WHAT DO YOU READ?

H. E. Phillips

Almost every responsible person in this country

today can r ead and under stand most of what he

reads. There are mountains of books and other read

ing material available to the general public, some

good and some bad. The hearts and lives of those who

read are influenced for good or bad, depending upon

the kind of literature they read. The apostle wrote

to Timothy: "Till I come, give attendance to reading,

to exhortation, to doctrine" (I Tim. 4:13). Obviously

the reading had to do with the doctrine upon which

he was to meditate.

It seems to me that the great majority of the people of this generation takes greater delight in reading some immoral and unhealthy book or paper than in reading something that will help them develop better and happier life upon this earth. No wonder so many know so little about the word of the Lord. Let a writer produce a book on how to become a millionaire in one year and he will sell the book as fast as it can be published. But let someone write a wellprepared book on how to live godly in this present life and he can hardly give the book away. Why is this so? T he answer lies in the fact that people ingeneral are far more interested in making monethan in going to heaven.

Searching The Scriptures now enters its ninth

year and we continue to try to accomplish the same

goal we had in the beginning — to get people to

search the word of God to find the truth. We try to

cover a wide range of subjects in presenting studies

from the word of God. It is the truth only that wil

make men free (John 8:32). We urge people to sub

scribe to this paper (and other good papers that

attempt to bring le ons from God's word) and then

to read the paper and study its contents in the light

of divine truth. Contrary to the belief of some, a jour

nal of this sort does not make a profit. We are not

in business with the expectation of receiving a profit

or even breaking even. The work attached to produc

ing a paper of this nature is far greater than most

people imagine. We have depended upon several good

men and women to send this paper to many in th

hope that they will read it and profit spiritually. We

hope you will also help by sending a subscription for one year to some friends or relatives.

A WORD ABOUT THE WRITERS

Several very able men have consented to write reg

ularly and others will provide articles as space allows

for Searching The Scriptures. It has been made clear

that I do not intend to edit articles in the sense of

changing the wording and rewriting what has been

contributed. In case some article is poorly written or

too long I will return the article with the request that

it be rewritten before publication.

It has also been made clear that I am not obligatedto be in agreement with all that one may say in anarticle. I accept the responsibility for publishing the articles, but each writer is totally responsible for what he says. I will speak for myself on any subject,and I do not expect any writer or reader to be obligated to be in agreement with me in all matters. I feel no responsibility to conform to every position presented in this journal by any of the writers. However, I hasten to say that I have great confidence in all the writers or I would never have asked them to write. This does not mean that I consider them to be infallible, and I certainly lay no claim to infallibility.We hope to present material that will cause eachreader to think for himself and search the scriptures to learn the will of God.

I get far too many letters, both commending and condemning, to give space to all of them. I wish Icould, but such is not po ible. If, however, you wish to take issue with anything said by any one writingin this paper, or with me, please do so. We request that you prepare an article of reasonable length dealing with the i ue and we will publish it at the earliest opportunity.

The position of articles in Searching The Scrip

tures has no significance whatever. A front page

article is not considered to be of more importance

than a back page article.

A WORD ABOUT SUBSCRIPTIONS

Individual subscriptions remain at $3.00 per year in spite of the fact that publishing and mailing cost have increased over the past two years. We urge youto send your renewal at once. If your zip code number is not correct, please send us the correct one. If youplan to move we request at least one month to make the proper change in the mailing files. We are notalways able to provide back i ues in case you missed some by moving without notice.

Club subscriptions will have to be increased from five for $10.00 to four for $10.00. We will continue to receive the former club rate of five for $10.00 to February 20, 1968. We will not be able to continuethis beyond that time. Several have subscribed for all families in a congregation, and others have purchased bundles each month to give out or mail tothose of their choice. Some congregations have purchased subscriptions or bundles (just like they purchase tracts) and sent them to new members or to the whole congregation.

We would appreciate a list of subscriptions from you at the special rate of five for $10.00 until February 20, 1968. By subscribing for 30 at one time the price is $2.00 each, payable $5.00 per month. This is a good way to stimulate Bible study among yourfriends and brethren. Let us hear from you soon.

An Open Letter to...Charles A. Holt

(Since Charles A. Holt decided to make his letter to me public, I shall reply to him in the same manner. I had a letter written to him when I saw his letter to me in Sentinel Of Truth. Following is my reply thim.)

December 7, 196Mr. Charles A. Holt P. O. Box 8393 ChattanoogaTenn. 37411

Dear brother Holt:

I have your letter of November 13, 1967 in whichyou indicate a desire for a discu ion through thepages of Searching The Scriptures and Sentinel OfTruth. This letter was in response to a statement made in Searching The Scriptures that I intended to review some things you and J. D. Hall have written which I believe to be error. After a thorough search through your letter I am unable to find a proposition, or even a hint of one, that you want to debate. In the first paragraph you say you seriously doubt that Iunderstand exactly what you teach. If this be so, howdo you expect a sensible discu ion ? If I cannot understand what you teach from all you have written and two or three tapes of speeches you have madeon the subject, how would I understand what yo

teach in a discu ion? But, how do you know what I teach? How do youknow there is a difference between us ? If you claim

to know from what I have written, why could I not

know what you teach by the same method, unless

you think I am mentally incapable of understanding

language ?

The entire first paragraph of your letter is a cry

not to have your views, as taught in Sentinel O

Truth, reviewed. You question the kind of treatment

I will give you as if I intended to be dishonest and

misrepresent you. You charge that I plan to present

to my readers a "one-sided view" of what I think youteach and then engage to expose it.

Now, Charles, I have never been conscious of dealing unfairly with what anyone says on any subject,and I think you know this. However, by this standard which you would impose upon me in dealing withyour review, how do you justify yourself in your "review" of "Scriptural Elders And Deacons" in Volume 2, Number 4, pages 20 and 21 of Sentinel Of Truth? You did exactly what you charge that I amabout to do to you. You presented to your readers a "one-sided" view of what you thought I taught and

then engaged to expose it. If you did not build th

"straw man" and do "battle" with it, what did yo

do? Did you act with "complete fairness and broth

erly treatment" when you reviewed what you thoughtI taught and did not give me space to reply

I am not trying to be ridiculous and I am not complaining about your review of anything I have writ

ten. You have a perfect right to do that and I do not

object in any way. T he point that I am making is

that you apply one rule to yourself and want to make

another rule for the other fellow. I have heard you

tell Baptist preachers and liberal brethren to quit

crying like a spanked baby and meet the i ue. I am

simply saying to you to quit crying when someone

reviews something you have written and exposes the

error in it.

If you call what I intend to review in Sentinel Of Truth a "straw man" do not charge me with buildingit; you are the man who built it because I plan toreview what you have written, not what you havenot said. I have always considered you a man whowas capable of expressing himself so that no onecould misunderstand him. I am forced to the conclusion now that you are either evading the conclusions of your position, which I doubt, or you do not know

yourself exactly what you believe, which I am in

clined to believe is nearer the truth. You have

preached and debated too long and have fought the

fight of faith too many times not to know the truth

and yet there rings in all your articles in Sentinel

Of Truth a bitterness against elders in general and

against what you term "organized religion." I hon

estly believe that the conflict between what you know

to be the truth and your personal feelings about

elders and congregations have brought you to where

you yourself do not know exactly what you teach. If

I do not understand what you teach it is because you either do not know yourself or you are unable to express it. I only know what you have said, and that is what I intend to review. What you have written is public property, just as what I have written is. I do not demand equal space to reply to every review that someone makes of what I have said or written. If what I have said will not stand the test of God's word, it ought to be exposed, and exactly the same thing goes for what you have written on any subject

You suggest a written debate on the major points

(whatever I think they are) at i ue. How about

writing a proposition which you would affirm, since

I do not know what you teach and you obviously

think you know what I teach? There would be no

point to me in debating in the meeting house where

I preach because nobody accepts your views as set

forth in Sentinel Of Tr uth so far as I know. T his

would be different with regard to the liberal element

in the church because some of them live in Tampa

and we would have a chance to teach them the truth. So far as I am concerned the best way to have anexchange would be to agree upon propositions andthe number of articles to write and have the discussion put in book form. A written exchange in Searching The Scriptures would consume more space than I have available at present. However, if propositions that state the i ue between us could be agreed upon,I shall be happy to try to arrange a written discussion through the pages of Sentinel Of Truth and

Searching The Scriptures. I doubt that you have the

circulation that we have, but that would be no reason

on my part to refuse a discussion. I am not in the

least interested in discussing an ambiguous proposi

tion that does not clearly state what the real difference between us is.

