WHO HAS CHANGED — ON WHAT AND WHY?

H. E. Phillips

Apparently a number of liberal brethren thinkthey have found the answer to stop all arguments against their institutional schemes by citing statements made years ago by some preachers whichconflict with recent statements by those same preachers. The obvious point is supposed to be thatsince these preachers have changed their views, they are wrong. If that point doesn't follow, I see absolutely no purpose at all in these comparisons. I suppose it has never occurred to some of these fellows that one can change from error to truth as well as from truth to error. There is neither virtue nor vice in the change itself, but the important pointis what the change involves and why it was made. Aside from the fact that someone has changed, whatis to be proven by this sort of argumentation?Surely we are not expected to conclude thateveryone who changes his views on a given subjectis wrong, because we read in some papers of brethren who have made their "confessions" and admitted their changes. These are commended bythe institutional brethren for making the changeIf the fact of change itself proves one wrong, itproves all wrong, regardless of what the changeinvolves.

WHAT IS MEANT BY "CHANGE"?

The E nglish word change means to alter or be altered, to undergo variation; to be partially owholly transformed; to pass from one state to another. It means to turn from one thing toanother; from one position to another. Such words as turn, repent and convert express the idea of a change of heart and life. The word repent means to change the mind. "Repent therefore of this thywickedne , and pray God, if perhaps the thought ofthine heart may be forgiven thee" (Acts 8:22). Onthe island of Melita, Paul was bitten by a serpent and the barbarians of the island thought he was amurderer who was to suffer for his crime, but after a while when he should have been dead, and was unharmed, they "changed their minds, and said that he was a god." (Acts 28:6). T hese peoplechanged their views about Paul, first holding hito be a murderer and then a god. Of course, their change was from one error to another.

WHAT IS THE "CHANGE" SUPPOSED TO PROVE?

When a brother is charged with "changing hisposition" on the institutional i ue, what is supposed to be proved by this change? There are at least five po ible things that are supposed to follow:

1. Those who have changed once taught whatthe accusers now teach. T his may be true in many cases, but does it prove that he taught "truth" then and "error" now? If so, how does the fact that one changes prove that he is now wrong? If it be the fact that he has changed, what is to be done with the one who taught against church support of human organizations years ago, but has changed and now supports them? Is he not as wrong in changing as the first ? One can clearly see that the change itself does not prove who is wrong and who is right. There must be scr iptural proof for a position to make itright. We need to dwell upon the "proof" offered then and now for the position, and not simply uponthe fact that one has changed. T hose who charge that others have changed on certain i ues seem not to realize that the New Testament requires one tochange in certain situations.
2. Those who have changed are inconsistent. Here again we have the evidence of those who have changed from opposing institutional activity of churches to the liberal view of supporting themOne is as inconsistent as the other if based upon thefact of change itself. Many well known preachers have changed their religious position in life. Alex ander Campbell gave up Presbyterianism in an ef fort to return to New T estament teaching. Was he inconsistent in changing?

In the book Why I Left, published by the Caskey-Campbell Publishing Co., Fort Worth, Texas, 1949,several preachers presented reasons why they lefdenominationalism. Floyd Decker once preached fothe Christian Church, but he changed. Horace W. Busby once was in the Presbyterian Church, but hchanged. Grover Stevens was once in the Baptist Church, but he changed. Waymond D. Miller wasonce in the Nazarene Church, but he changed. Joe Malone was once a Catholic, but he changed. Luther Blackmon was in the world, but he changed. Someof these represent the institutional position todaand others oppose it. If one is inconsistent just because he changed, all are inconsistent. Homer Hailey once preached for the Christian Church inArizona. Did he do wrong when he left the Christian Church and became a gospel preacher? Robert Jackson was once a member of the Methodist Church. Was he inconsistent when he changed and became a gospel preacher? To answer these questions is to prove that the fact of changing one's position onreligious matters does not prove him inconsistent or wrong. It proves nothing more than that he has changed. The REASON for his change will determine whether

or not he is in error or inconsistent.

3. They are not reliable teachers — they mightchange again. If this charge be true of those who "change" from church support of human institutions to opposing such practice, would it not also be true of those who "change" in the other direction?
1. Apollos was an eloquent man, and mighty in thescriptures, instructed in the way of the Lord, andwas fervent in the spirit. He came to Ephesus andtaught diligently the things of the Lord, but he knewonly the baptism of John. (Acts 18:24-26). Hewould have been considered by many an excellentpreacher today, but he was not preaching the trutabout the baptism of the commi ion of Christ because he knew only the baptism of John. Aquiland Priscilla took him aside and taught him the wayof the Lord more perfectly. He changed hispreaching on the subject of baptism and was aworker with Paul (1 Cor. 3:5,6; 4:6). Did this change make Apollos unfit to be a teacher ? He changed once; he might change again
4. The present disturbance in the church is dueto THEIR change. T his is assuming what must be proven. It can not be just the fact of change in positions that is wrong; therefore, the view held in the change must determine who is the cause of trou ble. In II Timothy 4:4 Paul spoke of some whoturned away their ears from the truth, and were turned unto fables. Who caused the trouble in this case: those who "turned" unto fables or those who "opposed" such action? Paul told Titus to warn against Jewish fables, and commandments of men that "turn from the truth" (T itus 1:14). Did Paul cause the trouble? or was it those who turned to the commandments of men?

What about such men as Luther, Calvin, anZwingli in their opposition to Roman Catholicism? What about the Campbells, Stone, Scott, Franklin and Lipscomb? Did not their opposition to departures "cause" division in exactly the same waythat opposition to departures today "cause" division? The change that causes division is the change away from the word of God, not thchange from error to truth.

5. These changes indicate departures from theorthodox practices. No change indicates instabilityand lack of soundness unless it is away from the faith once delivered. It is always right to changewhen God's word demands it, and it is always sinful to refuse to change when one cannot support his position by the word of God. This "orthodox practice" only means that some brethren have been doing it for about fifty years. I am now speaking ofchurches contributing to orphanages. If a practice is not determined by the New Testament, who is to decide what an "orthodox" practice is?

We could quote endless statements and paragraphs on nearly all debatable questions by men of thepast and present that show a change of views. Butwhat does all this prove about what is scr ipturaland what is not ? Suppose John Doe wrote last year a certain position on a passage from God's word,and this year wrote exactly the opposite view onthe same passage, would it follow that he is NOWwrong? It could as well be that he was wrong a year ago and is right now. The fact that a changeoccurred does not in itself prove which time he was right, if at either time. T he man who has no scriptural proof for his position, even if he has held it all of his life, would fare better to dwellupon the fact that someone else has changed than to try to prove his position by the Bible.

