Prejudice is one of the most dangerous and insidious states of mind among men today. It is a sin against the God of heaven, a destroyer of its victims, and a hindrance to the cause of truth wherever it is found. Every person has some prejudice to some extent regarding some things. He may have a preference for some things, such as foods, clothing, colors, books, etc. These may not endanger his soul in eternity or hurt his personality or influence upon others, but it may deprive him of something he would otherwise enjoy in this life. Prejudice does not alwaysmean that the individual is wrong in his views, but it always means that he does not hold the views out of conviction from real evidence, otherwise it would not be prejudice.

Before going further it may be well to inquire just what prejudice is. Our English word is from two Latin words: "prae", before; and "judicium", judgment. Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, unabridged says of prejudice: "1. Prejudgment; anopinion of mind formed without due examination of the facts or arguments which are necessary to a just and impartial determination; an unreasonable predilection for or objection to a person or thing. 2. Aprevious bent or bias of mind for or against any person or thing; prepossession."

Three things may be noted in this definition: (1) An opinion, decision or judgment rendered without due examination of facts — not based upon truth.

(2) It favors or disfavors a person or thing without real evidence of facts to warrant such a state of mind. (3) It is an unreasonable (without reason) bent or bias of mind either for or against a person or thing.

This word is found in the American Standard version of the New Testament in I Timothy 5:21: "I charge thee in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou observe these thingswithout prejudice, doing nothing by partiality." Timothy was charged to observe these things without prejudice. W. E. Vine says that prejudice in I Timothy 5:21 denotes pre-judging — to judge be

forehand. (Expository Dictionary of New Testamentwords, page 204.)

Thayer defines "prokrima" as "an opinion formed before the facts are known, a judgment, a prejudice." (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament, page 540.)

Prejudice does not necessarily mean that the person is wrong in his position, but it does mean that his position does not rest upon facts — real evidence, truth. Prejudice is a conclusion before and without examination of the facts. After the prejudiced conclusion is reached, any facts relating to it must bereformed to fit the conclusion or else ignored. He can not change. That would be inconsistent and contrary to his prejudiced position.

The attitude and action of the scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees and elders among the Jews toward Jesus is a perfect example of prejudice and its consequences. How they could witness his miracles andnot believe in him is amazing. Peter said on Pentecost that Jesus was "approved of God among you bymiracles and wonders and signs, which God did byhim in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know" (Acts 2:22), but these scribes and Pharisees were not convinced by this. His perfect life did not prove anything to them. He asked these Jews, "Which of you convinceth me of sin?" (John 8:46). The factthat they could not really find anything wrong in his life did not convince them. His teaching was far superior to any other teacher. "For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes" (Matt.7:29). This did not prove anything to these prejudiced men. The very scriptures they claimed torevere and hold in such high esteem told of Christ. "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" (John 5:39). They were not convinced by their ownrevelation from God.

After Christ was crucified and arose from the dead according to the scriptures (I Cor. 15:1-4), theempty tomb which they could neither deny nor explain, was ignored and a lie was invented and circulated to replace this fact they knew, yet refused toaccept. (Matt. 28:12-15).

The miracles of Jesus, his perfect life, his superior teaching, their own scriptures, and the resurrection from the dead did not convince these Jews that he was the Son of God. T he only explanation is that their hearts were so filled with prejudice that nofact would be accepted by them. T heir conclusion

Page 2 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

that he was an impostor and blasphemer was not based upon any fact, so they created what "evidence" they needed to tr y to pr ove to other s that they wer e right in their charges against Christ. He was charged with perverting the nation, forbidding topay tribute to Caesar, and claiming to be king himself. (Luke 23:2).

I recently saw a card with the following written on it: "My mind is made up, so don't confuse me with facts." T his is exactly the position of the one who ispr ejudiced. Many who ar e pr ejudiced know it, butmany do not r ealize that they ar e pr ejudiced. T hey hold positions, right or wrong, which do not rest upon any evidence from true facts. In spiritual matters the individual without pr ejudice will walk by theauthority of God's word and not by unfounded opinions.

WHAT PRODUCES PREJUDICE?

Usually prejudice may be traced to early impressions and associates. Parents have a profound influence upon children in forming their views, especially in political and religious matters. Children grow upfavoring some positions and opposing others solely upon the grounds that their parents held these positions. Social and economic culture in which one is brought up tends to form his views for and against many things. T he ver y poor may be pr ejudiced against all who have wealth.

Again, ignor ance and super stition may gener ate pr ejudice. T he less one knows about a subject themor e inclined he is to become pr ejudiced one way or the other about it. Superstition hinders the acquisition of knowledge and causes one to become pr ejudiced because he does not have the true facts in forming his conclusions.

Jealousy and envy will pr oduce pr ejudice. WhenPaul and those with him came to Antioch in Pisidia and preached in the synagogue on the Sabbath, some requested that he preach to them again the nextSabbath. When the day came "almost the whole city"came together to hear the word of God. Now then,watch pr ejudice wor k and see what caused it. "Butwhen the Jews saw the multitudes, they wer e filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming" (Acts 13:45).Pride and selfishness produce prejudice. A proud and self-centered person will not see with his eyes nor hear with his ears anything that is against him-self and his own interests, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Instead he will see what is not supported by evidence that favors himself and his inter ests. The effort to justify his actions and words willcause him to act fr om pr ejudice r ather than truth.Another thing that brings out prejudice and its fruits is the discussion of controversial subjects. Aprejudiced person is quick to interpret words, actions, and expr essions in favor of his pr econceived views and against any other view. Plain, sharp words will stir prejudice to the boiling point. When Johnthe Baptist said, "Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say withinyourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for Isay unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham" (Luke 3:8), those Jews who thought they did not need to repent because

they were Abraham's children were angered toward John. Nothing would induce them to repent and bebaptized by John.

Jesus invited the wrath of the prejudiced scribes and Pharisees in Jerusalem by his plain and direct words of condemnation in Matthew 15:1-14. Their prejudice would never admit the words of Jesus to be true. Some of the sharpest words to be found inthe Bible are recorded in Matthew 23 and directed to the scribes and Pharisees by Jesus. Do you thinkthis plain language changed them? It only incr eased their prejudice and hatred for the Lord.

Prejudice is produced by prejudice. The person possessed of this state of mind generally appeals toemotional subjects in an effort to sustain his positions because they are not founded in true facts. The appeal to sympathy, hate, fear, etc., are tools used by prejudice to gain a following. Even the word "prejudice" itself is frequently used for the very purpose of cr eating pr ejudice. During the political campaign of John F. Kennedy for president theterms "prejudice" and "bigots" were used to create prejudice against those who might vote against Kennedy because he was a Catholic.

Catch phrases are adopted by prejudiced people tocreate prejudice in others. "Orphan haters," "pattern hunters," "legalists" and such terms are heard bythose opinions and views on some Bible subjects rest upon nothing mor e than pr ejudice — ther e is no evidence of truth from the word of God.

In addition emotional stories of suffering, sorrow, sickness and death are told for the purpose of selling views to others when no facts of evidence are available to prove the point. This is characteristic of nearly all denominational preachers.

WHAT PREJUDICE PRODUCES

Prejudice is dangerous because of its fruits in thehearts and lives of those who are influenced by it.At least four conditions of heart result from prejudice.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3

1. It produces willful ignorance. A prejudiced person willfully closes his eyes and ears to any facts that go contrary to his preconceived positions. Jesus spoke of this class when he said, "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not;and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not under stand; and seeing ye shall see andshall not perceive: for this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, andshould be converted, and I should heal them" (Matt. 13:13-15).

These do not see nor hear nor understand because they do not want to. This is ignorance by choice: willfully refusing to see and hear the facts lest theylearn the truth and be converted. This is the bitter fruit of prejudice.

2. It allows no change in life. Growth, both mental and physical, is the process of changing. The very reason God gave us the Bible is that man might bechanged — turned to God. We must change to please God and be saved when this life is over. Paul told King Agrippa and those with him that when theLord appeared to him near Damascus for the purpose of making him a witness of the things he hadseen and which would be r evealed to him, and thathe would be sent to the Gentiles "to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God" (Acts 26:18).