I am sorry to be so long in answering your letter,but I have not been home long from a meeting iMemphis, Tennessee, and my desk was piled with letters and other matters which consume my timand I have not been able to get to your letter. As youunderstand, it is a difficult task to keep abreast with

all correspondence and obligations of that nature. Sincerely,

H. E. Phillips

LETTER TO THE EDITOR December 27, 1967 Dear brother Phillips:After reading the December issue of Searching

The Scriptures, I felt that a word of caution should

be sounded with respect to brother O'Neal's reviews

of the teachings of Sentinel Of Truth.

In the article, featured on the front page, brother

O'Neal charged Sentinel Of Truth and its writers

with teaching various denominational error. While

I am in no way in sympathy with the false teachings

of S.O.T., I cannot condone what I believe to be un

fair treatment towards the paper and its writers.

There is enough that is wrong, without having to

strain at finding other errors. Some of the conclu

sions made in brother O'Neal's article may be valid,

but some are without justification.

Under "Catholic Error Taught," brother O'Neal points out that S.O.T. teaches that there is a difference between elders and bishops. He concludes that "Catholicism is the result of making a difference between an elder and a bishop. The Sentinel has made this difference, thus the Sentinel has taught Catholic doctrine." That is not so. Never have I seen any evidence that the Sentinel has advocated the hierarchical system involved in the Catholic distinction of elder and bishop. It is granted that the Sentinel teaching on elders is not true, but to chargeCatholicism is prejudicial and untrue.

Under "Premillennial Error Taught," brother O'Neal notices the Sentinel teaching on the matter of the church and kingdom. While I do not agree with the Sentinel's teaching as to the differences between the church and the kingdom, neither can I agree with brother O'Neal's charge of Premillennialism: "Premillennialism teaches there is a difference between the church and the kingdom. This theory teaches men are in the church now but Christ will come back to earth and set up his kingdom. Premillennialism teaches a distinction between the church and the kingdom. Sentinel teaches a distinction between thechurch and the kingdom, therefore, Sentinel teaches the error of Premillennialism." Not so! Never, inconversations with brethren Hall, Holt, and Spur-

lock, nor in reading their writings, have I noted any

thing that even looked like what brother O'Neal

described as premillennial doctrine. These men have

never, to my knowledge, taught a future kingdom ofGod on earth.

Also, in the February, 1966, i ue of Searching The Scriptures, brother O'Neal made a charge of plagiarism against brother Char les Holt, editor of S.O.T . I, too, had noticed the matter of brother Sewell's article appearing with brother Holt's name on it. But before rushing into print with a condemnation, I wrote brother Holt. In reply he explained to me whathe intended to do (which is what he did), with theresult that while I may have questioned the judgment of what he did, I could not in truth charge himwith dishonesty and just leave it at that. Nor did Iread in Searching The Scriptures an explanation ofthe matter after brother Holt's actions were disclosed

by him. Sincerely, /S/ J. D. Tant

BOOKS BY J. W. McGARVEY

Commentar y On Acts........................................ $ 4.95The Four Fold Gospel ......................................$ 4.95Sermons By McGarvey .....................................$ 3.00The Eldership.....................................................$ 1.95Biblical Criticism ............................................... $ 3.50

Order from:

PHILLIPS PUBLICATIONS

P. O. Box 17244 Tampa, Florida 33612

INTRODUCING WARD HOGLAND

Ward Hogland was born August 14, 1924, in Duncan, Oklahoma. His parents are Mr. and Mrs. T. H.Hogland of Duncan, Oklahoma. He graduated from Tuttle, Oklahoma, High School and then attendedFreed-Hardeman College and Abilene Christian College. He married Maxine Hughey of Booneville, Missi ippi, and to this union were born four boys: Larry(who is in the U.S. Air Force), Thomas, Wally anGary. Brother Hogland is now located with the Walnut Street church in Greenville, Texas, where he hasbeen for the past seven years. Before moving tGreenville, Texas, he labored with the Park Hillchurch in Fort Smith, Arkansas, for 10 years, and theSpring Branch church in Houston, Texas, for 3 years.

Ward Hogland has had a number of debates with

various religious groups, including both Mi ionary

and Free-Will Baptist preachers, Sabbatarians,

those who oppose Bible classes and institutional

brethren. At least five preachers were converted

from institutionalism and some entire congregations

were taught the truth by a series of studies on the

subject. One of his debates is in print, the Hogland-

Kesner debate, published in 1950. An eight-night

debate with Dr. Albert Garner held in Lakeland,

Florida, in 1964 is available from Phillips

Publications on tapes.

Brother Hogland says Dr. C. B. Billingsley, amedical doctor and an elder of the Park Hill church in Fort Smith, Arkansas, when he lived there, had more influence on his life for good than any other single person. Dr. Billingsley wrote the introduction to the Hogland-Kesner debate and said of brother Hogland: "Brother Hogland loves the cause for" which he stands and has never known the cringing cowardice of com-promise. He is able to think on his feet and is calm in his deliberations. He meets the enemy with all the power of his beingand hates sin and innovations. His sincerity anhonesty in handling God's word is out-standing."

Brother Hogland has preached in meetings all over the nation, from California to the east coast and

from

of this widely read and effective method of teach"Theophilus" now becomes a new feature with this ing, is preparing this strip especially for Searchingissue of Searching The Scriptures. Bob West, creator The Scriptures. Watch for it each month. — Editor.

Detroit to the Gulf of Mexico. He is in demand for meeting work and has many meetings scheduled for the future.

In 1963 I asked brother Hogland to write a column dealing with denominational arguments, both withinand without the church. He began his work withSearching The Scriptures in January, 1964, and has continued to the present time faithfully providing some very good studies from the word of God andexposing err or in an effective manner. Ward is apersonal friend and has been very encouraging to me in publishing this journal. We look forward to his column during the coming year.

H. E . Phillips

"Searching The Scriptures continues to propagate the truth and expose err or in a very fine way. Keep up the fine work."— Leslie E. Sloan, Memphis, Tenn.

"We are really enjoying Searching The Scriptures. I feel it is the best paper I have read."— Mike and Sandy Willis, Alexandria, Ind.

"Have enjoyed reading Searching The Scriptures very much. I believe it is the best in print. I appreciate the fine work that you and brother Miller are doing."— T almadge Polk, Tr enton, Fla.

"We continue to appreciate the good work you are doing in Searching The Scriptures."— Colly andLynda Caldwell, Columbia, T enn.

"I think you and br other Miller are doing a goodwork with the paper. May you continue to publish it. Every home needs to read this paper."— Nelson Adams, Montgomery, Ala.

"I do not want to miss a single issue of this paper. I know that much good is being accomplished by your efforts in opposing error and presenting the truth."

