In the 1967 Britannica BOOK of the YEAR, under the heading of "Religion," on page 664, there appears an article on "Churches of Christ." When I first read it, I was surprised, and my wife's remark, as I read it aloud indicated that it struck her the same way.

We are told that the "great commi ion was emphasized in 'Exodus' movements,..." This is where a number of families move into a community where there is no congregation of the Lord's people, mostlyin the North and Eastern states, some of them supporting themselves through "secular professions and businesses, and a few preachers supported by sponsoring churches."

"Team effort is typical in overseas mi ion,... the team included a veterinarian, physician, nurses, civil engineer, and printer ..." We are informed that: "A hospital was opened near Aba." Also, "Campaignfor Christ," were conducted "Across North America," and in a number of other countries.

We are told that the " 'Herald of Truth' was broadcast on 825 radio and 152 television outlets in 49 states of the U.S. and in 12 other countries."

Next, we are treated with the "Emphasis on education . . ." David Lipscomb, York, and Lubbock,along with Pepperdine were mentioned specificallyamong the 24 schools "operated" by "members of the Churches of Christ" in 1966. Immediately, I asked,"Why was not A.C.€. mentioned?" T his was the thing that raised my wife's voice of inquiry too. Most reports which I have seen place A.C.C. at the top ofthe list among the institutions essential to the growth of the church; the one that has contributed so much to the progressive state of the Lord's peopletoday.

I am still not sure just why it was not mentioned. Inasmuch as the writer mentioned these as being operated by "Members of the Churches of Christ," I sort of wondered if it had ceased to be so operated? Perhaps it could no longer be thus cla ified; if possibly it was now operated by "Churches of Christ," rather than by members?

The last paragraph informs us: "The churches also supported 52 children's homes, 2 maternityhomes, and 12 homes for the elderly."

As I reflected upon the article, the following questions emerged:

1. Why the greatest school in the "Brotherhood" was not mentioned ? What has happened to her reputation? Then, I thought that perhaps to fail to list her, may mean that she has status; perhaps she is so well known — every body knows about her — thus the writer's aim was to establish the other schools in the eyes of men, give them a rating also. Brother

M. NORVAL YOUNG, the writer, is president of Pepperdine College, located in Los Angeles, Calif.,he is also E ditor of Twentieth Century Christian.Contributors page 11

1. I wondered why the wr iter would notice theschools operated by "Members" of the Churches of Christ, under the CHURCHES OF CHRIST? Whnot mention other businesses "operated" by "Members?" Would this suggest that he may. think othem as being institutions "operated" by churches rather than members? I am inclined to believe that many of them are operated — financed — bychurches, and more shall be in the future. Just as soon as the opposition subsides to the level where it will be profitable to make the drive. Much of the opposition is subsiding fast.
2. Why would he make the effort to show that the schools were operated by "Members" but state, "The churches supported" 66 homes ?

These homes, are they not institutions apart from the church as well as the schools? Why could thenot be operated like the schools, by "Members?" Why is it right for the church to "operate" one institution and not another? Of course there is the emotional appeal connected with the home that is lackingwith reference to the school. To operate they must get support, and to get support, they must recognizethe psychological effect certain i ues have on people, and use it to their advantage.

Many have raised the i ue that those who opposechurch support of the homes, would allow a child tostarve to death, while they spent the money for fertilizer to put on the preacher's lawn. This is effective in arousing indignation in those who are taken in bythe sales pitch. Shortly, I suggest, we shall hear a voice crying and making similar charges with reference to those who oppose church support of thschools. All opposers will be charged with beinmean at heart and destitute of the Lord's wisdom and

grace. Some will look close enough to see, that to oppose church support of these institutions, is notequal to opposing the wor k. No one will allow children to starve nor die in ignorance, who is a Christian; neither does he want the church to support man's cause, rather the Lord's.

I read of, "Luke, the beloved physician, . . ." in myNew T estament, but we have pr ogr essed gr eatly: byteam work we have produced "veterinarian, . . .nurses, civil engineer, and printer, . . ." Now we canheal "every creature," build roads and bridges over which to travel to "Go . . . preach . . ." Have the printers to print beautiful signs to advertise our "Campaigns . . ." T his gr eat "T eam" may r eally getus places. On second thought, I wonder "Wher e weare going?" I think I'll just stay with the Lord. The quality of the company, I judge to be mor e important than the quantity! (Matt. 18:20; II John 9).

We need to see what happened. More significantly, perhaps, we need to evaluate what happened. Are we to rejoice or mourn over these things? I am in nomood to rejoice now. Perhaps someone can show methat such was pleasing to the Lord. If this be done,then I 'll join in and do what I can to help, but until I am convinced, I'll remain on the side line. As anindividual I'll assist "all men," saints and sinners; I'll practice "pure religion and undefiled before Godand the father," and keep myself "unspotted from the world." I'll teach the gospel of Christ, and ask men to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once deliver ed unto the saints."

LOVE WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM

On May 11, 1967 I received a letter from a lady in

Michigan with several questions which she wants

me to answer in this paper. She signed the letter but

requested that I withhold her name, which I am glad

to do. Following is the letter in full: Dear Sirs,I am a member of the church and a very firm believer in the mission of the church. There are some serious questions in my mind which I would like you to give me a sound scriptural answer for. First, however, I must in all honesty say that I am r esentful of your whole attitudetowar d what is in your opinion an erring church. I believe the thing that is lacking in both of us is the one thing that Jesus taught us by the very life he lived and that is love. I believe issues on both sides could be resolved if there were less sarcasm and more love. In your issues of Searching The Scriptures and various other articles I receive there is very little taught of Jesus andhis love f or man. Your whole aim seems to be one of proving a point rather than winning souls to Christ. Her e ar e some of my questions: What do youpropose to do with widows and of necessity theirchildren? The church is admon-ished to take care of widows (Acts 6:1) (I Tim. 5:3-16).You teach against one chur ch supporting or helping another. How can one congregation afford to put out fine literature such as the Truth Magazine and various others? How did we geton your mailing list?

You teach against supporting colleges yet yohave a college in Florida. By whom or how is this college supported? If solely by tuition itmust certainly be high. Then is it right to price the teachings of Christ and training to be disciples and, or, preachers only to those who canafford it?

The church's mission is to preach the Gospelto all the world for which we must have mi ionaries. How are these men to go without financial backing? Must they wait until they save enoughmoney of their own ? How long would this take ? Will the L ord's work wait? I believe not.

What also are your views on social activities within a congregation ? To me this is a very perplexing question.

You speak of the church having a central headquarters. I never can make up my mindwhich you mean a church in Nashville, Tennessee or The Herald of Truth or both. At least you speak of a danger of it being so. Having been member of the local congregation for 10 years and I can honestly say that I have only heard either of these mentioned, not even a half a dozen times, so I really don't know what the discussion on this issue is all about. I have never heard either one mentioned from the pulpit.

I sincerely desire an answer to these disturbing questions. If you desire you may print this, but please omit my name for obvious reasons.

Thank you, /s/

This lady states near the end of her letter thatshe had been in the church for 10 years and had notheard these things mentioned a half dozen times, "so I really don't know what the discu ion on this i ue is all about. I have never heard either one mentioned from the pulpit." This is exactly the case of thousands of member s of the church across the nation. The elders and preachers who have promoted these innovations in the church do well for themselves bykeeping quiet about the matter. When they do speakon the subject, they nearly always misquote or misapply what we teach. They either do not know whatthe i ue really is or they deliberately try to deceive.