Much of the time when-quotations are made from articles written years ago the context is ignored. Such statements may have been made concerning an entirely different subject. The man could bemisquoted, the context of his quotation not given, or he could have changed his position. In the case of the first two he would not be fairly represented,and in the case of the last his reasons for the new position would be more important than the fact ohis change.

THE NATURE OF CHANGES

The fact of change does not indicate whether the person is wrong or right. We must know what his position was before the change and what it was after the change. There are three po ible positions that result from changing one's views:

1. The change from one error to another error.

D. M. Canright, once a leader in the Seventh DayAdventist Church, changed from that error and became a member of the Baptist Church. He left one unscriptural position for another unscriptural position. His change corrected some errors formerlyheld, but he adopted other errors as taught by theBaptist Church. He did not better his relationshipto God by his change

2. The change from truth to error. Paul instructs Titus to rebuke sharply those in error that they maybe sound in the faith, "not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that tur n from the truth" (Titus 1:14). He also wrote to T imothy to preach the word because the time would come when some would not endure "sound doctrine" but would secure teachers of those things they desired to hear, "and they shall turn awaytheir ears from

the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (II Tim.4:4). Demas was once a servant of God and afellow-laborer of the apostle Paul (Philem. 24; Col. 4:14), but he changed to the world because he loved it. (II Tim. 4:10). These are Bible examples of changing from truth to error.

I have known gospel preachers who left the church and became members of denominations. Some of them went back to the world. Pat Hardeman was preaching the gospel of Christ a few years ago, buthe changed; he denied the very faith he once preached. This change is always wrong, nobecause it is a change, but because it leaves the truth and turns to error.

3. The change from error to truth. The fact of change here is as true as in the foregoing, but thdifference is that one changes TO truth FROM error instead of TO error FROM truth. The apostle Paul is a good example of one changing from error totruth, and all men who read the word of God withappreciation admire and strive to imitate the apostle in this kind of changing. He once persecuted the church and made havoc of it (Acts 8:3; 1 Tim. 1:13;Acts 26:9). He referred to himself as "chief ofsinners" because he persecuted the church. But Paul changed! Now who will charge Paul with being anapostate because he changed ? If not, then the FACT of change does not determine whether or not a man is scripturally wrong. Paul changed to serve Christ (Gal. 2:18-20; Phil. 3:4-14).

The Jews on Pentecost changed. They had beenguilty of crucifying the Lord with wicked hands (Acts 2:23), but they repented and were forgiven (Acts 2:37-41). It is right to change from sin to righteousness. The Gentiles changed. Before they were without Christ and had no hope in this world,but they changed and became servants of Christ where they enjoyed every spiritual ble ing. (Eph.2:11-13). Those who place so much emphasis uponthe fact that some preacher has changed hisposition in the last few years need to show from the scriptures that he has changed from TRUTH to ERROR, and not from ERROR to TRUTH. Instead of comparing statements made years ago withstatements recently made, they should cite scriptural authority to prove that positions now held are unscriptural and former positions were scriptural. Do not be deceived by long quotations from the penof some preacher in the past compared with present statements without a single passage from God's word to show that the change is from T RUTH toERROR.

THE POSITION OF THOSE WHO DO NOT CHANGE

It is supposed to be a sign of righteousness andpower to claim that one has not changed throughthe years. If there is evil in the fact of change itself,then there is righteousness in the fact of remaininunchanged in itself. T he Phar isees r epr esent a group of religious people who remained unchangedThey insisted that the law of Moses must be kepand they would not give it up for the gospel oChrist. (Luke 7:30; Acts 15:1). If this argumenton changing means anything, it makes the position of the Pharisees right because they did not change at the preaching of the gospel. Read Christ's evaluation of this religious sect in Matthew 23.

CHANGING INVOLVES LAW AND PRACTICE

In order to understand the claims of not changingviews with the admission of change in views, wemust understand that some change in regard tolaw, but do not change in regard to practice. Others change in regard to practice, but do not change imatters of law.

1. Some change the law to fit the practice. Paul spoke of some who had itching ears and would heapto themselves teachers to speak what they wantedto hear (II Tim. 4:4). Whatever they practiced,they wanted pr eacher s who would make the lawagree with their practice. So it is today. When one speaks of having never changed through the years,he may be speaking of his practice. He still does those things which he has always done, and whethe question of authority arises, he simply wrests the scriptures to try to make them fit his works. In regard to practice, he is r ight when he says hhas not changed through the years. In regard law,he has changed. T his is exactly the position of the Judaizing teachers who came to Antioch with their doctrine. They professed to be Christians but theyinsisted that one must "keep the law and be circum cised" to be saved. (Acts 15:1,2). They could cry,"We have not changed our views" and they woulbe correct with reference to their PRACTICE. Theyhad before insisted upon keeping the law of Moses,and they now insisted upon keeping it. But thechanged the LAW of Christ even though they mighthave denied it.

This is exactly the position of many of the liberal preachers today who insist that they have ALWAYS practiced contributions from the church to orphanages and such human institutions in doingbenevolent work. It is true that they have NOT changed their practice; they still do it. But theyhave changed in regard to divine authority. They once preached that one could not presume to gbeyond what is revealed in the New Testament. Their practice may not have been called inquestion before, but now when divine authority is called for to support this "long time" practice, theychange their position on scriptural authority (andeny it), but do not change their practice (and brag about it).

2. Some change the practice to fit the law. These have always held that the only divine authority for anything was what the New Testament revealed,and at the same time they ignorantly practiced some things that conflicted with this position. When the matter was called to attention, they willingly changed their practice to fit the doctr ine. When theyadmit to change, they mean their practice and not their teaching. When they deny changing, they have reference to what they have taught rather than what they have practiced.

An example of this is the Jew and the Gentilewith respect to the gospel of Christ. Every apostle from the day of Pentecost to the last word written by divine power always taught that there was nodifference between the Jew and the Gentile in the plan of salvation. This doctrine cannot be changeand the per son changing it be r ight. E ver y onwho taught this did not practice it. Peter withdrewhimself and others followed him when he went to Antioch. Because his practice was wrong, Paul rebuked him to the face because he "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel", buPaul did not rebuke Peter for teaching that there was a difference between the Jew and Gentile in the matter of salvation. (Gal. 2:11-14). Peter needed to change his practice, but he did not need to change what he had preached on this matter.