— Sam L. Youree, Nashville, Tenn."We certainly appreciate your good paper. It was a great encouragement to us while we were Irving in a very 'liberal' area of North Carolina."— Mrs. Don Gr egg, Athens, Ala.

"I believe that Searching The Scriptures is a very effective medium to reach many with the truth, and I plan to continue sending subscriptions. The articles are timely, well written with plainness of speech and br otherly kindness."— E ar l Fly, Jackson, T enn.

"We have enjoyed the paper for the past year and pray that the Lord will bless you with the ability tocontinue your stand for the truth in the years ahead."

— David L . Waldron, Virginia Beach, Va. "T hanks for a good publication."— Mrs. E. D. T hompson, Columbus, Ga.

"I appreciate the paper very much. It has a healthy, wholesome tone that hues to the Scriptures in adignified way. I appreciate the good work you andbrother Miller are doing for the cause of truth and right."— Lindsay A. Allen, Sr., Florence, Ala.

"We enjoy the paper very much."— Dorris Mann, Hamilton, Ala.

"1 enjoy the paper so much; they are sure to help me in learning the scriptur es."— H. D. Mathieson, Barstow, Calif.

"I enjoy reading Searching The Scriptures. Youare doing a fine work."— Vestal Chaffin, Louisville, Ky.

"You have one of the finest papers in print today,and I appreciate it very much. In an edifying wayyou challenge all teaching that you consider to be false, and present a variety of subjects by able menthat I believe to be helpful for both saint and sinner."

— Homer A. Walker , Fontana, Calif."It is really good; keep up the good work."— A. B. Newsom, Jennings, Fla.

"Keep up the good work. The prospectus for 1968appear promising."— Morris D. Norman, Akron, Ohio.

"I certainly do enjoy your paper and look for war d to r eceiving it ever y month.'— C. C. Wilson, L ouisville, Ky.

"I enjoy Searching The Scriptures very much."—

H. D. Perrine, Akron, Ohio.

DOES THE GOSPEL NEED A CHANGE?

I marvel that many even of our own br ethr en ar e calling f or a change in the pr esentation of the Gospel of Christ. This has long been the cry of a modernistic world. Every age has had this idea. Paul wrote against any change in the message of salvation in nouncertain words in Galatians the first chapter and ver se 8 when he said: "But though we, or an angelfrom heaven, preach any other gospel unto you thanthat which we have pr eached unto you, let him beaccursed."

No man of intelligence can deny that we ar e living in a world of change. We now have aircraft that can fly 1800 miles an hour and we have landed instruments on the moon. In the world of technology things are changing from day to day. Modern medicine has made great strides. Instead of walking or riding ahorse we are flying to preach the gospel in powerful jets that travel just under the speed of sound. All of this is true and no preacher of the gospel denies itand most rejoice in this progress. The thing thatneeds to be pointed out, however, is that none of these advances have one thing to do with the gospel of Christ. Few preachers of the old story of the cross class themselves as "intellectuals" for they resolve to "know nothing but Christ and him crucified." Atthe same time we deny any group the exclusive right to think and r eason. I marvel that men who f eel that the old story of the cross needs changing do not come down from their "ivory towers" long enough to come to grips with the real issues. If the gospel needs to be changed one or all of the following would have hadto change.

SIN WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE

Where is the man among the thinkers of the daywho will affirm that sin has changed? Where is the modernist who will even affirm that the sins of the past are not the sins of today ? In the first Corinthian letter we have a list of sins of which the Gentile was guilty. Look at the listing in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God ? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of them selves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Paul then goes on to say, "And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God." T he gospel came to answer once and for all the problem of sin. SIN HAS NOT CHANGED NOR WILL IT EVER CHANGE. Many seem to think that the sin of homosexuality is new but it is as old as Sodom when the Sodomites refused the daughters of Lot in Genesis 19:8. This sin that many seem to think a pr oduct of our age is as old as the city from which it gets its name.

HAS MAN CHANGED?

If sin has not changed then it seems to me thatthe next question would be this. Has man changed?Both old and new testaments abound with exampleafter example to show that man has not changed.Pride and the desire for unlawful knowledge caused the downfall of the first home in the garden of Eden. The desire for worldly gain brought shame to thefamily of Lot. Strong drink caused Noah to curse hisown flesh. Adultery brought David to his saddest hour. Failure to restrain his children caused the house of Eli to be cut off forever. The great apostle puts it this way in I Corinthians 10:6, "Now thesethings wer e our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted." NO,MAN HAS NOT CHANGED, HE IS THE SAME WEAK CREATURE THAT HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN. No better proof in all the world can be found than the fact that world conditions today show that he cannot direct his steps. When we are not safe to even walk the streets at night who will take the position that man has impr oved. We ar e involved today in war abroad and strife at home far above the power of mer e man to solve. Mankind is as helpless andhopeless without Christ as he was in the long ago.

HAS GOD CHANGED?

I raise the question, does the gospel need changing because there has been a change in God the father. T o ask such a question is to answer it. God has not changed. Sin cannot dwell in his pr esence. He has not changed his attitude toward sin or the sinner (James 1:17). "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom ther e is no var iableness, neither shadow of turning."

HAS SATAN CHANGED?

The last question that is in order is simply this, has there been a change in the nature and work of Satan ? Has he ceased to tempt man? Is there still evidenceof his work in a world torn by bloodshed and strife? Wher e is the man who believes the Bible at all who will affirm that the Devil is getting better or that he is dead? T he thinking man can see his influence onevery hand. To many it seems he has reached newheights, even in the church of the Lord in recent years. NO, SATAN IS STILL THE ROARING LION SEEKING WHOM HE MAY DEVOUR.

THE GOSPEL NEEDED TODAY

I marvel, and submit to ever y thinking man whor eads this jour nal that if SIN has not changed, thegospel is still needed as the cure for sin. If MAN has not changed he is still subject to sin. If GOD has not changed he still condemns sin and longs to save man, If SATAN has not changed he still has to be over, come by the gospel of Christ, and if these have not changed there IS NO NEED TO CHANGE THE GOSPEL.

"As we said before, so say I now again, ifany man pr each any gospel unto you thanthat which we have pr eached unto you, lethim be accur sed." Gal. 1:9.

¦

QUESTION — In the expression "church of the firstborn" "(Heb. 12:23), does the term "firstborn" refer to Christ or to members of the church ? Christ is designated, in the Scriptures as the "firstborn"(Col. 1:15,18; Rom. 8:29). If it refers to those born again (as I have been told), then does it not follow that the church can be called by terms applied tindividuals who make up its membership, e.g., The Christian Church ? — E. J.

ANSWER — While Christ is referred to in the Scriptures as the "firstborn," a more careful examination of this text shows that in this instance it refers to the members of the church. A more literal translation of the original text would be as it appears in Berry's New Testament Interlinear: "and to [the] assembly of [the] firstborn [ones] in [the] heavens registered." The original text demands that the expression "firstborn" be associated with those enrolled in heaven. The "firstborn" and those enrolled in heaven are the same.

The expression, however, does not refer to the fact of their having been born again, but rather totheir relationship to God over others in the world. True, the new birth is essential to this relationship,but the expression refers to the relationship annot the new birth itself. It was an expression wellunderstood by Hebrews. In Israel the firstborn son was the eldest and as such had privileges, honors,and ble ings bestowed upon him above others in the family. This was the birthright sold by Esau, referred to in the context (Heb. 12:16). Therefore,the meaning of our text is that those under Christ constitute a church composed of "firstborn ones"— i.e., they are favored, honored, and blessed of Godabove all others. While all men are of God in a sense (Acts 17:28) and share in His earthly blessings (Matt. 5:45), they are not related to Him, nor are they blessed of Him as are the "firstborn ones."

