Volume 5 March, 1964 Number 3

"LET US GET TOGETHER"

H. E. Sharp, Conway, Ark.

There came to me a few days ago, through themail, a letter from Brother Steve D. Williams of Corpus Christi, Texas. The above title was printed at the beginning of the letter. He states, "It is very sad, but true, that there is a division in the church of our Lord." We are all aware, I am sure, that such is the truth. However, it does not appear to me that brother Williams is aware of the cause of division nor does he seem to know how to establish scriptural authority. May we notice some of his statements that verify this impression upon me.

He says, "We go 100% for doing everything God's book says do and just as strong for ever y don't He has commanded." Brother Williams, this has beenthe plea of the Christian church for a long time.They tell us the Bible no where says "Don't use the instrument" or "Don't support the societies," so, where do you differ from them in this respect? The Bible doesn't say "don't use ice cream and cake on the Lord's Table"— please tell us why you do not so act or maybe you think it all right to use such? Here you fail to respect the silence of the scriptures. We all know there is generic and specific authority. In generic authority we may use anything implied or essential to carry out the command. For instance, Go is a command in the word of God. One may go by riding a bicycle, automobile, train, or he may walkwith the aid of a cane and do what the scriptures teach. In specific authority the Lord said to sing. No where does it say not to play an instrument, but the specific way of making music, commanded inthe New Testament, is sing. This allows a songleader, tuning fork, song books and anything that is necessary to the carrying out this command, butone will add to the worship by playing aninstrument.

But again, where does the Bible say thou shalt not? Are you in favor of using the instrument inthe worship to our God ? Why not ? Brother Williams amazes me by this statement, "You know we are not divided over what the Bible says." How true!Neither are we divided with the Baptists, Methodists, and the Christian church over what the Bible says. They believe we are saved by grace, by faith, but they add only or solely and that is what the Bible does not say. Now brother Williams, where does the Bible authorize the benevolent societies, centralized control and oversight, support to the schools out of the treasury to the Lord's church? Here is where we

are divided— over what the Bible does not authorize. Below is a brief outline of a sermon I preachsometimes. Maybe it will help the reader and it is my prayer it will help brother Williams.

THE CAUSE OF DIVISION

Bible says Opinions of Men Who causes the division? God spoke to Moses Oak bush, Pine, The one who goes

out of a burningbush Hickor y, etc. beyond the scope of divine revelation
Paul had a thorn in the flesh Weak eyes, Im The one who goes pediment of speech beyondHis wife
Saved by Faith only by faith goes beyond
Saved by Grace solely by Gr ace goes beyond
Saved by Works Works only goes beyond
Elders oversee the Elders in T exas goes beyond
flock which is over see flock in
among you Germany
Know them which Know those that goes beyond
are among you are not among you

I am sure this is not a new outline to faithful preachers but I would appreciate seeing how brother Williams would use this outline or how he will rearrange it. Will you give us your sage advice andexperience, brother Steve?

CHREMATIZO, "were called," Acts 11:26No. 6CHREMATIZO IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Heb. 8:5

I n Heb. 8:5 the RSV reads as follows: "T hey serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary;for when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God (kechrematistai), saying, 'Seethat you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.'"

This occurrence of chrematizo is striking for several reasons. First, it is a perfect active indicative form. As it has been noted, this verb occurs only twice in the perfect in the NewTestament: here and in Luke 2:26 where a perfect pa ive participle occur s. In Heb. 8:5 the Gr eek text actually says, ". . . just as it has been revealed to Moses being about to set up the tent. . ."

A further point of interest is that "God" is not in the Greek text of the passage under study. Butthe E nglish translations see the obvious implicationof chrematizo and so render the verb "instructed byGod."

Note again that Lenski translates chrematizo in Heb. 8:5, "received divine direction," and yet onActs 10:22 denies that chrematizo implies "divine" instruction. (See my prior note on this in connection with my study of Acts 10:22).

Heb. 11:7

In Heb. 11:7 the RSV reads as follows: "By faithNoah, being warned by God (chrematistheis) concerning events as yet unseen, took heed andconstructed an ark for the saving of his household . . ."

Note again that "God" does not occur in the Greek text but does occur in all English translations of note. Here again Lenski translates chrematizo,"received a divine communication" (Commentary onHebrewsand James, p. 387).

Heb. 12:25

In Heb. 12:25 the RSV reads as follows: "See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him whowarned (ton chrematizonta) them on earth, mucless shall we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven."

In this passage we have the problem ofdetermining who warned Israel on earth, whether it was God or Moses. It will be generally agreed that whether Moses or God is the one "on earth" the ultimate source of the warning is God. The Interpreter's Bible comments that in any case, it is God who is speaking through Moses and throughJesus, and not any independent act of either (Purdyin The Interpreter's Bible, vol. 2, p. 749).

We occasionally receive letters instructing us to stop "dividing churches over our opinions" and to"repent of this damaging doctrine" but never do we find one passage of scriptures to prove these evilsagainst us. About one out of fifty letters are of this type. We usually file them and make no reply at allbecause it is obvious that even the Lord himself could not convince such a prejudice mind. However,in order to get a lesson across we give in full onesuch letter recently received. In order not to take advantage of the person who wrote it, we shall notgive the name.

Dickson, Tenn. Mar. 9, 1964

Editors: .

Do not send another copy of this hobby-riders" to us. We want no part in this menace of division and church destruction. The writers need to search the scriptures more before they publish such damaging doctrine which is not found in the Bible I read. My aim is to help the growth of thchurch, not divide it with my , opinions. Mathe Lord help you to see the error of your teaching before too late.

"Do not send another copy ..." T his is exactlythe way Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, etc. dwhen sent a tract on the plan of salvation as taughtin the New Testament. This expresses the strongest type of prejudice. How can one know truth fromerror if they pre-judge the information beforestudying it? Of course, we do not send the paper to anyone who requests that it be discontinued. This person received the paper because a friend or relative paid for the subscription.

"We want no part in this menace of division andchurch destruction." Now, what and who is dividing the church? What causes the trouble? Is it something that is taught in the New T estament, or is it some effort to demand a thing not authorized by Christ? Who divided the church over theinstrument of music, the one who opposed it or the one who promoted it? The Christian Church charges that the division resulted from those whoopposed the instrument in worship. Did this person cause division by opposing the instrument inworship? The division over institutionalism— and let us not be naive, there is division— is caused bythose who press upon the church those organizations not once authorized in the word of God. We are not causing division and church destruction because we are not promoting organizations in the church notauthorized in the New Testament; we are opposing them!