I shall now take the letter as it was written and answer every question with a sound answer. Someof them will not be answered with scriptures because they do not pertain to Bible matters.

This sister is resentful of my whole attitude and says I lack love; "I believe i ues on both side could be r esolved if there were less sarcasm and more love." Love for what? Are we to "love"(?) each other beyond and above the truth? How could loveresolve error with truth? Paul describes love as "rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth witthe truth" (I Cor. 13:6). God is the very essence of love. "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love" (I John 4:8). God loved men so much that He gave His Son to die that all might be saved. Wouldyou even think that God does not love men ? But how does God deal with sin; what is His attitude ? Everyone even slightly acquainted with the Bible knows that God opposes sin in every form and in every place. Read the 23rd chapter of Matthew and see how you like the attitude of Jesus toward sin. Would you say that Jesus had a bad attitude or lacked love ?

In this issue is found a reprint on the subject of love which I wrote in May, 1962. This has been reproduced for the purpose of explaining this portion of the letter.

"What do you propose to do with widows and of necessity their children?" We propose to do exactlwhat Acts 6:1 and I Timothy 5:3-16 teach us to do.These passages teach that the church is to care for its own within the framewor k of that congregation.I Timothy 5 teaches that r elatives ar e to car e f or their own widows and needy and not place the obligation on the church that it may care for the widows indeed — those who have no relatives to care for them. But I will tell you what is not in these verses, nor anywhere else in the Bible: a human institution, a benevolent society, to which the churches contribute and then the society does the work a igned tthe church. That is what I oppose.

"You teach against one church supporting or helping another. How can one congregation afford to puout fine literature such as the Truth Magazine and various others?"

No, I do not teach against one church helping another. Several churches sent relief to the poor saints in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26; I Cor. 16:1,2; II Cor. 8and 9). But there is absolutely no authority in God's word for one church sending to another to do abrotherhood work or to preach the gospel. If yoknow the passage that authorizes many churches to send funds to one church that it may put on a world wide program of preaching the gospel, please let meknow where it is. I have been looking for it for years.

About one congregation putting out "fine literature" such as the Truth Magazine (and you are rightabout Truth Magazine being fine literature), let mecorrectly inform you that Truth Magazine is not put out by any church. It is published by individuals andthe church has nothing to do with its publication.Brother Cecil Willis is the very able editor of that publication. I may also add, Searching The Scriptures is not published by any church, and no church hasany connection with its publication, financially or otherwise. And as long as I have anything to do withit the church will never be connected with it exceptto buy whatever services or materials we have to sell.

"How did we get on your mailing list?" A friend paid for your subscription. This friend sent youname and the money to pay for the subscription.

"You teach against supporting colleges yet yohave a college in Florida. By whom or how is this college supported?" You have been misinformed about what I believe about supporting colleges. L et me suggest that you show this to the person who told you that I teach against supporting colleges. I have never said nor implied that I did not believe in supporting colleges. In fact, I have supported one as I was able and have encouraged others to do the same. I do, however, strongly oppose churches supportingcolleges of any kind for any purpose. This is not in any way a work for the church.

As to the who and how of the financial support o

Florida College, I suggest that you write brother

James R. Cope, president. You can get accurate in

formation from him on this matter. I know how it is

supported, but if you got the information frombrother Cope you could be sure that the information is correct.

"The church's mission is to preach the Gospel toall the world for which we must have mi ionaries. How are these men to go without financial backing ?Must they wait until they save enough money otheir own? How long would this take? Will the Lord's work wait? I believe not." Yes, we must have "missionaries" and every Christian should be a "missionary" in the work of the Lord. No, one does not have to wait to save enough money to support himself (Phil. 4:15; II Cor. 11:8; I Cor. 9:14). He malabor at some trade if he wants to in supporting himself as he preaches the word. I do not know how longit would take to save enough money to support oneself in preaching the gospel. I suppose it would depend upon how far he went and how long he stayed.The Lord's work will not wait on anything

"What also are your views on social activities within a congregation?" I can very easily state my conviction on this subject. I do not believe the Bible teaches any social activities within a congregation,if by social activity you mean fun, food, and frolic. Picnics, parties, entertainment and such like have no place in any way in the mission of the Lord's church.

"You speak of the church having a central headquarters. I never can make up my mind which yomean a church in Nashville, Tennessee or the Herald of Truth or both." I mean both! I also include every centralized effort that tends to pool the funds andwork of many churches in one church or board ofmen. I do not remember saying the church alreadyhas such headquarters, but it is fast approaching. In the minds of many the headquarters already exist in Nashville or Abilene, depending upon where they are.

I will be glad to tell anyone plainly just what I believe the Bible teaches on these matters or anyother Bible subject. I appreciate this letter and amglad for the opportunity to answer these questions.

THE REAL MEANING OF LOVE

H. E. Phillips

(The following article is a reprint from SearchingThe Scriptures, May, 1962 in explaining the scriptural view of love as it applies to those in error.)

Denominational views are generally known by the subjectsthat ar e discussed in pulpits and paper s, and the subject of LOVE occupies a top place in nearly all religious groups. I would like to sear ch the scriptures with you on the Biblemeaning of love in an effort to see if this subject is any more accurately represented by denominational teachers than manyother subjects with which they deal

Love is one of the key words in the word of God. The fact that God loves man is again and again stressed by every inspired man who was used by the Spirit to reveal the will of God. I John 4:7-21 is an example of the importance placed upon love by the wor d of God. Sever al facts ar e given ithese verses which show that love is indispensable to fellowship with God. John says that "God is love" and that 'love is of God". Since God loves us, we ar e instructed to "love one another". "If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us." "God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." This is the theme of John in this section of his epistle, and he concludes thchapter by saying: "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his br other, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his br other whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we fr om him, That he who loveth God love his brother also" (I John 4:20,21)

The question arises, What does love for my brother require of me? I was recently told that I did not have proper love for my brethren (some of them) because I spoke againsttheir views and teaching on certain subjects. I have been told a number of times that the "Spirit of the Anti group is without love". Now if that be true of me, I am wr ong. No mancan please God without love in his heart. No matter how much truth and power he has, if he does not have love, he is nothing (I Cor. 13:1-3). But what is the real, scriptural meaning of brotherly love? What does it require in my relationship to my br other ?

Love is an action of the heart. "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto the unfeigned love of the br ethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently" (I Pet. 1:22). It is also an action of life motivated by a heart filled with love. "My little childr en, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth" (I John 3:18). Love, then, is the state of heart or attitude of mind that responds in wor d and deed. It is what we do and say that is prompted by an attitude of heart called love.

In I Corinthians 13 we have a description of the love thatis approved by God. It suffers long, is kind, does not envy,is not puffed up, does not behave in an uneven manner, does not seek its own, is not easily pr ovoked, does not think evil, nor rejoice in sin, but does rejoice in truth. Love endures all things. This state of mind and conduct of life may be directed toward the wrong object. Many love, but they love the wrongthings. "For men shall be lovers of their own selves . . ." (II Tim. 3:2); "lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God . . ." (II Tim. 3:4); "For Demas hath forsaken me, havingloved this present world . . ." (II Tim. 4:10); "For the love of money is the r oot of all evil . . ." (I Tim. 6:10); "But Diotr ephes, who loveth to have the pr eeminence amonthem . . ." (Ill John 9); "For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God" (John 12.43). We are commanded to love God (Matt. 22:37, the truth (II Thess. 2:10), the brethren (I Pet. 1:22), and our enemies (Matt. 5:44). It may be that one has once loved the right things, but has lost this love. "And because iniquity shall abound,the love of many shall wax cold" (Matt. 24.12). "Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love" (Rev. 2:4).

