only of SAYING: "I put you away." Please do not misrepresent mein that regard anymore. Why use such a prejudiced illustration if not to misrepresent me?

But using brother Patton's illustration with a slightchange let us see what happens to the "innocent wife"who is "doomed thereafter to celibacy." The husbandcomes home without his secretary and SAYS, "I putyou away." He never remarries or commits adultery.Can this poor innocent wife have any recourse? Can sheever remarry without sin? Now brother Patton, oneproves as much as the other. The truth of the matter is,human situations never prove anything to be scripturalor unscriptural.

Misrepresentations

Brother Patton is mixed up about my statement on Matthew 5:32b. I said that "No persons other than the'whosoever' and 'her' that is divorced is in this passage." I did not apply it to ANOTHER person, the one in his proposition. I said his particular "her" is not ineither Matthew 19:9 or 5:32. I did not misrepresent him.

I did not misrepresent him on his equating puttingaway with God releasing the yoke. This is a fact, andthat is his problem in this discussion. God does not "putaway" anyone in marriage, man does that.

I asked brother Patton for an exception clause inMatthew 5:32b and 19:9b and he said, "There is none."Then quit trying to find one. Where does the Bible teachthat the put away woman without fornication mustoppose the divorce? He affirms for her to be eligible toremarry, she must be praying, hoping, and trying forreconciliation until adultery was committed "against" her. Where does the New Testament teach this condition? Where is the passage? Is this not human authority? Of the "unmarried" woman in I Corinthians 7:11 hesays she is such from the viewpoint "of the world, but still married from the viewpoint of heaven—otherwise,we have an unmarried husband, which involves a contradiction of terms." But we have an "unmarried wife" in verses 10,11. Is that a contradiction of terms? Thefact of the matter is the marriage is broken if she leavesher husband. God's yoke is still there, and that is thereason she has but one course if she does not remain "unmarried," be reconciled to her husband, the man with whom she once had a marriage commitment andrelationship.

The Waiting Game

Brother Patton's definition of the "waiting game" ismore accommodative to his position than it is to themeaning of the words as they relate to this subject.Read his definition in his first affirmative. One must accept the consequences of his position. However hedefines "the waiting game," his position demands that the put away person of his proposition must wait untilthe he/she who did the putting away remarries or commits adultery. That is a key element in his/her beingqualified for remarriage, according to brother Patton's proposition. He can deny it all he wishes, but the factremains his particular "her" MUST play "the waitinggame" before she can remarry, and he admitted that inhis second affirmative.

Mark 10:11

Brother Patton claims I ignored his argument and answered one he did not make. I will leave the reader to make that judgment. Read again my first and secondnegatives, he is making an arbitrary application of"against" the first wife and "with" the second wife.

But if it be conceded that the correct use of Mark

10:11 be "against" the first wife, what does it provewith regard to his woman of Matthew 5:32 b? Remember, he said that no fornication is involved in this verse.She has been put away, the marriage is dissolved andthe relationship terminated. What is SHE going to "put away" even if he committed adultery?

There are only two persons in this "b" part of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9: the "whosoever" (any and every man) and "her that is divorced." Every passage used inthis debate that has the "b" part teaches the same thing, and there are NO exception clauses. The "whosoever" who marries the put away person commits adultery. That is it! The "whosoever" in these verses is anyman. Without exception he/she commits adultery whenmarrying a divorced person. It is absolutely impossiblefor the one marrying the put away person to commitadultery without the put away person also committingadultery. That means the put away person who marries"whosoever" commits adultery with him/her without exception. Any view you take of the "b" part of Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and Luke 16:18 leaves no area for the "whosoever" who marries the put away person, and the "her" who is put away, to be free from adultery. Thatmeans neither of them is free to remarry anyone.

This closes my third negative. I have tried to be hon

est with brother Patton and myself. I am grateful to

brother Connie Adams for the opportunity to engage in

this discussion in the pages of Searching The Scrip

tures. I am grateful to brother Patton for his efforts and

willingness to engage in this discussion. We are dealing

with serious matters which have to do with the human

race, with the purity and success of the church and with

our eternal destiny. I am indebted to some men whose

valuable material I freely used in preparing for this

discussion. Among these were J. T. Smith, Maurice

Barnett, Gene Frost, Donnie Rader, Jay Bowman and

several others.

I pray that this discussion will help many know and

obey the truth of God's word in the marriage relation

ship. I pray that God and his word will be glorified.