No, the expression "church of the firstborn" —

even though "firstborn" refers to members of the

church, does not justify calling the church "The

Christian Church" or any other term used in the

Scriptures to identify individuals who make up its

membership. The church belongs to Christ by right

of possession (Matt. 16:18; Acts 20:28). The expres

sion in our text, "church of the firstborn," is not

used in the sense of showing possession — it is not

their church — but rather to show of whom the

church is composed. We, too, can speak of the church

so as to convey the truth about those who make up

its membership. It would be proper at times to say

that the church is the "church of born again ones,"

because none can be membersthereof without being born again. The church is composed of righteous individuals, and again, of holy people. While it wouldbe proper in teaching the truth to use the expression ""church of the righteous" or "church of holy ones," these are not titles or names by which the church is "called."

The term "Christian" is a title or name by whicindividuals who obey the gospel are "called" (Acts 11:26). However, in the Scriptures it is never appliedto the Church. Furthermore, in the Scriptures it is never used as an adjective, as is true in the expression "The Christian Church." Even if it be used as the expression in our text, i.e., "The church of Christians," to show of whom the church is composed, itwould not justify its use as a name or title by whichthe church is "called."

of the

LECTURE PROGRAM AT FLORIDA COLLEGE

January 22-25, 1968ANY TWO LECTURES ON ONE TAPE

Make Your Choice Right What Determines It? Unbelief: Sources And Forms The Relationship Of Young People To Their Elders

Luther Blackmon

Bob Bolton

Jady Copeland

The Holy Spirit (3 lectures — Tuesday, Wednesday,

Thursday) Franklin T. Puckett Problem Of Human Responsibility And Organizatio(3 lectures — Tuesday, Wednesday,Thursday) James W. Adams

The Church: Its Nature and Structure (3 lectures — Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday) Roy E. Cogdill Contemporary Prophetic Cults (2 lectures — T uesday, Wednesday) Homer Hailey Palestine — Visual And Verbal Pictures (2 lectures —

Tuesday, Wednesday) Melvin Curry Conscience: Conflicts And Crises Clinton Hamilton Hypocrisy: Prevalence And Perversity Warren Cheatham The Problem Of Self Hoyt Houchen Life: Biological And Psychological Dilemmas Charles Branch Will He Find The Faith? James Finney Death And The Resurrection: Problem Of

Purpose And Destiny Eugene Britnell

Recorded on new 1 1/2 mil. (polyester) Mylar tapeof high quality and high fidelity, recorded on bothsides at 3 3/4 i.p.s. and can be played on any recorder using a 7" reel. Orders can be filled on 3" and 5" reels at 1 7/8 i.p.s.

TWENTY TWO LECTURES IN ALL

Each Tape (two speeches) ......$ 3.00

Entire Program (11 reels) .........$30.00

PHILLIPS PUBLICATIONS

P. O. Box 17244 Tampa, Florida 33612

"ROCKS AND STOCKS"

One never knows what kind of a twist will be put on an argument until it has been given. Burt F.Marrs, was an able Sabbatarian debater. When wemet in debate in 1949 he was head of the Church of God, seventh day at Stanberry, Mi ouri. Mr. Marrs espoused the usual Sabbatarian position, that thsabbath was eternal. He took the position that theten commandments started in the beginning and have never ceased. He affirmed that Adam and Eve were under the ten commandment law. In order to chide Mr. Marrs, I asked, "Since one of the ten was against adultery, with whom could Adam commit adultery since Eve was the only woman on earth ?" The question seemed to irritate Marrs, so he answered quicklyfrom his seat, "The devil!" This brought a ripplfrom the audience. I continued to press him aboutturning the devil into a female and said, "No wonder Marrs is mixed up on the sabbath question, he thinks the devil is a woman!" Mr. Marrs had claimed, in thedebate, that he was once a member of the Chur ch of Christ, but had learned the truth and left it. I told him that Demas had done the same thing. I said,"Demas was once a faithful member of the church but he loved the present world and left." I told Mr. Marrs that I supposed he bragged about it just as he had during our discu ion. I named Marrs "Mr. De-mas" and he wore the name during the debate

In defense of his position, Mr. Marrs in his next

speech, tried to patch up his "devil" position by turn

ing to Jer. 3:9, which says, "And it came to pass

through the lightness of her whoredom, that she de

filed the land, and committed adultery with stones

and with stocks." He said this was spiritual adultery.

I granted that spiritual adultery is mentioned in the

Bible, but the devil was neither stock nor stone and

that the command against adulter y in the "ten" was

physical and not spiritual.

Amos tells us when the sabbath will be gone. In Amos 8:5, the Jews ask two important questions. The first was, "When will the new moon be gone that we may sell corn?" The second was, "When will thesabbath be gone that we might set forth wheat?" The Lord answers these questions in verse nine by saying,"And it shall come to pass in that day saith the Lord that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and it shall be dark in clear day." The Lord says the sabbath will be gone when the sun goes down at noon and it will be dark in clear day. I turned to Matt.

27:45 which tells us when Jesus died on the cro , the

sun went down at noon and it turned dark in clear

day. Mr. Marrs had admitted that the feast of new moon was gone but wanted to hold to the Sabbath.

I pointed out that the first question dealt with the

feast of new moon and the second with the sabbath.

If one was gone so was the other. Mr. Marrs denied

that the sun went down. I replied by asking "Where

did it go?" If the sun did not go down where did it

go? He never did answer. Actually, the sun never

goes down but the earth turns in a position to be out

of its sight. However, the Bible speaks of it goin

down, meaning that it is hid from our view. He also

insisted that the Jews in Amos desired to cheat the

Lord. I told him that this had nothing to do with the

end of the Sabbath. I granted that the Jews wanted

to cheat the Lord, but the Lord told them when the

sabbath would end.

It has always been difficult for me to understand how people can get so mixed up on the division of the Bible. So many verses teach us that we are notunder the Law of Moses, that it would be difficult todiscuss all of them in one le on. Paul's illustration in Romans seven teaches us that one cannot be under Moses and Christ at the same time. He talks about a woman being "bound" by the law to her husband as long as he is alive. He goes on to say the samewoman is not "bound" by that law if her husband dies. He then makes his point, that we, at one timwould have been married to Moses but today w(Christians) are married to Christ. We cannot livewith both at the same time! May the Lord help allof us to properly divide the word of God.

"GOD FORBID."

Readers of the English Bible are familiar withthe Biblical phrase, "God forbid." It is interestingand profitable, I think, to study the meaning and

uses of this phrase in the New Testament. OCCURRENCES The Greek phrase from which we get "God forbid'

occurs in Greek literature as far back as the fourth

century B.C., in the writings of the orator Demos

thenes. There are also extant examples of the phrase

in later Hellenistic literature (see Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary of the Greek Testament).

In the New Testament the phrase "God forbid" occurs fifteen times, and fourteen of these occurrences appear in the writings of Paul. Ten of thefourteen instances in Paul are found in Romans. Further, in Paul's writings the phrase is always found as an answer to a question.

The New Testament occurrences of "God forbid" are the following: Luke 20:16; Rom. 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2,15; 7:7, 13; 9:14; 11:1, 11; I Cor. 6:15; Gal. 2:17;3:21; and the AV of 6:14. In the ASV Gal. 6:14 is rendered "far be it from me ..."

