PERVERSIONS OF THE LORD'S SUPPER

James P. Needham, St. Petersburg, Florida

The Lord's supper is the most expensive memorial theworld has ever known. It cost the blood of the son of God, heaven's most precious jewel— "For this is my blood of thenew testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26:28). Men have perverted the Lord's supperas they have practically every other part of God's plan. Letus study some of these perversions.

I. ADMINISTRATION

In the Presbyterian confession p. 154, we find this:"Baptism and the Lord's supper . . . neither of which maybe dispensed by any but by a minister of the word lawfullyordained." The Baptist Manual by Hiscox p. 20, says, "Bothordinances (baptism and Lord's Supper JPN) are ordinarily and properly administered by ordained and accredited ministers." In the Catholic church only the priest can "servecommunion". Among us there are some few who believethat only the elders, or the deacons should administer the Lord's supper. Some think the fact that the seven brethren of Acts 6 were chosen to "serve tables" is authority for making the deacons the exclusive administrators of the Lord'ssupper. But, a closer reading of this passage will reveal thatthe word "tables" is used to represent the physical needs of the needy widows.

All such ideas are perversions of the administration ofthe supper. One will read his New Testament in vain to findauthority for any exclusive class of brethren ordained to administer the Lord's table. I know of no passage which attaches any official capacity to those who serve at the table.So far as the scriptures are concerned, then, any faithful child of God has the right to administer the Supper.

II. ELEMENTS

(1) Transubstantiation, which was introduced at theLateran council in 1215 by Pope Innocent III is a perversion of the elements of the Supper. This theory claims that whenthe priest blesses the bread and fruit of the vine it becomesthe literal body and blood of Christ. "The blessed sacramentis not bread and wine; it is not bread and wine and Jesus Christ. It is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Although tothe senses it seems to be only bread and wine" (Parish Catechism p. 70). This doctrine is based upon the words of Jesus in Matt. 26:26-28 where he said of the bread: "this is my body" and of the cup: "this is my blood". A literal interpretation is placed upon these words. But those who dosuch here will not allow such an interpretation in similarcases. In John 15:1 Jesus said, "I am the vine . . ." but does that mean that he is a literal vine, with branches and fruit? He said, "I am the door . . ." but does that mean he is a literal door with a knob, lock, etc.? certainly not! Such expressions are figurative. To make them literal is to pervert them.

(2) Consubstantiation, which was introduced by MartinLuther says that the elements of the Supper are not literally the body and blood of Christ but the literal body and bloodof Christ are in them. "The body of Christ .. . is really andsubstantially present in, with and under the supper, even as the divine nature is in the human as warmth is in the Iron" (Bavink, Geref. Dogm. IV, 318, quoted in ISBE p. 1926).This, too, is a doctrine that is not taught in the scriptures.The elements of the Supper are representative of the body and blood of Christ, but no scripture teaches that theliteral body and blood are in any way present. (3) Fermented wine: Some contend that the Supper cannot be scripturally observed without fermented wine. Where this idea originated and that upon which it is based is not clear to this writer. I am unable to find any passage inthe Old Testament or the New where the word wine was used in connection with the Passover at which the Lord's supper was originated, and certainly there is no passagewhere it is used in connection with the Lord's supper. I haveever been unable to understand the reasoning of those whoargue for fermented wine on the Lord's table, and yet at thesame time vigorously oppose leavened bread. A little study will reveal that leaven in a solid is the exact same thing asfermentation in a liquid. Why, then, would it be wrong tohave fermentation in the bread, but right to have it in thefruit of the vine? (4) Anything other than the bread and fruit of the vine. ". . . it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shalldrink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that yedo it with an eye single to my glory . . ." (Doctrine andCovenants p. 154, sec. 89, v. 5,6— Mormon faith). Thiswould mean, then, that corn-bread and buttermilk would be acceptable as elements in the Lord's supper if those partakinghad the proper attitude!

III. PARTICIPANTS

There are many who would pervert the Lord's supperfrom the standpoint of those who participate in it. Note the following:

(1) Only the priest can take the cup among Catholics."Catholics do not receive the Chalice because of the risk of spilling the contents and the danger of spreading infection"(Parish Catechism p. 73). Isn't it quite strange that the Lord didn't think of this? And even the Catholics didn't discover it until 1414! Jesus gave the cup to the disciples and said"all of you drink of it" (Matt. 26:27). (2) Unbaptized: For the following reasons it is a perversion for the unbaptized to partake of the Supper: (a) Thesupper was given to the disciples (Matt. 26:26), (b) Onlythe baptized continued in it (Acts 2:42), (c) The disciplescame together to partake of it (Acts 20:7), (d) One cannotpartake of the table of devils and the table of the Lord at the same time (I Cor. 10:21), (e) Only brethren were consideredas participants at Corinth (I Cor. 11:33), (f) The table is in the kingdom (Matt. 26:29) but only the baptized are inthe kingdom (I Cor. 12:13; John 3:5), hence only they can partake. (3) Partaking unworthily: This is defined by Paul asfailing to "discern the Lord's body" (I Cor. 11:27-30). This means that those who partake of the supper without thinkingof that to which it is a memorial are perverting it. (4) Partaking of the supper while living unrighteously. Paul said we cannot partake of the table of the Lord and thetable of devils (I Cor. 10:21). He who refuses to live inharmony with the law of Christ perverts the supper when hepartakes of it. It is a mockery and a sham to claim to be in subjection to Christ by purporting to commune in his bodyand blood while flagrantly violating his law as to righteousliving. (5) The doctrine of closed communion as taught bythe Baptists. This perverts the supper because it sets up the church as an examining body to determine who amongbrethren can partake of it. Paul said to the Corinthians "Butlet a man examine himself, and so let him eat ... " (I Cor.11:28).

IV. TIME

The Catholics say, "Ye must receive Holy communion at least once a year during the Easter season" (Parish Cath.sec. 318). And again, "You should receive Holy Communionas often as possible. Many converts . . . receive Holy communion every Sunday, some every day" (Ibid.). The Baptistssay, "Our churches have very generally come to observe it on the first Sunday of each month" (Hiscox Manual p. 20).The Bible says, "And when the disciples came together onthe first day of the week to break bread . . ." (Acts 20:7).This is when it is done by those who respect the New Testament.

V. CUP

Many pervert the cup by making it refer to the container. Mark 14:23-25 and Luke 22:17,18 show conclusively that Jesus referred to the contents and not to the container when he instituted the supper. The cup is the fruit of thevine, not that which contains it. Jesus said nothing of thecontainer, hence, those who would bind one container on the Lord's table are guilty of binding where Jesus loosed,and pervert the Lord's supper.

VI. SEQUENCE

Some would pervert the sequence of the supper. Thesequence as given by Christ in the institution of the supperis as follows: BREAD: blessed it, brake it, gave it to thedisciples, FRUIT OF THE VINE: gave thanks, gave it to

(Continued on Page 9)

Our second year of publishing SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES begins with this issue. As we knew and stated in the first issue, all sailing would not be smooth, all problems would not be solved with a single stroke of the pen, nor would all recipients of this journal receive it and read what is said. But as we look back over the past year we are thankful for the blessings that have come from our Father which have made it possible to publish lessons of truth from His word in this paper, and for the many, many faithful and loyal brethren who have given us support and encouragement. Many have sent in large clubs of subscriptions from their own community, while others who could not do this have encouraged us by letters and cards. It would indeed be difficult to put forth such an effort as this without the help of loving brethren. We owe to them a deep debt of gratitude for all the encouragement and support they have given us in this effort.