Paul's mission was to make men see the truth and cause them to turn — change from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God.

I hear many today brag about the fact that theyhave not changed on some controversial Bible subject. T his is not a compliment by any means because the evidence in God's word requires them to change if they are in error and they will not. Some franklyadmit that they would not change regardless of the evidence. The rich man in hades wanted Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to warn his five brothers, but Abraham said of them, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31).

Prejudice makes a man take a position before the facts are examined. Once he has taken the position, no amount of evidence will change him. T he scr ibes and Pharisees were not changed by all that Christ did and taught. Prejudice hardens the heart to theextent that evidence in abundance will not change it.

3. It makes one dishonest. T he individual who is gover ned by pr ejudice will be dishonest with himself. He will often realize that the true facts are against him, but he will continue to deceive himself that these facts are not really pertinent to his case. He will be dishonest with other s, especially thosewho try to show him the truth. Prejudice leads one to deliberately misquote, misrepresent and misapply the words of another, and this includes the word of God. He will appeal to matter s that have nothing to do with his case, and he knows it. He will even lie to avoid facing the real evidence that proves him wrong. Anything that causes a man to be so dishonest with God, himself and his fellowman has to be a

terrible sin.

4. It creates anger, hatred and murder. This is aserious indictment against prejudice, but the word of God sustains it. Christ was hated by the Jewishleaders of his day because he attacked their prejudice against him and for their hypocritical system of religion. Their anger developed hatred for him unexcelled in histor y. T hey lied to Pilate about thecharges against him. (Luke 23:2). They demandedhis death and finally secured it. The evil hearts of these men who were guilty of crucifying Christ (Acts 2:23) were made so by their pr ejudice. T heir doctrines and conduct were against truth, yet theycontinued to reject truth and instead contended for their own system of things. Anyone who stood opposed to their prejudiced views was killed if necessary.

Stephen was killed because he taught the truth to the pr ejudiced Jews. When he stated the truth abouttheir opposition to God and His word as their fathers had done, they gnashed on him with their teeth, stopped their ears, and ran on him with one accord; they cast him out of the city and stoned him to death. (Acts 7:54, 57, 58).

This is what prejudice does for one, and that is the reason we should make a careful examination of ourselves to make sure we are not motivated by prejudice.

HOW TO ELIMINATE PREJUDICE

If prejudice is to be eliminated from the heart the individual must do it. No one else has the power toremove it. One must realize that prejudice is willfulignor ance and the only way to begin to r emove it is to desir e the truth which is able to make one fr ee (John 8:32). We must have an honest heart in thesearch for truth. We must have a love for the truth and be willing to accept it fr om anyone who canteach us.

First, we must accept the fact that we may bewr ong about any matter, no matter how much wehave studied the question and searched for the truth. If we r each the point that we f eel we can not bewrong, we have cultivated the heart for prejudice. "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith;prove your own selves" (II Cor. 13:5). If you acceptthe fact that you could be wrong, you will accept thetruth when presented if you are wrong.

Next, never accept as final any position until allthe facts ar e in and examined. All too often one will jump to a conclusion after hearing only a small fraction of the evidence. If he concludes that his position is final he pr obably will develop a pr ejudice against any other evidence. We should always be r eady toreceive new evidence, even if it requires us to change our views on the matter. Honesty of heart will allow nothing else.

We must also have the state of mind to be willing to change if we find that we have been wr ong onsome matter. Unless this is true, the obtaining of new evidence will do us no good. Just remember that God wants us to change (repent) when we learn that we have been wrong. This is true whether it concer ns God or man.

Finally, we must take only the word of God as evidence in matter s spiritual. We can not allow tr adition, opinion, doctrines of men, etc., to govern our

Page 4

thinking in those things that have to do with our eternal destiny. We must be willing to go to the revelation of God and take all that it contains for us. Let the word of Christ rule our hearts all through life. Do not allow prejudice to hinder your hope of eternal life.

of the

LECTURE PROGRAM OF FLORIDA COLLEGE

January 23-26, 1967 "The Living God And The Living Word"

Recorded on new 1 1/2 mil Mylar tape of good qualityThis new weather resistant tape, recorded on both sides at 3 3/4 i. p.s. can be played on any recorder using a 7"reel

ANY TWO LECTURES ON ONE TAPE

Make Your Choice

The Inspired Word Jere Frost The Word— Mental And Physical Health Dr. William McElwain God of Cr eation vs the "god" of

Materialism David Harkrider Modern Theology and God Hiram Hutto The Spiritual House and Spiritual Sacrifices Tom Butler The Living God in the Psalms Homer Hailey The Living Word and Living Things Melvin Curry The Profitable Word (II Timothy 3) Granville Tyler God of Revelation vs the "gods" of

Inspiration O. C. Birdwell Modern Theology and the Miraculous Paul Williams The Living Past James Hodges The Coming God-King in the Psalms Homer Hailey The Word of His Power Curtis E. Flatt God of Pr ovidence vs the "god" of

Indifference . Hershel Patton Modern Theology and

Dispensationalism William Wallace Reminiscing With McGarvey Henry S. Ficklin The Living God and Prayer Billy Murrell The Final Word Robert Jackson The Living Word on the Living Frontier

(Three lectures on one tape) Sewell Hall

Each Tape (two speeches) — $3.00 Entire Program (10 tapes) — $27.00

Order from

PHILLIPS PUBLICATIONS

P. O. Box 17244Tampa, Florida 33612

PLEASE NOTICE

If you have not renewed your subscription to Searching The Scriptures, please do so today. Please include your zip code with your name and address. We need your r enewal today.

QUESTION — Do the actions of Jesus and His disciples in Matt. 12:1-13 harmonize with the law of Moses? If so, why did the Pharisees accuse them of violating the Sabbath? Is there an implication here that God's laws can be set aside under some circumstances ? If so, how may we determine those circumstances ? — M. J.

ANSWER — Yes, the actions of Jesus and His disciples do harmonize with the law of Moses. T his law concerning work on the Sabbath is clearly set forth in the following references: Ex. 20:10; 35:2, 3; Num. 15:32-36. What the disciples were doing cannot properly be classified as such work. The text shows thatthey plucked the cor n because they wer e hungr y and, therefore, acted in the interest of their physical wellbeing. Such was not toil, labor, or work such as wasforbidden in the law. In fact, they were acting inaccord with what the law permitted (Deut. 23:25).

Over the years the Jews had come to so define some points of the law as to make them far more limited than the law itself justified — certainly more so than God ever intended. Such were additions to the law and were called "tradition of the elders" (Matt. 15:2). Furthermore, the Sabbath was madefor man (Mk. 2:27), and since this was so, all lawsr egulating conduct on it wer e subser vient to any act of mercy toward man when his welfare was at stake. Thus, the Pharisees were wrong twice. Their charge against the disciples of violating the Sabbath was false. The disciples only violated their perverted view of the Sabbath or their tradition. In the second place, the circumstances under which they plucked the corn demanded precedence over any rule of the Sabbath. A failure of the Pharisees to understand the law in its original intent and purity accounts for their false accusation against our L or d's disciples.

That the rules of the Sabbath were subservient to acts of mercy toward man when his welfare was at stake, is evident fr om our L or d's appeal to their ownlaw and an experience recorded therein (Matt. 12: 3, 4; I Sam. 21:1-7). David and those with him ateshewbread that was lawful only for priest. However, like the rules of the Sabbath, this law became subservient to the imperative need of man. He next cites the priest profaning the Sabbath (at least fromthe viewpoint of the Pharisees) by kindling the fire and offering the sacrifices required on the Sabbath, yet wer e blameless. T her e ar e some r equir ements of God which, in exceptional circumstances, obviously take precedence over other requirements under normal conditions. The incident of the priest "profaning the Sabbath" is one of them. Setting aside rules or arrangements of God intended for normal conditions

Page 5

in order to meet an imperative need of man is another instance. Such is in accord with the law of the Lord concerning the value of human life and the welfare of man. A careful consideration of our text (Matt. 12:1-13) demands this conclusion, especiallyver se seven. Read again what Jesus said about thesheep that f ell into the pit and take a good look athis question: "How much then is a man better than a sheep?" Upon this basis one is justified in notassembling with the saints (Heb. 10:25) in order tominister or render a needed service to the sick.