While Brother Phillips made reply to my first two affirmatives, in my judgment, he did not meet the arguments I made. I commend him for finally meeting someof my former arguments in his third negative, thoughsuch effort fails of its objective. I regret that he waitedto do this until I have no opportunity to make fair andfull reply—Impossible in this limited rebuttal.

I deny having formulated a doctrine, new or otherwise. I verily believe (except for cause of death) thatonly the innocent person who "puts away" his/herspouse for fornication may remarry! I oppose the efforts of some who would take away this DIVINE PREROGATIVE from such a one as is identified in myproposition.

If Brother Phillips will show wherein I misrepresented him in my illustration of his position, I will apologize. I am sorry he has impugned my motive. Myillustration was based upon his own statements in hissecond negative on what terminates a marriage, e.g.,"When the commitment is broken, the marriage is dissolved. .. Whoever initiates the termination of the marriage 'puts away' the other. He/she dismisses thespouse from the relationship"—Also, upon his opposition to the expression "put away by civil authority" inthe proposition for debate (according to correspondencefrom Brother Adams prior to the debate saying thatPhillips thought "civil authority" was "beside the point" in a putting away). Based upon the above, I still see no inaccuracy in my illustration. Brother Phillips, Iwas VERY CAREFUL to show your error in your illustration. Please do as much for me. What MORE must be done besides giving the verbal dismissal? I acceptthe consequences of your second illustration. I acknowledged that the innocent often suffer at the hands of theguilty, but my point was, Why cause suffering unnecessarily, as per your position?

Your NEW ARGUMENT on "kai" and the "sentence construction" of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 is in error. In the former there are no "likewise" situations—no remarriage in the a part, only in b, and that "after" the action in a. Matt. 19:9 is DIFFERENT. As you said about Mk.10:11,12, you have "two different parties who are doing the same thing"—Both remarry when no fornication isinvolved, hence, "likewise" situations. For reasons already given "kai" must take the meaning of "likewise"in this instance.

O yes, there is something the innocent put away wife(person) of my proposition CAN put away! She can putaway the one who yet remains her husband from God'sviewpoint. She CAN DO this by breaking HER personal commitment which heretofore has remained unbroken. When she DOES THIS, God breaks (releases) the marriage bond in heaven which heretofore remained intact. This is MORE than he, by human authority andin violation of God's will, has done or can do.

It is my honest conviction that the position held byBrother Phillips and a few others has grown out of aneffort to refute arguments in behalf of the put awayfornicator remarrying. Until this issue became prominent, brethren in general held (most still do) the positionI have affirmed. Brethren, in our efforts to oppose errorlet us not run past Jerusalem and knock ourselves outagainst the walls of Jericho. May God bless this studyto His glory.

Our agreement called for a one page rebuttal for each of us after the third negative. It is impossible to reply toan argument in that short space. Brother Patton's rebuttal was a brief restatement of his arguments and myreply to them. I shall, therefore, make some brief observations in closing.

Brother Patton has not shown any scriptural evidence that a put away person may remarry under anycircumstances. He has inferred it from his process ofarguments and human situations, but that is not Bibleproof.

He has not been able to escape "the waiting game" inorder to get the person of his proposition remarried. He has vehemently denied it throughout the discussion,but he must accept that consequence or renounce hisposition.

He has not been able to prove that the "whosoever" ofMatthew 5:32b, 19:9b and Luke 16:18b can marry theput away woman without committing adultery. Thatmeans the put away woman commits adultery when the"whosoever" marries her.

Brother Patton cannot find Bible proof for the conditions he claims for the innocent put away person whomust be opposing the divorce, and must be praying,hoping, and trying for reconciliation until adultery iscommitted against her before she is eligible to remarry.This condition is of human authority and not divine.

In his rebuttal he appeals to the majority position asproof of right. He says my position is held by "a few others" but the majority of brethren hold the positionwhich he affirms. What does that prove? I am not impressed by the number who hold a position. I am concerned with what the Bible teaches.

The total effort of brother Patton in his three affirmatives has been to strain out of the exception clause inMatthew 5:32a and 19:9a a person who HAS BEEN PUT AWAY for any cause other than fornication, andthrust him/her into the role of the one DOING THE PUTTING AWAY for the cause of fornication and be free to remarry without sin. He has misused these verses in his efforts. He has made two grievous errors inhis affirmatives: First, to disregard the context of theverses he used and develop a position that supports analready growing problem of adulterous marriages in thechurch. Second, he is opening the gates to "acceptable"divorce for literally thousands who will carry his position a little further by his own reasoning, and the congregations of God's people will be filled with second,third and even fourth marriages based upon his arguments. I must raise my voice against such a position.May God bless our efforts to a better understanding ofHis word.