While we have had a few problems, as all editors have,we have enjoyed what we believe to be a remarkable success with a paper of this type. We have almost doubled in paid subscribers since the first issue was mailed. We haveadhered to our policy of avoiding unfair controversy andpersonal sarcasm and slander, while dealing directly withissues of controversy in as objective manner as possible.Where names are attached to errors they hold we are following Paul as he named some in error concerning the faith(I Tim. 1:19,20). Error must be condemned "with all authority" of God's word, and when men are associated withthe error they must suffer the consequences both here and Iin eternity. We pledge ourselves to follow the same courseduring this second year as we followed in the past year. Thiscourse was stated in the editorial of the first issue: "We have no policy but to be scriptural, fair, sincere, and faithful in our work as editors of this paper. We know nothing that couldbe asked of us in presenting this paper for your edification. I Let us work together to stimulate more interest in 'Searching the Scriptures' to know the truth, for it is only the truth ofGod that will make men free."

If you have been receiving this journal for the past year,it has been at the expense of a friend or relative who paidyour first year's subscription. Will you now send us $2.00 for a renewal for the coming year? We do not want to loseyou as a reader, and we feel that you have received something worth while in reading the issues that have come toyou. Better still, send us two names with your own and $5.00and we will renew your subscription for a year from the date it expires and send it to your friends for one year. In thisway you can help us study the word of God with manyfriends and brethren. Do not delay; get your subscriptionoff in the mail today.

HAMARTANO, "I SIN"— NO. 3

Further classical usages of hamartano may be observedwith profit. The verb occurs in the sense, "to miss one's wayor road." See this poetical selection from Aristophanes:

Pray, have we really reached, you dear old men,

The very dwelling where this new God dwells? Or

have we altogether missed the way (tes hodou . . .

hemartekamen)? [The Plutus 961].

The verb occurs in the sense, "fail of one's purpose,""go wrong," in this interesting passage from Herodotus: "Butas it is, to say that the Athenians were the saviors of Hellas is to hit the truth (ouk an hamartanoi to alethes)" [Herodo-tus 7.139].

In classical Greek hamartano is further used in the sense, "fail of having," "be deprived of," and in the sense, "fail todo," "neglect." The verb is even used in the sense, "dowrong," "err," "sin," but it is to be noted carefully that theseusages refer to negative failures; not to positive transgressions. It is not "sin" in the Biblical sense of failure to conform to God's standard.

AUTHORITY IN RELIGION - IV

Thomas G. O'Neal, Jasper, Alabama

(Articles 1, 2, 3 appeared in the July, August and Septemberissues of SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES. This fourth and final article on Authority In Religion by brother O'Neal was misplaced andshould have appeared in the October issue. We suggest that you go back and read again the other articles in this series.— Editor).

In this article our purpose is to find Bible authority forsome practices. In an article such as this one, there can notbe space enough to establish Bible Authority for every religious practice. However, we can by establishing Divine authority for some practices show how to establish Bible authority for other practices.

With just a word or so, let me emphasize again, as Ihave done in another article, the necessity for Bible authority of our practices. If the statement, "we do many things forwhich we don't have Bible authority" be true, then we need to stop those things NOW! Whatever is not authorized inthe Bible, to engage in such constitutes sin in the sight ofGod.

Mark 16:15-16 records the words of Christ, when He said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel toevery creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall besaved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." In these words, we have the command to "go" preaching. The Lorddid not specify the method of going. When one travels on a boat, horse, mule, automobile, train, airplane, he is doingwhat Christ commanded, he is going. One thing needs to bekept in mind: whatever is necessary to obey a command isauthorized! Some means of transportation is necessary to go,therefore, the means is authorized. Then we are commanded to "preach". Whether one writes the message or speaks themessage, he is just doing that which is authorized, he is just doing that which is authorized, he is preaching. When acongregation buys time on some radio or TV station and onepreaches on the program, they are still doing what has beenauthorized, preaching. Also, baptizing is authorized. Remember that whatever is necessary to obey the command is authorized. When one baptizes in a pond, river, or pool, heis still doing just what Christ commanded. If by baptizingin any of the above is wrong, try baptizing without a placeto baptize.

Some person questions the authority for a building inwhich to meet. They charge that no church had a buildingin which to meet in New Testament days. This charge needsto be proved, i.e., Jerusalem, Ephesus, and other congregations had no building of their own in which to meet. InJohn 4:19-24, Jesus shows that the place of worship is not the important thing. The thing we must be interested in is to worship God "in spirit and in truth." When the Jerusalemchurch met, Acts 2:42, was she not responsible for providing the place to assemble? Then look at Acts 20:7 when thechurch in Troas came together. Did not the Troas congregation provide herself with a place to worship. The Corinthians,I Cor. 11, came together. Who provided the place for them,if they did not themselves? James writing to the "twelvetribes which are scattered abroad" said, James 2:2, "For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, ingoodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vileraiment;" Did not the "Twelve tribes" provide this assembly? If they didn't, who did?

For the above practices we have generic or general authority. Whether a congregation meets under a shade tree to"break bread" or in a meeting house; whether a man goes bywalking or by airplane; whether one baptizes in a lake orpool inside a meeting house; whether the gospel is preachedorally or in tract; all of these being generally authorized areleft up to the local assembly.

God hasn't left all things generically authorized. Sometimes people confuse that which has been generally authoriezd with that which has been specifically authorized.Much of the confusion in the religious world has arisen because some one thinks that which has been generally authorized has been specifically authorized and that which has been specifically authorized has been generally authorized.

Heaven has authorized music in worship. However, ofthe two kinds of music, vocal and instrumental, Christ has specified the kind of music. Hear Paul in Eph. 5:19, "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,SINGING and making melody in your heart to the Lord"(Emphasis, mine, T.G.O.) Cf. Col. 3:16. God has specifiedthe kind of music— vocal.

Jesus through the approved example has specified theday of "breaking bread." It was "upon the first day of the week" that the Troas church came together for this purpose,Acts 20:7. By the first day of the week being specified, anyother day is excluded. Observing the Lord's Supper on anyother day than the first day of the week would be like observing the 4th of July on December 26.

Much confusion is seen in the religious world concern

ing the organization to use. This the Lord did not authorize

generally but authorized it SPECIFICALLY!! Where? Acts

14:23, Phil. 1:1, Acts 6:1-5, 11:27-30, II Cor. 11:7-9, Phil.

1:5, 2:24-30, 4:15-30. What is authorized? Nothing but a

local assembly, church or congregation. Anything bigger,

smaller, or other than the local congregation is not au

thorized by CHRIST. This local body has the responsibility

to preach the gospel, edify herself, care for her own in a

benevolent way (Eph. 4:12). In the New Testament this

local body never turned her resources over to another con

gregation or to a human institution for them to do her work!

This needs to be impressed upon the mind of the religious

world and the body of Christ in particular!

The word of God is the seed of the kingdom (Luke

8:11). Sowing the seed only produces the kingdom or church.

Like begets like! Kingdom seed never brings into being

congregations tied together organically or human bodies.

The reader needs to study for himself the Word ofGod, the only final standard of religious authority, to determine what has been generally authorized and what has been specifically authorized.