Let no man, however, use what Jesus taught here to justify setting aside God's arrangements in order to substitute on a permanent basis and under normal condition some other arrangement — even if it be done in the name of human welfare. The circumstance that justifies the exception must not only involve the welfare of man, but must be urgent, imperative, an emergency situation, and, therefore, atemporary thing. All else is without scriptural precedent and is, therefore, sin. The religion of our Lord is not fanatical or cruel. When properly understood it is well-balanced. However, it is not always easyfor us to keep our balance in relation to what itteaches.

"Appreciate Searching The Scriptures very much."

— Lloyd Barker, Beckley, W. Va."I enjoy r eading the paper ver y much." — Mr s. L eona Nelson, Johnson City, T enn.

"You are doing a fine work in this good paper. Ienjoy it and profit a great deal from reading it. I hope that its circulation will continue to increase for it is an excellent means of informing and strengthening the L or d's people as well as teaching thosewho are not Christians." — Granville Tyler, Decatur, Ala.

"We enjoy Searching The Scriptures very muchand are hoping you continue to stand for the truth in the future." — Richard Greeson, Columbus, Ga.

"I really enjoy the paper and know that it is doing a lot of good." — Earl Hartsell, Leesville, La."By all means keep me on the mailing list for your

— paper." — E. Paul Price, Tyler, Texas."I enjoy the paper very much." — Mrs. J. E. Parrish, Nashville, Tenn.

"The review of the Montgomery debate is excellent, fair and accurate. I attended all the debate andbelieve the report of it will do much good." — Earl Fly, Jackson, T enn.

"We enjoy Searching The Scriptures very muchand want to renew our subscription for another year." — W. P. Griffin, Chamblee, Ga.

"You are putting out a good paper, and I believe it will do much good in presenting the truth to thepeople. May it long continue." — Ray Harris, Terre Haute, Ind.

"T hank you f or 'the paper and may God continueto bless you all in the strenuous work with healthand wisdom." — E. J. Krumrei, Amberg, Wise.

"I do appreciate your good work." — Irven Lee, Jasper, Ala.

"We appreciate the efforts being put forth bySearching The Scriptures and feel the cause of truth is being furthered because of the paper." — Garrett T immerman, Maplewood, La.

"Continue to enjoy Searching The Scriptures. Appreciate very much your work." — Maurice W. Jackson, Jr., Huntsville, Ala.

"We continue to appreciate Searching The Scriptures, and sincerely wish that it came weekly." —

C. A. Cornelius, Tulsa, Okla.

BOOKS BY W. CURTIS PORTER

Quibbles That Backfired— Contains three sermons at Florida College several years ago. These are outstanding denomi national arguments that Porter turned on hi s opponent. He had a large number of debates with all sorts of false teachers.

Price — $1.00

Sermon Outlines, Volumes I & II — Sermon outlines W. Curtis Porter used through the years of his preaching.

Price — $2.00 Set of 2 vols. — $3.75

Page 6

MARRIAGE WITH A ROMAN CATHOLIC ... BECOMING 'UNEQUALLY YOKED'

One of the greatest problems within the church of our Lord today is the all too frequent instances wherein a Christian young woman or Christian young man selects a life mate who is outside theLord's family. Paul warned the Corinthians: "Beye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers . ." (II Cor. 6:14)

In another letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote: "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; ONLY IN THE LORD" (Emphasis mine. L.W.M.) (I Cor. 7:39). There is no question but what the teaching,practice and contractual requirements of the RomanCatholic Church come under the prohibition andwarning of the inspired Apostle. The actual yoke andbondage imposed by Catholicism upon the non-Catholic who would unthinkingly marry a Roman Catholic is clearly shown by the material copied below.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC PRE-NUPTIAL CONTRACT

"Agreement and Promise To Be Signed By The Non-Catholic Party."

"I, the undersigned, not a member of the CatholiChurch, wishing to contract marriage with the Catholic party whose signature is also affixed to this mutual agreement, being of sound mind and perfectly free, and only after understanding fully thimport of my action, do hereby enter into this mutual agreement, understanding the execution of this agreement and the promises therein contained are made in contemplation of and in consideration for the consent, marriage, and consequent change of status of the hereinafter mentioned Catholic party,and I, therefore, hereby agree:

"1. that I will not interfere in the least with the free exercise of the Catholic party's religion

"2. that I will adhere to the doctrine of the sacred indi olubility of the marriage bond, so that I cannot contract a second marriage while my consort is still alive, even though a civil divorce may have beeobtained;

"3. that all children, both boys and girls, that maybe born of this union shall be baptized and educatedsolely in the faith of the Roman Catholic Church,even in the event of the death of my Catholic consort. In case of dispute, I furthermore hereby agree fully that the custody of all children shall be given to such guardians as assure the faithful execution of this covenant and promise in the event that I cannot fulfill it myself

"4. that I will lead a married life in conformitywith the teachings of the Catholic Church regardingbirth control, realizing fully the attitude of theCatholic Church in this regard;

"5. that no other marriage ceremony shall takeplace before or after this ceremony by the Catholicpriest.

"In testimony of which agreement, I do hereby solemnly swear that I will observe the above agreement and faithfully execute the promises therein contained, and do now affix my signature in approvalthereof."

"...................................................."

(Signature of non-Catholic party)

THINGS TO CONSIDER

(1) The non-Catholic who signs the above agreement FAILS in his or her duty to the Lord. For theNew T estament teaches the children of God to in turn teach to others, the will of God their Father. (2) By executing the above contract, the non-Catholic consigns his or her own flesh and blood to the dominion of the Roman Church during their most formative years. Thus, prohibiting them of thfree exercise of their own reason as they grow anddevelop. They are born into a world of blind obedience and censorship (3) If the Catholic spouse dies, the surviving non-Catholic parent is still obligated by this contract to(IN CASE OF DISPUTE) GIVE THE CHILDREN OVE R T O T HE GUARDIANSHIP OF A ROMAN CATHOLIC!! (4) By this contract, the non-Catholic agrees to abide by Roman Catholic laws which may be entirely opposed to his or her own will or faith, yet throughthis agreement, obligates himself or herself to violate their own conscience.

BIBLE PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED

Instead of obeying the commands of men and man-made religious organizations, Christians should atall times obey the teachings of the New Testament.

(1) WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN (Acts 5:29) (2) Faith comes by hearing God's word (Rom. 10:17). "...WHATSOEVER IS NOT OF FAITH IS SIN" Rom. 14:23). (3) HE THAT GOES ONWARD AND DOES NOT FOLLOW CHRIST'S TEACHING DEPARTS FROM GOD. (See II John 9. (4) A Christian must WALK BY FAITH. (II Cor5:7.) And since faith is based upon the word of God,and the word of God is found in the Bible, then child of God must conduct himself in accord with Bible principles rather than following the rules, lawand contracts devised by men

Christians CANNOT sign the Roman Catholic Prenuptial Contract and continue to practice Christianity.

It is a sad and disheartening thing to witness some of the things that are being practiced bchurches of Christ throughout the land today. Unfortunately, practices which seem wise in the mind

_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7

of man have been begun, and then these brethren have sought to go to the scripture to prove that what they are doing is right. This is no approach for a true Christian to take; for if we would study whatGod wants us to do before we adopt such practices, we would not have to twist the scriptures to fit ourpractices.

Many brethren who espouse these practices use noscripture at all to justify their course of action, butmerely appeal to the emotions by making heartwarming, emotion-packed statements. However, some brethren do feel a need for scriptural support, and,therefore, in the matter of benevolence, the mainstandby has been Gal. 6:10, which has been used tocover a multiplicity of error.