"The writers need to search the scriptures more before they publish such damaging doctrine which is not found in the Bible I read." I agree that thewriters need to search the scriptures more, and we do day by day, but I also suggest that the readers need to do the same. Obviously, this person has done little or no searching because not one single passage is quoted. The "damaging doctrine" which is causing the trouble is not found in the Bible I read either. The only point is that I am opposing this damaging doctrine and this person is in favor of it. That is the whole point! This division is caused by what is not found in the Bible, but we are opposing these innovations and those with the writer of this letter are promoting them, thus causing division in the church.

"My aim is to help the growth of the church, notdivide it with my opinions." Help the church grow in which direction, numbers, popularity, financially?or in spiritual strength? There is a vast difference, you know. This person does not want to divide thechurch over an opinion. Well, that is exactly what is happening! The entire division today, like that of the Christian Church, is over what the advocates of the doctrine call "opinion." T he institutional brethren, most of them, insist that the Bible does not say "How," therefore these institutions are amatter of opinion. These institutions (matters of opinion) are pressed upon the church to the point of dividing it, and then they have the audacity tocharge that those who oppose these opinions are causing division. To me these institutions are notmatters of opinion; they are violations of the faith once delivered! I will oppose them just as Jesus opposed the traditions of the Pharisees (Matt. 15:1-3).

"May the Lord help you to see the error of your teaching before too late." It would have been mucheasier to have given the passage from God's word that authorized these innovations and the problem would be solved. This person wants no division over the opinions, but wants us to accept these opinions (institutionalism, centralized control, social gospel, etc.) without divine authority, and then wants the Lord to help us "see the error" of our teaching. If we teach only what the New Testament teaches, how can we teach error unless the New Testament teaches error? If the writer of this letter would take a little time to "Search The Scriptures" to see "whether those things were so," we would havereceived no such letter as this one. We challenge this writer and every reader of this paper toproduce just one passage that authorizes church support for any human institution for any purpose. Otherwise, do not divide the church over opinions that are not authorized in the word of God. I charge that the promoters of these societies for benevolence and evangelism, supported by churches, are the guilty ones in "hobby-riding," creating "this menace of division and church destruction," who "need tosearch the scriptures more before they publish such damaging doctrine which is not found in the Bible I read."

I am removing this person's name from ourmailing list as requested, but I am sending this one copy to that person in order that what I have said may be known. We are not ashamed of what weteach.

Benevolent Societies, W. Curtis Porter ................. 35 Can A Christian-Kill For His Government?

B. L. Fudge .............................................................251900 Years Ago, J. Har vey Dykes ..........................25What's Wrong With The Dance? John R. Rice........50Where Are The Dead? Maurice A. Meredith ...........25Sunday School Question— A Debate,

Warlick-Phillips ..............................................40 Brownlow's Sermon In The Methodist Church,

LeRoy Brownlow .............................................50The Bible Teacher, C. A. Norred ............................50The Teachers' Meeting, John D. Cox ......................60Manual For Teachers, H. Leo Boles ........................50Men's Training Class, John D. Cox ....................... 50Baptist Answers Reviewed, C. R. Nichol ................ 35Study In The Methodist Discipline, C. R. Nichol........ 50Dissolving A Few Baptist Aspirins, C. Curtis Porter .50 Miller-Alexander Debate— Divorce And

Remarriage ....................................................... 50Fake Healers Exposed, V. E. Howard ................... 25Jehovah's Witnesses Exposed, Herbert Lockyer ....... 35Russellism Unveiled, Wm. Biederwolf ................... 50Mormonism, Under The Searchlight,

Wm. Bieder wolf .............................................. 50Mormon Doctrine, Roy H. Lanier ............................ 25Seventh-day Adventism, Wm. Biederwolf ............ , .50Transubstantiation, Dr. Elliott ................................. 25Unvarnished Facts About Christian Science,

Wm. Bieder wolf .............................................. 50 Spiritualism, Wm. Biederwolf ................................. 50 The Gist Of The Cults, J. K. Van Baalen ............... 75 The Christian And Amusements, Wm. Biederwolf .50 Is Rome The True Church? S. E. Anderson ............... 35 Should Protestants And Roman Catholics

Intermarry? John Carrara................................ 35 How To Deal With Jehovah's Witnesses,

Max Stilson ...................................................... 60Unify, Walter Martin .............................................. 50Christian Science, Walter Martin ............................ 50Mormonism, Walter Martin .................................... 50Jehovah's Witnesses, Walter Martin ....................... 50Baptist Catechism, Benjamin Keach ........................ 35Barth's Christology, Cornelius Van Til ................... 75Catholicism Against Itself (Abridged),

O. C. Lambert .................................................60

I see in the Gospel Defender, published inFlorence, Alabama, that Tom B. Warren reports aconversation with our esteemed brother in the Lord, Foy E. Wallace, Jr. The jest of the article was simply that brother Wallace was in accord with theliberal view in regard to the support of human institutions from the treasury of the church and with the means now used in such efforts as the Herald of Truth and other church sponsored enterprises. Notbeing present it would be folly for me to question the truthfulness of this reported conversation, but it causes me to marvel for two reasons.

First, that the Foy Wallace that I knew as ayoung preacher, and the one who helped me so much in forming a basic attitude in regard to thescriptures and the church that is the fullne of all heaven's plans, has to have someone else tell thebr ethren what he believes. I know that brother Wallace has fought many battles and in them hespoke to the brethren himself. His pen and voicewere sharp and clear and they fell upon the eyes and ear s of the br ethren with great force. It seems to me that it would be better from every standpointto hear these things from Foy E. Wallace himself.

Secondly, brother Wallace has always given scripture for all he taught. He was considered inother years as one of the great expositors of the verytext. He did not just talk about the Bible, hepreached the passages word for word and phrase byphrase. This is called in some circles not just expository preaching but microbic preaching. That is where every detail is looked into and brought tolight. I marvel that he did not give our brother clear information from the scriptures where all could beedified. He was able to do this for two decades and if he can do it now the problem will be settled. Just give the verse that commands it, the example thajustifies it, or the conclusion that makes it scriptural. This is what the brethren need, and untilit is forthcoming, ever y man needs to give his own answer for the hope that is in him.