When Peter was first sent to the house of a Gentile with the gospel, he exclaimed when he saw the Holy Spir it fall on the house of Cornelius, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons,but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10:34,35). Peter's change involved his practice, not his teaching

On current i ues, many preachers have alwayspreached that human institutions had no place ithe work of the church, and they strongly proclaimed that the work of the church did not involve recreational programs and associations with denominations, yet in their practice of some things they violated these very principles without beingaware of it until recent years. Instead of changingtheir practice to fit the doctrine they have always preached, they changed the doctrine to authorize their practices. When they deny any change, thehave reference to their practices. However, in regard to doctrine, they labor to prove that they have divine authority to continue these practices, but they cannot produce it in the wr itten word.

3. Some change both the doctrine and practice.Sometimes this is r ight and sometimes it is wrong. It all depends upon which way the change is made. If one has taught and practiced salvation by faith only,and later learns that neither his doctrine nor his practice is right, he changes, and rightly so. Some in the Christian Church both taught and practiced theuse of the Mi ionary Society in combining the work of many churches, but they learned that they were teaching and practicing something unauthorized in the word of God. They changed both the teaching andpractice. Is this not what they should have done?Had they changed the doctrine without changing their practice, they would not have been "doers of theword", but if they had changed their practice and not the doctrine, they would have been preaching onthing and practicing another.If, on the other hand, one has taught and practiced the doctrine of Christ, and changes both, he departs from God. I know of a preacher who once preached and practiced the gospel of Christ, but he left it and"joined" the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Nowhe teaches and practices an entirely different doctrine. T he Pharisees taught that the law of Moses must be kept, but they did not keep it. T hey substituted in its place the "tradition of the elders". (Matt. 15:1-6). Jesus said they had made the law of God void by their traditions. They had changed both the doctrine and practice and neither was in keeping with anything God had revealed tothem. Even though these Pharisees would have denied any "change", they were substituting the commandments of men for the commandments of God and were binding them upon men.

WHY DOES ONE CHANGE?

Frequently one is asked why he made a certain change in doctrine or practice. The usual answer is that he learned the truth and changed to it. Iis not always a fact that the change was made because of truth, even though it is said to be thereason. Some who believed on Chr ist would not confess him because they "feared" the Pharisees. Others would not confess him because they "lovedthe praise of men more than the praise of God.(John 12:42,43). This is also the reason why some men "change" their positions on some of the current problems involving the church. With some it is nomore a matter of conviction than it was with the Pharisees. Their changes are in conformity to the demands of the majority and popular side.

But in many cases the changes, either in doctrine or practice (which ever the truth requires), are based upon convictions arising from a study of thNew Testament. They are more interested in dointhe will of God than they are in pleasing some individual or in standing on the popular side. If one changes because he has lear ned the truth, he is always doing right to change and will be ready tgive every man an answer for this change. If one changes to receive the applause of men and to receive special consideration for self, he is wrong nmatter which way he changes. In simple words, one must change from error to truth, and he must change because of conviction of truth and a desir e to do the will of God as the New Testament. Life produces change, but death also produces changeThere is a wide difference between life and death. There is also a wide difference between t,ruth anderror. One may change either way, but it makes all the difference in the world which way one changes.

When the word evolution is mentioned most peoplethink immediately of Charles Darwin. They either commend or condemn him for his theory, dependingupon their own opinions as to the credibility of this theory. Actually, the seeds of this theory were planted by many individuals long before the time of Darwin.

As far as the records reveal, the Greeks were the first to begin thinking along this line. Among thGreeks, Anaximander (611-547 B.C.) visualized allthings as having come from a primordial slime towhich they ultimately return. This was one of theearliest known theories of spontaneous generation and an early springboard for evolutionary thinking

In the fifth century B.C., Empedocles (495-435 B.C.) suggested that the four elements were air, earth, fire and water, and that these were acted upon by two forces love and hate, which caused their union and separation. He suggested that plants had arisen first, and animals were later formed from them. The germ of the idea of natural selection was contained in his belief that the parts of animals were formed separately and then united at random by the triumph of love over hate. As a result ofthis, most of these would be monsters and unviablebut a few, he contended, would sur vive. He and

Page 5

many others, before him and for many centuries afterward, believed in the po ibility of spontaneous generation of life from nonliving materials. This settled the question, in a rather simple fashion, as to the origin of life

The greatest of the Greek men of science wasAristole (384-322 B.C.) whose ideas dominated biological thought for well over a thousand years. He was a vitalist, believing that living things were animated by a vital force or a guiding intelligenceTo Aristotle his internal force became a perfecting principle, operating constantly to improve or perfectthe living world. Growing out of this concept was his ladder of nature ("Scala naturae") in which hearranged living things on a scale of perfection with man, at the top, being the most nearly perfect. Although Aristotle did not interpret this as one evolving from the one below it, it was later used like this in developing the theory of evolution byseveral individuals, including Charles Darwin.

Even today when the evolutionists reject theGenesis record of creation as illogical and unlikelythey must then go back to their so-called logical steps of life from some primordial slime bspontaneous generation, where a lower form of lifegives rise to some higher form in some unobserved and unexplained way. It is strange indeed how men can see either logic or reason in such a theory athis.

COMMENTS TO EDITORS

"I do so appreciate a good publication as Searching The Scriptures. I wish everyone couldread it Here is my renewal extension."— Mrs. Maude Fielding, Lakeland, Fla

"I think it (Searching The Scriptures) is a fine paper and doing much good."— Owen H. Thomas,Waynesville, Ohio.

"I continue to enjoy the paper so keep up thgood work."— Ward Hogland, Greenville, Texas.

"I appreciate very much the material which is contained in Searching The Scriptures. The soundness of its doctrine was the factor that recommended it to me when, several years ago,brother Ron Mos-by showed me a copy and recommended that I subscr ibe to it. Please continue to publish mater ial of equal value. It is refreshing indeed to know that there are still publications in the brotherhood, such as yours,which still stand for the old ways and against institutionalism"— Major Wallace H. Little, A.P.O. San Francisco, Calif.

"I am grateful for the work Searching The Scriptures is doing in the state and elsewhere. It is a potent force for truth. I am interested in helping circulate it, though my ability is not equato my interest .. . I have seen the good results of your paper here in Orlando.— Connie W. Adams,Orlando, Fla.

"I enjoy your paper very much. It has been of much help to me."— H.Ernest Shoaf, Concord, N. C.

"Your article in the October i ue of SearchinThe Scriptures on Speaking The Truth In Love is one of the finest. You cover the field. This article will indeed do much good .. . I bid you and brother Miller God Speed in the good work that you are doing with this paper."— Dr. Paul Woodward,Louisville, Ky.

"Keep up the good work. Stand for what is r ight as you have been doing."— Donald R. Givens, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada.

''I enjoy reading your paper and believe the teaching in it to be in keeping with the teaching ofGod's word. I wish the paper the best for the future,and may it be the means whereby those who are teaching error .will see their wrong and changbefore it is too late."— R. C. Swindell, Nashville,Tenn.