However, it is inter esting to note in what a pr edicament these br ethr en place themselves by usingthis scr iptur e to pr ove that the chur ch may send contributions to a benevolent institution and may helpanyone whom it sees fit to help. Gal. 6:10 states: "So then, as we have opportunity, let us work thatwhich is good toward all .men, and especially toward them that are of the household of faith." These brethren say that we are to do good to all men; ther e-fore the church can help anyone they please, by taking money out of the treasury and helping non-Christians.

The truth is, of course, that Gal. 6:10 is not addressed to the church (i. e., as requiring "church action"), but is individual in its application, as acasual reading of the context will reveal. Nevertheless, let us grant for the sake of argument that it did refer to the church. With this approach, I would likefor you to carefully consider the above reasoning inthe light of another passage of scripture.

In i T im. 4:10 we have the exact language of Gal.

6:10 being used. The verse there states: "For untothis end we labor and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe." This verse states that God is the Saviour of all men! Ar e all men saved? Accor ding to the logic used by somebrethren on Gal. 6:10 (that all men are to be helpedwithout r eser vation), then God has saved all men — hence, universal salvation! We repeat the question — -are all men saved? If Gal. 6:10 teaches that the church is to help all men without reservation, then I T im. 4:10 teaches that God is the Saviour of all men without reservation — therefore, all men ar e saved! Surely honest brethren can see that such a positionmust follow, for exactly the same language is used in both ver ses by the same writer.

The truth is, of course, that God is not the actual Saviour, for all men have not been saved. He is thepotential Saviour of all men, in that he would have all men to be saved (I Tim. 2:4) — but he truly sustains a special r elationship to those that believe,Christians, which is not the same r elationship as to those who are not believers. Even if we were to grant that Gal. 6:10 refers to the church (which it most certainly does not), we would still have a specialr elationship to those that believe, which is not the same r elationship as to unbeliever s.

Many articles have been written and many discussions held with brethren who feel that the church can and should help anyone and everyone. Clear-thinking br ethr en have appealed to these men on the basis of New Testament example. It is strikingly evident that every example of the church doing benevolent work in the New Testament shows that the church was helping saints, and saints only! Acts

2:44 — "all that believed;" Acts 4:32 — "them that believed;" Acts 6:1 — "the disciples;" Acts 11:29

— "the disciples;" I Cor. 16:1 — "the saints;" and Rom 15:26-27 — "the saints." It is unbelievable that those who are truly honest and sincere can completely ignore the fact that every example of benevolence in the scr iptur es is to the saints only!

However, the very next verse in Rom. 15 — verse 27 — clearly and positively shows to whom the chur ch has an obligation. Ver se 26 tells us that Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. Then verse 27 goes on to say that not only wer e they pleased to do it, but that they should do it, because they wer e debtors to the saints at Jer usalem? Note — to whom is the church debtor in the matter of benevolence? To the saints! Now the r ea-son is also given for their being debtors: "For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to them also to minister untothem in carnal things." This is a conditional statement — - the "if" shows that there are certain conditions that must be met befor e benevolence can be expected. If the Gentiles, or heathens — those who are apart from things spiritual — become joined to Christ and are made partakers of spiritual things, then the churches owe it to them to minister unto them in car nal things! Does this sound like thechurch is to "do good to all men" with no reservation?

How can the forth of this scripture be denied? If one were to tell a child, "If you will wash the car for me I will give you a dollar," it is doubtful that thechild would expect to get the dollar if he did notmeet the conditions — i.e., washing the car. Thechild knows that his receipt of the dollar is based upon his washing the car. He is not owed anythinguntil he meets the conditions.

Likewise, if a person is a member of some organization which guarantees its members certain rights, he then can expect to receive benefits from it. If he were to become ill, for example, and be in need of financial assistance, and this was a part of the benefits guaranteed him by that organization — then he would expect to receive such, because he had met theconditions necessary for financial help (being a member) . However, suppose a man outside that organization became sick and likewise was in need of financial aid — would he have the right to expect help from that organization ? Why, certainly not! Why ? Simply because he was in no way affiliated with the organization, and therefore had not met the conditionsnecessar y. And even though he might need help just as much as the man who was a member, he still would not receive it. Now, would this be cruelty onthe part of the organization — not helping a poor, helpless, sick man? Why, of cour se not! T hey hadno obligation to someone outside their or ganization!

T his is the same principle, as I see it, which is expressed in the scripture in Rom. 15:27. Only if menhave been made partakers of spiritual things, doesthe church owe it to them to minister to them in car nal things! Br ethr en need to r ecognize that ther e are certain rights and privileges granted to the peo

Page 8 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

pie of God because they are the people of God — and may we ever uphold them and continue to thank God for them.

When br ethr en r each the point wher e they wish todole out funds of the chur ch; without r egar d to thespiritual relationship of the person being assisted, and to every one in every place for every seemingly "good work" — it is at that very point that the life's blood of the church of Christ will begin to drain away and we will become nothing mor e in the eyesof men and, even more important, in the eyes of God than a sickening, humanistic, "Salvation Army." May the mer cy of God and the diligent study of menwho love Jesus Christ and the purity of His church pr event this from ever happening!

BOGARD'S BAPTIST WAY BOOK

Without question, Ben M. Bogard was one of the best known and able debaters among Missionary Baptist. His debates ran into the hundreds and hedid more to shape the policy of that group of Baptist than any other man. Several years ago he wrote abook called, "THE BAPTIST WAY-BOOK." In this book, he outlined the general beliefs of the Baptist people. Fortunately, or perhaps I should say unfortunately, he teaches a gr eat deal of truth in the book. I would say that over half of what he says in thebook, is the truth. However, we must remember that all churches teach some truth. I would say that eighty per cent of what some churches teach is the truth. It is that small per cent of error that damns the soul. We must remember that only ONE false doctrine will condemn us. Jesus said to the rich young ruler, "One thing thou lackest."

On page fourteen of this book, Mr. Bogard proves that he knows more about the organization of the church than some of my brethren. This is what hesays: "Baptist regard the scriptures as the only andall sufficient rule of faith and practice. (II Tim.3:16-17) The Church has no right to change one word of the Scripture. It is the duty of the church to obey the Scriptures. The Scriptures teach that each congregation is entirely independent of every other congregation, and that to each congregation the commission was given. Each congregation is a completechurch in itself. It is therefore not correct to speak of 'The Baptist Church.' There is no such thing.There are thousands of Baptist Churches, as eachcongregation of baptized believers is a church, butthese congr egations ar e not combined in any way soas to make the one gr eat Baptist Chur ch. T her e ar e many trees in the forest, but there is no such thing as THE TREE. In speaking of the duties and doctrines of 'the church' we mean any Scriptural church, just as we speak of the duties of 'the husband' or 'the wife'. When we say 'the husband' or 'the wife' we do not mean that there is a great HUSBAND composed of all the husbands, and when we say 'the wife' we do not mean a large WIFE composed of all the wives."

Mr. Bogard is correct in saying the church is to obey the Scriptures. The church has never been the standar d of author ity. People ar e hear d to say, "T he church is doing so and so," as if that would make itright. He is also correct in saying that each church in Bible times was independent. T his means that onechurch should not meddle in the affairs of another church. This means that there should never be a centralization of Power or Authority! Mr. Bogard said that there was no such thing as "The BaptistChurch." Now, I have never agreed with any statement mor e than this one! T he Baptist chur ch isn't even mentioned in the Bible. One can't even r ead of a local congr egation of Baptist people, much less aUniversal one. Mr. Bogard spoke the truth when hesaid, "It is therefore not correct to speak of 'The Baptist Chur ch.' T her e is no such thing."

Mr. Bogard has a lot to say about one great tree, one great husband, one great wife or one great universal church. Part of what he says about this is correct. However, what Mr. Bogard failed to do is to give the scriptures about the church. The word "church" in our New Testament is used in both a univer sal and local sense. T his can be established from the scriptures.

When Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build mychurch," did he have in mind a particular local congregation? I don't see any evidence of it. He, nodoubt, included all his people regardless of their congregational affiliation. God certainly wants every one of his children to be in a local congregation. But Imaintain that one could get into the chur ch in auniversal sense before he became a part of a local congregation. For example, a man from Texas mightobey the Gospel, while on a vacation in the state of California. It isn't likely he would identify himself with a congregation in California, if he lived inTexas. It would be rather difficult to drive that distance for worship! I would agree with Mr. Bogard that the universal church is not a GREAT BIG CHURCH composed of little congregations but rather of INDIVIDUALS who have become Chr istians. Paul met with the elders of the church at Ephesus in Acts twenty. This was a local congregation. Paul wr ote to the "Church of God at Corinth," in First Corinthians one. In Rom. 16:16 we read, "The churches of Christ salute you." This refers to a number of congr egations in a given locality. Nowhere can one read, "The Baptist churches saluteyou." In Heb. 12:23 Paul speaks of "Church of the first Born, which are written in heaven." This, nodoubt refers to all christians. The ones who have their names written in heaven.

We can see from these scriptures that the church

is spoken of in two senses. First, in the universal

sense, and second in the local sense. No earthly or

ganization has been given the church universal

L ocal congr egations ar e to have elder s, deacons,

members and preachers. Let us come back to the

Bible in all things.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9

WORD STUDIES IN NEW TESTAMENT BENEVOLENCE

The purpose of this series of articles is to acquaint the r eader with the principal New T estament wor ds that convey the ideas we usually attach to the word "benevolence."

If one limits his study to the occurrences of the English word "benevolence" in the Bible his study israther limited, for the English versions employ theterm only once, I Cor. 7:3 AV.

A pr oper study of New T estament benevolenceseeks two goals: First, a careful determination ofthe meaning of benevolence in the New T estament; second, a careful determination of the relation of this benevolence to the New T estament chur ch. T he present studies deal only with the first of these goals.

THE ENGLISH WORD "BENEVOLENCE"

Our English word "benevolence" (from the OF benevolence) is from the Latin benevolentia. The various English dictionaries concur with Webster's definition of the E nglish "benevolence": "the disposition to do good; good will; charitableness; love of mankind, accompanied with a desire to promote men's happiness."

The adjective "benevolent" is derived from the Latin benevolens, that in turn comes from bene,"well," plus volens, the present participle of volo,"I will, I wish." Hence, the adjective denotes thedisposition to do good; possessing or manifesting good will toward mankind, and a desir e to pr omote men's prosperity and happiness. The term further denotes the disposition to give to good objects; to be kind; charitable.

The word "benevolence" occurs only once in theEnglish New T estament, I Cor. 7:3 AV. In the Gr eek text the term render ed "benevolence" is eunoia,which is to be defined as "good-will, kindness." The term eunoia is found in the papyri, where it denotesthe idea of "kindness.'" In the classical Greek the term eunoia also denotes "good-will, favor."

All of this discussion on eunoia in I Cor. 7:3 is for nought when one comes to Nestle's Greek Testament, for that text substitutes opheilen, "due" for eunoia. Our best Greek mms favor the rendering opheilen.Only the T extus Receptus, Syriac Version, and other minor witnesses r ead eunoia.

THE IDEA OF BENEVOLENCE IN THE GREEK

T hough the wor d "benevolence" occur s only once in the English New Testament, the idea conveyedby the English word is found often in the Greek T estament. T o be sur e, ther e ar e expr essions in theGreek that convey the idea of benevolence; such as "let us work the good thing . . ." (ergazometha toagathon). T his expr ession, found in Gal. 6:10, is translated "let us do good . . ." in the King James Version. At this point I am concerned chiefly not with the expressions conveying the idea of benevolence, but rather with the Greek words that conveythis idea. The words that will be introduced point up the most clearly marked aspects of benevolence inthe Greek Testament.

COMMENTARIES

Here is a most attractive set of New Testament commentaries restoring the very best that has been offered through the years. Each book is handsomely and uniformly bound in simulated leather covers. Welcome addition to ever y librar y.

THE FOURFOLD GOSPEL— J. W. McGarvey and P. Y. Pendleton— A harmony of the four Gospels arranged to form a complete chr onological life of Christ. Divided into title sections and subdivisions, with comments interjected in the text. 769 pages. __________________ ___ ..... $3.75 COMMENTARY ON ACTS - J. W. McGarvey — This outstanding commentar y is original in form,broad in scholarship, and truly conservative. A "favorite" of teachers, students, and ministers. 560 pages. $3.75

COMME NT ARY ON ROMANS Moses E. Lard — With a revised Greek text, compiled from the best recent authors, and a new translation. This scholarly author has set forth Paul's meaning without regard to what that meaning favors or disfavor s. 488 pages. $3.75 COMMENTARY ON THESSALONIANS, CORINTHIANS, GALATIANS, AND ROMANS— J. W. McGarvey and P. Y. Pendleton— A companion volume to "The Fourfold Gospel". A most practical and helpful exposition. 555 pages. . $3.75

COMMENTARY ON HEBREWS— Robert Milligan— Reprint of this unequalled work on the difficult epistle to the Hebr ews. A commentar y that will help bring understanding to every reader. 400 pages. $3.75

W. W. OTEY, CONTENDER FOR THE FAITH

A history of controversies in the church of Christ from 1860-1960

by Cecil Willis

A biography of one of the greatest gospel preachers of this century — William Wesley Otey. A well documented book with some of the most pertinent and important information bearing on the present issue in the church today and its development through the years.

425 pages $4.00

Order From:PHILLIPS PUBLICATIONS

P. O. Box 17244 Tampa, Florida 33612

Page 10

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

Curtis E. Flatt, Birmingham, Ala. — I am leavingthe College View church where I have been since its beginning nearly six years ago. The College Viewchurch consists now of about 230 members with average attendance on Sunday morning of near 300.Seven have been baptized thus far in 1966. I am moving to Birmingham, Alabama to wor k with the Bell-view Heights church. Franklin T. Puckett is to follow me at College View church in Florence, Alabama.

Richard Greeson, Columbus, Ga. — After being atthe South End church for some 15 months we have seen our building completed; had a gospel meetingin which brother Colin Williamson preached, 4 were restor ed, and in the last month 7 have been baptizedand 1 restored. We are located near the Ft. Benning Army Base and have seen a large turn over in thepast year. We are working to increase the number of stabilized families to the congregation and are hoping the next year we can see our goal r eached.

A. H. Payne, Jackson, Miss.— There are two faithful churches meeting in the suburbs of Mobile, Alabama. NORTH — The church at Saraland, Alabamameets at 706 Shelton Beach Road or Highway 213.These brethren have a nice building that will seat 175 with 10 classrooms. Their attendance will average 100 with a contribution of $185.00 per week. David Watts is the preacher for this church. Among former preachers have been Hollis Creel, Lynn Head-rick, Bill Hall and Roy Crocker. WEST — The church at Tillman's Corner, Alabama meets just a few blocks north on Old Pascagoula Highway where it intersects Highway 90 W. Bill Atkins preaches for this church. These brethren have 50 in attendance with a contribution of $100.00 per week. Plans have beencompleted for their new building. Two were baptizedand three restored in my November meeting withthe Saraland church.

Garrett Timmerman, Lake Charles, La. — The church in Lake Charles, La. is in need of a full time gospel preacher. The congregation there is capable of carrying on its own worship services and pr eaching with talent among us. However, we feelthat a man who can devote his full energies to thework would go a long way toward the growth of the con-gregation. If interested, write to me at 513 North Lebanon, Maplewood, La. 70663.

W. C. Adams, Montgomery, Ala.— The Prattmont church of Christ of Prattville, Alabama met for the first time in June, 1963 in the home of James Owens. This small but dedicated group was made up of members from the Prattville church of Christ. After having met for a few times in the home of brother Owens, the church secured a building on U.S. 31 inPrattville. Due to city development, however, this building was to be demolished. T he br ethr en havenow secur ed and ar e meeting in a modest buildinglocated one and one-fourth miles north of the city on U.S. 31.