DIVISION: ITS CAUSE AND CURE

H. F. Sharp, Conway, Arkansas

In our present time the Old Ship of Zion has been onthe crest of troubled waters. The Lord's Body has been bleeding at every pour before the gazing eyes of an unbelievingworld. All who love the church, above every thing in thisworld, abhor the condition we have allowed to exist. I am sure that we all realize the Lord, in the shadow of the cross, prayed for unity among his people. Paul taught unity to thechurch at Corinth and the brethren at Ephesus. Every inspired man has pleaded for unity among the disciples ofChrist. What then is the cause for our divided state?

1. Division may be had over matters of human judgment. In Acts 1 Paul and Barnabas were divided over a matter of judgment regarding the choice of a preacher to go with them to preach the word of God. Paul did not want totake Mark because he had turned back on one occasion. Barnabas thought it well that he go. There arose a sharpcontention between these two fine Gospel preachers, so, they parted from one another. This division did not, however, cause either of them to forsake the Truth and it did not affect their love for one another, or, for the truth. Later. Paul thought, because of evidence undisputable, that he was wrong about Mark and wrote Timothy, "When you comebring John Mark for he is profitable to me in the Gospel."The actions of both these men in their division was commendable. This is not the cause of our division today for mybrethren now write about the antis, Johnny come lately,termites, etc.
2. Division may be caused as a result of following human leaders. Paul rebuked the Corintian church for following men. They were following Cephas, Apollos, Paul and Christ.Paul told them they were carnal. They were following human

leaders thus elevating human wisdom above divine revela

tion. I feel sure much of our trouble today is here. We have

followed many preachers, maybe, because of our love for and

confidence in them.

Many members of the church believe a thing just be

cause some preacher says so. Brother Ward Hogland once

told me of a preacher who actually said, "I probably look

upon bro. ---as a God." As a younger preacher I feel sure

some older preachers had more influence on what I believe

than they should have had. I know now that one cannot

follow men but must follow the Book.

3. Division is caused by an attitude toward the Bible. Oneis an attitude called a constructive attitude. A case in point here is the materialistic doctrine of Premillennialism. I shall not attempt, in this article, to refute this erroneous doctrine.All who know the nature of the church realize Premillennialism is not compatible with Christianity. Another attitudeis an intrusive attitude— a corruption of the organization. Here is the greatest danger we face in the church today. In theHardeman-Boswell debate one may thrill for the Truth as it stood out in the hands of Bro. Hardeman. He begged overand over for Mr. Boswell to give up that which he, (Boswell ), said was not essential to salvation, and shake hands on the truth and see God's people once again united. Thishad telling effect on Mr. Boswell as well as for Truth. But also, Bro. Hardeman ought to go to the grave of Mr. Boswelland apologize, for, he now is guilty of the same thing heaccused Mr. Boswell of doing, even to the disruption of theunity of the church. No one says the institutional homes,Herald of Truth, many unscriptural cooperative arrangementsare essential to salvation. Herein is another cure for the division— leave the troubling things not essential and come tothe Truth.

PERSONAL OBLIGATIONS

Gene E. Watson, Lynn Grove, Kentucky

The scriptures teach that we are to work accordingto our ability. God expects us to do our best but does notexpect more of us than we are able to do. We must not encroach upon the rights of others by asking them to turntheir resources over to us that we may be able to do more. We assume superiority over others when when we ask tocontrol their resources for them. The trouble with manypeople today is that they feel the Lord has placed such aload upon them, that they must have the help of others tocarry it. We need to remember that the Lord has placedresponsibilities upon each one of us according to our ability.Those who try to gain control of the resources of others areafflicted with covetousness, and we are told in no uncertain terms to beware of covetousness (Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5). Weshould help others when they are in need of the necessities oflife, but never beyond our ability. If all will follow the teaching of the scriptures everything will be done that the Lord wants done.

SCRIPTURAL ELDERS AND DEACONS

H. E. PHILLIPSOver 300 Pages - Cloth Bound Price $4.00

THE PREACHER'S WIFE

Mrs. J. P. (Bobbie) Miller, Tampa, Florida

(Sister J. P. Miller prepared this talk to be given to a class of girls about four years ago at Florida Chris-tian College. Copies were made and given to each girl at the time. Because of its sound advice and the great need for sober thinking wives of preachers and elders, we would like to give it for your consideration. For nineteen years "Bobbie" Miller has been a preacher's wife and is qualified by experience to speak on this subject.-H.E.P.)

By no stretch of the imagination would I consider myself an authority on what is desired of a Preacher's Wifesimply because I was invited to share with you some insightnineteen years of being one has given to me. I do believe,however, that by thinking together we may come to morefully understand and appreciate the great scope of the happy and profitable life of a preacher and his family— much of which depends upon the preacher's wife.

The wife was created of man to be a help meet for him(Gen. 2:19). In order to truly be a help meet, she must then be "one flesh" with her husband, and only upon a full andcomplete understanding of the scope of his work could onehope to be a good help meet, "one flesh," with a preacherhusband. Therefore, our first task is to call to mind some of the things required of a preacher. The commission under which he labors is, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world," (Matt. 28:19,20) or as Mark records it, "preach the gospel to every creature." He, then, is to teach and preach wherever he can most profitably work. How couldhe be free to do this though, if his "so called" help meetrefuses to live more than twenty miles from her mother?

In some ways a preacher's work might be likened tothat of a doctor in that each is a life dedicated to SERVICE. A doctor's work is one of service to humanity— to save their physical bodies of misery and suffering. A gospelpreacher helps relieve needs of the physical body, but inaddition, administers to the spiritual needs of humanity. Hisservice, then, is two fold— to man and to God. What higher, more noble calling could one seek than this place of service in helping man save his soul in this life and the life here-after. The Bible recognizes this to be true, "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things (Rom. 10:15). As a mother with a pain-racked baby breathes a prayer of thanksgiving when she hears the sure steps of the feet of the doctor as he comes up the walk to heal her sick child, so those who are racked with sin sayhow beautiful are the feet of the one who administers the saving gospel to them. We as women cannot aspire to bepreachers, matters not how noble a work it may be, for such is forbidden by the things bound by Paul. But what more noble service could a woman aspire to than that of becoming a helpmeet to a gospel preacher? A preacher's work is aselfless work, one which requires its master to give ratherthan receive, or that of putting the needs of another before self.

Now, having set forth the work of the preacher, we then, can better understand what would be expected of his help meet. We know that man and wife are to become "one flesh," that is, one in purpose, plans, interests, desires and a mutual sharing of love and work toward a common goal.If the husband is a gospel preacher and his life is dedicated to SERVICE to others, so, too, if they are one flesh, must his wife dedicate herself to service— to husband, to children, to God, and to all humanity. What a big order this surely must be! The important thing is to keep her eyes set on the common goal, willing always to do that which is necessary to reach it. This means that we as preachers' wives must be as selfless as must be the preacher. One of the first and hardest lessons for such a wife is that her husband's time is not always at her disposal. There may be times when he must needs be away from home— yes, helping others, when you feel lonely and need him yourself. Especially, is this true if he is an evangelist spending much time away in meetings. Evening, approaching night, twilight, is a happy time of the day and I like to think of it as a time when families gather in from busy day's activities and share their experiences. After the dinner dishes are finished, how pleasant it is if the family can go to sit on the front porch as twlight falls and share in pleasant communion with each other, neighbors, and nature's early evening panorama. But for a preacher's family there are few such evenings, and with the falling of twilight is the falling of loneliness as a covering for the wife left to keep "home fires burning." I early found this experience a place to make adjustment and lift again my eyes to the mission of service. Likewise, special days— anniversaries, birthdays, yes, even the birth of our own children are joys meant to be shared by husband and wife though we may not always find it so. Our only child was born in Philadelphia, 1100 miles from my home, while myhusband was preaching and saving souls in a meeting in Detroit, Michigan. However, a good preacher's wife must be cheerful that she may encourage her husband in his work and understand its demands on his time and attention, never nagging or demanding too much of him. There is no room for self-pity and regrets over "what might have been."