AN IDIOMATIC EXPRESSION

"God forbid" comes from a Greek phrase that contains neither the word "God" nor the word "forbid." The Greek phrase is me genoito, which literally means "may it not become." Therefore, the Greek phrase is, as we sometimes say, "logically inexplicable" ; that is, it is a Greek idiom, the meaning of which we must try to expr ess in a meaningful E nglish phrase. For example, the English expression "How do you do?" is logically inexplicable. A f or eigner must learn the idiomatic meaning of that phrase and then transfer that meaning to one of his own idioms.

Apparently, the Greek phrase me genoito expr essed a ver y strong abhorr ence of something or a very strong feeling against the possibility of the occurr ence of something; hence, we tr y to expr ess that strong feeling by using the phrase "God forbid." Some English versions use the expression "By nomeans" instead of "God forbid," but I do not feel that the former phrase adequately expresses the strength of the Greek phrase.

PAUL'S USE

As most commentators point out, Paul apparently uses the phrase me genoito to express his abhorrence of some conclusion that one might erroneously draw from what he has stated.

It has been observed in this article that the expression "God forbid" is always used by Paul in reply to a question. In articles to follow, I wish to study some of these uses of Paul.

The task of writing on controverted and difficult passages that are often misused and mis-applied is within itself a very difficult and thankless job. There are not too many who recognize that they do not or even may not understand what a particular passage teaches. When we have understood and applied a passage in a certain way we too often feel committed to it and when any question is raised we immediately take the def ensive.

When Brother Phillips asked me to write a regular column for "Searching The Scriptures" of this nature, it took a great deal of courage to say that Iwould. In the first place I am not interested in beingregarded as a scholar or having great wisdom. No one knows how much I lack both scholarship and wisdom any better than do I. In the second place, I do notr elish putting myself in the place of having discover ed new truth, for I have not and do not believe that any other has done so. Finally, I do not want to beregarded as having been either self-appointed or delegated by other s the task of setting right all whomay be wrong in their usage of certain passages. So, it is my request that this column be regarded onlyas a medium of study and if, in it, I may be able tosuggest some worthwhile suggestions concerning the passages that are written about that helps someone give a little more careful consideration to them andtherefore to make a little more proper use of them, then our purpose, both Brother Phillips and mine,will be ser ved.

ROMANS 10:11-16

Perhaps the particular part of these verses that has given the most concern and difficulty to us in our efforts to teach it correctly is the question raised byPaul, "And how can they preach unless they besent?" (verse 15). In order to understand any passage we must view it in the light of the context or setting in which it is found and an important part of that setting is the intention and purpose of the writer when he wrote it. No statement can be correctly understood or applied when we take it out of context or when we tr y to give it some applicationthat the writer did not have in mind.

T HE T HE ME OF ROMANS

Perhaps this writer approaches the letter to theRomans from a peculiar point of view but it seems that Paul's primary theme in the book is found inchapter 2 and verse 11, "For there is no respect of persons with God." This theme is supported by three major arguments: (1) God regards sin upon the part of all men alike whether Jew or Gentile; (2) God pro

vides salvation for all men alike whether Jew or

Gentile; (3) God requires the same conditions of sal

vation of all men alike whether Jew or Gentile.

Paul had argued at length that God did not provide justification for the Jew through the Law for then it would have meant the justification of the Jew without the Gentile and that would have made God a respecter of the Jew above the Gentile. Hence we hear him in the "law of faith" laying down the propositions: (1) All have sinned and fallen short of theglory of God and therefore need to be justified; (2)Justification has not been provided through the law of Moses and by obedience to it shall no flesh be justified; (3) Justification has been provided through theblood of God's Son which is a propitiation for the sins that are past; (4) justification is offered to all menthrough the "faith of Christ" or the Gospel, apart from the law of Moses but in fulfillment of it for it is witnessed by the law and the prophets that such is God's purpose; (5) that justification is available toall men who will believe. (3:19-31).

ROMANS 10

In this tenth chapter Paul is still emphasizing thatGod requires the same thing of all men that themight be saved. He has made the same provision for all. The unbelieving Jew challenged the faith of theGospel with the demand, "Ascend into Heaven andbring Christ down and I will believe," or "Descend into the deep (Hades) and br ing him up from thedead and I will accept him as the Messiah." But Paul affirmed these things have already occurred; Christ has already come, and God has already raised him from the dead, and God has given evidence of this in the "word that is nigh thee, in thy heart and inthy mouth, that is, the word of faith, which wepreach." In other words, the very purpose of theJewish law was to bring the Jew to the acceptance of

Christ. God had not only given the law in order that

it might be a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ

but had also revealed the Gospel, "the word of faith

which we preach," in which the Messiah and his

coming had been set forth and proclaimed and had

given evidence of his divine sonship by the signs and

miracles which he had performed but especially b

his resurrection from the dead. God did not intend to

make other provisions for the Jews by performing

further miracles and give other evidence. If the Jew

was to be saved, he must be saved by "believing in

his heart and confessing with his mouth that God

has raised Jesus from the dead." In this same wa

God proposed to save both Jew and Gentile withoutany distinction.

The promises and provisions God had made to this

end were preached by the prophets for the scripture

saith, "Whosoever (that is, whether Jew or Gentile)

believeth on him shall not be ashamed." God will jus

tify the true believer and will keep his promises and

will not let him down. He will have wherein to glory

and rejoice and nothing in which to be ashamed

whether he be Jew or Gentile. The scriptures also

saith, "Whosoever (whether Jew or Gentile) shall

call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Call

ing does not mean crying out, Lord, Lord, or in weep

ing and wailing through unbelief, but it consisted

in God's plan of surrendering one's heart and life to

obey the Lord with the expectation that God will save him as He has promised to do.

Peter quoted this promise from Joel, the prophet,on the day of Pentecost and people were saved on that day when they heard, believed, repented of their sins,and were baptized in submi ion to the Lord's command. Thus they called on the name of the Lord that he would fulfill his promise and remit their sins. Saul of Tarsus was commanded by Ananias (Acts22:16), "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

As Paul emphasized to the Jew that he must call on the name of the Lord by believing and confe ingJesus as Lord and reasoned that one cannot call without believing, and one cannot be saved unless he calls,he proceeds in the next verses to point out why hhad spent the most of his life preaching to the Gentiles nations the Gospel of Christ. It was very plainto all who believed that God intended for his promises and the provisions of his grace to be extended to the Gentiles as well as Jews. The very word "Whosoever' indicated and emphasized that. They were to be saved by the same Lord, through the same "word of Faith" that offered salvation to the Jews for "there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is r ich unto all that call upohim" (verse 12). It was therefore necessary for thGentile to "call" in order to be saved; and in order to "call" he must believe; and in order to "believe" hemust "hear"; and in order "hear" the Gospel must be "preached" unto him; and hence it was necessaryfor a preacher to be "sent." For this very purpose Christ had appeared to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:15-18). "And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for Ihave appeared unto thee for this purpose, to makthee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in thewhich I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom nowI send thee. To open their eyes, and to turn themfrom darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins,and inheritance among them which are sanctified bfaith that is in me."

By the sending in verse 15, then, Paul is evidently referring directly to the commi ion and authoritywhich had been given to him and the other apostles that through them the Gospel might be revealed and by it both Jew and Gentile might be brought to their salvation.