THE TRUE MEANING OF LOVE

For a long time the denominational world has contendedthat members of the church of Christ do not have love in their hearts, and the proof of it is in the fact that they debate and oppose "other churches". Love to these people means a kind,loving, compromising, soul who will agree with and endorse almost any kind of religious teaching. Now some denominational minded brethren have adopted this same view of love,and they cr y that anyone who exposes their weak and unscriptural doctrines lacks true love.

God is love. John the inspir ed apostle said so. How does God react to sin and disobedience in those who are his children? In the Old Testament "every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward" (Heb. 2:2).

In the New Testament "he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect ofpersons" (Col. 3:25). The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), and the death he speaks of is the second death. "And death and hell wer e cast into the lake of fir e. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:14,15). God is love, but he deals with sin just as he pr omised. It follows that love is not incompatible with strong dealing with error and sin.

When I was a child I sometimes wondered how my father and mother could say, "Son, this is because I love you," when they applied the r od wher e it would do the most good. If they loved me, why did they have to show it by a thrashing second to none? But by and by I became a man and a father myself. I had to do for my children exactly what was done to me. Then I knew what they meant when they said, "This is because I love you". I know now as you know, love demands correction and chastisement when it is needed to make the person you love better. "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scour geth ever y son whom he r eceiveth" (Heb. 12:6).

Many think love requires absolutely no hate for anything. If one hates anything he cannot have the love of God in his heart. The writer of Hebrews quotes God as saying of Christ: "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity" (Heb. 1:9). Christ hated iniquity! Christ writes to Ephesus: "But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate" (Rev. 2:6). To the angel of the church in Pergamos Christ said: "So hast thou also them that hold thedoctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate" (Rev. 2:15). Christ hated the deeds and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, yet he is the embodiment of love. Seven things are listed inProverbs 6:16 that God hates, yet God is love. It follows that true love does not mean that hate cannot exist in the heart of the per son. He must love what he should love and hate what he should hate.

Many think Jove will not permit discipline. Any sign of exercising discipline against those who sin is a sign of the lack of love. Paul writes the Corinthians about a man who was living in adultery, and tells them "to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may besaved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (I Cor. 5:5). Because of their "puffed up" state he writes in the last verse of I Cor. 4: "What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the Spirit of meekness?" Now, Paul, you should not write that way. Don't you know it is not a sign of love tospeak so harshly to brethren? Put in the 13th chapter Paul tells what love is, and says that if he does anything without love it does not profit him anything. Evidently he understood a harmony to exist between discipline— strong discipline— and true love. Remember, Paul wr ote the commandments of the Lord (I Cor. 14:37). We are commanded by the authority of Christ to deal with false teachers (Rom. 16:17), and with the unruly and vain talkers (Titus 1:10), and to do it"sharply" (vs. 13). The God of love required this, therefore it must be in harmony with true love to rebuke sin andfalse brethren.

Many think love requires a compromise. False brethren of Paul's day "privily" came in to spy out the liberty of Christians in or der to bind them again to bondage, but Paul said of them: "to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you" (Gal. 2:4,5). Paul even r ebuked another apostle (Peter) by withstanding "him to the face" because he "walked not uprightly accor ding to the truth of the gospel" (Gal. 2:11,14). Love for God and the gospel will never permit compromise with anyone. On the other hand, love for God, the gospel and men in sin will call upon us to sound out the wor d "in season and out of season" without compr omise at any level.

Many will argue that love substitutes for obedience. Howmany have you heard say, "God is love, and He will not send a man to hell for doing a little thing that is wr ong"? They mean by this that God's love is such that He will overlook our failure to obey Him and save us anyway. I believe somebrethren think that is the kind of love we should have toward each other. But Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). John said, "And this is love, that we walk after his commandments" (II John 6). Paul said, "Be ye followers of God, as dear children; and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour" (Eph. 5:1,2). Real love requires obedience to God; obedience to God requires that we oppose sin and false doctrines where ever they be found (Rom. 16:17; Titus 1:10; Eph. 5:11; II Thess. 3:6).

"We appr eciate the good wor k that you ar e doingthrough the printed page. Keep up the fine work."

— Sam W. Garrison, Nashville, Tenn.

"I enjoy Searching The Scriptures so much anddo not want to miss a single issue. I think it contains some of the best instructions concerning the issues before the church that I have seen anywhere." —

K. E. Thomas, Kirkland, Ill.

"I pray God will bless you both and. help you tocontinue with this hard work to bring us such goodlessons from God's word." — Florence Jedlicka, Hialeah, Fla.

"I continue to enjoy your paper, and benefit a great deal from it." — Mable Woodrome, Pine Bluff, Ark.

"This is a very fine publication and I enjoy it very much. Keep up the good work!" — E. Housten Hal-stead, Scott Depot, W. Va.

"We really enjoy Searching The Scriptures ... it is one of the best and I am sure much good will come from reading it." — Mrs. C. H. Carter, Trenton, Tenn.

"Believe me I am proud of your complete staff for the ver y good paper you all produce." — Joseph C.Dias, Jacksonville, Fla.

"Keep up the good work."— Hayse Reneau, Glade-water, Texas."We enjoy the paper very much." — H. H. Evans, Moss Point, Miss."Keep up the good wor k you ar e doing." — Wallace Whitehor n, Athens, Ala.

"The church continues to grow everywhere in spite of all that has been done to carry it down to denominationalism. Searching The Scriptures deserves a lot of the credit. We enjoy it very much." — C. O. Tucker, Sr., Jacksonville, Fla.

"We enjoy your paper. We feel that so much good is being done through each issue." — Robert Gaines, Altamonte Springs, Fla.

"We appreciate the fine articles written by brethren who donate both time and talent." — Dwight C.Edwar ds, T homasville, Ala.

"I continue to enjoy getting the paper." — Karl Diestelkamp, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

"I think you have one of the best papers in thebrotherhood and urge you to keep up this good wor k." — G. H. Wilson, Conway, Ar k.

"I continue to thank you for the good paper yousend me each month (Searching The Scriptures). My wife and I really enjoy it. Please pray for us andthe work out here and could you please ask the whole church to pray for this country (Rhodesia) ?" — Doug D. Bauer, Que Que, Rhodesia.

"I like Searching The Scriptures very much andappreciate the good work you and brother Miller aredoing in making available such fine material." —Bill Haynes, Kansas City, Mo.

"Searching The Scriptures is doing untold good. I am thankful that it is in cir culation." — Hor ace Huggins, Meridian, Miss.

"Please add my name to your subscription list. I enjoy the paper very much, and feel that good is being accomplished by the efforts of those connected with it." — W. C. Moseley, Los Angeles, Calif.

"Searching The Scriptures is excellent. Keep upthe good work you are doing." — E. Paul Price, Borger, Texas.

"I have appreciated Searching The Scriptures from the time that it was first introduced to me back in December, 1961 by br other Fred Jeff er y . . . I have been subscribing ever since. Keep fighting for truth and right and a great host of the children of God will be strengthened with the power of His might." — Fred A. Shewmaker, Wooster, Ohio.

"Please renew my subscription to Searching The Scriptures; a most excellent means of teaching thetruth." — Ralph R. Givens, Susanville, Calif.

"We enjoy Searching The Scriptures very much."