DOES THE TRUTH PRODUCE ERROR?

A. H. Payne, Jackson, Mississippi

When a man's position can not be sustained by the scriptures, the common way of defense is to create prejudice against his opponent by attributing anunreasonable and false position. The Pharisee usedthis kind of treatment when Jesus cast the demons out of the blind and dumb man. (Matt. 12:22-24.)They could not meet Jesus in an honorable way and retain their error, so they accused him of casting outthe demons by Beezlebub, the prince of demons. They attributed to Jesus a position that was untrue andwhich was not held by Jesus, but it ser ved their cause of deception.

A modern-day example of such tactics follow in this quotation from a brother in Gulf Port, Mi . "Premise: The Church can not scripturally givematerial help to those who are not members of the Chur ch, but individual member s must give such assistance, if able

"Consider: A child, at the age of four, wouldnot be a Church member, and so if the abovestatement is accepted, could not be givenmaterial assistance by the church, even if bereft of parents.

"Therefore: It is necessary that we decide to accept the man-made doctrine of 'original sin' and also 'conceived in iniquity and born in sin' and place the child among the lost

or that we support the teaching of Jesus (Mark 10:4) "of such is the kingdom of heaven" and (Mark9:36) "and he took a child and set him in themidst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them; whosoever shall receive one of such children in my namereceiveth me; and whosoever shall receive mereceiveth not me, but him that sent me.""It follows then that the child is accepted of

Christ and God as a child of God. The Church of God (Acts 20:28) cannot refuse to give needed material help to one of God's children." We shall offer an answer to this charge in the same spirit of our Lord when he answered the Pharisees.

The "Premise"

1. That the church can not scripturally act in general benevolence among those not members of the

church is sustained by the following authority: Acts

2:44-45; 4:34-35; 6:1-6; 11:27-30; Romans 15:25

26; 1 Cor. 16:12, 2 Cor. 8:1-24; 2 Cor. 9:1-15; 1

Tim. 5:16. This is the sum-total of the New Testa

ment that has to do with the benevolent work of "A"

church from its treasury. In every case this work

was among the saints — faithful and needy church

members.

2. That individuals must give assistance, as able (from their own treasury), to anyone in need is sus

tained by the following: Matt. 25:34-36; Mark 9:36;

Gal. 6:10; 1 Tim. 5:4-16; James 1:27. (These are

but a few of similar passages, but are sufficient to

prove the extent of the individual's activity.

3. Before we go farther, we must remember that

the above must be proven false, before the "consider"

and "therefore" of the paper under review means

anything. Human wisdom and this brother's logic

means absolutely nothing until the above plain state

ments from the New Testament are proven to be

wrong. T hey can be disproven by:

a. Including more than faithful, needy church

members in the passages we offer as addressed to

"A" church. Perhaps2 Cor. 9:13 will be the only pas

sage in dispute and the "all men" as occurs in the

King James version should read "all," as "men" is

an interpolation. The context modifies the "all"

which requires the meaning to be "all saints in

need."

b. Or , proving that one or mor e of the pas

sages that we contend are addressed to the indi

vidual should be practiced by "A" church from its

treasury. Every passage in the New Testament (except the 9 which teach the work of "A" church that

are given in No. 1) that teaches benevolence is

addressed to the Christian, not "A" church.

4. Therefore, the "premise" has been proven true

by the scriptures. All the wisdom of the world, logic,

hypothetical situations, total situations, arguing,

wrangling or assuming will not change the eternal

Word of God.

The "Consider"

We are taught in James 1:27 that the individual is to care for the fatherle . Let us apply this teaching to the situation that is offered. The childof 4 years old, who is fatherless, is in need.James teaches the individual to supply this need.Christians will practice what James taught.

What is this brother's real motive and interest?

    1. Is his ONLY interest that of seeing "material
    2. assistance" being given "by the church."OR —
  1. Is he interested in the welfare of the child and following the teachings of the New Testament?
  2. If his ONLY interest is that of seeing material assistance being given by the church, he is merciless and hypocritical.
  3. If he is interested in the welfare of the child and following the teachings of Jesus Chr ist,the Chr istian will fully supply ever y need of this 4 year old child according to the scriptures.

Then, The "Therefore"

We utterly repudiate the man-made doctrine of "original sin" and "conceived in iniquity and born in sin" for such is condemned by the scriptures. God is the father of spirits, Heb. 12:9, and we are his offspring, Acts 17:28. It is not necessary to accept "original sin" to sustain the "Premise" in lieu ofthe teachings of Jesus in Mark 9:36; 10:4. To thecontrary, we accept and apply them to sustain the"Premise."

The child of 4 years old is innocent, sinle , andsafe. It is not in a like category as the church member who was once lost, but is now saved from past sins. Both are proper subjects for heaven, butstand in different categories. The child is not a church member, but the saved person is. The child is not a Christian, but the saved person is.

We do not exclude the child from support by thechurch because it is lost, but because it is not achurch member. God restricted church support tchurch members. God assigned the care of the 4year old to the individual.

All of God's children are in God's house, which isthe church. 1 Tim. 2:15. According to this brother,the 4 year old child is a child of God. Then, accordingto this brother, this child (4 years old) woullogically be a member of the church. This I reject.

Conclusion

"And I say unto you, that ever y idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof inthe day of judgment." These are the words of Jesus and brethren would do well to heed them.

(No. 3) THE

DESIGN OF PROPHECY

Connie W. Adams, Orlando, Florida

While millennialists differ on many points of their theory, there is one error common to all of them;i.e., a misapplication of prophecy arising from afailure to view prophecy in its proper perspective. The Old Testament prophets served both an immediate and a future purpose. They were mouths through which God made known his willfor his people in ancient times and through which heforetold many future events both concerning thdestiny of Israel and the coming of the Messiah and his kingdom. T he millennialist commits at least two basic errors with Old Testament prophecy: (1)he either says certain prophecies are Messianic when they are not, or (2) takes those which are Messianic and misapplies them in respect to the time of fulfillment. In both cases he projects them beyondthe New Testament and looks for their fulfillment at the time of the millennium as he conceives it. Without attempting to take up the many prophecies which concer ned Jesus Chr ist and his kingdom, we can turn to the New Testament and find the design of prophecy and understand that purpose to have been fulfilled in the New Testament itself.