"Keep up the good work for the Lord."— Alvin A. Shaver, Reyno, Ark.

"We would like to continue getting Searching The Scriptures. We enjoy it very much."— Clyde Dean,Nashville, Tenn.

"I appreciate very much Searching The Scriptures."— Lloyd Barker, Hammond, Ind.

"We enjoy reading your paper so very much. It just doesn't come often enough."— Mrs. E. T. King,Trenton, Tenn.

"I can appreciate your paper more now that Iam away from the area. It will be good to receive this paper and keep up with things in Florida, etc."

— Jimmy Tuten, Jr., St. Louis, Mo"We enjoy Searching the Scriptures."— J. R. McMurray, Tampa, Fla

"I always enjoy reading your paper and believe it to be one of the best in the brotherhood todayKeep up the good work."— Eugene Britnell, Little Rock, Ark.

"I like the paper a lot. It should do a lot of good.Keep up the good work and more power to you."—

C. R. Justice, Bowling Green, Ky

"I do enjoy Searching The Scriptures. It .means so much to me."— Mrs. J. M. Lane, Sr., Tampa, Fla.

The theory of evolution has no more difficultproblem than the scarcity of human and so calledprehuman fo ils. Fo il is another word for skeleton, and since it must be admitted that man is the only part of the creation that buries its dead,they should be found by the millions over the earth. This is especially true if the evolutionist is rightabout the age of the earth. If this runs into millions of years and the evolution process covers much of this period, as they would have us to believe,there should be thousands and hundred of thousands of fo ils to support their theory. They should bable to find "missing links" under every hill on thface of the globe. Men have been buried in everyclimate and under every conceivable conditionMany of them as favorable for the preservation of the skeleton as it was possible for them to be. Yet in the face of this undeniable truth only a handfull of fossils have ever been found that are even used to attempt to prove man's rise from a lower order of life. Just think of the problem for thevolutionist. By his own theory time has run intothe millions of years and all that time the process of evolution has been leaving the fo ils either in or on the earth and it would be a necessary conclusion that millions of

these would be preserved, and yet he can find but a hand full to argue his case.

THE PILTDOWN MAN

T o pr ove the case in point, we can not help butmarvel when the evidence is all in. Take the case of the Piltdown Man. This gentleman was found in1912 in England by Charles Dawson and Arthur Smith-Woodward. We would suppose that to prove the theory of evolution at least a greater part of the skeleton would be necessar y. T his was not the casehowever. The age of this fossil was estimated at from 200,000 to 1,000,000 years. The fragments included only a part of the skull and a canine tooth with a lower jaw and the second and thir d molar s. In addition to all of this it has been demonstrated by the most able men in the field such as Weiner, Oakley and Clark that this was all one of the greatest and carefully prepared hoax of modern times. For example the teeth have been filed downto look like normal wear and some of the bones were those of an animal. Even the lower jaw mayhave been that of a orangutan.

THE THEORY GOES MARCHING ON

It is true that not all of the fossils have suffered the same fate as the infamous Piltdown Man but I can not help but mar vel that the theor y goesmarching on. Artists continue to draw pictures of a "missing link" and even the text books of the land are filled with his image yet in all of the earth he can not be found. In the millions of graves and in the thousands of caves and in the pits of earth this link between man and beast is not to be had. This alone is enough evidence to prove the theory false and to cause us go to Genesis 1:26,27. "And God said, L et us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon theearth. So God made man in his own image, in theimage of God cr eated he him; male and f emale created he them."

PERSON OR PLAN

Turning from evolution to the plan of salvation, I mar vel at the lengths men will go to escape doingwhat God says do. E ver since I can r emember some of my brethren have cried long and loud aboutconverting men to a person and not a plan. Bythis they mean to convert men to Christ and not tofaith, repentance and baptism. Of course in the primary statement this is true. We convert men toJesus and to the saving power of his blood. It is to the person of Christ that men are to turn, but nine times out of ten when this kind of talk is heard someone is trying to lessen the force of God's commandments. T he same kind of thinking has atendency to make fun of such statements as "the steps in salvation". In Romans 4:12 Paul talks of those who walk, "in the steps of that faith of ourfather Abraham." This is figurative language of course but if we "walk by faith and not by sight", we will be taking steps. We all need to understand that:

Commands r equir e Obedience Obedience requires Action Action requires Steps or some other expression of similar kind if it is to be spoken of as Paul uses the term in Romans 2:12. In addition to this all of the objection to the word plan is unnecessary. The primary definition of theword plan is, "a draft or form". In Romans 6:17 Paul had this to say, "But God be thanked, that yewere the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." _______________________________

Question: Is it scriptural for a church to incorporate in order to hold property, secure a loan, or to execute business transactions? Are not such corporations organizations in addition to the localchurch? Is not the same thing true of a board of trustees whether incorporated or unincorporated ?

— J.M. ANSWER: Whether or not a church mayscr ipturally incorporate depends upon the type of corporation formed. If the corporation is formed bythe church and functions at the discretion of the church, then it is nothing more than an expedientof the church. Such would be scriptural upon the same basis that any expedient would be scriptural. (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23,32; Rom. 14:21).However, not all corporations are like this. If the

church were to incorporate so that the control of the church in the accomplishment of its mission wasvested in the corporation itself, then such

corporation would be unscriptural. It would nolonger be church action. The following contrast between an incorporated church and an incorporated institutional home illustrates the difference under consideration :

CHURCH HOME

1. CHURCH forms the cor 1. CORPORATION form s

poration. (establishes) the home.

2. CORPORATION limits

function of the home.

2. CHURCH limits function of

the corporation. 3. Everything done at

discretion of the

3. Everything done at dis CORPORATION.

cretion of the CHURCH. 4. Corporation is expedient	4. Home is expedientCORPORATION.	of
of CHURCH.	5. Not home action!
5. Still CHURCH action!

An incorporated church like the one described inthe contrast above is comparable to the church using a contract company for the purpose of building abuilding. Sometimes a chur ch must use other or ganizations, in compliance with the law of the land, in carrying out its mission. Sometimes it must obtain some kind of license, in compliance with the law of the land, in order to build. Sometimes it must appoint a board of trustees, in compliance withthe law of the land, in order to hold property or to trans

act other busine . Even though such organizations exist separate and apart from the church they are used so as to be only an expedient of the church. I suppose no one objected to this so long as it remains church action and the organization involved is onlyan expedient of the church. The use of such organizations differ altogether from the church making a contribution to another organization which organization in turn uses the contribution and functions at its own discretion. In such instances the church subsidizes the organization and therebbecomes a subsidiary to it. This is wrong, necessarily so, since the church is all-sufficient. The church as an all-sufficient organization can do everything that God has authorized it to do WITHOUT subsidizing any human institution.