It is true that these principles are largely just as

true today. No one can call upon the Lord and be

saved without believing and no one can believe with

out hearing and in order to hear the gospel preached

preachers must be sent. It is not true today, however

strictly speaking, that one can believe in the Lord

only as the result of the proclamation of the Gospel

orally. It has been revealed and recorded on the

printed page so that men can read and study it fo

themselves. This was not true in the New Testament

day. Revelation was in the man instead of upon the

printed page. It was carried by word of mouth and

proclaimed by inspired men in the beginning. This

is all that men could rely upon that they might "hear

and believe." It is still God's plan that the gospel

should be preached as a means of bringing men to faith and it is still God's plan that the churches of Christ should send preachers out to preach. But this is not the point of the passage we are considering. From these verses though we can clearly see some of the denominational error that has been preached through the years. 1. Faith comes by hearing theWord of God (10:17). Faith is not a miraculous endowment planted in the hearts of men by the power of the Holy Spirit apart from the revealed Word. If this were true, Paul's argument, or the Holy Spirit's,

would be untrue and even an absurdity.

2. Preachers are not "directly and divinely called and sent" today as Paul was in the New Testament day. This does not happen today and every claim of it is fraudulent and untrue. If preachers have to be directly called and sent, then no one can preach today. Some have misread and mis-interpreted some experience maybe and concluded, erroneously, that theyhave been divinely designated, but it is not so. Three factors are important and necessary in preaching the Gospel today: (1) The preacher must be genuinely a Christian and a pure and pious servant of the Lord; (2) He must have the truth and limit his preaching to it; (3) He must have the ability to do so. God expects and uses us to do what we have the ability to do in his service. If these factors exist, no

one has the right to preclude or prevent one from

preaching.

3. Another consideration in this passage is the application of the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 52:7).

When the runners came up out of Babylon bringing

the "good tidings" of the release of the people of

God to return to their homes in Jerusalem and to

their loved ones who had waited and longed with

wailing for their return, they were so glad to hear the

precious news that they regarded the feet of the

runners bringing the news as "beautiful" (verse 15).

This was the attitude of the Gentiles in New Testa

ment days (Acts 13:44-49). While they received it

with gladness and joy, the Jews rejected it and

blasphemed against it. The attitude which we have

toward the Word of God makes the difference. It has

the power to save us if we hear it with proper rever

ence and to the "obedience of faith."

HEALTH-A LEGITIMATE CONCERN

Health is denned by the World Health Organization as a state of complete physical, mental, andsocial well being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. This is an extremely broad definition and the child of God would immediately react with the thought that the state of his mind and his relations with his fellow man are dependent upon his adherence to the Scriptures. Philippians 4:6,7 — In nothing be anxious but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests bemade known unto God. And the peace of God whichpasseth all understanding shall guard your heartand your thoughts in Christ Jesus. This is certainly the key to a state of complete mental well-being.Matthew 22:39 — Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself is the key to a state of complete social wellbeing. The scriptures deal also with our physical health although this may be less obvious to us. Probably the best known example is Paul's command toTimothy — Be no longer a drinker of water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities (I Tim. 5:23). Our point is that in matters of health the Bible speaks and if our studies together are to be of the most benefit to us their foundation must be in the Lord's Word. True, we willrespect professional judgment in this field, but notlike we do a "T hus saith the Lord."

The reason for our concern about health is because the condition of our body determines the length oftime we spend on earth. Man becomes a living soul when the breath of life enters his body and when the integrity of the body is so altered the spirit returns unto the Lord. The body then decays. So length oflife depends on health. Quality of life depends on health. While the body may be able to function it may be so affected that movement and even mentalprocesses are limited. In order to be useful to theLord our minds must be alert and our bodies active. Paul touches on this in Philippians 1:21 — For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain, pointing out that his usefulness in the Lord's vineyard ends when life on this earth ends.

This brings us to a consideration of why we are here, why we have a body and what use should wemake of it.

I Cor. 6:13 — But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord. This is our answer. The body is to be used in the service of the Lord. It should be viewed as a tool which is essential in our labor for the Lord. Viewed positively this means to us that we should take care of it in such a way as to minimize disabilityand maximize longevity. We should nurture and protect it with the view toward increasing its usefulness in the vineyard of the Lord. Viewed negatively itmeans that we will avoid abuse which would lead to infirmity and premature death.

This does not mean that we worship the-flesh. Quite the contrary, we see it not as the end of our being but one of the means we use in serving ourGod.

Neither do we see it as sinful within itself — an object of despite or abuse. We recognize it as something to be used in His Service.

These considerations should cause us to pause and take thought for that which serves as a vehicle for our soul.

REDEEM AND REDEEMER

The Hebrew word ga'al is rendered by the terms,

'to redeem, ransom, or recover.' Brown, Driver &

Briggs give the primary use of this term as 'redeem,

or to act as kinsman." (Heb. & Eng. Lexicon, p. 145).

"He must redeem for the family lives or goods which

have fallen into bondage" (Kittel, Theological Diet.

Of N. T., Vol. 4, p. 330)

The book of Ruth demonstrates the kinsman's part of raising up children by the widow (Ruth 3:13)Boaz assumed his obligation to raise up children bRuth (4:13). The go'el was responsible for redeeming a field in order that the family possessions mightbe maintained (the lands of Elimelech, Ruth 4:3)The redeemer was responsible for redeeming kinsman from slavery (Lev. 25-48-ff), and things consecrated to God (Lev. 27:20-27)

Another idea of go'el is with the word blood. The

redeeming kinsman was obligated to avenge shed

blood. This duty belonged to the nearest relative;

usually the father, brother or son. Hence, go'el de

notes a blood relative. The redeeming kinsman made

demand or inflicted punishment for shed blood (Num.

35:19-27; Deut. 19:6,12; Josh. 20-3-5)

As applied to God, go'el implies a personal rela

tionship, whether it be of individuals (Gen. 48:16) or

to Israel, from Egyptian bondage (Ex. 6:6) and from

Exile (Isa. 44:21-22 ; 48:20). Jehovah is the redeemer

(Isa. 41:14; 43:14; 47:4; 48:17; 49:7,26; et al) and

Israel is the redeemed of Jehovah (Isa. 35:9; 51:10)

The most profound and penetrating passage i

which the word is used occurs in Job 19:25. "I know

that my Redeemer liveth." Girdlestone says: "Job

expresses his deep conviction that there was a living

God who could and who would take his part, and ex

tricate him from all difficulties." (Synonyms of the

O.T., p. 118). May we attain this conviction and re

ceive from Him those blessings summed up in the

words redeem and redemption in Christ (Eph. 1:7).

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGECONTRACT

For years, the Roman Catholic Church has re

quired non-Catholics who marry Catholics, to execute

a legal contract, usually termed a pre-marital or ante

nuptial agreement. At the present time, there is a

matter of either national or international interest

that contributes to greater-than-usual concern over

the subject of these contracts.

The factor is the present Vatican Council from

which rumors continue to circulate that there may be

a lessening of the strictness on the part of Roman

Catholicism in permitting marriages between its devotees and non-Catholics.

We copy below, the "Form of Promises for Non-

Catholic" to sign, as used by the Diocese of Lafay

ette, Louisiana, in "mixed marriages."

"(1) That all children of either sex born of this

marriage shall be baptized and educated in

the Catholic religion

(2) That I will neither hinder nor obstruct in any

manner whatsoever the Catholic party in the

exercise of the Catholic religion

(3) That in the celebration of our marriage there shall be only the Catholic ceremony (4) I also understand the marriage bond to be

indi oluble."

The Diocese of Lafayette, Indiana, uses a some

what more stringent contract form; we give it as

follows:

"AGREEMENT AND PROMISES TO BE

SIGNED BY THE NON-CATHOLIC PARTY"

"Note — The Church is not arbitrary in requiringthe signature of the non-Catholic to this Agreement. Believing that she is God's agent, bound to protect His interests, the Church could not be indifferent about safeguarding the faith of offspring of a marriage to which a Catholic is a party."