H. F. Sharp, a preacher of the gospel for approximately fifty years, passed away Sunday, February 1,1987, after an extended illness. He departed this lifewhile a patient in the Arkansas Baptist Medical Centerin Little Rock, where he had been a patient for aboutthree months, suffering from pneumonia and congestive heart failure. He was seventy-one years old.

He had often prayed for a peaceful hour in which todie. He passed away without struggle in his sleep whilehis elder son, H. F. Sharp, Jr., was at his side.

I oft heard him pray he would not live so long that hewould renounce the great truths for which he had sacrificed and fought. This prayer, also, was answered affirmatively. To the very end he employed all hisstrength to uphold truth and fight error. His belovedwife and faithful help meet, Pearl, had to type his articlefor the May, 1986 special issue of The PRECEPTOR on"The Christian and Sin" because a stroke had caused his left hand to be numb. Thus, though an aged andweary warrior at the time the struggle over "neo-Calvinism" beset the Lord's church, he fought to theend.

His desire was to preach as long as he was able. Thelast time I was privileged to see him alive, nine daysbefore his death, his mind was lucid, his memory clearand his knowledge of the Scriptures profound. He spent some time telling me about the sermon he planned topreach at Cedar Hill, the little, country congregationwhere he labored the last six years of his life, when hegot out of the hospital.

That day, as he sat in his wheelchair, he spoke to meof standing for the truth and the sacrifices and heartaches that would result. But he firmly maintained truth would triumph. I shall hold dear those few hours andremember that advice for a lifetime. I deeply treasurethe confident hope of continuing that conversation in abeautiful home where we will never again part.

His family, Mrs. H. F. (Pearl) Sharp, Mr. and Mrs. H.

F. "Sonny" Sharp, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Keith Sharp, eightgrandchildren, two brothers and a surviving sister,thank the many hundreds of friends and brothers andsisters in Christ who have expressed their love and concern.

(I have asked Brother James W. Adams to write an obituary of Dad, and he has consented. This will followin a few weeks.

SHOULD SCIENTIFIC CREATION BE TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

(This article first appeared in the "In My View"column of the MESSENGER INQUIRER, daily newspaper of Owensboro, Kentucky, on September7,1986).

The Messenger-Inquirer reported that some Nobel Prize winners had urged the Supreme Court to strike down the Louisiana law requiring schools to give balanced treatment of creation and evolution. Where are the wise men among us? Our time is characterized asone with an abundance of knowledge but little wisdom.Are these men aware that the father of modern evolutionary theory believed in balance? "For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly oppositeto those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing thefacts and arguments on both sides of each question;. . . " (Charles Darwin, THE ORIGIN OFTHE SPECIES, p. 6). It is not a matter of evolutionists having access to information not available to creationists. The same evidence from nature is available to both. The question is, which interpretation best fits the evidence.

Contrary to public misinformation, it is not againstthe law to teach creation science nor to criticize evolution in the classroom. It can be done without quotingthe Bible, if this is such a problem. Creation scientistsare asking that balance be given these two views onorigins rather than championing one and censoring theother. It is true that any position on origins is ulti

mately beyond the realm of science. We can produce

neither the Big Bang nor the Act of Creation, since both

would be past events that had no observers. However,

everything since that origin is open to inquiry. It is

therefore reasonable to use the methods of science to

investigate whether it is reasonable to postulate a Crea

tor.

Some object that creationism is fundamental to con

servative religious views. Evolution is also a basic

premise of many religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, lib

eral protestantism, modernist Catholicism, Reformed

Judaism, Humanism, Communism, and Atheism). A

1961 Supreme Court decision (Torcaso v. Watkins) de

clared that a system of thought need not profess faith in

a Creator to be considered a religion. The Humanist

Manifesto plainly says that Humanism is a religion (p.

3) and that evolution is a cardinal tenet of Humanism (p.

8). Thus, it is absurd to claim that evolution is a non

religious subject. The renowned British physicist, Dr.

H. S. Lipson, echoed exactly the same sentiment. He said: "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientificreligion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fitin with it," ("A Physicist Looks At Evolution," In: Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, May, 1980).

At the time of the Scopes Trial (1925) evolutioniststhought it was unfair that evolution could not be taughtin the classroom. Clarence Darrow argued that it was"bigotry" to teach only one theory of origins. They liked Darrow's logic then. It is a poor rule that won't work both ways. Creationists are asking for fair treatment,not favored treatment (as evolution presently enjoys).