It is unscriptural for the church to contribute to any human organization. It thereby reflects uponthe infinite wisdom, knowledge, and power of Himwho designed the church from all eternity. It also reflects upon its own all-sufficiency, becomes asubsidiary to that which is human, and fails in its own divine mission. The church of our Lord is not sub to anything — save the authority of Christ.

KOINONIA, "FELLOWSHIP," — No. 5

"PRACTICAL SHARING"

Unquestionably there are several occurrences of koinonia in the New Testament where "charitable gift" is denoted. It has been noted several times that this signification is not found in the earliest Greek. Passages that employ the noun in this sense are Rom. 15:26; II Cor. 8:4; II Cor. 9:13; Heb13:16; and perhaps Philemon 6.

Rom. 15:26, II Cor. 8:4, and II Cor. 9:13 all have to do with the contribution or collection taken up for the "poor saints" in Jerusalem and delivered at theclose of Paul's third mi ion tour. But why is this contribution called a koinonia? Is it called a koinonia because it was the result of a "common" life? Was it called a koinonia because it was the expression of a willingness and desire to share one's goods

Apparently Thayer views koinonia in the passages under study as the expression of a common life orpartnership, for he defines the noun in these places,"benefaction jointly contributed." (Lexicon, 6. 352.)

The writer chooses to conclude that the contribution was called a koinonia because it was an expression of the Christians' willingness and desire to be partners with others in their own goods. It was, then, metaphorically a koinonia. Paul constantly stresses the idea of giving and receivingin the contexts of the passages. (For a very fine comment on this see William Sanday, and A. C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentaryon the Epistle to the Romans, (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1958), p. 412.)

It seems evident from the context that koinonia in Heb. 13:16 denotes "contribution," or "charitable gift." For, indeed, in the same place the wr iter refers to this koinonia as a "sacrifice." Here agaithe term is used by metonymy to denote the expression of that willingness to share one's goods. Infact, one version renders the text, "forget not doinggood and sharing (koinonias)." (A. Marshall, The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament,

(London: Samuel Bagster and Sons Limited, 1959),

p. 893.)

Some hold that koinonia in Philemon 6 is used as it is in Rom. 15:26, etc. (See, for example, M. R.Vincent, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary onthe Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon,(Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1955), p. 180.) To the wr iter it appear s that the term in Rom. 15:26 is not parallel to its use in Philemon 6. In this latter passage the word is used to denote "partnershipof thy faith"; that is, the partnership growing outof faith. Paul is hoping that the faith of Philemonwill cause him to recognize Onesimus as a "partner" in the Christian life. Indeed, Paul writes to Philemon in verse 17, "If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself." It is apparent,therefore, that Paul is admonishing Philemon toconsider Onesimus, not as a faithless and uselessslave, but, rather, as a "partner" in a common life.

EZRA

The book of Ezra might well be the promises of God fulfilled regarding the coming into the lanagain and the restoration of the Jewish people ttheir worship, after they had been cleansed from the sins of worshipping idols. At this time they were in a state of misery and desolation. Of course, allof this came upon them as a result of followintheir own ways and not hearkening to the words of Jehovah. But God had promised that they would bereturned to their land. Here we see the truth that God is not slack concerning his promises as men count slackne , but is longsuffering toward men. It had been some time since the promise had beenmade regarding their return, but even though mamay have forgotten, God did not forget. God stirred up the mind of Cyrus, king of Persia, and the Jews were allowed to return. Under Ezra we are to find the restoration of the alter and the temple plan ofrebuilding. The altar, which had been a place for the swallow to build a nest and raise her youngbecause it had not been in use, suddenly is restored to service. The temple plans are made inrebuilding the house for the Lord. When all theplans were carried out and the temple was completed, we are told that the old men wept whenthey saw the glory of the first was far above thatwhich now existed.

If you will think for just a moment, some of these men and women wer e ver y old, and they had beenin captivity for 51 years in Babylon. Suppose they were only 20 years of age when they went toBabylon as a captive and stayed for 51 years. Nowthey are seventy-one, their heads crowned with snow, their forms bent, wrinkles are furrowed deep in their brow. Now see the eyes of these old people moistened with tears. Why, you say! They see the glory of the former passed away. The beautiful temple had been in decay, unused. The altars had been a place for the swallows to buildtheir nests. The worship of God had departed. The songs of pr aise to God, the altar s bur ning with thesacrifice to God upon it, and the children with their parents are not found there. Where are they? They have gone after other gods and departed from the divine patter n of or ganization and wor ship. Decayand sadness are their lots. Look at the church of the Lord today! See that which Christ loved so much bleeding at every pour before the gazing eyes of an unbelieving community. Men who once loved,fellowshipped and labored together do not speak. God in the heavens above sees his childr en departing from his ways and is made to grieve. If some of our fathers, mothers, grandfathers, grandmothers and courageous preaches of yesterday were to come back to life today, would theyrecognize the church? Men who blazed the trail, met the enemy of truth, used the sword of the spirit so capably, have died and that for which they stood is gone. We need, as Jer emiah of old, to cr y f or men to return to the old paths and the good ways, walk in them, ask for them and find life in them.All of this for us today is through Christ. (John 14:1-6).

FALSE VIEWS ON THE LETTERS TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES

Jimmy Tuten Jr., St. Louis, Mo.

There are many sectarian abuses of the HolyScriptures. Literally thousands are led down theroad of ultimate confusion and chaos. This is the result of accepting certain perversions that are believed as fact and pr opagated with a fanaticalzeal. There is little or no effort on the part of the masses to prove these doctrines by the Scriptures. This results in a sad picture displaying blinddisciples dishonoring the God of Heaven, whom they seek to please. Among the Scriptures perverted bythe workings of Satan, are certain passages in thebook of Revelation. The "letters to the seven churches" occupy a preeminent position on this list of abuses. In this writing, two false notionsrelating to these seven letters will be considered.

THE SEVEN CHURCHES AND DENOMINATIONALISM

As a defense for the divided conditions in the religious world, many sectarians resort to Revelation, chapters 2-3. They maintain that theseseven churches constitute a Biblical recognition of the right of denominationalism to exist in this present world. It is maintained that these churches wer e differ ent denominations and that the L or d did not deny them the right to exist, even though he corrected certain disor der s among them.