Matthew 5:17. Early in the sermon on the mountJesus took up the question of the law and theprophets in relation to the new economy. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or theprophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." "The law and the prophets were until John" (Luke 16:16). In his prayer shortly before his arrest, Jesus said "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do" (Jno. 17:4). The force of these three statements together cannot be denied. Jesus either did what he came to do, or he failed. To arguethat Jesus came to fulfill the kingdom propheciesbut decided to postpone their fulfillment is to misunderstand the very nature of prophecy (Deut.18:22). Such a circumstance would impeach Gowho inspired the prophecy

Acts 3:18-26. "But those things, which God before showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Repent ytherefore, and be converted, that your sins may bblotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto youwhom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken bythe mouth of all his holy prophets since the worldbegan. ... Yes, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spokenhave likewise foretold of these days . . . Unto youfirst God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to

bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." Verse 21 of this passage is a favorite text for millennial teachers. They apply "the restitution of all things" to the second coming oChrist. To do so is to snatch the verse from its context and give it an unwarranted and strained meaning. The heaven's retaining Christ and thensending him are related in the passage to theblotting out of sin and the consequent "times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord" (v. 19).Jesus was to be sent through the blessing herein obtained. When the people on pentecost repented and were baptized, they came into Christ and hecame into them. He dwelt in their hearts by faithThese were the matters foretold by the prophets. Verse 24 clearly a ociates those blessings withwhat was then taking place. "All the prophets ... have likewise foretold these days." Verse 25 shows that "these days" are the fulfillment of the promise to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." The prophets, then, pointed to the timwhen men would be turned from iniquity, have their sins blotted out, and receive the refreshing resultant therefrom; "and all the prophets from Samuel foretold these days." To project "the times of restitution" to a future era is to ignore the context of this passage, and in doing so, toinadvertently project the blotting out of sin, the refreshing from the Lord, the blessing throughAbraham's seed, and the turning of men from iniquity to that same imagined era. To do that strips us of the grandest, noblest and choicest blessings God has provided for us.

Acts 13. In Antioch of Pisidia Paul preached asermon which every premillennialist should seriouslyponder. In verse 25 he said John "fulfilled hiscourse." Verse 26 claims that the rulers at Jerusalem fulfilled the prophets in condemningChrist. Verse 29 argues that they "fulfilled all that was written of him." Then in language too plain tbe misunderstood, he said, "And we declare untoyou glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto our fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised uJesus again" (Verse 32-33). In verse 34 he a ociated that resurrection with the receiving of "the sure mercies of David." Verse 28 says that through these fulfillments forgiveness of sins is now preached. A study of this passage leaves no doubt that the Messianic prophecies pointed to the first coming ofChr ist with all its blessings, and not to the second.

Acts 15:13-17. At Jerusalem James stated that the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles was the fulfilling of the prophecy made by Amos (9:11-12)respecting the building again of the tabernacle of David. He argued that this prophecy must needs be fulfilled that men might seek the Lord, the Gentiles included. In verse 15 he said this agreed with "the words of the prophets."

Romans 16:25-27. As Paul closed the mighttreatise on justification by faith, he clinched his whole argument by showing that the gospel preached for man's salvation was according tprophecy. "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of themystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlastingGod, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." The uncovering of the great mystery sthat all nations might become obedient to the faithand thus be justified, was all in answer to prophecy. Thus on pentecost, Peter could say "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." The enjoyment of these blessings foretold by holy men ofGod was and is the true hope of Israel (Acts 26:67, 22-23).

When one reaches the end of the Old Testament,there is a vacuum, a sense of incompletene , ofsomething more to come. But when one reaches the end of the New Testament, there is no such vacancy.Peter said God gave us "all things pertaining untolife and godliness" (II Pet. 1:3). Prophecy was the light shining in a dark place. Christ is the "day star" and the gospel dispensation is the "day" (II Pet. 1:19). Jude speaks of the "faith once delivered tothe saints." It is final. Nothing which God intendedto accomplish for man through Christ has failed offulfillment. The prophecies of Christ and his kingdom respected his first coming, not the second.To postpone these prophecies and their fulfillment is to by-pass the New Testament entirely, which is just exactly what millennial teachers do. If there issomething more for man than what he can obtain through the gospel of Christ, then Christ is not the "fullne of God" and the church is not the "fullne of Christ." Let no man beguile you and rob you of your reward through Christ, the gospel andthe church. (To be continued)

A RAY OF HOPE

Once in a while through the dark clouds of despair there comes a ray of hope. This was true whenbrother Reuel Lemmons, editor of the Firm Foundation, sharpened up his sword and went after the mighty Goliath of Nashville, Batsell Barrett Baxter! Batsell, who is great indeed among thNashville crowd, did what was predicted years ago—came out swinging for the college in the budget. His aggressive plea has not gone unchallenged. The liberal crowd selected the right man to spearhead their attack but I am afraid their timing was bad.

In two long editorials, brother Lemmons took brother Baxter to the spiritual woodshed. I must say that brother Lemmons did an excellent job inshowing that the college in the budget is not scriptural. Of course, he said many things aboutthe orphan home which neither I nor many others could endorse, but for the most part his reasoning was good. If brother Lemmons wasn't trying tdefend the orphan home, he would shine as the north star in his controversy with Baxter. However,"inconsistency" will be the plea of the Advocatecrowd and they will give brother Lemmons trouble indeed!

They cannot whip him with scripture, but he wilhave great trouble in the flesh over inconsistencies. Baxter's main plea was what he called a parallel between the orphan home and the college. It was the same old song and tune played by a few brethren years ago

have written brother Lemmons a letter of commendation for his courage. I think he deserves it. This does not mean that we agree on the matter,but I believe any step toward truth is a good step! I have encouraged him not to be badgered into taking back water. What he will have done by thetime you read this is another matter. This is being written on February 26th, immediately after his second editorial.

I want to notice some excellent statements bybrother Lemmons. He says, "I am not interested in theological nit-picking. I realize full well that there are border line cases that may well test the wisdom of us all." I am glad he mentioned the border line cases because that is all the liberals have used the last ten years. Then he says, "The church is a spiritual Kingdom, created by Jehovah on the day ofPentecost, and given the tasks of (1) preaching thegospel (2) edifying the saints; and (3) caring forcertain needy ones." Notice he said CERTAIN needy ones! This sounds like he doesn't believe ingeneral benevolence. We have argued for years that the benevolence of the church was limited. Yes,brother Lemmons has taken a step in the rightdirection.