The Constitution does not require hostility towardbelief in a Creator, as the American Civil Liberties Union seems to think. The poor logic of ACLU lawyers isastonishing! It appears they have a philosophy tospread. They have become notorious for opposing distribution of Bibles, prayer, posting of the 10 Commandments in schools while defending pornographers, theNazi Party, homosexuals, abortionists, evolutionists,etc. They have become watchdogs for the nation's schools to make sure they don't teach anything thatharmonizes with conservative religion. They say nothing when various forms of religious humanism aretaught. This seems hypocritical.

Eight judges of the fifth circuit court disagree with creationism being taught. They said, "Irrespective ofwhether it is fully supported by scientific evidence, thetheory is a religious belief," (Messenger-Inquirer, 5/17/86). Imagine it-even if fully supported by science! Forcenturies the Bible has taught the necessity of blood forlife (Lev. 17:14). Less than two hundred years ago men thought blood should be drained from a person when hewas sick (re. George Washington, World Book Encyclopaedia, Vol. 21). Leeches were also used to extract "bad blood." The necessity of blood for life is now fully supported by science. Must we now take that information out of science books since the Bible (a religious document) was the first and only source that taught it forcenturies? What about the fact that the earth is round and it hangs on nothing? (Isa. 40:22; Job 26:7). These and many other pre-scientific truths will need to beremoved from textbooks if we follow the judges' logic.Wisdom has departed from the wise (Rom. 1:21-23).

Neither creation nor evolution are repeatable or testable, experimentally. Both can be discussed as scientific models. Students deserve to be informed of ALL the scientific data instead of being fed only what evolutionists want them to hear. Then the students can make a fair decision. To exclude information because it corresponds with the Bible is censorship of the worst kind. Itis also poor science and poor education and unfortunately, our children are the losers. To exclude such information is neither American, civil, nor liberty. On thebasis of such logic our children should not be exposed tothe Mayflower Compact, Patrick Henry's famousspeech, the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. All ofthese make reference to a Creator. Tragically, subversive forces are at work to undermine these too, removing the concept of a Creator completely from the mindsand literature of children.

If there is even a possibility that creation could betrue (and there is!), aren't scientists supposed to beinterested in truth? Have they proved there is no Creator? That is the presumption of organic evolution.

How many local teachers have had the opportunity toexamine creation science textbooks? Not many, judging from the scarcity of materials in local libraries. (Thepublic library and some Owensboro schools have allowed me to place such materials in their libraries).Many teachers, textbook writers, and librarians are simply not aware of the extensive scientific evidence that supports creation or exposes evolution.

According to a 1981 poll conducted by the AssociatedPress and NBC, 86 percent of the population want scientific creation taught. Only eight percent want to continue censoring scientific evidence that supports creation. Several thousand scientists now believe creation is a more accurate interpretation of the evidence. These scientists get very little press coverage. Is this censorship? There is also a growing number of evolutionistswho are admitting the flaws in their theory. One can only wonder at the reluctance of evolutionists to allow the scientific evidence to speak for itself. If argumentsfor evolution are valid, there is no reason to fear thedata presented by creation scientists.

I am not advocating Bible reading or prayer inschools, but 1 am saying that creation and evolutionshould stand or fall together. It should be to the greaterbenefit of everyone to be able to study and evaluateobjectively all the scientific evidence and arguments forboth. It is time for parents and school boards to quitbeing intimidated and pushed around by the ACLU andother humanists.

1987 VBS

HE IS MY EVERYTHING 5 Day VBS CourseAsk for Sample Kit $16.95 — Kit may be returned for credit. Order From: Religious Supply Center

WIDOWERS

QUESTION: You stated in a previous article on thechurch helping widows that the principle would alsoapply to widowers. 1 Tim. 5:16, as well as James 1:27 specifically states, "widows," and not "widowers." AsChristians we are to help the widowers but I had neverthought the church was given the command to helpwidowers. What about this?

ANSWER: I cannot think of a Scripture that specifically states that the church or an individual is to help a widower. But there are several passages, in principle,which so teach.

James 1:27 says nothing about "widowers," particularly, and since it is individual in scope, then by thequerist's manner of reasoning, we may not help a widower on an individual basis. Actually, James 1:27 is asynecdoche, a figure of speech where the part is put forthe whole. James is speaking of ALL in distress ortrouble of any kind. He simply uses the visitation of the fatherless and widows in their affliction as an example of pure religion.

E. W. Bullinger states that "widows and fatherlessare put for all kinds of afflicted" (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. 629). He quotes Exodus 22:21 (in addition to Jas. 1:27), "Ye shall not afflict any widow, orfatherless child," and comments, "Surely it does notfollow that they might afflict all others. No! one kind ofclass is put for all similar kinds of helpless people."