— Gilbert W. Holt, Clarksville, Tenn."We are still enjoying your paper." — Albert Dabbs, Humphr ey, Ar k.

"I continue to enjoy Searching The Scriptures with 'Searching The Scriptures.' " — J. D. Tant, Decatur, Ga.

QUESTION — Does the casting of lots in Acts

1:26 justify voting, under any circumstance, in church affairs? I refer to such things as business meetings of the church and the decisions made inmatters of judgment. I know of this being doneamong elders and among men in churches without elders. Is not this majority rule? — S.A.

ANSWER— Acts 1:26 does not justify voting (suffrage) whether by a show of hands, ballots, or voice in any affair of the chur ch. T hose who use it in aneffort to justify such evidently do not know themeaning of "casting lots" us used among God'speople in the Bible.

The casting of lots in Acts 1:15-26 determined whether Joseph, called Barsabas, or Matthias should take the place of Judas who by transgression fell. The decision was not determined by voting. The question was not settled by majority sentiment. The context shows that Matthias was chosen of God— not by the people: "And they pr ayed, and said, T hou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen" (Acts 1:24).

T he outcome of the casting of lots among God'speople, both in the Old and the New T estament was always regarded as an act of God — hence, Hischoice. T her e is nothing to indicate that the outcome was left to the element of chance. The Jews certainly under stood that God's hand was in it all so that bythis method majority rule was eliminated as a determining factor, and at the same time, by the hand of God, the element of chance was ruled out. Furthermore, they had scriptural grounds for so thinking: "T he lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord" (Prov. 16:33); "The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty" (Prov. 18:18).

T he Bible does not tell us which method was used in casting the lots. Scholars inform us of various ways. Sometimes it was done by placing marked stones in a container, then shaking them so that onewould fall out. Sometimes names were drawn from a container. Regardless of the method employed, itwas always regarded as of the Lord. The casting of lots was used in determining which of two goats was to be sacrificed to God and which was to be the scapegoat (Lev. 16:7-10). The promised land wasdivided by lot among the tribes of Israel (Num. 26:55; 33:54). The courses of priest were determined by lot (I Chr. 24:5). It is thought by scholars that Achan and his guilt was determined by lot (Josh. 7:16-26), and, again, that Saul was chosen to be kingby the same method (I Sam. 10:19-21). In all these

it is evident that the decision was made not by thpeople, but by the Lord. This does not mean thatGod's hand was in the casting of lots but those not His own and relative to matters outside His will. However, in that day when God spoke to His people"m divers manners," the lot was often the method by which His will was revealed on certain matters.

I verily believe that voting in the business meetings referred to results in majority rule. Brethren often, perhaps unwittingly, pursue a course fraughtwith all the evils of majority rule — and there are many. This is done when voting takes place in business meetings — whether by elders or the men of the congregation. God has never allowed His peopleto settle any issue by majority sentiment either in the Old Testament or the New. Of course, there is adifference between determining the sentiment ofthose present in a meeting with a view to unanimity,and in settling the i ue on the basis of majority sentiment. When a point of wisdom is involved,brethren ought to give themselves more to a considerate, free, open, extensive discu ion of conflictingviews. After all has been considered, .the chances are that the wiser decision will be obvious to all and unanimity can be reached. I have seen whole groups changed by the reasoning of one man of experience and knowledge in the matter at hand. Sometimes faults, evils, etc., of which the majority are not aware (especially, if they are young people, novices, etc.)can be seen by all, if the matter is not rushed to adecision, but rather fully considered. It may takemore time, but it will eliminate much ill will andivision, and at the same time make for peace andharmony. If all were careful to observe the principles laid down in the following scriptures, unanimity would not be difficult to reach in all matters of judgment: "Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble" (IPet. 5:5); "Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not ever y maon his own things, but every man also on the things of others" (Phil. 2:3,4).

"THE BIBLE IS A CATHOLIC BOOK"-A REVIEW

The Religious Information Bureau of the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic organization, has recently been circulating in newspapers, an article asserting that the Bible is a "CATHOLIC" book. Now if the "Knights" use the word "catholic" in its literal sense, then they are correct in asserting that theBible is a "universal" book, for that is what the word "catholic" actually means. But the contents of their newspaper article indicate that the "Knights" do not use the word "catholic" in its literal sense, but in avery sectarian sense.

Such a usage (or mis-usage) would be similar to the claim that either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party gave the world the U.S. Constitution, inasmuch as the U.S. Constitution sets forth "democratic principles" or the "principles of a republican form of government." But you know and I know, that the U.S. Constitution existed before either of today's modern political parties came intoexistence . . . therefore, neither political party cahonestly claim that they produced the U.S. Constitution. In like manner, the Bible existed long centuries before anything like the Roman Catholic Church appeared on history's stage

Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible did not accept the additional apocryphalbooks of the Old Testament, that modern day RomanCatholics include in their versions of the Bible. In fact, the Old Testament was written about Hebrews,delivered to the Hebrews, and esteemed by thHebrews, in the same form as it is now accepted by non-Roman Catholics and "Protestants" some four centuries before Christ. It was not until several centuries after Christ that efforts began to be made tinclude several books of questionable and unsound authorship as part of the Old Testament Canon.

Among the early theologians and ecclesiastical writers who accepted the O.T. Canon as non-Roman Catholics do today were Jerome, Athanasius, Rufinus, Origen, Hilary, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Epiphanius and Cyril of Jerusalem. The provincial "council of Laodicea" also rejected all th"apocryphal" books with perhaps the one exception of "Baruch."

The extra books that the Roman Catholic Church has added to the Old Testament, are called "apocryphal" by non-catholics and "Protestants" but are considered to be canonical by the Latin Church inmodern times.

The 39 Old Testament books in the non-catholic Bible contain exactly the same writings as were accepted by the Hebrews several centuries before Christ. This collection of writings was put together

by the ancient Jews and other religious writings were ascribed by them as "apocryphal" or unsound. Many years later, however, as the Jewish peoplemigr ated ar ound the Mediterranean Sea following their commercial interests, a great number of Jews settled at Alexandria in Egypt. Greek was the language of commerce and the Empire at that time, and so a need was f elt for a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Alexandrian Jews were strongly influenced by the Greek fables and philosophies, and when their translation of the Hebrew Scriptures was completed, they had added several books which the Jews of Palestine had rejected asspurious or uninspired, years earlier. This Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures is known as the Septuagint.

Two compound Greek words have been formed todescribe the two collections of the Old Testament books. They are, "proto-canonical" and "deuterocanonical," meaning the "FIRST ME ASURING ROD" and "SECOND MEASURING ROD.-" We copy as follows:

"... The protocanonical books of the Old Tes

tament correspond with those of the Bible of the

Hebrews and the O.T. as received by Protes

tants. T he deuter ocanonical ar e those whose

Scriptural character was contested in some quar

ters, but which long ago gained a secure footing

in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though

those of the O.T. are classed by Protestants as

the 'Apocrypha.' . . ." (Catholic Encyclopedia,

Vol. Ill, page 2G7.)

Christ and His Apostles never quoted from any of the added books in the "second canon," although they did quote frequently in the New Testament, from many of the books included in the "first canon" of the Old Testament. Justin Martyr, a writer of many religious works, never once quotes from any of the "apocr yphal" books.

This treatise has dealt only with one aspect of the Bible, i.e., the Canon of the Old Testament, but it can be r eadily pr oved that the Roman Chur ch is not the"Mother of the Bible" as she would like the world to think.