Here is one of the most powerful statements made by Lemmons: "We have predicted before that theattempt would be made to fight this battle on thegrounds of the orphan home, and try to establish aprecedent for the church contributing to a competitive human institution, based upon our universal sympathy for orphan children, and thahaving accomplished this step, the next would bto try to put the college in the budget. T his is the course taken by brother Baxter, and those who would seek the goal of the college in the church budget. He argues the orphan home and then draws college conclusions. It would help him and others to see their error if they would argue first thecollege in the church budget and draw orphan homeconclusions." Thus, Brother Lemmons, freely admits what was said years ago. That the orphan homes were being used to foster the colleges on thechurches! The liberals didn't, and still don't give "flit" about the orphan homes, but they make mighty good pry pole. Brother Lemmons, says the fight is based on UNIVERSAL SYMPATHY FORORPHAN CHILDREN. Now isn't it wonderful that the editor of the Firm Foundation can see their plot. Yes, he is on the right track.

In regard to the individual and the church brother Lemmons hits the nail on the head again. He says,"He (Baxter) seems confused over church obligation and individual obligation. He argues that the church is just a group of individuals, and does it to show that the church is obligated to support any'good work' that any Christian is obligated tosupport. Yet he recognizes what he calls 'private, personal responsibilities' to support certain goodworks like the Heart Fund. Then he comes to a bold statement on page 23, that the church is equallyobligated with the individual to support 'any goodwork.'

The government is a good work, and Paul teaches us to support it in a financial way; may the churchdo so? Is it obligated equally with the individual todo so ? I think not."

In the above statement brother Lemmons recognizes the difference in the individual and thechurch! Here again he is on the right track. Speaking on who must bear the shame of division,he once again speaks words of truth and soberne . He says, "No, this is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of faith. And Brother Baxter, and those associated with him in this movement, are violating the faith, perverting the gospel, and if division of the church throughout the nation results from this controversy, he and his associates mustbear the shame and disgrace for bringing it about."

Gentle reader, isn't it wonderful that a man likebrother Lemmons understands who must bear the shame and disgrace of division! Friends, here is our hope. The arguments brother Lemmons has so ablymade against the college apply with equal vigor to the orphan homes. At this point perhaps brother Lemmons does not see this, but here is the po ibility. IF brother Lemmons does not takeback water on his position the battle will wax hot. If this happens many people, who read the Firm Foundation, will see that his arguments also condemn the orphan home, and perhaps will comeall the way back home! Here is where it can beprofitable for both the truth and the church of our Lord. Let us pray that this will happen. The Firm Foundation is read by more members of the church in Texas than any other paper. It goes into homes which have been brain washed against other religious journals. There-fore the potential for good is indeed great. Let us encourage brother Lemmons in all that is right. Any step toward truth is a good step. He is on the right track in regard to the college question. Yes, there is a ray of hope. Zacharias, speaking of Christ said, "To give light to them who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet in the ways of peace." It is my fervent prayethat the ones who sit in darkness on the current issues will see the light and guide their feet in theways of peace. Who knows, it may be in the goodprovidence of God that this is the first step!

If you have read any books dealing with thesubject of organic evolution you are aware that they are highlighted by suppositions, probabilities and conclusionsthat are based on nebulousreasoning.A statement made at one time to make a point does not necessarily remain if a change is needed to make another point later on in a discussion. A case inpoint are two statements made by the same author in a book, within three pages of each other. ". . . evolution may have a sort of momentum, whichcauses it, once under way, to continue to move in the same direction, even when the changes are no longer

adaptive." This statement is made to help explaiwhy some organisms become extinct. The second statement says that the, ". . . rate and direction of evolution may change and that the changes seem to be related to adaption. Only so long as an evolutionar y shift continues to br ing improved adaption will it continue." This statement was made to show that only those changes that were anadvantage to the horses evolution continued. Thus the reasoning is this: the Irish elk became extinctwhen its antlers became so heavy it could not holthem up or they became snagged in the brush andhe starved to death. This is the evolutionists reasoning as to why this animal became extinct. (This was not adaptive evolution but the evolutionist contends this is what happened.) On the other hand,in the evolution of the horse it is contended, some organisms increased in size and complexity and some decreased in these areas. Since a decrease in size was not desirable this organism did not continue toevolve. It appears that the most important factor inthis consideration of evolution is whether one was an Irish elk or a horse!

"I continue to enjoy your good paper. Brother Patton's articles on the rule of elder s should be read by all"— E. Paul Price, Borger, Texas.

"I see that my subscription for Searching The Scriptures will soon expire. I do not want to miss a single issue as I prize it very highly . . . You are doing a fine job, just keep it up"— W. C. Sawyer,New Albany, Ind.

"Please renew my subscription to yourwonderful publication, Searching The Scriptures"— Barbara Young, Miami, Fla

"Since my good friend, Earl Fly, sent me a sample copy of Searching The Scriptures some two years ago, Searching The Scriptures has beencoming my way since. I admire, the frankness and boldness with which you proclaim God's word, also your sincerity and the love and absence of bitterness so often manifested by writers one toward the other. Your love for the souls of men is clearly demonstrated via the printed pages of Searching The Scriptures. Keep up the good work"— Lloyd Knight, Livingston, Tenn.

"I have read your paper from the beginning witmuch profit. Keep up the very good work"— Joe D. Scarborough, Wichita Falls, Texas.

"I certainly have enjoyed the paper and do appreciate so much the one that is having it sent to me"— Mrs. Sallie Daniel, Nashville, Tenn.

"Please renew our subscription to Searching The Scriptures. We thoroughly enjoy this paper everymonth. Keep up the good work"— Bea Boulnois,Orlando, Fla"I like the new look for the paper. I think it is much improved"— Ward Hogland, Greenville, Texas. I have been reading your paper for some time and feel that every Christian should read it. May the Lord bless you, brother Phillips and your staff of writers in this good work is my prayer"— W. H. Dorriety, Pensacola, Fla.

QUESTION: 1. Do we have authority forindividuals partaking of the Lord's supper onSunday night, without the whole church participating?— L.B. 2. Does I Cor. 11:33 teach that the whole church must partake at the same time?— W.C.S.