1 Tim. 5:16 states, "If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not thechurch be charged, that it may relieve them that are widows indeed." What are the children to do with their daddy since this verse obligates them to their mothers,specifically? Let him go without the necessities of life? No, no! This verse in principle also shows a responsibility we have toward our fathers and it shows the dutythe church has toward widowers, as well as widows,when there are no children to help, or won't help.

In fact, the church has an obligation toward all needysaints as long as the need is there, whether young, old,single, married, widows or widowers. Cf. Acts 2:44-45;4:32-37; 6:1-4; 11:27-30; Rom. 15:26, etc.

Call our WATS line forspeedy information on allavailable VBS series and supplies

Religious Supply Center _____________ 1-800-626-5348

SPECIAL PEOPLE

There is a stir of excitement within, accentuated by aquickening of the pulse and a warm inner glow thatoverwhelms one with the realization of being special tosomeone. Often it is the need to be reminded that we are special that produces the very qualities that make us so.There is a thrill attendant in being a Christian explained and realized only as we recognize that such an one isspecial.

Let me focus on First Peter with a brief introduction. The design of this epistle is expressed in " I have writtenbriefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the truegrace of God wherein ye stand" (1 Pet. 5:12). Peter intended to accomplish three things: exhortation, testify of the true grace of God and encourage in that grace. In light of the major theme of suffering and bearing triumphantly while engulfed in trial and persecution these things are especially meaningful. Faith needed confirmation and only by patience in trial and through hope anchored in the "true grace" would that faith crystallize into the realization of how special theyreally were. As they are reminded of what makes themspecial, so are we.

In developing the theme of this article let me pose anoverriding question. What makes the Christian a special person? For answer we direct our attention to somethings Peter has to offer in this first chapter. Of firstconsideration is the fact of being "elect." The Greek"EKLEGO" meaning "choose or select" as per verse 2.The child of God is elect according to the "foreknowledge" (PROGNOSIS Gr.), the previous determinationand purpose of God. It is the idea of chosen people,selected by divine will, in keeping with a purpose of God earlier formed. Paul joins with Peter to complement thispicture in his statements "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us withall spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and withoutblame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himselfaccording to the good pleasure of his will" (Eph. 1:3-5).

The word "PROGNOSIS" translated "foreknowledge" bears kinship to our prognosis which is usually ina medical connotation. Medically, our case is diagnosed,tests are run, evaluations made and we are anxious forthe doctor's prognosis, his projection of what lies ahead.

The Christian is special because, among other things,God selected him as his very own on the basis of conditions which He willed and projected well in advance ofthe fact. In the Ephesian quote it is said to be "according to the good pleasure of his will." The argument overwhether man is the elect of God, conditionally or unconditionally, is here laid to rest. Unconditional election isfalse! It is according to the good pleasure of God's will.Only as man properly relates to that will is he the electof God.

Not only is the Christian special because of being"elect" of God but even more so because of being "begotten." As a closer look is given to verse 3, focus uponthe word "again." The faltering, failing faith of the disciples of our Lord in the tragic hours of his condemnationand death was revived in the full impact of his resurrection. The perceived redemption of Israel was foiled inthe Messiah's death. Hope, dead, surges to new life inthe resurrection of Jesus to become a living hope, hopenot bound by perishable expectations or failing earthlydreams but quickened to new force and life, to "an inheritance incorruptible."

Thirdly, the Christian is special because he is "redeemed" (v. 18). Having been set free from the bondage of sin by virtue of the payment of ransom. For a parallelthought we go to the noun form of the word "ransom"found in "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransomfor many" (Matt. 20:28). As the idea of ransom echoesthroughout the gospel it becomes the revealing of thechief purpose of God, deliverance of us all from sin. Thelife of another, Jesus, God's own Son, instead of ourown. He became satisfaction, "propitiation," for oursins. Not only from the guilt of sin but from the sinfullife itself as we perceive ourselves in this special relationship, being no longer given to "vain conversation."The significance of that relationship is enhanced only aswe see it bought by the most precious of all gifts, the "precious blood of Christ" (1:19). How special we are!

Verse 22 adds to the picture by identifying the Christian as one purified. Analytically, this is past actionwith existing results, obtained in obeying the truth.Obedience is here projected as the ground of godlinesswith the love of brethren the effect of it. Human agencyin purification is to be noted from this verse reminiscentof "save yourselves" in Acts 2:40. The soul is purified.How? By hearing and obeying the truth out of a pureheart. How simple the process and how beautiful theresults as the will of God works within us.