But let us here point up some of the many wonderful and abundant advantages to be found in the being a preacher's wife. She is blessed above all others with family and friends— whole congregations are her brothers and sisters in the Lord. She enjoys the admiration and esteem of all those with whom she is associated. What ends people of this world would go to gain a measure of the esteem and recognition that is that of a preacher's wife. She is appreciated and loved for the good work that she does— grant that she seek always to conduct herself in such a manner as to be worthy of this esteem, not expecting it merely because she is a preacher's wife. She is fortunate also in that her associates are of the finest, highest type people on earth. She is not of the drunken brawl and base living, low moral type people. Her associates are of higher intellectual accomplishments, lives in atmosphere of books, cultural activities, and broadening experiences in travels. Hers can be the very best and highest type of circumstances on earth. What is more, sheenjoys the security and peace of mind knowing of the daily partitions of the members of the congregation oh her behalf. What other kind of wife would be half so fortunate and blessed?

Let us now see if we can put together a composite picture of a good preacher's wife. First, she must recognize and respect the fact that the husband is head of the wife (Eph. 5:23) and that she is to submit herself unto him (Eph. 5:22). I am troubled to hear girls, perhaps teasingly,

say that they would not be willing to promise to "obey" in the marriage ceremony. Surely such is lightly spoken,for how could we hope to exemplify the teaching of the Word if we would be unwilling to recognize the husband as head of the wife. Perhaps it but speaks her lack ofcomplete trust in him, fearing that he would or couldexpect things un-reasonable of her by such a promise.However, we are as-sured that "so ought men to lovetheir wives as their own bodies . . . (Eph. 5:28), "for no man ever yet hated his own flesh." Upon mutual trust in this principle, who then would be unwilling and afraid to promise to obey?

Furthermore, a good preacher's wife is a good mother,bringing up children to respect and honor the work theirfather is doing. This could scarcely be true if the onlyreason for denying them certain activities is that they are a preach-er's child. Such would but drive them to resent,yea, hate the fact that their father was a preacher.

She is affectionate, well-adjusted, adaptable,possesses a desire to grow and mature with her husband. Her back-ground is similar to her husband's environment,tastes, and education. Ideally, she is college trained and hashad some business experience. She is an intelligent listenerwhen her husband shares his problems and experiences with her. When asked, she offers her objective counsel andviewpoint. She never commits the unpardonable act ofbetraying a confi-dence her husband has shared. It evenmeans that every member of the congregation is treated alike, showing no favorites, choosing no special confidantes. Members of a con-gregation like to feel there are nofavorites with the preach-er's wife. Good business for the smart wife is to see that they live within his income.Together, they will plan the general outlay of the budgetand cheerfully accept that as a challenge to her best efforts. It may mean that fine silver, china, and expensive clothes will not be hers, but what dif-ference does that make if she knows and understands what she is looking for in life. Skill in sewing and home economics, hence, are a vital part ofher training before marriage.

And if all that were not enough, she will still needto be a maid, the chauffeur, nurse, a secretary, a handyman, laundress, governess, educator, and willing and able to en-tertain hospitably anyone at most any time.

We have included only some of the more essential outlines in our picture of the preacher's wife. The filling inof the details will be different with each person, but then, we aren't seeking to make a stereotype. What we are issimply an outward expression of inner attitudes andideals and it would be difficult to change ourself or order ourself to be that that befits a preacher's wife simplybecause we decided to be one without firmly believingevery precept we would live by. To be a good preacher's wife, then, should call for no change of behavior on our part. I like to think that I am the same as if I were a plumber's wife. It, like that of an elder, is an office to be desired. I am thankful that in the providence of God I am privileged to be a preacher's wife. I would not change it if I could. I would like to believe often I am a help andseldom a hindrance to my husband's work, and will saywith Ruth, ". . . Whether thou goest, I will go; andwhither thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried; the Lord do so to me,' and more also, if ought but death part thee and me."

If I can but inspire some of you to desire to bethe true help meet a preacher must have to do his work with joy and thanksgiving, then will I count with gladness every minute of the time away from my family tonight.With apologies to Kipling's IF:

A PREACHER'S WIFE

If she can devote a selfless life And not a martyr be, If shecan live a righteous lifeAnd not feel self-righteously, If she can be a friend to ALL Not choosing any more near and dear, If she can find joy in others joyAnd weep with them in tear, If shecan look to treasures stored above And not the earthly things of life, Then, my ladies, she is a jewel much to be admiredAs a PREACHER'S WIFE.

Why are so many people ready and willing to acceptthe theory of organic evolution? This can be answered bymany and varied answers. The answer at any one time willdepend upon the individual questioned and the circumstances at the particular time. Before the work of Charles Darwinthe general belief was in the creation of plants and animalsas we have them today. The theory of evolution was not original with Darwin. Such men as Buff on and Lamarck hadadvocated this theory many years before Darwin. Since theconflict was so great between this theory and the Genesisrecord it was generally rejected. However, when Darwin'sOrigin of the Species came forth in 1859 both philosophersand biologists took this opportunity to oppose the Genesisrecord and those who accepted this as the truth.

Some believe in evolution as set forth by Darwin toavoid accepting anything supernatural. This is of courseillogical since this theory does not explain the origin of life. With a theory to explain the many and varied plants andanimals the evolutionist must again resort to another theoryas to how life originate. Both origin and development mustrely upon assumption.

Others believe in the theory of evolution because somuch has been, and is being, written on the subject. Theseindividuals are so impressed by the amount written that theyrefuse to notice or fail to understand what is said and justaccept it on the basis of quantity instead of quality. Manytextbooks teach this theory as fact and many find it impossible to even consider the possibility that a textbook couldbe in error. So with eye and mind closed many accept the theory and yet have little or no real understanding as to whatthe theory really says.

Still others accept the theory in order to be "up-to-date" in their thinking. In our public and private schools todaythere are teachers that will ridicule those who accept theBible account of creation. This is, the student is told, old fashioned and does not meet our present day advances in I science. Then the theories are put forth as accepted factsand the students are to swallow them without questions. If Ithe student should question these theories the wrath of theopposition is often brought down upon him. This is not unusual. Those who have had the courage to contend for the truth have always been ridiculed whether the truth opposederror in science or in religion. Regardless of the price, "buy |the truth and sell it not."

THE SPIRIT OF REBELLION

D. Lipscomb

(NOTE: This article was found on page 820 of theAugust 28, 1924 issue of the Gospel Advocate. Because it deals with an attitude of man found in every generation, itis timely to reprint it here for the benefit of this generation-ED.)