The Prattmont church has conducted two gospelmeetings, one with A. C. Moore and another with Frank Smith, both from Birmingham, Alabama. Arnold Pledger from Montgomery, Alabama is presently doing the preaching for this congregation. Although Pr attmont has had some adver se conditions under which to work, it has grown strong forthe cause of Christ and the future looks bright. When in this ar ea, please wor ship with us.

Maurice W. Jackson, Jr., Huntsville, Ala. — We have just completed our gospel meeting with James

W. Adams. T he meeting was well attended, and agood atmosphere prevailed throughout. It was truly a rich and rewarding week for us all. His lessons were of the very finest quality and delivered in adignified, positive, and an effective manner. In addition to the edification of all present, one was baptized into Christ, and one was restored to faithfulness to the Lord. We look forward to having brother Adams back in the spring of 1969.

Roy L. Foutz, 407 Avenue H, South Houston, T exas 77587 — During 1966 I preached in nine meetings, all of them in Texas. Six were five-night services, in which I preached on "The Bible vs Evolution." T hey wer e in Roseber g, Dickinson, Madisonville, Southside in Beaumont, West Avenue in SanAntonio, and Olsen Park in Amarillo. The other three meetings were in Groves (Hogaboom Road), Houston (South Park), and Burnet (Oaks-West). Our workhere in South Houston continues in a very encouraging way. One of our former deacons, Jerry Wilburn,moved to Rockdale, T exas in August, and is now preaching for the church there. Visit with us whenyou ar e in the Houston ar ea.

C. A. Cornelius, 4071 E ast 27th St., T ulsa, Okla. 74114— January 1st will bring to a close two years and four months of work with the East Central congregation. During this time, we feel that much goodhas been accomplished, in spite of the handicap of several months of illness on my part. The first of last June, I requested that the brethren find a man tocarry on the work in my stead, due to my poor health. The man they selected was unable to move here due to former commitments until January 1st or thereabouts, and I agr eed to wor k with them until thatdate. Since then I have r egained my health, and amuncertain that I shall "retire" despite a former decision to do so. I have been preaching more than thirty years, and the contemplation of "retiring" leaves me just a little bit "cold".

For the past few years, due to my receiving Social Secur ity, I have been unable to wor k with congr egations that were unable to fully support a preacher financially, and I am convinced that the arrangement has been pr oductive of good. Her e at E ast Centr al we have been able to pay off property indebtedness of a considerable amount, and are now engaged inbuilding a new .Auditorium that is very greatly

__________________________________________________________________________________________________Page 11

needed. During our work together the visible results of our joint efforts were: 13 restorations, 22 to placemembership, and six baptized. Based upon opportunities presented, the indications are for a continuedgrowth in every good way, and for this we earnestly pray. We have not shunned to "declare the wholecounsel of God" since we have been her e, and I am fully persuaded that the need for down-to-earth, name-calling-preaching, is sorely needed in thisskeptical world in which we live. No "middle of the road" attitude, nor the "proper approach" disposition will accomplish the work that so sorely needsto be done. God's preachers need to "PREACH THEWORD", and to preach it in words that can be easilyunder stood, and if our "pr actice" matches our "preaching", the results will be sure and certain. My plans are indefinite at the present time.

J. T. Smith, Oklahoma City, Okla. — After 1 1/2years with the Rockwell Avenue congregation inOklahoma City, Oklahoma, I am moving to Dayton,Ohio to work with the Haynes Street congregation now meeting in that city at Haynes and Parrot Streets. However, their meeting there will be of short duration. Their old building at this address is being taken by the State so that a new Fr eeway, highway#35 from Xenia, Ohio to Dayton, may be completed.There will be an on and off cloverleaf at Haynes andParrot Streets.

T he congr egation is moving to a new location just down the street at 300 Haynes Street. They are now in the process of building a new building that willseat appr oximately 500 people. We hope you willstop and worship with us at this address when youare in that area. The phone number for the office at the church building will be 256-6647.

T o all those with whom I have been exchangingchur ch paper s, if you have not seen a change of address, would you please continue to send your paper to me at: J. T. Smith, 310 Haynes Street, Dayton, Ohio 45410.

Brother Bill McMurray, who formerly worked withthe congr egation at Rockwell Avenue in OklahomaCity, will be r etur ning to wor k with them. E ver yone there is enthused about his return. It is our prayer that the work at Rockwell will continue to grow. When you are in the Oklahoma City area, why notwor ship with them.

REVIEW OF THEGRIDER-McCAGHREN DEBATE

J. T. Smith, Oklahoma City, Okla.

Even though the Liberals have just about quitdebating, I was afforded the opportunity of moderating for brother A. C. Grider in the Grider -McCaghr en debate held r ecently in L ongview, T exas. T he debate came about as a result of two brothers — one in the congregation where Grider preaches and the other a member of the congregation where McCaghr en pr eaches — being willing to discuss the issues, and the one wher e McCaghr en goes accepting a challenge for his preacher to meet brother Grider in apublic discussion.

Two of the simplest propositions were discussedthat has ever been discussed on the work of the chur ch r egar ding one chur ch sending to another chur ch in matter s of evangelism and the chur ch sending funds to any kind of home.

The first two nights, brother Grider affirmed anegative pr oposition that simply stated that it was un-Scriptural for one church to send funds to another church for the receiving church to preach the gospel. Brother McCaghren tried for two nights to produce such passages. But, brother Grider categorized the Scriptures the last night on that proposition and pointed out that they fell into one of three categories and had nothing to do with the proposition being discussed. T he passages use by McCaghr en showed wher e:

1. One chur ch sent to another chur ch in matter s of benevolence.
2. Wher e a chur ch sent a pr eacher .

3. Where a church sent TO a preacher.Of course, anyone could see that none of the passages that wer e pr oduced by br other McCaghr en touchedthe subject — that is except McCaghren. And, perhaps if the truth was known, he could see it too.

The last two nights of the discussion, brother Mc-Caghren affirmed that churches of Christ could send to a home to car e for orphans. But again, br other Grider categorized the passages that were used to try to prove this proposition. The passages used thistime showed where:

1. The individual Christian had a responsibility inbenevolence.
2. The church took care of ITS OWN needy saints.
3. The church could send to another church so the receiving church could take care of its own members.

So, as brother Grider insisted throughout the last two nights of the discussion, there is not a passage of Scripture in all the Bible that says anything about the church sending to ANY KIND of Home. But, of course, that is what McCaghren was trying to prove. T hus, the last night br other Grider said he was going to cite every passage and give brother McCaghren apoint for every passage of Scripture he had cited to prove either of the propositions. Needless to say,McCaghr en scor ed ZERO.

During the course of the discussion, the old sillyproposition, presented by brother W. L. Totty to Grider several years ago, was presented by brother McCaghr en stating that those who take funds from the church's treasury are sinning and will go to hell.Brother Grider told McCaghren if he could come toDallas wher e he pr eaches and discuss that pr oposition for four nights he would sign it. Br other Mc-Caghren agreed, and it looks like now that there will be a debate in Dallas sometime in December. Watch for the dates and place. Come and hear brother Grider present the truth on this silly proposition.

THE SMITH-CHRISTIAN DEBATE

A. C. Grider, Longview, Texas

I moderated in a debate recently in Oklahoma City. The disputants were Brother J. T. Smith, of Oklahoma City and Mr. Carol Christian (Missionary Bap

Page 12 _________________________________________________________________________________________

tist) of Stillwater, Oklahoma. Pat Murphy, of Oklahoma City, moderated for Mr. Christian. I ser ved in that capacity for Brother Smith.

Good order prevailed throughout the debate. Bothspeakers conducted themselves as debaters should and we had a fine discussion. It is to be hoped thatmany more such discussions can be conducted. While the attendance was not what we had hoped for, it is evident that many attended who would not havecome for a preaching service. Thus people heard thetruth who would not otherwise have had the opportunity.

Three subjects were discussed. The first two nights were given to a discussion of the establishment of the kingdom. Smith contended that the chur ch or kingdom was established on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Christian said it started when Christ first called some of the apostles in Matt. 4.