"I, the undersigned, not a member of the Catholic Church, wishing to contract marriage with the Catholic party whose signature is also hereinafter affixed to this mutual agreement, being of sound mind andperfectly free, and understanding fully the import of my action, do hereby promise that:

" (1) I shall not interfere in the least with the free

exercise of the Catholic party's religion

(2) I shall adhere to the doctrine of the sacred

indi olubility of the marriage bond, which

means that I may not contract a second mar-

r iage while my consort is still alive, even

though a civil divorce may have been ob

tained ;

(3) All the childr en that may be bor n of this union shall be baptized and educated in the faith of the Roman Catholic Church, even inthe event of the death of my Catholic consort ; and they shall be sent, if po ible to a Catholic school (4) In my married life I shall conform to the

teaching of the natural law regarding birth

prevention which I now understand to be

God's law and in harmony with the sacred

purpose of marriage

(5) No other marriage ceremony shall take place

before or after the ceremony performed by

the Catholic priest." "In testimony of which agreement, I do hereby

solemnly affirm that I will observe the above agree

ment and faithfully execute the promises therein

contained, and do now affix my signature in approvalthereof."

Our readers are urged to note the several aspects of the above agreement, to which Christians cannot in faith, attach their signatures. (1) If the Christian signs this proposition, he or she is completely renouncing that which is ALWAYS the duty of a Christian . . . namely, that of teaching God's Truth toothers. (2) I will not disagree with proposition two,above, although many of my brethren are "wateringdown" New Testament teaching on the indi olubilityof marriage. (3) The Christian cannot afford to signthis proposition, for in doing so, they are forever shirking their duty in teaching God's Word to their own flesh and blood. (4) In agreeing to proposition four, the Christian is gullibly accepting what Catholicism glibly asserts is "God's law." Will any Catholic priest come forward and show from the New Testament where God has legislated in any respect on this subject. In ancient times, when God wanted the earth populated, He gave long life-spans to men in order to facilitate this goal. At that time, when Onan "spilledhis seed upon the ground," he was deliberately disobeying God and trying to frustrate God's planTHEN. The New Testament does not indicate that such is God's plan for man today. If it were, mewould also be given again those long-life-spans, iorder that he could beget children for centuries asthe ancients once did. Lastly (5), if any person wishes to marry, they must conform to the CivilAuthority under which they live. In turn, Civil Authority in the United States allows us to select theminister, priest or rabbi of our choice in the per

formance of our nuptial ceremonies. And, if we pre

fer, we may turn from any religious connotation in

the ceremony, and simply use a Judge of a Court or even a Ship's Captain, etc

Of course, if the New Testament contained anteaching that would forbid a Christian from "being married" in the presence of any than an "ordained" minister, then we would conform to such New Testament authority. However, in the absence of such in

spired instruction, we shall oppose those religious "authorities" (?) who would presume to force their

own "authority" upon all others.

INTRODUCTION I sincerely appreciate the invitation to become a

regular writer for this paper. I ver ily believe that it

has had a great influence for good, and I'm happy to

be associated with it. I have always liked the idea of

"searching the scriptures." It is also a pleasure to

work with brethren Phillips and Miller, two able and

faithful servants of the Lord.

When I accepted this responsibility, it was under

stood that I would have complete freedom to say

what I feel should be said on any subject discussed.

-Of course, I understand that the editors, as well as'any of our readers, would certainly have the right to question or disagree with anything which they believe to be contrary to divine truth, and I would both desire and expect that. I am not infallible; I can err in judgment and in teaching. If I know my heart, shall always welcome constructive criticism and advice and I am ready to correct any mistake which

I may make.Teaching the word of God is a serious and fearful

responsibility. James says, "Be not many of yo

teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive

heavier judgment" (James 3:1). And we are always

mindful of Paul's solemn warning, "If any man

preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which

ye received, let him be anathema" (Gal. 1:6). Whil-this responsibility applies to both the spoken and written message, I think that in some ways what we write is even more serious. The oral teaching whichwe do soon fades away to be heard no more, but what we write will not only be read by those now living butalso by generations yet unborn. They, too, will be influenced by what we have written, whether right orwrong. And it is more difficult to correct and erase the influence of a mistake which we make in our writing. Therefore, we write with mixed emotions —grateful for the opportunity, yet fearful of the re

sponsibility.

May I remind our readers that the men who write for this journal, including the editors, do so amid a heavy schedule of work. I am no exception. If you really want something done in the work of the Lord,you always call on a busy man. With our regular preaching, gospel meetings, radio work, papers, andother responsibilities, we have to write articles like this as time permits. We can't always devote the time and effort which such truly deserves. Of course,

such is no excuse for the teaching of error — only the

quality and arrangement of the material.

I accept this responsibility humbly and gratefully,

and I shall do my best always to teach and defend the

truth of God and do so in a manner which can be

understood by all. I come to you "not in persuasive

words of wisdom . . . that your faith should not stand

in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (I Cor. 2:4,5).

By considering the heading under which I am to

write, you can get an idea of the general nature of

my articles each month. I am to use the "sword of

the Spirit" as I see the need to use it, and generally

as it applies to the teaching and practice of the peo

ple of God. Of course, this gives me an open field and

a wide range of subjects — and there's no telling

where all I may go! I shall unsheathe the Sword and

take a swipe anywhere that I see the need to perform

some spiritual surgery. I may use it on some patients

who are so anesthetized (spiritually asleep) that it

will be difficult for them to feel the pain and fully

appreciate what I'm trying to remove. And I may

even operate on some who will declare to high Heaven

that they are whole and healthy and that I am cut

ting on a sound organ. Sometimes we don't realize when we are sick.

The type of writing which I am to do is not thatwhich is calculated to increase one's popularity, norwill it be properly accepted and appreciated by some. The use of the Sword will be looked upon as a negative and destructive work — and in a sense that is right. However, we tend to lose sight of the fact that we often have to tear down and destroy before we can build. T he ultimate goal of tearing down — if we have the proper attitude — is to build up. While we stand and admire the builders as they erect a tall and

beautiful building, we usually have little admiration

and appreciation for the demolition crew which re

moved the old building and cleaned off a place for the

new. But could the new one have been erected with

out the removal of the old one ?

Our work and teaching must be both positive andnegative. It has ever been so! God said to Jeremiah,"See, I have this day set thee over the nations andover the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, andto destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant" ,Jeremiah 1:10). This was two-thirds negative andone-third positive. He had to root out, pull down anddestroy before he could build and plant. Paul admonished Timothy to "reprove, rebuke and exhort" (2Tim. 4:2). Again the formula is two-thirds negative and one-third positive. We must follow this pattern today. We cannot get people to understand and acceptthe truth until we free them from error and its attributes.

I fully recognize that the man who destroys has a responsibility to rebuild. I try to realize that alwaysin my teaching. We should never tell a man that he is wrong without also telling him what is right. If wdon't know what is right on a particular point or practice, how can we be sure that he is wrong? And if weknow what is right, and care enough to get involved, we are obligated to share our knowledge with those who are in error. Honesty, and a love for truth and the souls of men demands it!

No man ever did a more destructive work than did

the apostle Paul as he addressed the Athenians from

Mars' Hill (Acts 17). They called him a "babbler"

and accused him of teaching something new. After

he had demolished and dethroned their idols, he tolthem about the true God in whom they should believe.The preaching of the apostle Peter on the dawhen the church had its beginning was first negativeand then positive. He began by denying that theapostles were drunk, and then condemned them for

denying the "mighty works and wonders and sign

which God did by him" and then accused them of

crucifying the Son of God. But he didn't stop there.