WORD STUDIES IN NEW TESTAMENTBENEVOLENCE: No. 5

DIAKONIA

It is stated in Acts 6:1 that the Grecians or Hellenists in the Jerusalem church complained becausetheir widows wer e neglected in the daily diakonia. The term diakonia is found numerous times in the Greek Testament, but significant occurrences are these: Acts 11:27; Rom. 15:31; II Cor. 9:1, wher e the term refers to the contribution for the saints in Judea. The latter two passages refer to a later contribution ; the former, to an earlier contribution during the r eign of Claudius. As diakonia is used in the passages cited, it denotes the care of the poor, or the supplying or distribution of charities.

LOGEIA

T he Gr eek noun logeia, sometimes spelled logia,is rendered "collections" in most Greek lexicons. This rendering is very amply sustained in the papyri byMoulton. (Vocabular y of the Greek New Testament,

p. 377.) Apparently, Grimm-Thayer's comment thatthe word is not found in profane authors would bemodified by more recent papyri discoveries. Souter obser ves that logeia comes from the verb logeuo, "Icollect." He defines logeia as "a collecting of money." (Pocket Lexicon, p. 146.) Grimm-Thayer follow thisrendering and say that logeia denotes a collection of money. (Lexicon, p. 379.) Liddell and Scott concur in ascribing to the term the meaning "a collection of taxes or voluntary contributions." (Lexicon, p. 1055.)

Logeia occur s only twice in the Gr eek T estament (I Cor. 16: 1, 2), and in both of these places the word refers to the contribution for the Judean saints.

PTOCHOS

The term ptochos occurs in thirty-four passages in the Gr eek T estament, and consumes two wholecolumns in Hatch and Redpath's Concordance to the Septuagint. Moulton cites its use in the papyr i as "crouching," "cringing,"; hence, " a beggar." Hefurther comments that the term is always used in abad sense until it is "enobled" by the Gospels. (Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, p. 559.) The word ptochos in the classical Greek also means "beggar." The Greek lexicon of Arndt and Gingrich makes the term even stronger in assigning to it"dependent on others for support." They cite as a"quite literal" sense, Rom. 15:26, where the text speaks of the poor saints in Jerusalem.

In secondar y senses ptochos denotes the assistance from God that disillusioned people need. A variety of figurative concepts of poverty inheres in the word.

The following debates are available on new 1 1/2 mil.

Mylar (polyester) tape, weather resistant, recorded on both

sides at 3 3/4 i.p.s. These tapes can be played on any

recorder using a 7" reel. Each reel contains one full

night's discussion. Recording at 1 7/8 i.p.s. can be obtained

on 3" or 5" reels. The price is $3.00 per reel — one reel for

each night. Any defective recording will be replaced free of

charge if the bad tape is returned.

Order from: PHILLIPS PUBLICATIONS

P.O. Box 17244Tampa, Florida 33612

BOZARTH-MIZELL DEBATE

Chicago, Illinois December 5-9, 1966

FIRST TWO NIGHTS: "It is scriptural for churches of Christ to contribute from their treasuries to relieve the physical necessities of those who are not Christians."

AFFIRMATIVE: William Mizell NEGATIVE: Elvis Bozarth

LAST TWO NIGHTS: "The building, maintaining, and supplying of orphanhomes such as the T ennessee Orphan Home is without scriptural authority.1'

AFFIRMATIVE: Elvis Bozarth NEGATIVE: William Mizell

FOUR REELS — $12.00

MILLER-WOODS DEBATE

Montgomery, Alabama August 29-September 1, 1966

FIRST TWO NIGHTS: "It is in harmony with the scriptures for churches of Christ to build and maintain benevolent organizations for the care of the needy, suchas Boles Home, Tipton Home, Tennessee Orphan Home, Childhaven, andother orphan homes and homes for the aged that are among us."

AFFIRMATIVE: Guy N. Woods NEGATIVE: James P. Miller

LAST TWO NIGHTS: "Such an arrangement and cooperative effort on the part of churches of Christ for the preaching of the gospel as the 'Herald of Truth' is without scriptural authority."

AFFIRMATIVE: James P. Miller NEGATIVE: Guy N. Woods

FOUR REELS — $12.00

MILLER-WALLACE DEBATE

Tampa, Florida August 16-20, 1965

FIRST TWO NIGHTS: "It is in harmony with the scriptures for churches ofChrist to build and maintain benevolent organizations for the care of the needy, such as Boles Home, Tipton Home, Tennessee Orphan Home, Childhaven, and other orphan homes and homes for the aged that are among us."

AFFIRMATIVE: G. K. Wallace NEGATIVE: James P. Miller

LAST TWO NIGHTS: "Such an arrangement and cooperative effort on the part of churches of Christ for the preaching of the gospel as the 'Herald of Truth' is without scriptural authority."

AFFIRMATIVE: James P. Miller NEGATIVE: G. K. Wallace

FOUR REELS — $12.00

BATTS-SUTTON DEBATE

Albertsville, Alabama September 14-17, 1965

FIRST TWO NIGHTS: "The Bible teaches that water baptism is a condition of pardon

for an alien sinner."

AFFIRMATIVE: Carrol Sutton, Christian NEGATIVE: Albert Batts, Church of God

LAST TWO NIGHTS: "The Bible teaches that Holy Spirit baptism is for be-lievers today as it was in the days of the apostles."

AFFIRMATIVE: Albert Batts, Church of God NEGATIVE: Carrol Sutton, Christian

FOUR REELS — $12.00

HIGHERS-REESOR DEBATE

Memphis, Tennessee December 14-17, 1965

1ST NIGHT: "The scriptures teach that water baptism to a penitent believer is essential to salvation from past or alien sins."

AFFIRMATIVE: Alan E. Highers, Christian NEGATIVE: James B. Reesor, Church of God

2ND NIGHT: "The scriptures teach that the signs and miracles done by the apostles and other disciples, as recorded in the New T estament, was to cease at the close of the apostolic age, or by the time the complete will of God was revealed and confirmed in the New T estament."

AFFIRMATIVE: Alan E. Highers, Christian NEGATIVE: James B. Reesor, Church of God

3RD NIGHT: "The baptism of the Holy Spirit is for believers throughout the entire church according to the direct teaching of the Holy Scriptures."

AFFIRMATIVE: James B. Reesor, Church of God NEGATIVE: Alan E. Highers, Christian

4TH NIGHT: "The signs and miracles performed by the apostles and other disciples in the apostolic age would continue throughout the gospel age or the Christian dispensation."

AFFIRMATIVE: James B. Reesor, Church of God NEGATIVE: Alan E. Highers, Christian

FOUR REELS — $12.00

GARNER-HOGLAND DEBATE

Lakeland, Florida April 6-1 7, 1964

1ST NIGHT: "The scriptures do not authorize instrumental music in New Testament worship."

AFFIRMATIVE: Ward Hogland, Christian NEGATIVE: Albert Garner, Baptist

2ND NIGHT: "The scriptures authorize instrumental music in New Testament worship."

AFFIRMATIVE: Albert Garner, Baptist NEGATIVE: Ward Hogland, Christian 3RD NIGHT: "The scriptures teach that baptism is a condition to the forgive-ness of

alien sins."

AFFIRMATIVE: Ward Hogland, Christian NEGATIVE: Albert Garner, Baptist

4TH NIGHT: "The scriptures teach that salvation is at the point of faith before and without water baptism."

AFFIRMATIVE: Albert Garner, Baptist NEGATIVE: Ward Hogland, Christian

5TH NIGHT: "The scriptures teach that only a child of God — one already saved — is a fi t subject for baptism and membership in a New T esta-ment BaptistChurch."