ANSWER: In a former article I have shown scriptural authority for the observance of theLord's supper at night on the first day of the wee(See February i ue of Searching The Scriptures)

The answer to the first question depends uponwhether or not the church functions generically orspecifically in making arrangements for saints to observe the Lord's supper. If the expression "tarryone for another " in I Cor. 11:33 means that the whole church must partake at the same time, then the matter is specific, and the answer to question Number One must be, "No." However, I do nobelieve that this verse, regardless of circumstances,obligates the whole church to partake at the sametime.

This verse must be understood in the light of all else that is revealed concerning conditions at Corinth. From the first chapter we learn that partyism prevailed— so much so the parties distinguished themselves by the use of human names (I Cor. 11:12). This condition helps us to understand why some ate before others— one was hungry and another filled— (I Cor. 11:21). Oneparty would not eat with another. Hence, the i ue was one of fellowship. No wonder Paul said, "tarryone for another" (I Cor. 11:33). This verse,therefore, condemns partyism and demands fellowship in the observance of the Lord's supper. It does not relate to circumstances apart from partyism that might hinder some from partakingwith others. Therefore, the answer to question Number Two is, "No." While God intends for saints to jointly partake of the Lord's supper, this verse does not necessarily mean that the whole congregation must partake at the same time.

The above answer allows an affirmative answer to question Number One, i.e., so long as the church functions within the scope of the divinely authorized time in making arrangements for the saints to observe the Lord's supper.

I realize that this liberty is often and greatlyabused. There is no reason for the church to accommodate the mere whims or convenience of Christians. However, the church should recognizelegitimate obligations of life, the economic conditions of the world in which we live, andcircumstances over which the Christian has no control. In view of such conditions the church, usingthe best wisdom po ible, should make arrangements whereby saints can assemble and partake. Seldom, if ever, would it be necessary to make arrangements for more than two assemblies.

THE "ATHANASIAN CREED"-WHO WAS ITS AUTHOR??

Another foundation stone of Roman Catholic teaching is that which is called the "Athanasian Creed," and is presumed by most Roman Catholics to have been authorized by an ancient religious scholar named Athanasius. However, this is simplyanother instance in which Roman Catholic religious authority has decreed that so-and-so is or was the author of a given document, and the "faithful" have to silently accept the dictation.

Athanasius was born about the year 296 A.D. in the city of Alexandria. He died about the year 373

A.D. Now, let us note what some current Catholic writers state about the "Athanasian Creed" and the times of its authorship:

"The exact date of this creed is not certain. It was probably written in the fifth or sixth century. Its author was almost certainly notAthanasius . . ." (Page 4, The Church Teaches,Documents of The Church In EnglishTranslation, by Clarkson, Edwards, Kelly anWelch, St. Mary's College)

"How early it was attributed to St. Athanasius, among whose genuine works it does not appear, it is difficult to say. . . ."

"Its proper designation would seem to be'Fides Catholica,' so at least it is headed in the Utrecht Psalter, a MS (manuscript) of the sixth century, which contains the earliest copyknown to exist. . . ." (Catholic Dictionary, Page230, by Addis, Arnold and Scannell)

"It is certain that this profession of faith is not the work of Athanasius. The Latin text seems to be the first; but there are also Greek versions. In certain ancient codices this creed is attributed to 'ANASTASIUS' (II), because 'The Faith of ANASTASIUS' and 'The Creed of ANASTASIUS' are inscribed on it __ " (Page 15, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, byDenzinger).Now the above quotations are taken from

textbooks that serve as source material for Catholic seminary instruction. Generally, these works are not found among the "lay people" of the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, the publications designedfor the Catholic members, and for circulation amongpotential converts to Catholicism, would leave thinference and impression that such Creeds as the alleged "Apostles' Cr eed" and the "AthanasianCreed" came straight from the apostles and Athanasius . . . neither of which is true.

Actually, no one knows who wrote the condensation of Roman Catholic belief, which is called the "Athanasian Creed."

To give our readers some idea as to the attitude of Athanasius toward the Holy Scriptures, we copythe following excerpts from his writings:

"For it is simply impo ible that Christians should receive any appellation (name LWM.)from their bishops or rulers. We can only beknown by the Name of Him, in whom webelieve, and whose Faith we profess. This Faith the holy Apostles published and madeknown to us, and yet we ar e not called after their names. It is only Christ Himself whose we are, and after whom we are known as Christians" (First Oration Against The Arians, paragraph 2).

"And an argument which carries with itconsiderable weight is this, that when any pagans renounce idolatry and enter the Church ('church' is capitalized in the English translation, but not in the Greek text. LWM.),they are called Christians, from Christ Himself,and they do not take any name from those who brought them within the fold" (Ibid, paragraph 3).

"... let them learn from the Bible that the devil is the originator of these heresies, and that his method of preventing them from being perceived is to veil them over with phrases of Scripture" (Ibid, paragraph 8).

"We, on the other hand, (in contrast to the Arians. LWM), very confidently prove the truecatholic faith (Greek not capitalized. LWM) outof the holy scriptures ..." (Ibid, paragraph 9).

"Is it better to believe in these ridiculous paradoxes of the Arians, or in those doctrines which we both assert and can prove out of holy scripture?" (Ibid, paragraph 10).

"Besides, there is no foundation for such doctrines in holy scripture. As has been shown before, and as shall be shown again, holyscripture gives them no warrant at all. The consequence is that the par ent and originator of such abominations, the devihimself, has schooled them in his folly . . ." (Ibid, paragraph 10).

From the foregoing quotations, it can be easil

shown that Athanasius respected the Scriptures,

that he respected the name "Christian," and

indicated that anything found outside the Hol

Scriptures came from Satan. If all religious peopl

would agree on this principle, religious divisions

would come to an end. "But in vain do they worship me, teaching for

doctrines precepts of men" (Matthew 15:9,

Confraternity Version). Even a Roman Catholic

version of the New Testament condemns religious

beliefs and practices originated by men rather than

from God.

If you have moved, or if you plan to movesoon, please notify us. Check your name and address and see if it is correct, and if not, let us know the correct address. It costs 10 cents for every copy returned because of change of address, and you miss that month's issue of the paper. Please notify us of your correct address.

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

Jeff Wasson, Pensacola, Fla.— On March 30 Connie W. Adams of the Pine Hills church in Orlando, Florida will begin a meeting with the Myrtle Grove church of Christ here to last for one week. All in this ar ea ar e invited to attend.