Then verse 23 presents the Christian within the intriguing figure of birth, "born again." This statementcalls attention to common parenthood. It is the sameverb as in verse 3, "begotten," and offers the highestmotive for wholesome relationship circumscribed in"loving as brethren" (1 Pet. 3:8). We are children of thesame father, born of the same seed. The seed by which one is born into the world is different from the seed bywhich we are born into the family of God. One seed is"corruptible," subject to death and decay. The other is"incorruptible," and not subject to death and decay.The term "incorruptible" describes the seed itself which "liveth," possesses life (ZONTOS). In Jesus' parable ofthe sower, "the seed is the word of God" (Lk. 8:11), life isresident within that seed. Verse 24 is offered as proof inthe quote of Isaiah 40:6-8 that the physical passes butthe word abideth forever. The physical is fragile, like grass and flowers it withers and dies. But, the life produced by the word of the Lord is eternal. How significantly this adds to the picture of the Christian as someone special.

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood,an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shewforth the praises of him who hath called you out ofdarkness into his marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9). You can'tget any more special than that.

READ YOUR BIBLE TODAY

Send all News Items to: Connie W. Adams, P.O. Box 6.9, Brooks, KY 10109

CECIL WILLIS, Box 15, Woodlake, TX 75865—It was myis located just south of Holbrook. The beautiful Painted Desert andpleasure to preach in a gospel meeting January 11-16, 1987 at the Petrified Forest National Park is just east of Holbrook. It is certain Holbrook, Arizona church. It was my first gospel meeting in sixthat thousands of brethren each year visit these scenic locations.years, and was immensely pleasant to me.The Holbrook church only has an attendance of about 30 on the

The Holbrook congregation may not be familiar to many brethren.Lord's Day, but they are quite active in doing the Lord's work. Brian Hence, I would like to introduce these brethren to you. Holbrook isFaulkner and his wife, Natalie, work with the Holbrook congregation.located in northeast Arizona on I-40, a highway traveled by thousandsThey are in the process of adopting a Navajo infant boy. About halfof brethren annually. Let me suggest that you plan to worship withthe students in the Holbrook school are Indians. Like nearly all con-these brethren the next time you use I-40.gregations, the Holbrook church has a few problems that they need to

Holbrook is a very interesting city of 5,000 inhabitants. It is located work through, but they are contending for the Old Paths, and arenear the large Navajo and Apache reservations. Indians tribally owndeserving of your interest and prayers.nearly 20 million acres in Arizona. About 220,000 Navajos live on theThe meeting house is located at 4th and Erie Streets. You may reachreservation which stretches into two or three adjacent states. There brother Faulkner at 706 N. Ave., Holbrook, AZ 86025. His phone are 166,000 Indians living in Arizona. The smaller Apache reservation number is (602) 524-3625. Brian is a faithful young man in his late 20's,

and is from Columbus, Ohio. I first met Natalie's parents while in Alaska for a gospel meeting in 1966 when Natalie was just four years old.

As readers of this journal know, July 23, 1986 I made a public confession of sin in my life before the church at Groveton, Texas. The editor of this journal then asked my permission to publish the statement in this paper, along with some editorial comments about me. Included in those comments was the suggestion that brethren who had known me write me a few words of encouragement.

About three hundred brethren (mostly preachers) wrote me nice letters affirming their brotherly love. Since then I have written about 300 letters in reply, but have not yet answered all of those who wrote me. Literally hundreds of other brethren have spoken similar words of encouragement to me face to face. I want all brethren to know how much their support and forgiveness meant to me.

Thanks again, brethren, for your kind, generous, magnanimous and loving remarks which you conveyed to me both orally and through letters, and in the two articles that appeared regarding my restoration to the Lord.

BILLY ASHWORTH, Route 3, Box 215, Columbia, TN 38401— On January 2, 1987, my wife Lois and I moved to our newly-purchased home in Maury County, six miles north of Columbia on U.S. Highway 31. At the same time, I began preaching for the Hillview church of Christ at Nashville, a church with which we spent five and a half years from January 1, 1968 through July 23, 1973. We are enjoying our present arrangements and being together with the saints at Hillview. We invite all who may visit in that area to attend services at Hillview. The building is located at 7471 Charlotte Pike

(U.S. 70 N). It is easy to find by leaving I-40 West at Old Hickory Blvd, going about 1/4 mile to Charlotte Pike, turning left to find the building about 1/2 mile on the left side of the road. Sunday services are at 9 & 10 A.M. and 6 P.M. with Wednesday Bible study at 7:30

P.M. My phone number is (615) 388-3855.