T he next two nights wer e used in discussing thesubject of baptism. It was affirmed by Smith thatbaptism in water was essential to the forgiveness of sins. Christian said salvation was by faith apart from water baptism.

T he final two nights had to do with the final security of the saints. Christian affirmed that a child of God could not so sin as to be finally lost in hell.Smith contended that a child of God could be lost.

J. T. Smith upheld the truth in as able a manner as it has ever been upheld, in my judgment. He answered all of the arguments and also all of the quibbles of his opponent in every situation on every subject debated And he made good solid arguments that were never touched by his opponent. The truth willnever suffer in his hands. Smith has come far and has come f ast. I enjoyed the debate and r ejoice gr eatly that we have a man in J. T . Smith who canuphold the truth. I think a lot of good will come as a result of the debate. The people just had to see thetruth as it was so ably contrasted with the error that was presented.

THE TOTTY-MOSBY DEBATE

Ferrell Jenkins, Akron, Ohio

A debate between brethren W. L. Totty, Indianapolis, Ind., and Ronald G. Mosby, Valley Station, Ky.,was conducted in the meeting house of the Louisville Road church of Christ, Frankfort, Ky., December 12, 13, 15, 16, 1966. The brethren at Louisville Road endor sed br other T otty. Br other Mosby was endor sed by the Wright Street congregation. These brethren meet in a rented hall on Lord's days and in the home of the preacher, brother Frank D. Butler, on Wednesday nights (254 Queensway Dr.). These brethren rented the meeting house on Louisville Road for their two nights of the discussion.

Brother Basil Overton, Lexington, Ky., was the moder ator for br other T otty, and it was my pleasur e to serve in that capacity for brother Mosby. Brother Totty has participated in over a hundred debates;for brother Mosby this was the first public r eligious debate. Brother Mosby's inexperience along this line was not r evealed at the debate and would have been of little concern anyway, for he was thoroughly prepared and has the ability to easily grasp an argument and r eply to it.

FIRST TWO NIGHTS

The proposition for the first two nights concerned the extent of local church benevolence. Brother Totty affirmed the scripturalness of church treasury assistance to non-members. Typically he tried to discuss church relief of "babies" instead of "non-members". On the second night brother Mosby had to affirm anegative pr oposition, that it is not Scriptural for the church to assist non-members. Major arguments centered around Acts 4:32-34; II Cor. 9:13; Gal. 6:10;Jas. 1:26, 27; 2:2. Brother Totty affirmed that thesepassages authorized the church to assist non-Christians. Brother Mosby showed that Acts 4 referred to "believers". He showed that II Cor. 9:13 speaks of a distribution (contribution, ASV; koinonia, Greek) between the givers and the receivers and pointed outthat this relationship can not exist between Christians and non-Christians (II Cor. 6:14, where koinonia is translated fellowship). Brother Totty deniedthis but failed to pr oduce any passages wher e koinonia is so used in the New Testament. Brother Mosby showed that the "term and all" of the passages"prayed". Br other T otty would only let the "them" pray, overlooking the conjunction "and" between"them" and "all". T he second night br other T otty became so confused about the Greek word that he belittled his opponent's knowledge of the Gr eek, while boasting that he had studied it for 8 years. From ther e on his pronunciation of koinonia was so bad that it was difficult to tell what he meant. A few times he even pronounced it "konia". Br other Mosbyaccepted these insults about his lack of knowledge of Greek in stride and never once revealed to the audience that he held the Master of Arts degree in Greek from the University of Illinois.

Br other Mosby admitted that Galatians was addressed to churches, but showed that the application of many passages was to individuals. He showed that James 1:27 was to individuals and not the chur ch. He asked brother Totty if James was written to alocal church, local churches, the universal church, or to the twelve tribes scattered abroad (Jas. 1:1).Brother Totty was so confused that he said it was written to a church four times, to churches three times and to the twelve tribes one time. He said it was not written to the universal church. Mosbyshowed that the same one who was to KEEP himself unspotted was the one who was to VISIT the fatherless and widows in Jas. 1:27.

To substantiate his affirmation that church treasury relief should not go to non-Christians brother Mosby cited all passages on church benevolence andthen appealed to the silence of the Scriptures, showing that when God says nothing man has no right to speak. Totty would not deal with this last point.

LAST TWO NIGHTS

The propositions for the last two nights involved the question of church contributions to benevolentinstitutions such as Potter Orphan Home. Brother Totty was rarely on the proposition. He preferred to talk about whether babies belonged to God or Satan. Mosby had pointed out that the proposition spoke of "non-members" and he had defined this as those who

Page 13

have not been baptized. Totty tried to leave the impression with the audience that Mosby (and all"anti" preachers) believed babies would go to hell.He didn't want to tell the audience whether the baby left on the Potter Home steps belonged to God or Satan. Totty asked Mosby what specific thing was wr ong with Potter Orphan Home. Mosby answer ed that it was a human institution unauthorized by the Scriptures just like instrumental music in worship and infant baptism. Br other T otty would not dealwith this, but as soon as Mosby mentioned the "thing in the middle" i.e., the human society between thechurch and the work, he said that the trustees of the local chur ch stood between the chur ch and the preachers house was parallel with the Potter Orphan Home board. Mosby pointed out six differences between the trustees of the local church and the board of directors of the benevolent institution. Totty would not deal with this chart.

Brother Totty kept confusing the human institution with the house and care provided by the institution. Brother Mosby showed that the institution could exist without a house, family or car e.

The last night brother Mosby did a masterful jobof preaching on the all-sufficiency of the church to do all the wor k that God has given it to accomplish. Hepointed out that the church had no more right tosend money to a benevolent institution through which to do its benevolent wor k than to send money to a missionary society or a college to do its evangelistic or edification work. Here is the chart so that you can see the simplicity and power of the argument.

Brother Totty would not even look at the charts that mentioned the Missionary Society.

CONDUCT

The contrast between the conduct of brother Totty and brother Mosby was one of the outstanding things of the debate. Brother Totty sought to badger us thr oughout the discussion. He wasn't as bad as hemight have been, however. On Thursday nightHedge's Rules of Controversy were passed out to the audience and brother Mosby charged that brother Totty had already violated all seven of the rules of honor able contr over sy. Br other T otty did not denythis charge. He could not have afforded to because we had the proof of the charge from the tapes and were prepared to present it to the audience if such had become necessar y. Br other Mosby made mistakes buthe always corrected them when they were pointed out and apologized whenever it was proper to do so.

Truth will not suffer in the hands of Ronald Mosby. He is a careful student of the Word and knows how to stay on the subject. The only regrets we haveabout the discussion is that his opponent did not deal mor e f orthrightly with the arguments pr esented. Brother Totty would often put up a chart that Mosby had used and pick out some point and talk about itwhile ignoring the total argument. The first nightbrother Totty did look at most of the charts Mosby used, but after that he would not do so. On Tuesday evening Mosby used 31 charts; Totty referred to only

16. The third night Mosby used 19 charts in his first two speeches and T otty made no attempt to answer 8 of them. The fourth night Mosby used 20 charts; Totty would not refer to 8 of them. Did Mosby dealwith Totty's material? You can be sure he did! Brother Totty only had a fertilizer sack and an empty milk carton. In his final summary brother Mosby told the audience that if they were content with a fertilizer bag and a milk carton instead of theWor d of God ther e was nothing he could do for them.

The attendance was around 300 each night. The church for which brother Butler preaches was edified greatly by the debate and it is hopeful that some will come out of the error practiced at Louisville Road church as a result of this debate. Nothing suffers from honest investigation but error.

It would do one good to hear this discussion in its entirety. The complete debate on four reels of l 1/2 mil. Mylar (polyester) base tape recorded at 3 3/4speed may be ordered for $12.00 from Phillips Publications, P. O. Box 17244, T ampa, Florida 33612.

O'NEAL-RAY DEBATE

T homas G. O'Neal of Murfreesboro, Tennessee and.