God created and has the right to govern the world. Hecannot surrender the control of the world without destroyinghis own throne, his government, and turning the demon ofconfusion and destruction loose in the entire universe. Man is in rebellion against God, and has led the whole world into this rebellion. In that rebellion he is lost, ruined, undone, doomed, and damned. He is a poor, helpless, dying creature.Left to himself, he sinks downward in sin and ruin and degradation to still lower depths of woe. The world by hisrebellion is out of harmony with the universe and its laws.The evidence of it is found in the mental, moral, and material ruin and confusion that affect continually all that pertains to this world, presaging a more widespread and fearfuldestruction yet in the future. God, the Ruler, proposes torescue this, his fair domain, from the ruin into which it has plunged by man's treason to him, and to bring it back to itsprimeval and harmonious relations with him and with theuniverse. He, in mercy to man, proposes that if man will conform to the divine will and cooperate with him by obeyinghis laws, he shall be saved and restored to that state of immortality, of freedom from pain, sorrow, sickness, anddeath that pertains to every being that is in harmony withGod and his laws. He only accepts true heart service. Heknew what was in man. He gave testimony in reference tohis claims and the claims of his Son to satisfy the demandsof every honest heart willing for God to rule over it. Human hearts and human minds vary within certain narrow limits.Divine testimony is diverse and so varied as to meet thevarying demands of every heart willing for God to rule overit. If this be so, and God says it is, it is treason against heaven alone that causes man to reject that testimony. The failure tobelieve is the evidence of treason in the heart. God, as a skillful architect, has exactly adjusted this testimony to meetevery demand of the true heart and to leave those heartsthat are rebellious without excuse in rejecting him, yet free to refuse him as their Ruler if they do not wish him to ruleover them. So it is the will that decides the faith and the course of man.

The evil spirit of rebellion that led our fore-parents away

from God and his service lingers still in human hearts. It

still prompts man to rebel against God; it excuses him to go

his own way, to exalt his own nature, to follow other au

thorities than God; it exalts his own or some human con

science or reason into a rule or guide instead of God; it

causes him to form organizations of his own to bring good

to the world instead of trusting God and seeking in the

institutions which God has ordained the only true and perfect

good to man. Even when man enters the kingdom, or church,

of God to seek his own happiness and God's honor in this,

God's own institution, this spirit of rebellion enters with him

and whispers into his heart that this or that practice of his

father or mother is preferable to the plain commands of God.

It tells him that the religious practices and styles of service

that were the stay and comfort of his parents, that have been

sacred to him through childhood and youth, will be a safe

guide through the toils and trials of manhood, a stay and

support through the decrepitude of age, a solace and a

comfort in sickness, a staff and a rod through the valley and

shadow of death; so he need not trouble himself to obey the

exact commands of God. It is the spirit of rebellion that

prevents those gray-haired fathers and mothers "walking in

all the ordinances of the Lord blameless before God." These

characters appeal tenderly to our sympathies, and that same

spirit of rebellion prompts us to declare: "Surely such char

acters cannot be lost in hell." Ah, friend, God must rule.

Rebellion must be destroyed out of the universe. Its fell spirit

dragged the angels that stood nearest the throne of God

down to the dark hell of despair. It changed the paradise of

God on earth into an abode of sorrow and death. It will carry

every soul that cherishes it to depths of eternal ruin. Re

ligious devotion, with deeds of charity mingled with it, can

not save it. God must assert his authority and vindicate his

right to rule, must destroy the last enemy, else the whole

universe becomes a hell of confusion, disorder, and eternal

horror.

That same spirit of rebellion tells him who undertakesto do the will of God that the improved ways and inventionsof men in these years of enlightenment and progress are moreeffective for saving souls and glorifying God than a strict conformity to the methods God ordained in a past age for anignorant and undeveloped people. It tells him that common sense— a sanctified common sense— may be relied upon toalter, to modify, to devise new ways of serving him. Remember that the end, the supreme end, is obedience to God;remember that the object of the enemy is to beguile and lead away from obedience; remember that it is the spirit of rebellion lurking in the heart that spreads its poison throughthe feelings, thoughts, desires, and purposes of the soul andvitiates the life and character of man. Many are willing togive all that they possess and their bodies to be burned tobuild up their religion, but are not willing to obey God. Godrejects the most devoted service that is not prompted and directed by the supreme end to obey him. He is a jealous God;he will accept no divided fealty. The heart that comes withsingleness of purpose, desiring to know and do the full willof God, with no divided fealty, God leads into the fullness of his knowledge that he may serve him with a true and honest heart; and all who come with this singleness of purpose willsee his will alike and "will be like minded, and will with one mouth and one voice glorify God our Father."

Then "charity," as the world calls it, divorced from faith in God, is heaven's armor used to build up Satan's kingdomand to destroy the throne of God. Religious zeal, devotion,and self-sacrifice that do not spring from an undivided confidence in God and do not lead to implicit obedience to him are themselves prompted or vitiated by the spirit of rebellion,and, under the garb of religion, foster the rebellious spiritin man. Rebellion must be destroyed out of the universe, andevery being, religious or irreligious, indissolubly wedded to that rebellion, must be destroyed with it. The will of Godmust be done, "as in heaven, so on earth."

QUESTION: What is the world in I John 2:15, and how can one know whether or not he is in love with it?— C.P.

ANSWER: The word "world" is used in different senses in the Bible. (1) Sometimes it means the physical universe(Rom. 1:20). This world includes the towering mountains, crystal streams, beautiful forest, rivers, hills, valleys, fruitfulfields, and all the scenic beauties of the universe. Concerning this world we read in Gen. 1:31: "And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good."Upon this world we all look with admiration, thrill to itsbeauties, and in a sense love it. This is not wrong. It is not the "world" of I John 2:15. (2) Again, it is used to identifythe people who dwell upon the earth (John 3:16). In thissense we are commanded to love the world— all people, evenour enemies (Rom. 13:8; Matt. 5:44). This cannot be theforbidden world of I John 2:15. (3) The word "world" is also used to identify a sphere of iniquity. This realm includesall things contrary to the spiritual. The verses that follow ourtext make this clear:

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in theworld. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, isnot of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever" (I John 2:15-17).

"All that is in the world .. . is not of the Father, but is of the world." The world under consideration in these verses includes everything which does not proceed from God, ormeet with his approval. This world is identified further bythe three following things: "The lust of the flesh, the lust ofthe eyes, and the pride of life."

The word "lust" means "inordinate desire." An inordinate desire is one not regulated or kept within bounds.Hence, lust is a desire out of harmony with God's order orlaw. The desires of the flesh are not necessarily evil. Godhas provided for legitimate satisfaction. But when these desires become unrestrained and satisfaction is sought out ofharmony with God's law, they become "lust" and are, therefore, of the "world". If we love the things by which the desires of the flesh are satisfied out of harmony with God'slaw, then we are in love with the world condemned in our text. It is well to observe that "lust" seeks satisfaction only for time and without regard to eternity. That is why Johnsays "the world passeth away, and the lust thereof." In Gal.5:19-21 Paul names some of the sins that result from unrestrained desires. These come from "lust of the flesh" and are of the "world". Dancing, petting, immodest dress (shorts,etc.)— all incite and satisfy desires contrary to God's law andare included in the term "lasciviousness" in the above reference and are, therefore, of the world forbidden to the Christian.

There are many things which appeal to us through the eye— "pleasant to the eyes" (Gen. 3:6). These may not of themselves be evil, but when the appeal becomes so strongthat we are influenced in ways contrary to God's order, it becomes lust whereby we again partake of the "world".