WARD HOGLAND, 1800 Hairston Ave., Conway, AR 72032— 1986 was a good year here at Northside. The Lord willing, in 1987 I will assist in meetings at Monticello, FL Jan. 20-23; Biscoe, AR Mar. 2-6; Columbia, TN (Jackson Hts.) Mar. 15-20; Eldorado, AR April 610; Clarksville, IN April 26-May 1; Batesville, AR May 10-15; Paragould, AR May 24-27; Houston, MS June 7-12; Lanton, TN June; Joaquin, TX July 6-10; Mountain Home, AR July 20-24; Lafayette, IN Sept. 13-17; Texarkana, AR Oct. 11-16 and Alamogordo, NM in the fall. Our meetings at Northside will be conducted April 1924 and Oct. 25-30 with Oliver Murray and Robert Turner. Visit with us when in central Arkansas.

DEBATE IN OWENSBORO, KY DICK BLACKFORD of Owensboro, KY (one of our column writers) met STEVE EPLEY of Owensboro in a debate March, 9, 10 and 12,

13. The subjects were the Godhead and Baptismal Formula and the debate was conducted in the building of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, 5691 W. 5th St. Rd. in Owensboro, KY. We are sorry we did not have this item in time to print before the debate took place.

NEW CONGREGATION IN WHITE OAK, TEXAS

DENNIS C. ABERNATHY, 205 Pinewood, Gladewater, TX 75647— This is to inform readers of this paper that a new congregation is now meeting in White Oak, Texas. We presently have 25 in attendance, with a contribution of about $300 a week. If any readers should visit the area, we invite you to stop and visit us and worship with the church. We meet at 407 1/2 White Oak Road (just past the Post Office). Our mailing address is P.O. Box 454, White Oak, TX 75693. On Sundays we meet at 9:45 and 10:45 A.M. and 6 P.M. and at 7 P.M. on Wednesdays. We anticipate good growth here. My family and I will continue to live in Gladewater. I would like to receive your bulletin at my address given above. I am still $800 per month short of needed wages of $2800 per month. If any congregation or individual could help, I would appreciate hearing from you.

FROM FOREIGN FIELDS WILFREDO B. SAMODAL, P.O. Box 5680, Iligan City 8801, Republic of the Philippines—I am glad to tell you that on January 4, 1987 3 souls obeyed the gospel and then January 11 another 2 were baptized into Christ here in Iligan City.

I am sad to tell you that we do not have normal peace and order here.

On October 17, 1986 my brother in the flesh, Rufo Samodal, was killed

by rebels. Rufo was a very successful preacher for many years before

he fell away in sin. I am glad to say he repented about a year before his

death and served the best he could from then until he was killed. His

son, my nephew, was also shot by rebels and was seriously injured in

the head. His wife has a newborn infant to care for. I am left with the

responsibility of meeting the hospital bills for his care and also for

seeing after his family. The church here has already helped all it can.

PAUL K. WILLIAMS, P.O. Box 324, Eshowe, 3815 South Africa— One of the young people we teach each week baptized 9 at his hometwo weeks ago. We have 20-30 young people to teach each week. Theyare enthusiastic and earnest and are teaching others. Two were baptized in Eshowe, one now attending teacher's college away from here.DAVID HURST was not able to raise support to come to Johannesburg to preach. We are disappointed but not discouraged. (Editor's note: It is a crying shame that a brother who was willing to go to aplace where the gospel is so badly needed and where the brethrenalready at work there successfully wanted him to come and where a local church was ready to provide partial support, could not find thenecessary help from brethren in this blessed land of ours. This makestwice in recent years that the South African field has been deprivedof needed workers who were ready and willing to go, but who could not for want of financial support. This is sad. Worse than that, it is shameful. The American news media fills our eyes and ears withmuch bad news from South Africa. But there is much good news interms of gospel work going on there. The gospel is the cure for the illsof the world as it changes hearts and lives and fashions them into theimage of Christ. Something is badly wrong here, my brethren. All toofew men and their families are willing to go to such fields to labor. Whyshould they have such difficulty finding the help they need? CWA)