Devotees to this position ar e either gr ossly ignorant of the context or they deliberately twist the text. The appearance of the words "seven churches" in no way indicates that the Bible upholds the divided conditions that exists in the religious world today. In fact, the Bible condemns in nouncertain terms the sin of division (Jno. 17:2023; I Cor. 1:10). Even after one reads into the text of Revelation certain ideas, the position still lacks evidence to uphold it.

Paradoxically speaking, denominationalism is united in at least one respect: the belief that individuals may practice what they choose as longas the belief is sincere and the heart is right. The Lord's inspection of the seven churches certainly does not comply with this type of reasoning. T he letter to the church at Ephesus reveals that the individuals making up this collective of God's people were commended for NOT BELIEVING thedoctrine of the Nicolaitans. Ephesus "hated" this doctrine and the Lord was pleased with her (Rev. 2:6). If this wer e a denominational chur ch such as those which men seek to justify today, there wouldhave been no need for such a commendation! Why commend someone for accepting that which was simply a matter of choice in the first place? The very nature of this letter shows that the Ephesians were not at liberty to believe as they saw fit, regardless of their sincerity. Then there is the church at Pergamos (Rev. 2 :12-17). The pattern or philosophy of denominationalism will not fit here for the simple fact that this church WAS CONDEMNED for following certain doctrines. These people at Pergamos were not free to accept whatever "faith" they saw fit to accept. The very nature of the correcting letters which the Lord sent to the seven churches demonstrates forever that people must accept only that doctrine which the Lord loves and r eject that which He hates.

Another reason for rejecting the idea that theseven churches represent "kinds" of denominational chur ches, lies in the wor d "chur ches" (Rev. 1:20).The word "churches" is translated from the plural form of EKKLESIA, which in turn is compoundedfrom EK (out of) and KLESIS (a calling). The "church" is simply the called out. It has thr ee applications : it refers to the whole company of believers who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18; Matt. 16 :18). It also refers to a company of Christians in any givenlocation, such as the church at Ephesus (Eph. 1:1; Rev. 2:1). When used in this local sense, it is theassembly, whether assembled or not (Acts 11:22; 12:1; 15:4, 22). There is also the plural form,EKKLESIAI, referring to churches in a given area such as Syria or Cilicia, or even Asia Minor (Acts 15:41; 16:5-6). The letters under discussion were written to the seven EKKLESIAI (churches) and has r ef er ence to congr egations or assemblies of God's people. These became God's "called out" or elect by having obeyed their heavenly calling (2 Tim.

1:9 ; Heb. 3 :1). T his call came thr ough the gospel,designed to lead men from darkness to light (2T hess. 2:14; Col. 1:13). By obeying the gospel, the Christians making up the churches in Revelation 2-3,accepted the call of God. T hey wer e added to thechurch or the body

of the saved (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38, 47). The conclusion is, the "seven churches" refer not to kinds of churches as men are prone to speak of them, butto assemblies of God's people in various cities of Asia Minor. The letters describe certain conditions in some of the churches of Asia Minor, and these conditions are not peculiar to the churches addressed. Nor are they peculiar to the age in which the letters were written. They represent a perfect picture of conditions which may be found today and could occur over and over in coming generations.

THE SEVEN STAGE THEORY

Most all dispensationalists and possibly somothers, take the position that the seven letters represent seven successive stages or epochs in thehistory of the church from the coming of Christ until the end of time. The Scofield Bible is a gooexample of a publication taking this position. Onpages 1331-1332 of the 1917 edition, the statement is made that "these messages do present an exact foreview of the spiritual history of the church, and inthis precise order." Scofield states further, that Ephesus represents the church at the time of John's writing, Smyrna is the period up to the time oConstantine's conversion, Pergamos represents the period following this conversion, etc., etc. On thevery surface, one can see that this position ifantastic and speculative! The Bible, nor historywill sustain such a position. For example, accordingto the theory, the Ephesian period would have been the period when the church was in complete apostasy. The letter addressed to the church at Ephesus states that Ephesus had left its "first love" (Rev. 2:4). The period prior to 316 A. D. (cf. Scofield Bible, P. 1331) is said to be that represented by Smyrna. Let it be noted that not only was the church at Smyrna persecuted, but it was faithful "to its calling to be a light-bearer." Those who take the seven stage position stress this idea of persecution and call attention to the various Emperors whopoured out their wrath upon the church. They completely ignore the fact that in order for the church in Smyrna to fit the theory, the church duringthe period prior to 316 A. D., would have to bfaithful as well as persecuted. This church received no condemnation from the Lord! Historically speaking, this so-called "Smyrna period" was adark, blackened picture of corruption. This is the early formation period for Catholicism (cf. Neander's History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1,Pp. 68-221). During this time the introduction ofcertain corrupt practices took place, such as the distinction between bishops and presbyters,observance of certain sacred seasons, corruption othe Lord's Supper and Baptism. The period and the letter that is said to represent this period are notparallel. The church during the time prior to Constantine's conversion was not the faithful church presented in Revelation 2 :8-ll.

Let the reader also note that Scofield has two periods existing at the same time. He says on pag1332 of the reference already cited, "Philadelphiais whatever bears clear testimony to the Word andthe Name in the time of SELF-SATISFIED PROFESSION BY LAODICEA (Italics mine, jtt)One might ask, "how is it po ible to determine that we are now in the last period?" This is supposition and cannot be proven by Divine Authority, nohistory.

There are numerous variations in this method of dividing the periods; "variations so wide as at once to undermine our confidence that there is here 'a precise foreview of the spiritual history of thchurch, and in this precise order:' as Scofield affirms" (Pieters, Studies in the Revelation of St. John, P. 98). Hendr iksen says, "T he notion thatthese seven churches describe seven successive periods of church-history hardly needs refutation. To say nothing about the almost humorous— if not so deplorable exegesis. . ." (More Than Conquerors,

P. 75). In addition to what has already been said, thefollowing brief objections have been suggested:

1. In the wording of these letters there is not the slightest hint of such a division. The context bears out that this was a simultaneous condition amongthe churches existing in John's day

2.The theory rests upon the "futuristic" view of Revelation. This position states that all items prophe sied from the beginning of chapter four to the end of the book, has not been fulfilled. It will be fulfilled when Christ returns. We have to reject this view

"of Revelation and with it, the "seven stage" theory

3. This position would require an accurate knowledge of the internal affairs and spiritual condition of the church during these periods and such knowledgedoes not exist!

CONCLUSION

The seven letters to the seven churches describe conditions existing in some of the churches of Asia. These conditions existed simultaneously in John's day. The situation described in Revelation 2-3 is not peculiar to John's day, nor to the age in which it was written. These conditions could be found amongvarious churches in every age and could occur over and over. Let the various collectives of God's people around the globe note the sad conditions which theLord condemned and seek to be faithful as a light-bearer. Beware least the Lord remove "thycandlestick out of his place" except "thou repent" (Rev. 2:5).