AFFIRMATIVE: Albert Garner, BaptistNEGATIVE: Ward Hogland, Christian

6TH NIGHT: "The scriptures teach that a penitent believer becomes a child of God by baptism into Christ and the church of Christ."

AFFIRMATIVE: Ward Hogland, Christian NEGATIVE: Albert Garner, Baptist

7TH NIGHT: "The scriptures teach that it is impossible for a child of God to so sin as to be finally lost in hell."

AFFIRMATIVE: Albert Garner, BaptistNEGATIVE: Ward Hogland, Christian

8TH NIGHT: "The scriptures teach that it is possible for a child of God to so sin as to be finally lost in hell."

AFFIRMATIVE: Ward Hogland, Christian NEGATIVE: Albert Garner, Baptist

Special: ALL EIGHT REELS ONLY $20.00

OLD RELIGIOUS PAPERS FOR SALE Jerry Eubanks, 4056 Cedar Knoll Dr., Tucker, Ga. 30084—Due to the death of my father-in-law, Walter N. Henderson, I now have extra sets of religious periodicals that I would like to sell for sister Henderson. Gospel Guardian, Vol. 7 (1955) through Vol. 18(1966), complete except for 19 issues. $30 plus postage. Preceptors, Vol. 3 (1953) through Vol. 15 (1966), complete except for 18 issues. $15 plus postage. Searching The Scriptures, Vols. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7. $10 plus postage.

HEBREW WORD STUDIES

Harold Tabor, Indianapolis, Ind.

NAMES OF GOD NO. 2

The most difficult name of God to translate is ELOHIM. Almost all scholars agree that the nameEL OHIM has an etymological basis with the meaning of "power."

The problem arises from the plural form which is indicated by the -IM ending. It is used so extensively that the singular form is confined almost completely to poetry (Psalms 18; Deut. 32). The plural form can scarcely sanction polytheism.

The plural form is generally used with a singular verb. We read Genesis 1:1,"In the beginning God(ELOHIM in the plural) created (in the singular) the heavens and the earth." Here it is associated with the extent of power (plural of majesty) or "plenitude of power " belonging to the Divine Being or entity.

A solution to the problem is suggested by translating the plural form ELOHIM with the term Godhead or Deity. When reference is made to the false gods of other nations, the plural form is translated "gods." T he heathen nations usually had a plur ality of objects of worship.

Some have taken the plural form as evidence tothe plurality of persons in the Godhead or Trinity (Gen. 1:26). It is certainly consistent with the concept of God r evealed in the New T estament (Matt. 28:19), but is not demanded in the wor d itself. Ourconcept of God does not come from the etymology of the word, but from the truth that is revealed in astudy of the Scriptures.

THE FINALITY OF REVELATION-Matt. 2:23-24

Elvis Bezarth 3679

W. Grand Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60651 INTRODUCTION:

1. Text: Source of religious authority is all-important.
2. All religious authority comes from one of twosources: heaven or men.
3. Bible believers are admonished by Isa. 55:6-9; Jer. 10:23; Pr ov. 14:12.
4. Therefore, we must look to heaven and not to men. DISCUSSION:

I. GOD — CHRIST — APOSTLES — NEW TESTAMENT

A. God promised "all my words" to the prophet to come. Deut. 18:15-22

B. That prophet was Jesus of Nazareth. Jno. 1:32-34; 6:14; Acts 3:22

C. Jesus pr omised that the wor ds given to himwould be given to the apostles. Jno. 14:26;15:26-27; 16:13; 17:1-20

II. WHAT WAS GIVEN TO THE APOSTLES WE HAVE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT A. The apostles were promised all the truth, Jno. 14:26 B. T he apostles claimed to have r eceived all the truth. I Cor. 2:16; Gal. 1:11-12; II Pet. 1:3 C. T he apostles declar ed all the truth. Acts 20:27 D. The apostles recorded and delivered all the truth. I John 1:3-4

1. To produce faith and give life. John 20:30-31
2. T o know what Jesus did and taught. Actsl:2;Lk. 1:3 -4
1. To know commandments of the Lord. I Cor.
2. 14:37
3. To understand the mystery. Eph. 3:3-5
4. T o know what a good work is and all things. II Tim. 3:16-17
5. To know the revelation made known amongall the nations. Rom. 16:25-26

E. The apostles made the truth known once for all. (once delivered — perpetually valid — havingno need of repetition — Thayer, p. 54) F. That truth is imperishable. I Pet. 1:22-25 G. That truth will be open at the judgment. Jno.

12:48; Rev. 20:12 CONCLUSION: The New Testament therefore is:

1. Divine, not human in origin. Gal. 1:11-12
2. Pure, not perverted in quality. II Cor. 11:3; Gal. 1:6-9
3. Complete, not partial in its provisions. II Timothy 3:16-17; II Pet. 1:3
4. Necessary, not optional in its requirements: II Thess. 1:7-8

In a previous article entitled "The 'No Pattern' Theory — Some Sad Results," we noted many thingswhich appeared in weekly bulletins of the Exodus Bayshore Church of Christ in West Islip, New York. Among those things was an article written by DwainE vans in which he attempted to pr ove that it was not wrong for Christians to drink alcoholic beverages. All Chr istians need to study car efully on this matter since it has come to the point that some pr eacher s ar e advocating that it is not wrong.

The desire of some Christians to engage in a moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages is usually "justified" by certain scriptures taken out of context andnot studied thor oughly. E ven in the face of the factsthat one out of every fifteen who begins social drinking ends up an alcoholic, that millions are killed eachyear in auto accidents caused by drinking (besides social pr oblems and juvenile delinquency), some Christians will argue that moderated drinking is their privilege and they make much of: (1) Paul telling Timothy to "use a little wine for the sake of your stomach" (I Tim. 5:23). (2) A deacon must notbe addicted to much wine (I Tim. 3:8). (3) The older women were not to be slaves to drink (Titus 2:3).

(4) Christ's example in making wine at the weddingof Cana (John 2:1-11). These are the four arguments used by brother Evans in his article.

In studying this subject of "strong drink," certain f acts must be r ecognized. "T he Biblical phr ase 'strong drink' really means light beverages becausethere was nothing in Bible times which corresponded to the strong drinks of today. Natural fermentation produces a maximum of only about 14% content of alcohol, since a higher alcoholic content kills the yeast cells which produce it. To obtain a higher percentage of alcohol, freezing or distillation must be used, processes not known in ancient times for beverage making. Actually wine and beer in ancient Palestine contained not over 5% or 8% alcohol because of the limitations of the natural sugar content in grape-juice and the malt which was used.. T his constituted the 'strong drink' of the Bible. Certainly far greater responsibility rests upon those who use strong drink in our society where proof liquor (proof liquor in the

U.S. is 'that alcoholic liquor which contains one half its volume of alcohol . . .' See under 'proof spirit' inWebster's New World Diet., 1964 edition) is obtainable, than upon those who used alcoholic bever ages in ancient times when only 5%or 8% liquor was to be had. We may conclude from the very nature of the situation that the Bible condemns the strong liquors of our day." (Archaeology And Bible History,by Joseph P. Free, pp. 352.)

T o under stand the ar guments given above let usrefer back to the Greek. In the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures), the Greek word oinos is used to translate both tirosh (grapejuice) and yayin (wine). Thus the word "wine" in the New T estament can mean either gr ape juice or wine, depending on the context. (See Eph. 5:18 — "wine" and Rev. 19:15 ARV "grapejuice.")