Of some things we may rightly be proud, but when ourpride influences us so that we are without regard for God'sdivine order, we thereby partake of the "world". Some men'spride will not allow them to stand alone or with the few when truth is at stake. Hence, they yield to the majority. "Suchyielding is sin"— it is of the "world". Sometimes the fear of social ostracism causes men to partake of the world. Parentsoften want their daughter to move in high social circles, and will violate God's law in many particulars in order to attain that end. Pride is their downfall. Love of the praise ofmen has moved many to compromise the truth. Such praiseministers to their pride unduly. This was the sin of the chiefrulers (John 12:42). Some have such a craving for power(because it ministers to their pride) they will wreck andruin churches of our Lord rather than give up their highpositions for the sake of peace and harmony that might otherwise prevail. This was the sin of Diotrephes (III John 9).This, too, is of the "world". The desire to be like others often becomes so strong that we are without regard for God and|His word. Our pride moves us to "keep up with the Joneses." This was the sin of ancient Israel (I Sam. 8:19,20).

These three things— lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, andthe pride of life— are the only avenues of temptation. Closethe door in the face of lust in these three ways and we barthe door to all temptation. Satan tried all three on Eve(Gen. 3:6) and, again, on Christ (Matt. 4:3,6,8). He tries to reach us through one or all of these avenues. Let usrestrain our desires and seek satisfaction in harmony withHis holy will— "love not the world"!

EXPERIENCE OF HISTORY 40 YEARS IN THE WILDERNESS

A. E. Baird, Deland, Fla.

(Editor's Note: A. E. Baird was an elder in the Christian

Church for many years before coming into the Lord's

church. These are his observations of conditions over the

years and the attitudes that have caused trouble.)

In the year 1900 I, a Methodist, was baptized intoChrist at the age of 20 and fellowshipped with an old historiccongregation of Disciples of Christ of the restoration movement located in Ohio of the Western Reserve. And for 40 years after being delivered from the bondage of sin I wandered with the congregation of God's chosen, having Hislaw to guide us and lead us to the promised land. But therewas a continual disturbance caused by many leaders arisingwith their plans which looked like better traveling for manyof us, so we began traveling this way and that in what seemed to be progress, in trying out the many things such as organizations of men, societies, instrumental music, andmany other things that God had said nothing about not to do. In wandering we made progress in numbers, but we made no headway in gaining the promised land as we had left thestraight and narrow way of truth that had been given tous. Many fell by the wayside and never reached the promisedland, but I was one of a very few that, in the providence ofGod, in the year 1940 by accident I ventured into a strangecamp one Sunday evening and discovered that they wereteaching the same plan of truth that I had started to travel on 40 years before. I was not long in coming out from among the wanderers and again aligned myself with the way of truth, and have during the past 20 years been laboring in my

feeble way, after having spent my best working years in error and vain worship.

As history has always repeated itself after many new starts of progress and many get started in the truth, Satan will find those whom he can influence and there comes a falling away by the sins of indifference, coldness, neglect, and idleness. Sins that show up and slow down God's elect so that the work goes backward and all progress comes to a standstill. The fight is one to keep out all innovations arising among us. In the last few years I see these conditions arising more and more each year, like missionary work done by sponsorship, children's and old folk's homes, T.V. programs, etc., all of which call for organizations of men causing divisions of destruction. If T.V. church programs were conducted by individual congregations and made scriptural on that point, they would all be contrary to God's plan for worship, for his plan calls for the assembling together where they have the fellowship of studying the word, singing songs of praise, partaking of the Lord's supper, united prayer and giving as prospered. Such worship by T.V. programs would destroy all of the main factors of worship, even if the controlling censorship of T.V. would allow the sword of the Spirit to be used.

Perversions of the Lord's Supper . . .

(Continued from Page 2)

the disciples. Some say it doesn't matter whether one blesses the bread before he breaks it or not, but how do we know this? Which scripture would one use to prove it? Wouldn't it be much safer to keep matters as they are revealed?

VII. PURPOSE

Others would pervert the purpose of the Lord's supper. Some believe that partaking of the Lord's supper is how the Christian obtains forgiveness of his sins. But no passage of scripture indicates this. The purpose of the supper is remembrance of Christ: of his body, of his blood and of his second coming (I Cor. 11:24). I Cor. 11:30 indicates that spiritual strength or life is received in the supper also, but nowhere is it indicated that we obtain remission therefrom. Remission of sins for the Christian is obtained through walking in the light (I John 1:7).

VIII. NATURE

The Lord's Supper is perverted in the Catholic doctrine that Christ is sacrificed in it. Mass is said daily, and the "Lord's supper" is a part of it, so that means that Christ is sacrificed every day— "Christ through the priest offers Himself to God the Father in the Mass today" (Parish Cat. sec. 331). But this is a direct contradiction of the Heb. letter— "Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice .. . for this he did once, when he offered up himself" (Heb. 7:27).

IX. NAME

Some would pervert the name of the Lord's supper. In the religious world it is called the sacrament, the eucharist, etc. But in the scriptures it is referred to as the Lord's Supper (I Cor. 11:20), Communion (I Cor. 10:16), and Breaking of bread (Acts 20:7). To call it by other names is to pervert it.

CONCLUSION

May men learn to be satisfied with the Bible as God

it. May they learn to speak as the oracles of God II

Pet. 4:11). To do otherwise is to place ourselves under the

condemnation of God (Gal. 1:8,9).

"THE ELDER AND HIS ONE CHILD"

Charles Boshart, Rogers, Arkansas

Under the above title brother Jimmy Tuten Jr. of Fort Lauderdale, Florida wrote in the November issue of SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES. The thesis of his article was that the Scriptures teach that, in order for a man to serve as an elder in a local congregation, he must have more than one believing child. He may have all the other qualifications listed in I Timothy 3:1-8 and Titus 1:5-9 but if he does not have more than one believing child he is not qualified to serve as an elder. This is based, primarily, on the claim that the term "tekna" is susceptible only of a plural application. As we do not believe the Scriptures teach this conclusion we dissent and accept his invitation to be heard from in the spirit of love. We hope that we are as successful in maintaining a tone of brotherly love in our article as .he was in his.

I. THE ISSUE DEFINED AND ARGUED

The issue is not the form of the word "tekna" used in

I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. It is plural as to form.

The issue is not whether the translation of "tekna" should

be the plural English form "children". It should be. Both the

Greek term and its English equivalent are plural as to form

and the testimony of the scholars to whom brother Tuten

referred on this point is accepted.

The issue is: Does the New Testament use this plural form "tekna" so as to include a singular application? This is the issue and our position is that the use of this term (tekna) in the New Testament shows that it can not be legitimately limited to a plural application only but that a singular application is also proper. Following are three proof-texts that we give in support of this position.

A. Luke 14:26. "If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children (tekna), and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." A "man" is under consideration here just as surely as a "man" is under consideration in I Timothy 3. If "children" (tekna) here does not admit a singular application then that man who has come to Christ hating his own father, mother, wife, brethren, sisters, and his own life also, but only one child, cannot be the Lord's disciple.

B. Matthew 3:9. ". . . and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our Father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stone to raise up children (tekna) unto Abraham." If the use of the plural here does not admit a singular application at all then the verse would be teaching that God is able to raise up more than one child to Abraham but is not able to raise up just one child to him.

C. I Timothy 5:4. "But if any widow hath children (tekna) or grandchildren, let them learn first to show piety towards their own family, and to requite their parents: for this is acceptable in the sight of God." If the plural term does not admit a singular application then this verse would not apply in the case of a widow with only one child.

These three passages all use "tekna",— the very same word used in I Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:6. Its use in these passages shows that this word does not demand a plural application only. Hence, brother Tuten's claim that this word demands a plural application only in I Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:6 has no basis in fact.