NOLI H. VILLAMOR, 315-C Loreto St., Sampaloc, Manila 2806,Rep. of the Philippines—On February 4 at 5:45 A.M. a fire broke out inTondo, Manila where several houses were burned. Among those gutted by fire was the home of Reynaldo Cruz, one of the deacons of theTondo church. His house was also the meeting place for the church.They offered their home free of charge. Not only did the Cruz familylose their house and all their belongings and money, but the Tondo church lost its place to meet, along with 30 folding chairs, 4 long benches, wooden pulpit, blackboard, all its Tagalong songbooks, 3 electric fans and 12 Tagalong Bibles. The total loss would be not lessthan 95,000 pesos for brother Cruz and for the church. The immediate need would be enough to purchase materials for posts and roofings sothe brethren would not be exposed to the elements in conducting services. Those who might want to help could contact: Reynaldo Cruz,1610 F. Varona St., Tondo, Manila, Philippines.(Editor's note: I have known Noli Villamor for 17 years. He is a faithfuland able brother. For several years he published a good paper whichdid much good in the Philippines. Tondo is a very poor suburb ofManila and life is difficult at best for people there. I have on handpictures of the charred remains of the home of brother Cruz and alsopictures of the small congregation assembled there prior to the fire.

RANDY S. REESE, SR., P.O. Box 14, Ashiya Shi, Japan 659—The Crossroads Movement has come to Japan. In June, 1986, George Gurganus, who preached in Tokyo 35 years ago, returned asone of the deacons of the Boston Crossroads church. Along with himhe brought a small group of American and Japanese workers. Theyhave already taken control of the Yoyogihachiman church in Tokyo.In June, 1987 the Boston church plans to send a 20 person team ofJapanese speaking workers to spread their false teaching among the churches here. This team will be headed by Randy McKean, brother ofKip McKean, the preacher at the Boston church. At this writingCrossroads members are already active in the streets and stores inTokyo. They plan to plant someone in every congregation in Japan as soon as possible. Currently I am teaching two classes a weekdealing with this movement. I am also writing a tract on this heresywhich will be printed in Japanese in April.

I have a number of other classes in progress which are productive ofgood. Our financial situation has been strained because of the devaluation of the American dollar. In addition to that problem, I am losing

Page 17

support in April from one congregation and in June from another inthe amount of$400. The work is making progress and we need to be able to stay with it. But we will need help to recover our financial losses. Thank you for all your prayers and help in the work here inJapan.

PREACHERS NEEDED ANTIGO, WISCONSIN—A working congregation with 31 membersneeds a preacher with at least five years experience. Please sendresume with references to: Church of Christ, 1427 5th Ave., Antigo,Wl 54409. Additional support will be needed.

RUSTON, LOUISIANA—An experienced preacher is needed to workfull time with the Hwy. 80 church in Ruston. Attendance is usually 1015 but work is challenging. Most financial support must be raisedelsewhere. Those interested may call Phillip Frizzell (318) 259-8922 orToby Crump (318) 255-2957, or write: Church of Christ, 2902 W.California Ave., Ruston, LA 71270.

PREACHER AVAILABLE

C. DAVID ROBBINS, P.O. Box 122, Scipio, INDIANA—I am available for fill-in or regular preaching in central and southern Indiana or northern regions of Kentucky, from my home in S.E. Indiana. Over 25 years experience. Reference: Elders, 10th St. church, Columbus, IN. Call (812) 392-2833 or write me at the aboveaddress.

RECENT DEATHS EDGAR C. WALKER passed from this life in December, 1986. Hepreached for many years in Kentucky, Michigan, Florida and waspreaching in Tennessee at the time of his death. Much of his preaching was done in hard places with congregations which needed his strong help. It was my privilege to know him and his wife, Ovana, for manyyears and to work with them in meetings at Flint, Michigan andJamestown, Kentucky. We express our sympathy to Ovana. He will be greatly missed.

HAROLD F. SHARP passed away in February in Arkansas. Funeralservices were conducted in Conway before a large audience. He was apowerful preacher of the gospel whose labors spanned many years andtook him to many places. Most of his local work was done in Arkansaswith a few years in central Georgia. In the critical struggle over institutionalism in the 1950's and 60's, he stood firm and helped manybrethren to stand. He was an exceptional power in the pulpit. His two sons, Sonny and Keith are faithful gospel preachers. Our kindest sentiments go to his wife, Pearl, their two sons and their families. Hisdeath leaves a void that will be hard to fill.

SYLVIA WHEELER, wife of gospel preacher Tom Wheeler of Harrodsburg, Kentucky, passed away on February 16 after a short and bizarre illness. The Wheelers have done good work in many places overthe years, much of it in Kentucky where he has worked with churchesin Beaver Dam, Hodgenville and Harrodsburg. Sylvia was a dignified,quiet but strong support for Tom in his work. Our heartfelt sympathyis expressed to Tom and the two daughters. A new grandchild wasborn the day before her death.

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH BAPTISMS 148 RESTORATIONS 60 (Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)