Now let us refer back to brother Evan's arguments (above) in numerical order.

(1) The Greek word oinos can mean either wine or grapejuice and as far as I know, no one objects to the medicinal use of alcohol especially in ancient days when medicines were limited and wine was weak. However, it is my understanding that doctors nowdiscourage modern day wine for medicinal purposes by prescribing much better medicines which havebeen produced. (2) T he wine of today is not used for the same purpose as was the wine of the New T estament. About the only r eason intoxicants ar e used today isto become intoxicated or to "live it up," to "get that 'good' feeling," "to put one on," etc. All of these reasons are wrong and not justified even if taken inmoderation. If drunkenness is condemned (Gal. 5:21), why should a Christian be drinking that which is unnecessar y and yet which he knows may lead tounquestionable wr ong? Chr istians ar e admonished not to influence others to sin (Rom. 14:12,13; I Thess. 5:22). I wonder if brother Evans knows of any Christian who ever exerted a good influence while drinking. (3) It is a fact that many people took wine (the ancient kind) in their old age for medicinal purposes. T hey wer e admonished not to be enslaved by it. (4) "Between 106 and 160 gallons of wine were made, according to Meyers Commentary. The fact that this large amount of wine was brought in during the latter part of the feast in a small country town furnishes no basis for arguing that Scripture condones moderate drinking. It would seem to prove either: 1. Excessive drinking was allowable, or 2. The oinos in this case was grapejuice. In the light of the whole Old Testament condemnation of wine (and theNew Testament condemnation of drunkenness, D.B.), it certainly would appear that the beverage wasgrapejuice. It is sometimes objected that this is ref err ed to as 'good wine' ( John 2:10), indicating analcoholic content. Upon examination, however, wefind no hint that its goodness was in its high alcoholic content. Ernest Gordon comments, 'When the creative hand of the Lord made wine for the guestswe may be sure that it was superlative even to corrupted tastes .. . It isn't likely they would call Christ's wine anything but good!'" (ibid., pp.3354-5).

T hus we can see that the New T estament in no way gives sanction to moderate drinking except for medicinal purposes. I do hope that no one has been deceived by the liberalism practiced by this congregation.

"Look not thou upon the wine when it is red . . . at the last it biteth like a serpent and stingeth likean adder " (Prov. 23:31,32).

With so much being written, and no more time for reading than there is, one is pleased when hecan read thought-provoking articles that are wellthought out and well wr itten. And he cannot butfeel that he has been imposed upon when he has to wade through hazy, pointless and verbose paragraphs. It is in this light that I view an article which I recently read.

"Officers of The Church" (Sentinel of Truth, Vol.I, Number 4) was reviewed by a brother under "The Critic's Error" (S.O.T. Vol. II, Number 2). Brother McGarvey was quoted in the first article, "The termination ship appended to the title of an officer, as secretaryship, auditorship, governorship, is indicative of office" (Eldership, page 10). It is the reviewer's argument about this to which I refer. It will benoted that brother McGarvey did not argue that the suffix "-ship" always indicates office. He simplyargued that it did in the case of the titles listed. But notice the argument of the one reviewing

"But does McGarvey's saying this make it true? It does not. Want proof? Well, let us take a closer view of the effect of the suffix. For instance, takemarksmanship. What office is here indicated? None at all. The same is true of partnership and penmanship — no office indicated. Take scholarship. Any office indicated? Absolutely none. How about fellowship? What office could this suggest? None. Or what of the word membership? The church surely has that. What office does membership hold? It must have one — if the suffix indicates an office. His assumption is proven to be false. So, let us quit thesubject ere we reach the climax in absurdities."

What did the reviewer set out to prove? It seems that he set out to prove that the suffix "-ship" cannever indicate office. But it can, as Webster defines, "ship... a noun-forming suffix added chiefly tonouns denoting persons, but orig. to adjectives, asin hardship. It denotes: (1) State, condition, or quality, as in sonship, friendship; (2) office, dignity, oprofession, as in clerkship, authorship; (3) art orskill, as in horsemanship; (4) something showing, exhibiting, or embodying a quality or state, as in township; courtship, act of playing court, etc.; (5) one entitled to a (specified) rank, title, or appellation — used with possessive pronouns, as in Your Lordship."

If the reviewer intended to prove that the suffix did not always indicate office, why? No one hadargued that it did. He did not state specifically whathe intended to prove, but seemed to be intendingto prove that brother McGarvey's statement was wrong. He called it an a umption. However, hisargument only proves that the suffix does not alwaysindicate office. Since this is immaterial to the discu ion, it is a waste of time.

If the reviewer intended to prove that the suffix never indicates office, this is inexcusable. It is too simple a matter to check into, and he prefaced his

review with a criticism of the article he reviewed as

exhibiting "ample evidence ... of unguarded think

ing and immature conclusions."

If he intended to confuse the i ue — perish the

thought!

It has been argued that whatever the Christian

can do the church can do. Now it is argued that

whatever the universal church cannot have, the local

church cannot have. It is the same argument fro

another viewpoint. The first seeks to free the local

church (in work) to that po ible in the universal

church, while the latter limits the local church (in

organization) to that possible in the univer sal

church.

The latter is in effect the reasoning in the following paragraph from an article "The Critic's Error" in the Sentinel of Truth, Vol. II, No. 2. "Now I have thought all along that the church universal is composed or made up of the membership of all locachurches everywhere ... Of course the universal church has no officers. It is not an entity in and oitself; it is not a united and functioning body by itself; and as such it does not, cannot plan and manage religious operations, but works only as all members of all local churches work. Neither are local churches separate and apart from it. The truth ofthe matter is, all local churches are parts of the universal church which is 'the body of Christ.' Each .local church cannot be His body, because that would'give him not 'one body' but a plurality of bodies. May I repeat for emphasis, each local church is anintegral part of the catholic (not Roman) or whole church — 'called out' group. But by our brother's estimate, either the local church is not a part of thewhole, or else a part can contain more than thewhole! T his latter is not only a physical impo ibility, it is also a palpable inaccuracy in scripture interpretation . . ."

The primary target in the above is the eldership.

An elder in a local church is also an elder in the uni

versal church, and in the same sense, for otherwise

the part would contain more than the whole, accord

ing to the argument. Since elders cannot make de

cisions for the universal church, it is argued that

they cannot make decisions for the local church. But

there are other applications. Since the universal

church is not a "functioning body," neither is the

local church, for as a part it cannot be more than

the whole. Furthermore, it would follow that what

ever the local church can do in evangelism and be

nevolence, the universal church can do. And if the

local church could plan religious meetings, then the

church universal could, for the part cannot do more

than the whole, according to the argument

But the church universal is not composed of con

gregations, but of individuals. Individuals make u

the universal church. The universal church operates

only in and through individuals, in individual capa

city. The local congregation is to act collectively.

This is the organization that God provides for col

lective action. If congregations were the "integral

parts" of the universal church, then one would have

to be a member of a local church in order to be a

member of the universal church, to be a Christian.

But the eunuch became a Christian through obedi

ence to the gospel (Acts 8:38) and was not then a

member of any congr egation. One is a child of God by virtue of his standing with God, and not by virtue of the approval of any congregation. One must be "added" to the univer sal chur ch (Acts 2:47), butcan join himself to a congregation (Acts 9:26). The universal church is not a functioning body, as he states, yet congregations are (I Cor. 5:4,5; 16:1).They are two distinct relationships, yet very closelyr elated. T o the congr egation at Corinth, Paul said, "Now ye are the body of Christ. . ." (I Cor. 12:27).Paul evidently never saw the "plurality of bodies" dilemma, thinking more along the lines of unitythan union.