SALVATION? or SENSATION?

By Conway Skinner, Forest, Miss.

"YOU'LL ENJOY A 4 STAR YOUTH PROGRAM"

"1. Dramatic, spell-bound movie 'TEENAGE

CHOICE' . . .

1. Youthspir ational music . . .
2. You'll laugh and cry and be blessed as Dr. E.

J. Daniels dramatizes the story of Samson and

Delilah and discusses 'WHAT'S IN A KISS'

in his famous message on 'IN LOVE WITH

AND MARRIE D TO THE WRONG

SWEETHEART'.

Parents and young people alike have

thanked Dr. Daniels for the plain truths about

love, courtship, sex and social problems

brought out in this unique message. You've

positively never heard anything like it

before.

4. Big party with plenty of fun, fellowship

and food at the close of the service." The above quotation is an example of the sen

sationalism employed in advertising a recent, so-called CRUSADE FOR CHRIST campaign held inForest, Miss. This type of religious sensationalism seems to be sweeping Amer ica.

The following is a quotation from "Churches Take Up Show Business", an article you may read in theSept. 22, 1982 issue of THE SATURDAY EVENING POST, the article begins with the following remarks,

The curtain rises on a boy and girl interlocked in what polite Victorians used to call an embrace and realistic youngsters now term a "grapple". The dialogue is direct:

Girl: "T his can't go on!" Boy: "Why can't it?"The girl wriggles loose and breaks into a

soliloquy:

"To go or not to go to bed, that is the

question.Should I give up this virgin soil?Would he then afterwards still want me? How far should any maiden go, and how far

is too far?"

T hose lines and many more like them wowedthe first-night audience at Ann Arbor, Michigan, and walloped a New York full house with equally electric effect on opening night in the big city.

While the theme is hardly original inAmerican theater, this presentation of it jars its audiences into wide-eyed surprise. For it is a chur ch musicale, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE,with a clergyman as co-producer. It is perhaps the most effective shocker in a growing repertorie of stage plays written or adapted for church presentation to attract young people to religion."

For heaven's sake, indeed; that such filth andtrash should be disguised in religious garb; when inreality this is just another sample of religious sensationalism.

In THE TOP OF THE NEWS, with Fulton L ewis, Jr. (week of May 1-5, 1961 — Vol. 3, No. 18), aquotation of "T he L or d's Prayer — T eenage Version" may be found. T his version is supposedly sponsored by the National Council of Methodists youths, and goes like this:

"O daddy, O Who are the most Hurrah for your support My personalityintegrate All my physique develope My ner vous system calm In body as in mind.

Prepare me new tempo Our daily jive, and Release usfr om our par ents And other repr essed victims.

Lead me into more self-expression And much less boredom For you are the coolest Gonest, and hepest drive From now on."

Speaking frankly, but still in the "hep-talk" of our teenagers, when I read the above, I truly suffered a "blast-off" ! What drivel!

It seems that today, we operate under the philosophy of "all is fair in love, war, ANDRELIGION;" so, just clothe any practice in religious robes and it becomes acceptable. Already, nearly every kind of enticement possible is being offered —from movies, plays, food and parties, to free air plane rides! — in order to be able to get folks, especially young people, to be willing to take anoccasional dose of religion.

Picture in your mind, IF YOU CAN, the Apostle Paul advertising a highly dramatic sermon on"What's In A Holy Kiss", to be followed by free food and entertainment, plus a free donkey ride for allthe kiddies and a sailboat ride for all the adults. What foolishness! Instead, Paul said, "And I,brethren, when I came to you, came not withexcellency of speech (or dramatic sermons — C.S.), or of wisdom (food and frolic to attract crowds — C.S.), declaring unto you the testimony of God, FOR I DETE RMINED NOT TO KNOW ANYT HING AMONG YOU, SAVE JESUS CHRIST,AND HIM CRUCIFIED" (I Cor. 2:1-2, emphasis mine— C.S.).

There is no short-cut to salvation, as God's divineplan remains constant; it does not change. T he Individual must still believe, to change his heart; repent, to change his sinful habits; and be baptized, to change his state or relationship. Because eachpenitent believer must be baptized "into Christ" (Gal. 3:27) in order to receive forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38).

Brethren, when will WE cease trying to improve upon God's gospel power to save by the use of free food and frolics? Just as we shall never be able successfully to compete with Roman Catholicism inbuilding beautiful cathedrals, neither could we ever successfully compete against Protestant denominationalism in fun, frolics, and foolishness. What is the matter, anyway? Do we no longer believe that God's gospel has saving power? Are we ASHAMED of the gospel? (Rom. 1:16).

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

JUST PREACHING

Jas. P. Miller

The summer slipped away so rapidly that I did not get

the report of my meetings in the paper. My apologies to

the host of fine preachers and churches with whom I labored.

The year of 1962 has been one of the busiest and most

profitable in my twenty-seven years of preaching. In 16

meetings, long and short, about 100 souls responded to th

call of the gospel. Preachers and brethren from over 150

churches of the Lord came to hear me preach and man

friends of old were greeted and new ones made. The late

fall found me in four meetings and I will take advantag

of the coldest day in the histor y of Florida to tell yo

about them her e.

On Saturday, October 20th, I flew to Bowling Green,

Kentucky to preach for the old Twelfth Street

congregation. This is where B. G. Hope has spent the last

13 years doing one of the greatest works a man could do.

This great old congregation sparks with new life and

numbering over 500 members, is a tower of strength in all of

central Kentucky. The meeting began on Sunday morning

the 21st and I pr eached twice a day thr ough Sunda

morning the 28th. Closing the meeting with a Lord's Da

morning service, I took the plane to Louisville where

brethren from the University Avenue Congregation i

Lexington met me and drove me to Lexington where I

started that night. Brother Bob Crawley arrived in Lexington

to take up the work on Wednesday night of the meeting. The

University Avenue church is a strong congregation standing

for the truth. They have a collection of about $500.00 a

Sunday and a determination to be tr ue to the old paths.

Many preachers came to the meeting at Bowling Green, but I

did not make a list of the names. Ferrell Jenkins, now

preaching for West End, was present at many of the services.

Ross Spears of Tompkinsville came for several services. They

almost have the new building completed in Tompkinsville

and are looking forward to greater things. Preachers who

attended the Lexington meeting came from all over that part

of the state. Her e ar e some of the names of these men who

preach the gospel in that part of Kentucky and Ohio. KELLY

ELLIS, Danville, Ky., HERMON MASON, Harrodsburg,

Kentucky; FORREST MORRIS, Willisburg, Kentucky, ROSS

SANDERS, Lebanon, Kentucky, HENRY FICKLIN, Mt.