II. THE USE OF OTHER PASSAGES

Brother Tuten's remarks on this point were rather surprising. He says, "Invariably, in a discussion of this nature,

a number of other passages are brought up. The writer failsto see how this helps our study of I Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:6." Then, why, in his study of these passages, did he bringup I Timothy 3:12, I Timothy 3:1, and John 3:3-5? These are "other passages." If brother Tuten "fails to see how"bringing up "a number of other passages" "helps our study of I Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:6" he should not have broughtthese up.

But, the use of other passages is in complete harmonywith the legitimate rules of hermeneutics and the process ofexegesis. In Milligan's Reason And Revelation, pp. 287 and 288 he submits the following correct principle of hermeneutics: ". . . every part of the Sacred Word should be interpreted in harmony with every other part; and that theBible should, in all cases, be made its own chief interpreter."On pp. 305 and 306 of the same work by the same author in regard to "Rules for Ascertaining the Meaning of SingleWords and Phrases" we find, "Consult parallel passages, andespecially verbal parallels." The afore-stated valid and legitimate principles of hermeneutics find their embodiment in the appropriate and proper process of exegesis by the use ofother passages showing that "tekna" is not limited to a pluralapplication only but may also be singularly applied.

The application of these principles in showing the properapplication of a word may be illustrated by our controversywith the Sectarians on the meaning and application of "eis"in Acts 2:38. They have insisted that this term means "because of" and not "in order to" and that, therefore, baptismin this verse is because one already has remission of sins and not in order to obtain remission of sins. In refuting this claimwe have, through the years, gone to other passages to showthat their use of the word in Acts 2:38 is an incorrect use and that they will not so apply the same word in other passages. For example, in the Porter-Tingley Debate, p. 99, brother

W. Curtis Porter said about the English translation of "eis":"Just here I want to say a little about the word 'unto' in that connection. Let me read from the Revised Version. 'Baptizedunto remission of sins.' We find that word 'unto' used a number of times. Romans 10:10— Paul informs us, 'With the heart man believeth unto righteousness.' First the belief andthe righteousness follows— 'unto righteousness.' In Acts 11:18, God hath granted unto the Gentiles 'repentance unto life.'First the repentance, and that followed by life. Romans10:10, 'With the mouth confession is made unto salvation.' That shows the confession first, and then the salvation. I Peter 1:3— the Lord 'hath begotten us again unto a livelyhope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.''Begotten unto a lively hope.' First the begetting, and then the lively hope. We have the same thing in Acts 2:38 in theRevised Version, 'Baptized unto remission of sins.' First thebaptism, and then the remission of sins to follow." Cannotbrother Tuten see that the use of "other passages" "helps ourstudy" of Acts 2:38 in regard to the correct application of theword "eis"?

Further along this line, brother Tuten says, "In my desire to know the meaning of baptism in Mark 16 I do not goto such passages as Colossians 2:12." We do not see why.We suggest to brother Tuten that if he is in the process ofproving that immersion is necessary to salvation one of thebest arguments he could use is to show: 1) Baptism standsbetween the sinner and salvation (Mark 16:16). 2) In baptism one is immersed for he is "buried" and "raised" (Col.2:12). 3) Therefore, immersion stands between the sinnerand salvation. Of course, defining the word in Mark 16:16 is proper also but no more proper than the process just used.The light of other passages where baptism is used or mentioned will keep one from concluding erroneously that baptism is sprinkling in Mark 16:16. And, likewise, the light of other passages where "children" (tekna) is used will keepone from concluding erroneously that it can have only aplural application in I Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:6.

III. THE SAFE COURSE

Regarding this point, brother Tuten says, "I feel that the safe course is for a man to have a plurality of childrenif he desires the office of a bishop." I used to feel the sameway, but it dawned on me that this reasoning would applyto other cases also. For example, because Luke 14:26 usesthe plural, "tekna", is it safe to say that a man can be theLord's disciple if he has left more than one child but unsafe to say he can be the Lord's disciple if he has left only onechild? Because Matthew 3:9 uses the plural, "tekna" or"children", is it safe to say that God can raise up a plurality of children to Abraham but unsafe to say that he can raiseup only one child to him? Because I Timothy 5:4 uses theplural is it safe to say that these instructions apply when thewidow has more than one child but unsafe to apply themwhen the widow only has one child? If this reasoning worksin the case of I Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:6 it will work inthe other cases. We are persuaded that it will work in neither.

IV. SUMMATION AND CONCLUSION

In attempting to uphold the contention that a man must have more than one child in order to serve as an elder, brother Tuten has:

A. Submitted material that is off the issue. He introduced evidence to prove that the form of the Greek termtekna is plural whereas the issue is: Does the plural use of the term tekna in the New Testament allow a singular application? We have shown that it does.

B. Departed from the legitimate principles of hermeneutics. He denies that other passages may be introduced showing how "tekna" is applied. We have illustrated the validity of this process.

C. Used reasoning that proves too much. We have paralleled the "safe course" reasoning he used with other cases and have shown that it proves too much and, therefore,proves nothing.

We hope this material has been presented in the spirit of love for which brother Tuten asked. This has certainlybeen our desire. We thank brother Miller and brother Phillipsfor opening the columns of SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES to both sides of this issue.

Almost 2,000 years have gone by since the Lord made an inventory of the conditions of the seven churches in Asia in the book of the Revelation. In the second chapter the first congregation to be examined was the church at Ephesus and among the many things that the Son of God commanded we find this simple statement in Rev. 2:2 "and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and

". . . THEY REHEARSED ALL THAT GOD HAD DONE WITH THEM . . ."— Acts 14:27

GLEN R. SHEUMAKER'S new address is 827 Crest-view, Lakeland, Florida— The following men were speakers atMyrtle Grove congregation in the Pensacola area last monthon the general subject, "Ancient Church in a Modern World."They were: JOHN HOLLIS, FRANK INGRAM, A. B. Mc-KEE, WARREN RAINWATER, A. H. STAGGS and CLYDE WILSFORD. . . . PAUL HUTCHESON, HARRY PICKUP,

T. T. CARNEY of Jackson Heights in Columbia and REAVIS PETTY of Mooresville Pike in Columbia all speakers for the new West Main church in Woodbury, Tenn. in recent weeks. . . . The North Miami congregation whereBOBBY THOMPSON preaches although only two years oldalready has fellowship with four preachers and plans in thenear future call for this to be increased to five. . . . JAMES

L. YOPP, preacher for the church that meets at 703 Harrison Street in Kennett, Mo., had the following note in the bulletinpublished there:

NOTICE— If you are receiving this paper and desireto have it stopped, let us know. We are not trying toforce the truth on anyone. We can use the postage ina better cause."

JAMES P. MILLER will do the preaching with thedowntown Church in Lawrenceburg where E. L. FLANNERY preaches March 19-26. . . . EDWARD HUDSON,CHARLES CULP and HARRY JOHNSON all new deacons at North Street in Tampa where PAUL ANDREWS preaches. . . . E. C. Koltenbah has moved from Cayahoga Falls, Ohioto Bremerton, Washington. . . . GROVER STEVENS spokeat Valley Station in Louisville, Kentucky in December onPremillennialism. Too many brethren think this error is dead.They are in for a rude awakening. . . . OAKS GOWEN hascompleted four years with the church in Bradenton, Floridathat meets on 10th Avenue. . . . JAMES R. COPE, author of new tract, "Parents and Children-Natural and Substitute". Five cents a copy or $4 for 100. Address, 505 College Place, Tampa 10, Fla.