Wiley Adams, Newport, N.C.— We have been here in Newport, N.C. since last July, having comefrom Fairmont, W.Va. where we completed fiveyears work. This is our second time with these good brethren, as we worked here right after finishing Florida College. Three were baptized here in February.

C. L. McLean, Savannah, Ga.— In the last four services of the church here at Garden City therehave been thirty confessions of wrongs and onebaptized this year. We begin a meeting with J. W.Evans March 8-15. The brethren are working harder than ever before for the meeting. We think this may be the best meeting in the history of thechurch here."

A. B. McKee, Atmore, Alabama— The church here met for the first time on Wednesday night, October 31, 1962 with 52 present. We had formerly beenmember s of the chur ch in Atmore, Alabama, butwe were forced to either leave or join the ranks of digression. The East Hills church in Pensacola, Florida assisted us liberally in the erection of ameeting house. At present the churches at Midfield in Birmingham, Alabama; Saraland, Alabama; East Hill in Pensacola, Florida are assisting with mysupport. Gardner Hall, Horace Huggins, ClaudeWilsford, Frank Timmerman, Bill Hall, and Lynn Headrick have contributed to our progress bypreaching for us in various meetings. The work is growing. Since October, 1963 we have baptized five adults. The last two were baptized February 9.Already our Father has blessed us beyond all our expectations. We face the future full of hope. The meeting house is located 2 miles north of Walnut Hill, Florida, on highway 164. Radio time here is reasonable and we believe it would help the cause here. If anyone who reads this can help finance aradio program, please contact us.

Robert Jackson of Nashville, Tennessee was in ameeting with the Henderson Boulevard church inTampa, Florida, March 15-20. Everett Mann is presently the preacher at Henderson Boulevard . . . James R. Cope was in a gospel meeting at Largo, Florida, March 15-22. Lee Gunter is now preaching regularly at Largo.

Wallace H. Little, Mesa, Arizona— Brother Gene Warman, who preaches regularly for the Rantoul,Illinois church, was with us in a gospel meetingfrom March 1 through 10, 1964. Because our ownfacilities were inadequate, the meeting was held in a rented building at East 2nd Avenue and Home in Mesa. Our local contact is 969-5658.

H. E. Phillips, Forest Hills, Tampa, Fla.— Hoyt

H. Houchen, of Abilene, Texas, concluded one of thefinest gospel meetings we have had in Tampa Sunday night, March 8th. Brother Houchen was faithful to the word and fear lessly pr eached theword to good audiences each night. The church was strengthened by his lessons. A large number of visitors were present from surrounding areas. Our next meeting will be in the fall with Luther G.Roberts of Salem, Oregon.

James P. Miller, Seminole, Tampa Fla.— I will preach in a meeting at the North Miami congregation, March 15-22. A feature of the series will be a study in I and II Peter under the heading: "The Christian Under Fire." Bobby Thompson is the evangelist with the North Miami church.

The second Lord's day in April (12th) will bethe beginning date for a meeting with the Downtown church in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee. Hershel Patton preaches for this great oldcongregation. The meeting will close April 19th. Ihave recently preached in meetings in Jacksonville, Florida and in Tampa at the University church.

RADIO PROGRAMS

The following programs, all conducted byfaithful brethren, may be heard by many of ourreaders in Arkansas. If you are within reach of any of these programs, we urge you to listen.

City Station Time Speaker

Little Rock, Ark. KVLC— Sun., 8:00 a.m. Eugene Britnell

Pine Bluff, Ark. KCLA— M.-Sat, 10:15 a.m. Leonard Tyler

Rogers, Ark. KAMO— Sun., 9:00 a.m. Victor H. Sellers

Fort Smith, Ark KEPW— Sun., 8:30 a.m. Gene Frost

Conway, Ark. KCON— Sun., 9:00 a.m. H. E. Sharp

Trumann, Ark. KTMN— Sun., 8:15 a.m. David Lawrence

Searcy, Ark. KWCB— Sun., 8:30 a.m. Guthrie Dean

Paragould, Ark. KDRS— Sun., 8:00 a.m. Hollis Creel

Camden, Ark. KAMD— Sat., 8:00 a.m. Charles E. Beaty

Morrilton, Ark. KVOM— Sun., 8:15 a.m. Elton Roe

Newport, Ark. KNBY— Sun., 8:30 a.m. Raymond Harville

Harrison, Ark. KHOZ— Sun., 8:00 a.m. Billy Moore,

Hayden Mahan, and John Dillar d

Blytheville, Ark.* KLCN— M.-Sat., 12:30 p.m. Dudley SpearsSun., 8:15 a.m. and Mason Harris * America's oldest continuous gospel broadcast.

A FAITHFUL CHURCH IN THE D.C. AREA

J. W. E vans, Port Arthur, T exas

There is a group of faithful brethren in the area of our Nation's Capitol. A congregation of about 20members meet for Sunday morning services and Wednesday night services in the Cafeteria Building of Bethesda Chevy Chase High School, 4301 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Md. T his is just outside the District of Columbia. Please not this address and pass it on to anyone you think interested. For any further information or contact write: G. K.Ellis, 26704 Haney Ave., Damascus, Md., or L/C Albert P. Lovelady, 116 Sharon Chapel Road, Alexanderia, Virginia.

IS IT RIGHT TO HAVE DEBATES?

Earl Fly, Orlando, Florida

Many people honestly think it is wrong to have religious debates. They say they do not accomplish, any good, wilbring ill feelings, divisions, hardening of hearts, and therefore should not-be conducted. Their opinion is based on man's wisdom, not God's word. He who says debates are wrong,undesirable and do not accomplish good, manifests a lack of Bible knowledge and needs to be instructed in the way of theLord more perfectly

Others do not believe in debating for the same reason amulley cow does not believe in a hooking contest! Many whopr eviously debated decided • they did not .accomplish anygood for their cause. The denominations long ago made this decision and quit debating. The Christian Church in yesteryear did likewise regarding the Mi ionary Society and instruments of music in worship. Some brethren today have seen the "handwriting on the wall" and will no longer attempt todefend their innovations in the church, such as Benevolent Societies, Evangelistic Societies, Church Entertainment, Church support of Colleges, et cetera. It is becomingincreasingly difficult to find one who will attempt to publiclydefend these innovations. Most of the champion debaters ofthe past who still advocate these things have r etr eated from the polemic platform and are fading into the background.