AND THE PEOPLE STOOD BEHOLDING

"And when they came unto the place which iscalled the skull, there they crucified him, and themalefactors, one on the right hand and the other on the left. And Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And parting his gar ments among them, they cast lots. And the peoplestood beholding, And the rulers also scoffed at him,saying, He saved others; Let him save himself, ifthis is the Chr ist of God, his chosen."

Luke here is describing the crucifixion of our Lord.T hose people wer e BEHOLDING the physical Bodyof Christ as it hung there in the cross, suffering agony for the sins of man. Why were they watching?

1. Many watch out of curiosity, 2. Some watch tosee if he would come down from the cross. 3. Others because of envy, hatred, jealousy. These were the enemies of Jesus. But there were some there watching because of LOVE. This was the BODY of their Savior.

Someone has said that this was GOD's saddest hour. At any rate it seems Nature itself refused tolook on this terrible scene, and because of this terrible shame it would seem that the world, (especially the people of God) would never be guilty of another shameful act like this. How it must have overjoyed Satan to behold the Body of Jesus crucified.

But how many times since has this terrible eventbeen Repeated? Someone says, what do you mean?Has the physical body of Christ been crucified more than once? No, the Physical, just once, but the Spiritual, many times.

It was not long after the beginning of the Lords Church, (The Body of Christ) (Eph. 1:22-23, Col.1:18) that the world again had the occasion to stand Beholding the Body of Christ (the Church) being crucified.

Old Satan was smiling again. He had a r eason to rejoice. The crucifixion had come from within. The results, The Roman Catholic Sect. A Plan which The Heavenly Father had not Planted (Authorized). Andso on we could go, again and again. T he peoplestood Beholding the Body of Jesus Crucified.

Let's come to our time, or our Country. Godly men went back to just the Bible, and the Bible alone. They spoke where the Bible spoke, and was silent. The results, the Body of Christ was once again in its purity, united in love and harmony.

Men and women obeyed the Gospel and because Christians, like those people in New Testament days, T he L or d adding to the chur ch those that wer e being saved (Acts 2:47). For awhile the Body of Christ flourished, and would seem to sweep the country.

But again it happened (The people stood Beholding). The Body of Christ was crucified, by what? The Missionary Society. WHY? The LACK OF SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY. By whom was the BodyCrucified ? Those who advocated the M. S. RESULTS in another Sect, and old Satan smiling.

There have been others since, bringing in their destructive heresies, crucifying again the body of Christ, (and the world stood beholding) and old Satan stood r ejoicing.

Now today, people ar e standing beholding theBody of Christ (The Church) being crucified. WHY? Because some brethren no longer love the truth. They have no respect for God's Word. They no longer deem it necessar y to have a thus saith the L or d for what they preach and practice. They seem to forget the warning found in God's Holy Word, to those who would go on and abide not in the teaching of Christ (II Jno. 9, Rev. 22).

But someone asked, WHAT has, and is Crucifying (Dividing) the Body of Chr ist? Simply this: Menbuilding other ORGANIZ ATI ONS to do the Wor k that God gave to the Church to do. HUMAN institutions to preach the Gospel, Edifying members of the body, and to take care of the needy. This is man's way. Yet the God of heaven gave the Church, (thebody of Christ) the responsibility of these things, and made it sufficient to carry out his command. But r egar dless of what God has or dained in his HolyWord, men will tear asunder the Body of Christ, tohave and to have and to hold their precious Institutions. While (the world stands Beholding) Satan is jubilant, because from within has come the crucifixion. But faithful childr en of God, who love his Word, respect its Authority stand with eyes that are dim with tears, hearts that are torn with grief, yet with Z eal and Determination to def end the Faithonce for all delivered to the Saints, Praying, Father forgive them, yet I'm sure they know what they are doing.

The hope of the world today and of the posterity of tomorrow is the simple religion of Jesus, honestly believed and sincerely practiced. With this infallible truth in mind I want to call your attention to the lesson. How that true Christianity cannot be denominated by man but is all sufficient to save and is perfect even as he was perfect.

When the son of God came to earth to deliver to his disciples the abiding principles of his kingdom, he found the world divided into sects, parties anddenominations. Sects had sprung up among the people of God and their peculiarities were of more concern to their adherents than the basic commandments of almighty God himself. The traditions of the elders superseded the law of the Lord and every party glorified in the things that made them differ ent one from the other. In Luke 18:11 — The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners,unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. A Pharisee stood and thanked God that he was not as other men were and glorified in that fact. The things that caused the divided condition at the time of Christ an the evils of those things ar e dealt with by themaster himself in a very different manner in the following readings from Mark 7:5-10 — Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, buteat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of youhypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For layingaside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: andmany other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye r eject the commandments of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death.Christ declares that the scribes and the Pharisees thought more of the traditions of their sects than they did of the law of the Lord and adds that by following their peculiar opinions they had set aside the word of God and were worshipping in vain.

The Sadducees were in the same position andthought more of the privilege of being Sadduceesthan of the exalted honor of simply being servants of the Lord. There is little question that the great evil of sects and parties among the professed people of God caused Christ to pray in John 17:20-21 — Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that theworld may believe that thou hast sent me. He knewfrom the bitter experience of personal sorrow the effects division had had and the part it had played inhis own people rejecting him. His concern for the religion that he was to die for caused him to say let them be one and then give the reason that the world may believe. He knew that if his followers loved party mor e than principle and division mor e than mankind they were doomed failure in their mission to cause the world to believe in him. He gave the principle and stated it in this manner in Matt. 12:25

— and Jesus knew their thoughts, and said untothem, Every kingdom divided against itself shall not stand.

Let us consider now the undenominational character of the true religion of Christ. Master the principle that Jesus fought against party division all of his life on the earth and gave a system and way of life that was to be forever free of such denomination. Consider first the Gospel, how that men of all races might hear, believe, and obey. Christ gave the great commission in these words: Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Certainly there is nothing about this charge that could belimited to the few. All men whether beggars, merchants, or princesses wer e to be the r ecipients of the saving message of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Listen again to the great commission Mark 16:1516 — And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and pr each the gospel to ever y cr eatur e. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he thatbelieveth not shall be damned. T his is not the statement of Cr eeds and manuals but a dir ect quotationfrom the son of God. Galatians 3:26-29 — For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Chr ist. T her e is neither Jew nor Greek,ther e is neither bond nor free, ther e is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. T hus we see that when men obey the gospel they were one in Christ. The Jewscould boast of the traditions of his fathers no longer, and the Greek could no longer chant his drinking songs to hos patan creeds. The unifying power of the gospel was to break down the middle wall of partition and to make men of all r aces one. I would to God that we would let the same gospel with its same power break down the middle wall between the multiple denominations of our time that we might be onethat no room could be found for sectarianism and party devotion but that we might all go back to theBible keeping the unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace. T he only way that this can be achieved willbe for the preachers of this day to do exactly whatthe apostles did in that day. To speak and preach the same thing that ther e may be no divisions among us. I Cor. 1:10. For as many of you has have beenbaptized into Christ have put on Christ. This mademen and women childr en of God and not member s of any sect or party. Let us obey the gospel as did the people in Acts 2:37-38 — Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized ever y one of you in the nameof Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall

•receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.