THOMAS C. HICKEY has moved to Owensboro, Kentucky to work with the Central congregation in that city.. . . HERBERT THORNTON has moved from Trenton, Florida to Baton Rouge, Louisiana. . . . MARSHALL PATTON question and answer man for SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES now with the Par Avenue congregation in Orlando.. . . FRANKLIN T. PUCKETT moving to Dyersburg, Tenn.to be near his aged father. . . . ROBERT WELCH the newpreacher for the church in Nacogdoches, Texas. . . . ROYCOGDILL will make his home in Oklahoma City and holdmeetings.

DENNIS REED will begin work with the Berney Pointscongregation in Birmingham, Alabama in February. He hasbeen with the San Mateo congregation in Palatka for aboutthree years and has done a good work there.

HERBERT THORNTON began work with the small congregation in Baton Rouge, Louisiana the last of December. This is a new and small congregation of about 25members. Brother Thornton demonstrated a great faith andlove for the church by moving to this small congregationlacking nearly $200.00 per month in his support. He is aloyal gospel preacher and deserves support in this work. Heis 31 years of age, married and has three children. He attended Florida Christian College and has been with thechurch in Trenton, Florida for about two years. For further in formation concerning the work in Baton Rouge write to

B. Hall Davis, 9474 Oliphant Road, Baton Rouge, La., orto the church in Haynesville, La. in care of brother Hartselle. Brother Thornton may be addressed at 4279 PerkinsRoad, Baton Rouge, La.

hast found them liars ... " I marvel that so much can be found in such a statement. Consider for a moment the following things.

1. The wonderful teaching of Paul that this congregation was able to put a false apostle to the test. Paul told them that he had kept back nothing and how right he was. Howwonderful it would be if churches could be taught like thistoday.
2. How able the word of God is to meet any problem.The test of an apostle has been forgotten with the centuries that have gone by but taught by inspired men the churchwas equal to any emergency.
3. We also learn that there are no apostles today for theypassed into history along with the test by which they wereproven true or false. If we had the office today we would also have to know how to test them. No test, no one to test,

I it is just that simple.

4. The complete autonomy of the church is taught inthis half verse. The brethren at Ephesus just made the testthemselves. There was no central headquarters from which they could gain the information. They were in charge of theirown affairs and they tried those who came their way.
1. Our example of courage from these brethren in thelong ago. They did not say, "just look the other way and thefalse apostle will soon leave." They said, "try him."

6. Consider the attitude of the church for the truth. They were not willing to turn the teaching of the flock overto men that were not true.

Yes, all of these lessons and more come from the simplestatement, "thou hast tried them that say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars." There is still a greater lesson than any of these and it is not found in thesecond verse. It is found in the 4th verse in the 2nd chapterin these words, "Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee,because thou hast left thy first love." Oh: dear reader, what did all of the rest profit if "first love" was forgotten. Whatgood are works, labor, patience and soundness if we havelost our love and zeal to do the Master's will? Too manychurches in our time are in danger of having their "candlestick" removed from its place. This is the very thing thatwas about to happen to one of the finest Churches of Christon earth. Let no man misunderstand, not only can a child ofGod be lost but an entire congregation can fall, and this achurch bought by the blood of Christ. How wonderful it wasto be able to try an apostle, but how necessary to keep firstlove as strong as it was at the first.

RENEW YOUR SUBSCRIPTION TODAY— $2.00 FOR 1961

FLORIDA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE FIFTEENTH ANNUAL LECTURE SERIES

F.C.C. CAMPUS

TEMPLE TERRACE, TAMPA, FLORIDA

THEME: "Ancient Faith and Modern Thought"

Monday, March 6, 1961

7:30 P.M. "The Faith vs. Atheism" --C. L. Overturf, Tampa, Fla.

8:30 P.M. "The Faith vs. State Religion"--C. D. Hamilton, Tampa, Fla.

Tuesday, March 7, 1961

9:00 A.M. "Stealing and Lying" W. C. Sawyer, Bowling Green, Ky.

10:00 A.M. "Cycles in Church History" --Harry E. Payne, Tampa, Fla.

11:00 A.M. "Protestant Thought Today" --Ed Grantham, Tampa, Fla.

2:00 P.M. "Individualism vs. Collectivism in Benevolence" --E. L. Flannery, Lawrenceburg, Tenn.

3:00 P.M. Panel: "Difficult Bible Passages" ._ Osby Weaver, Chairman, Dallas, Tex.; Byron Conley, Bartow, Fla.; W. E. Coffman, Corpus Christi, Tex.; J. W. Evans, Port Arthur, Tex.; John Gasaway, Gordon, Ga.

7:30 P.M. "The Faith vs. Intellectualism" --Ed Harrell, Kingston Springs, Tenn.

8:30 P.M. "The Faith vs. Communism" --James W. Adams, Oklahoma City, Okla.

Wednesday, March 8, 1961

9:00 A.M. "Coveting and Adultery" --Earl Fly, Tampa, Fla.

10:00 A.M. "Purity of the Bible Text"--Edgar Srygley, Tampa, Fla.

11:00 A.M. "What is Happening in Protestant Thought?"--Ed Grantham, Tampa, Fla.

2:00 P.M. "Individualism vs. Collectivism in Evangelism" --Harold Dowdy, DeLand, Fla.

3:00 P.M. Panel: "Aids, Methods, Organizations" --Osby Weaver, Chairman; M. E. Patton, Orlando, Fla.;

A. C. Grider, Louisville, Ky.; Hiram Hutto, Pleasant Grove, Ala.; Robert Atkinson, Miami, Fla.;

7:30 P.M. "The Faith vs. Secularism and Humanism" --Hubert Moss, Indiana, Pa.

8:30 P.M. "Supernaturalism and the Resurrection" --James R. Cope, Tampa, Fla.

Thursday, March 9, 1961

9:00 A.M. "The Gospel in White Africa" --Gene Tope, Detroit, Mich.

10:00 A.M. "The Christian and Materialism" --Bob. F. Owen, Tampa, Fla.

11:00 A.M. "The Christian and Modern Evolution" --Forrest McCann, Gainesville, Fla.

2:00 P.M. "The Gospel to the Negro in Africa" --James Judd, Macon, Ga.

3:00 P.M. Panel: "Meanings and Applications of Bible Words" Charles Bland, Chairman, Houston, Miss.;Dale Smelser, Jessup, Ga.; Arvid McGuire, St. Louis, Mo.; Hugh Davis, Lake Wales, Fla.; Dave Bradford, Cortez, Fla.

7:30 P.M. "Why Florida Christian College?" --James P. Miller, Tampa, Fla.

8:30 P.M. College Program

Friday, March 10, 1961

9:00 A.M. "Honor Thy Father and Mother" .--Bennie Lee Fudge, Athens, Ala.

10:00 A.M. "Dissolution in the Family" --Roland H. Lewis, Tampa, Fla.

11:00 A.M. "With Malice Toward None" --Franklin T. Puckett, Akron, Ohio

2:00 P.M. "Individualism vs. Colelctivism in Capitol and Labor"--W. C. Hammontree, Chattanooga, Tenn.

3:00 P.M. Panel: "Marriage and Divorce" --Tom Butler, Chairman, Lakeland, Fla.; Robert Bunting, Hueytown, Ala.; Earl Kimbrough, Waycross, Ga.; Bobby Thompson, Miami, Fla.; James P. Needham, St. Petersburg, Fla.

7:30 P.M. "God in International Affairs" --Homer Hailey, Tampa, Fla.

8:30 P.M. "The Triumph of Faith in Trying Times" --Roy E. Cogdill, Oklahoma City, Okla.