DEBATES ARE SCRIPTURAL

The word "debate" means "to dispute; hence, to discuss or examine a question by considering arguments on both sides; to contend for." (Webster). As we shall see, this debatingis appr oved by God. T o r efute an anticipated objection, wpoint out that the word "debates" (condemned in Rom. 1:29; 2 Cor. 12:20 — King James Version) is translated "strife" in the American Standard Version. These verses are sometimes misused to oppose scriptural debating.

"Debate thy cause with thy neighbor..." (Prov. 25:9)We must "earnestly contend for the faith." (Jude 3). To contend is "to strive in opposition; to compete; to argue."(Webster) . We must try the spirits (prophets), publicly or privately, to see whether they are of God, "because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1). The Ephesian Christians tried those who said they were apostles and "found them liars." (Rev. 2:2). They did thibecause they could not "bear them which are evil." They were commended by the Lord.

The apostle Paul was "set for the defence of the gospel."(Phil. 1:17). He debated false teachers at Antioch whenthey taught that Moses' law of circumcision was essential tosalvation. (Gal. 2:4-5; Acts 15:12). The question was later raised at Jerusalem and there was "much disputing." (Acts 15:5-7). The apostles and elders were involved in it. (Verses 2-6). They did not ignore the matter; they disputed with the false teachers. After the dispute the apostles and elders and brethren wrote to the Antioch Christians saying,"Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we give no such commandment." (Verses 23-24). The false teachers may not have been converted but they were exposed and Christians were warned, hence good was done

In Acts 17:16-17, when Paul saw that Athens was "whollygiven to idolatry" he disputed (1) "in the synagogue witthe Jews," (2) "with the devout persons," and (3) 'in themarket daily with them that met with him." Most, if not all, of this disputing (debating) was public

At E phesus the apostle Paul disputed boldly for

thr ee months in the synagogue (a long session!). (Acts 19:8). As a r esult many were hardened, believed not, and "spake evil"of God's way. (Verse 9). But these unfavorable results did not stop Paul; he did not conclude that "debates don't do anygood." He departed from them after three months and "separated the disciples" from the unbelievers. (Verse 9). He deliberately caused a division. No doubt many today woulddenounce him as a troubler, an agitator, a church-splitter. Paul then continued to dispute daily in the school of Tyranus for two years, "so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the wor d of the L or d Jesus, both Jews and Gr eeks." (Ver ses 910). Hence, though many were hardened by the earlier debate, much good was done. The people were given anopportunity to consider the difference between truth anderror, the disciples were separated from those who were har dened, and all Asia hear d the wor d of God.

In Acts, chapter 6, we read of Stephen, "a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost," who engaged in disputing with certain ones of the Libertines' synagogue, Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those of Cilicia and Asia. (Verse 9)."They were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit bywhich he spake." (Verse 10). "Then they suborned men" tmisrepresent Stephen. (Verse 11). "And they STIRRED UP the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and br ought him to the council,and set up false witnesses" to further misrepresent him.(Verses 12-14). Stephen then defended the truth in the speech recorded in Acts 7, and in conclusion he said, "Yestiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye dalways resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye.Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them which shewed before of the coming ofthe Just One; of whom ye have been now the betr ayer s and murderers: who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it." (Verses 51-53). Some todayno doubt would criticize Stephen's plainness of speech anaccuse him of not having the right attitude or spirit, in view of the fact that is charge of murder against his audience and their fathers caused them to be "cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth." (Verse 54). WhenStephen affirmed God was with him by saying, "Behold, Isee the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on theright hand of God" (Verse 56), his audience "cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him withone accor d, and cast him out of the city, and stoned him." (Verses 57-58)

If we had a debate like that today with the same r esults, many (including some brethren) would forever oppose andpr ohibit if po ible any future debates, saying. "Stephen'debate pr oves they don't do any good." But many God-approved public debates occurred after this one. All of Paul's debates were conducted later. Certainly God's debaters must conduct themselves as Christians always while plainlyboldly and forcefully exposing error and the teachers thereof.But ungodly conduct in angry, riotous action by the opponentand/or the audience does not make debating wrong or undesirable.

DO DEBATES DO ANY GOOD?

One could as reasonably ask, does preaching do any good?Whether pr eaching or debating we ar e doing good, even if we see no immediate conversions, because we are obeyinGod's instruction to "contend earnestly for the faith." (Jude 3). It is our God-given responsibility to expose error and present truth, in order that the people might have opportunity to consider the difference. While some may be hardened, others may be converted to Christ. As the same sun hardens clay and softens wax, so the same truth hardens some hearts and softens others. But the hardening of some in no wamilitates against pr eaching or debating.

CONCLUSION

Debating is honor able in the sight of man and God. Debates in every field are endorsed the world over. Religious debates wer e conducted by God's servants throughout the Bible with God's approval. It is not only scripturally right to debate, it is scripturally wrong to oppose such. To oppose debating is to oppose God; to criticize the practice is to criticize the apostle Paul, Stephen and others who were the servants of God.

We must "prove all things." (1 Thess. 5:21; Eph. 5:10). Those who follow Christ have no fear of open investigation of doctrines and practices through debates. Neither do those who may be in error but desire to be right, for if they are wrong they want to know it. T hose who love and advocate error will no doubt continue to debate that it is wrong to debate. But those who love and desire the truth will continue to endorse debating, and will challenge error on every hand to submit itself to examination in the light of the Bible through honorable controversy. Brother, where do you stand?

HARPER TIMES-RUBY VEST POCKET EDITION

King James Version

The most beautiful SMALL

TESTAMENT in the world.

11/16" X 3 13/16" X 1/4" thick.

type specimen

NOW concerning the col-despise him: but conductl lection for the saints, ashim forth in peace, that he

I have given order to themay come unto me: for I

churches of Galatia, even so look for him with the breth-

TP 34x— Black imitation leather, overlapping covers.......... $3.00 TP 30x— White imitation leather, overlapping covers .... $3.00 TP 44x— Black genuine leather, overlapping covers .......... $4.00 TP 46x— Black genuine morocco, cape-levant grain, leather-

lined to edge, half-circuit, gold roll..................... $5.00 TP 47x— Black hand-grained morocco, half-circuit, leather-lined to edge.................................................................... $6.00