F. L. Ray of Gallatin, Tennessee will engage in apublic discussion on February 13, 14, 16, 17, 1967 atthe Longview Missionary Baptist Church (Eleta andSpencer Avenues) in Gallatin, Tennessee. The propositions to be discussed are:

"The Scriptures' teach that faith in Christ is the last condition of remission of past sins." (Two nights)

Affirm: F. L. Ray Deny: T homas G. O'Neal

"The Scriptures teach that water baptism of apenitent believer is the last condition for (in order to) remission of past alien sins."

Affirm: Thomas G. O'Neal Deny: F. L . Ray

Page 14

elders, active men in the congregation who took the initiative in matters of religion." (THE HERITAGE OF THE PAST, Easton, S.C. pg403)Now notice the evolution of an elaborate organiza

tion of the church:

"By the second century the offices of bishopsand presbyters had become distinct. The bishophad the right to enforce obedience from his presbyters and from other subordinates. . . New churches were organized in the country adjacentto the mother church . . . were administered bythe presbyters responsible to the bishop. Thus an administrative division evolved, called a diocese,under the jurisdiction of a bishop." (Civilization: P.&P., pg. 230

This is the same trend seen today. Every time sponsoring elders assume a work larger than whabelongs to the local church, they become "responsible" for that portion of work given them by elders of the giving church. Thus the elders giving their work over to the sponsoring elders allow them to be responsible, or oversee the work they have relinquished. Then the sponsoring elders are "overseers" of the elders and churches who submit their responsibility to them. But notice again.

"A development of outstanding importance inthe organization of the Christian Church wasthe rise of the bishop of Rome to the position of preeminence in the hierarchy of the church. Atfirst Rome was only one of the several patriarchates . . . BUT GRADUALLY THE BISHOP AT ROME WAS RECOGNIZED AS THE LEADER OF THE CHURCH AND ASSUMED THE TITLE OF POPE." (Ibid., pg. 230 — All caps and emph. mine — LRNow since they departed from scriptural pattern

concerning organization of the church, the Catholic Church had to look elsewhere for its PATTERN. Where?

"In the evolution of an organized hierarchythe Church was indebted to ROMAN GOVERNMENTAL MODELS. In building their organization the Christian officials took over the administrative divisions of the Roman empire andBORROWED MUCH OF ITS LAW." (ibid., pg.230 — All caps mine, LFWhat a striking similarity? An identical pattern!

Ambitious men were no longer content with God's simple plan for his church. They had to subdue anddominate until ". . . GRADUALLY THE BISHOP OF ROME WAS RECOGNIZED AS THE LEADER OF THE CHURCH." Thus he was the head of the universal church. In the same manner, men such as bro. Lovell are no longer content with God's simple planfor His church in this age. They have to subdue and dominate until "THE CHURCH . . . LOOKS TO TENNESSEE FOR MUCH OF OUR GUIDANCE AND DIRECTION." And bro. Lovell has: "Never seen anyreason myself to stop doing it"! Neither has the Catholic church, my deluded brother.

Now as the "evolution of an organized hierarchy" was fashioned after "Roman governmental models" and the Catholic church "took over the administrative divisions of the Roman empire and borrowed much of its laws," so also Lovell and his companyhave "scrapped" God's plan and devised their own to"judge us like all nations" (I Sam. 8:5).

According to Scripture, the church looks to CHRIST for "our guidance and direction." He is the "author of eternal salvation unto all them that OBEY HIM" (Heb. 5:9). We are to be 'looking unto JESUS the author and finisher of our faith" (Heb. 12: 2);"And he is the head of the body, the church . . . that in ALL THINGS HE might have the preeminence(Col. 1: 18). What will it be, brethren — will we "look to Nashville" for our "guidance and direction" or "unto Jesus"? Can we be certain that the guidance and direction" from Nashville will be more perfect and infallible than the 'guidance and direction" from Christ? If the Catholics are wrong folooking to Rome for their "guidance and direction," what makes us right by looking to Nashville? Are the elders of the Otter Creek Church (or any other in Nashville) the Vicars of Christ on earth? TheRoman Pope claims to be. Here, then, is bro. Lovell's first mistake; he is looking and encouraging alothers to look in the wrong direction for "guidanceand direction." And if they look in the wrong direction, then they are following the wrong course. And remember, whether it is the Herald of Truth in Texas or the Korea work of the Otter Creek church in Nashville, each is indicted for a transgression ofGod's plan and exists upon an unscriptural foundation. Since their "guidance and direction" does notcome from Christ, then they are practicing withoutHis AUTHORITY. This proves how unreasonable is their argument, WHERE THERE IS NO PATTERN.

Never do we read in the entire New Testament that any church looked to ANOTHER CHURCH for guidance and direction. Where is the text that proves such a wild notion as bro. Lovell's ? But our brethren seem not much upset because WHERE THERE ISNO PATTERN they look to Nashville and then theyhave one of their own to compete with God's. According to New Testament patterns, elders were appointed in EVERY CHURCH (Acts 14: 23) ; Each church was fully organized and equipped to care for its own work (Phil. 1:1); elders were to "feed the church of God," but only "OVER THAT WHICH THE HOLY GHOST HATH MADE YOU OVERSEERS" (Acts 20: 28) and they were just that— "over-seers" and not "super-overseers" of other"flocks," in addition to that which was "among you." Elders were to "feed the flock of God which is AMONG YOU" (I Pet. 5:2). Each church under the oversight of its elders worked independently and separate from churches under the oversight of elders over them. No group of elders was submitted toanother group of elders under any type of "sponsoring elders" for any kind of work. Nowhere do wer ead that elder s of one congr egation wer e to "GUIDE" and "DIRECT" the "flock of God" in another locality. They were to care for the flock "WHICH IS AMONG YOU." not in distant regions all over the earth.

REMEMBER YOUR ZIP CODE!

The Post Office Department requires that we have the zip code number on ever y piece of mail we send out. Please check your name and address on this i ue and if the zip code number is mi ing or wrong, please notify us as soon as possible that your mail will reach you in good time.

TWENTY-FIRST ANNUAL LECTURE PROGRAM OF FLORIDA COLLEGE Hutchinson Memorial Auditorium, Temple Terrace, Florida

January 23-26, 7967

THEME: The Living God and the Living Word

MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 1967

7:30p.m. The Inspired Word ......................................................................................... Jere Frost

8:30 p.m. The Word — Mental And Physical Health .............................. Dr. William McElwain

TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1967

9:30 a.m. God of Creation vs the "god" of Materialism .................................... David Harkrider

10:20 a.m. Moder n T heology and God .......................................................................... Hir am Hutto

11:20 a.m. The Spiritual House and Spiritual Sacrifices ................................................ Tom Butler

2:20 p.m. The Living Word on the Living Frontier .................................................... Sewell Hall

3:20 p.m. T he L iving God in the Psalms ................................................................... Homer Hailey

7:30 p.m. The Living Word and Living Things.......................................................... Melvin Curry

8:30 p.m. The Profitable Word (II Timothy 3) ...................................................... Granville Tyler

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1967

9:30 a.m. God of Revelation vs the "gods" of Imagination...................................... O. C. Birdwell10:20 a.m. Modern Theology and the Miraculous........................................................Paul Williams11:20 a.m. T he L iving Past ......................................................................................... James Hodges2:20 p.m. The Living Word on the Living Frontier ...................................................... Sewell Hall3:20 p.m. The Coming God-King in the Psalms......................................................Homer Hailey8:30p.m. The Word of His Power ........................................................................... Curtis E. Flatt

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1967

9:30 a.m. God of Providence vs the "god" of Indifference.....................................Hershel Patton

10:20 a.m. Moder n T heology and Dispensationalism ............................................ William Wallace

11:20 a.m. Reminiscing With McGar vey .............................................................. Henr y S. Ficklin

2:20 p.m. The Living Word on the Living Frontier ...................................................... Sewell Hall

3:20 p.m. The Living God and Prayer........................................................................ Billy Murrell

8:30 p.m. The Final Word ........................................................................................Robert Jackson