Sterling, Kentucky, C. W. SCOTT, Louisville, Kentucky

FOREST HURST, Louisville, Kentucky, PAUL K. WILLIAMS,

Columbus, Ohio, PAUL WOODWARD, Louisville, Kentucky

CHARLIE BROWN, Sanford, Kentucky, BOB G. NEALY,

Winchester, Kentucky, HAROLD YOUNG, Providence,

Kentucky, RALPH FOX and JI IE ALFORD preachers in

the Univer sity congr egation

I closed the Lexington meeting on November 4th and flew

to Richmond, Virginia for a five day effort with the Forest

Hills church. James Jones preaches for the Forest Hills

congregation and is loved by them. Old Richmond was the

capital of the confederacy and is rich with the history of the

War between the States. It was also a strong hold for the

r estoration and the digr essives have about 15 chur ches in

greater Richmond. All of them are examples of the folly o

going beyond "that which is written." FRANK JAMERSON

preached for West End brethren and they are just

completing a new meeting house. It is a beautiful building

and will be a cr edit to the cause in this old and beautiful

city. We will have a complete stor y and pictur e of this

wor k along with the plans of br other Jones to go to Nor way

in an early i ue of SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES.

On the night of the 25th of November I began a meeting

with the Par Avenue congregation in Orlando, Florida.

Marshall Patton, Question and Answer Editor of the paper,

wor ks with this fine church. Patton is a man of wonderful

ability both as a writer and preacher. In the eight days of

this meeting 16 responded to the invitation with five baptized

and six r estor ed the last day of the meeting

All of this is made possible by the brethren at Seminole

where I preach in Tampa by their loyalty and by the

excellent preaching of brother DON BASSETT who is m

fellow-helper in the Lord. Brother Bassett is one of the com

ing power s in the pulpit in our gener ation. As the year ends

I thank God for His grace and the strength to complete

such a schedule. To the many brethren who have showed me

so many kindnesses my humble thanks.

Searching The Scriptures congratulates Robert 0. Miller

upon being chosen "MAN OF THE YEAR" by the Chamber

of Commerce in his home town of Murray, Kentucky. Brother

Miller is the County Judge of Calloway County, Kentucky

and is a member of the 7th and Poplar congr egation in

Murray.

MOLLIE MILLER PASSES

One of the oldest member s of the chur ch in Kentuck

passed from this life at the home of her daughter, sister

Lubie Thurman this month. "Aunt Mollie" as she was known

by hundreds of her friends, was for many years a faithful

member of the chur ch at New Pr ovidence, Kentucky. Sh

was 92 at the time of her death. The funeral services were

conducted at the chur ch at Hazel, Kentucky.

Curtis E. Flatt, Florence, Ala. — I preached in a meeting"

with the church at Waycross, Georgia where John Swatzell

preaches in November. The Collegeview church here i

Florence is enjoying the best attendance and the highest

contributions his quarter of any.

DARLING SAYS, "DID NOT REPUDIATE WALKER, PUBLICLY"

Paul Brock, Jacksonville, Fla.

In the November i ue of this paper, I showed how that brother D. Ellis Walker had no backingin the Jacksonville debate, and that even his own son had to make false reports of the same. In that article it was stated, "His own moderator repudiated him publicly."

Bro. George Darling, Walker's moderator, tookexception to that statement saying that he did notrepudiate Walker publicly. I asked brother Darlingto restate just what he said in his closing remarks that night. Below, I submit that part of his statement which I construed to be a repudiation.

"Regarding a debate at Springfield, Brother Brock is hardly qualified to say what the Springfield church will do or will not do, in as much as I personally doubt if he would knowthree out of the seven elders if he were to see them. Yes, Springfield will endorse a debate,but not to furnish a "popgun" with anaudience. The only way that Springfield wouldbe interested would be with two top men, withdefinite propositions, and this is not a reflection on our disputants."

We believe that Bro. Darling is honorable andwill see that arrangements are made for the debate which the Springfield elders authorized him to state they were willing to enter into. We at Lake Shore are just waiting to hear from them on thepropositions they will select a man to affirm.

FLORIDA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE SEVENTEENTH ANNUAL LECTURE SERIES

HUTCHINSON MEMORIAL AUDITORIUM— F.C.C. CAMPUS

Temple Terrace, Florida— February 18-21, 1963

T HEME — MESSIAH AND MODERN MAN

Daytime Lectures

CHAPEL

1. 9 :30 -10:15 __ Tuesday — "Christ the All-Time Answer to Prophecy" Leslie E. Sloan Jasper, Ga. Wednesday — "Man's Threefold Duty to God" .... _ ... ... . Gilbert Copeland Beaumont, Texas
2. Thursday — "Delusions Concerning Importance of Self" . . . Dennis L. Reed Birmingham, Ala.
1. 10 :20 -11:15 Daily — "Messiah as King — Gospel of Matthew" _. .... Hubert A. Mo , Jr. Columbus, Miss.

11:20 -12-Noon .. Daily — "Messiah as the Son of God — Gospel of John" __ Homer Hailey Tampa, Fla. 1:20-2:15 . Daily — "The Social Gospel" ____ Ed Harrell Johnson City, Tenn. 2:20-3:15 Tuesday — "Messiah as Servant — Gospel of Mark" _ Clinton D. Hamilton Tampa, Fla. Wednesday — "Messiah as the Saviour — Gospel of Luke" . Bob Owen Tampa, Fla. Thursday — "Messiah in New Testament Preaching" . _ Luther G. Roberts Salem, Ore.

3:20-4:15. Daily — Round Table . ____ __ James W. Adams Oklahoma City, Okla.

Evening Lectures

7:30-8:30.... Monday— "Messiah and Ecumenism" . . William E. Wallace Akron, Ohio

8:30 -9:30 " — "Messiah and Labor Problems" . Hoyt Houchen Abilene, Texas 7:30-8:30 . Tuesday— "Messiah and Capital Punishment" . _________ William E. Fain Seattle, Wash. 8:30-9:30 " — "Messiah and Racial Problems" Franklin T. Puckett Dyersburg, Tenn. 8:30 -9 :30 Wednesday — "Messiah and the Christian's Hope" . __ Eugene Britnell Little Rock, Ark.

7:30 -8:30 __ Thursday — College Program

8:30-9:30 " — "Messiah and Controversy" ___ ___ ... -B. G. Hope

Bowling Green, Ky.NOTE: — Visitors may obtain meals in cafeteria, student center or at nearby restaurants.