When he had prepared their hearts and moved them

to want to know what to do to be saved, he told them

what to do. Such was typical of the teaching of the

Lord and his apostles, and this should be our method

today.

With our "ground rules" laid, we are now in posi

tion to continue our studies. The Lord willing, 1 shall

discuss with you next month what the New Testa

ment teaches about the "sword of the Spirit" and the

soldier of Jesus Christ.

I. A DEFINITION OF THE TERMS

CREATION. At the beginning of a series of dis

cu ions, involving such basic subjects as the above,

it is imperative that we clearly define our terms so

we will all know what we are talking about and how

we use such terms. This will be true relative to other

words used beside "creation" and "evolution."

In a discussion with a biology professor of a well-known university, concerning our differences on these matters, he said to me, "I believe one of the great problems between us involves the matter of semantics. As you use a word you have one thing in minwhile the same word means something different tome. We need to be sure what we each have in mind in using various terms." In this matter he was exactly correct and in illustrating, specifically, what he hadin mind he used the word, now under discu ion, "creation." He said, "Suppose any 'oak' tree constituted a Genesis 'kind,' you affirm that in CREATION Godbrought into being, by His Divine Power, that first oak tree, full grown. It did not come from an acorn. It did not grow by natural processes but, by the Word of God, came into being where it previously did noexist." I replied that this was exactly my position relative to the adequate "First Cause" on the matter or origins, including various "kinds." This professor then replied, "I do not think 'creation' means that at all. I believe any oak tree, growing today, was 'created' by God." I believe he was wrong in this matter

but I cite the incident to point up the importance of semantics and the need of denying the words with which we have to do.

Now, I admit God stands behind, and is responsible for, the oak tree growing today. It exists because,after "creative activity" was finished, he set in motion natural law that the created should bring forth "after its kind" by the power of reproduction in theSEED He gave to each ("After its kind," or an equivalent phrase, is found 10 times in Gen. 1). Thus the oak tree today came by natural processes from an acorn — IT IS THE RESULT OF THE EVOLUTION OF AN ACORN. Not so of the first trees (whatever the "kinds" were), plants, fish, birds, creeping things, beasts, etc., and finally man. And MAN is our chief interest, as we consider his "origin" as applied to either Divine Power in Creation or by natural evolutionary processes. It evolves from whom he came ?To whom is he related ? How did he come to BE 'man,' endowed with all the qualities that separate him, by so wide a chasm, from all the rest of the animal creation? We maintain that man came from God by Creation— a special and distinct creation. He does notshar e a common ancestr y with ANY of the lower cr eation (T he E volutionar y position) ; he did notEVOLVE from anything else, did not come into being via the animal r oute and at no time was MAN anything but a HUMAN being. In our next article wewill consider the professor's position (held by many) of "current," "progressive," "present," "continuous" creation.

By "Cr eation" we mean the bringing into being things and beings that previously had no existence. The Hebrew term "bara," translated "created" in Gen. 1:1, in its basic and primary meaning, expresses the commencement of the existence of a thing, or egression from nonentity to entity. It does not, inthis primary meaning, denote the preserving or newforming of things that had previously existed. To say that God formed all things out of a pre-existing, eternal, nature is absurd. Adam Clarke (Vol. 1, page 29) says "the rabbins, who are legitimate judges in acase of verbal criticism on their own language, are unanimous in asserting that the word 'bara' has thebasic and primary meaning" cited above.

We must turn to the Word of God (and its terms such as created, creation) because the physical processes now studied belong to an entirely different order and give us no information regarding the record or history of creation. These things can only belearned from Divine revelation, for the question God asked Job long ago in Job 38:2-4 is applicable to allwho live today or who ever lived. We believe the "creation" of the Universe, the earth, the vegetablerealm, the animal kingdom and finally man involved"cr eation ex nihilo" — cr eation out of nothing (Heb.11:3; Psa. 33:6,9). T hat which had no being was summoned into existence by an express fiat — an authorizing order or decree. Nine times in Gen. 1 it is stated, "God said." God spake and whatever he thus commanded was done.

T his same time of "creative" activity, is referredto in Mar k 13:19 by the Gr eek wor d "ktizo," and of this word and reference W. E. Vine says (Vol. 1, page 254-255) "it signifies in Scripture to create, always of the act of God whether (a) in the natural creation, Mark 13:19 — or (b) in the spiritual creation — ." Keil and Delitzsch (The Pentateuch — Vol. 1 — page 47) state " 'bara' always means 'to create' and is only applied to a Divine cr eation, the production of that which had no existence before. It is never joined with an accusative of the material, although it does not exclude a pre-existent material, unconditionally, but is used for the creation of MAN (1:26, 27; 5:1-2) and OF EVERYTHING NEW THAT GOD CREATES whether in the kingdom of nature or that of grace." Filby ("Creation Revealed," page 41) says the "central idea" and "main sense" of the Hebrew word "bara" is never used of anyone but God andwhen used as a noun it means the Creator Himself (Eccl. 12:1).

We believe it is important to stress that CREATIVE ACTIVITY, the bringing into being that whichpreviously did not have an existence, is not only setforth by the word "create" but sometimes the word "make" involves cr eation and is used synonymouslywith it. I believe some of my brethren are in error when they say that whereas "bara" (created) means bringing into being that which did not pr eviously exist the word "asah" (make or made) always involves a shaping or forming something from preexistent material.

Jamieson (commentary with Fausset and Brown, Vol. 1, page 8) says in Gen. 1:28-29 "Let us make man — The word is used here in the sense of create, as it is in vs. 25 — an ordinary use of the word when it is employed to expr ess the origination of species, both vegetable and animal; besides anything possessing a soul, as man — or even organic life, as vegetables and animals — may in these r espects bethe subject of a proper creation, as well as of, andin addition to, formation from pre-existent matter (Gen. 2:7)." The latest issue of Creation Research Society Quarterly, in an article by John Whitcomb(Page 71) says, "Although in its general usage this verb asah ('made') is not as strong as bara ('created') for conveying the idea of a "ex nihilo" creation, it is used as a synonym for "bara" in the creative narrative of Genesis. This can be demonstrated by comparing 1:21, where God is said to have "created" (bara) great whales, with 1:25 where he "made" (asah) the beasts of the field. Surely we are not to understand any significant difference between the creation of sea monsters and land animals. Compare also 1:26 ('And God said, let us MAKE man inour image') with 1:27 ("So God CRE AT ED man inHis own image"). Thus, the two verbs are used synonymously in this chapter . . ." H. C. Leupold, inhis comments on Gen. 1 (page 61) affirms, "For 'he made' (asah) dare not be construed as involving amode of operation radically different from creating ('bara') for a comparison of the use of the two verbs in v. 21 and v. 25 shows that they may be used interchangeably." Frank March in his Life, Man and Time (page 41), after quoting L eupold adds, "T his fact is also illustrated in Gen. 1:26-27 where it is recorded that God said, 'Let us MAKE (asah) man in ourimage," but when the completed act is reported wer ead, 'So God cr eated (bara) man in his own image,in the image of God cr eated He (bara) him"; Now, Iknow the wor d and action embodied in "make," asused here, did not involve the physical or fleshly — the body of man, which was "made" or "formed" from the dust (Gen. 2:7) but that which was "made"

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

in 1:26-27 involved that which was like God, mademan kin to God, but ALSO THAT WHICH DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO THIS DECREE. (In studying the contrast between these two verbs and the basic and primary, as well as the secondary meaning to show that sometimes "make" does mean "create," seeT homas Conant's "T he Book of Genesis"). Johannes

G. Vos in "Christianity Today" Vol. IX, No. 25, says, "The verb "asah" occurs ten times in Genesis 1 and 2 where it is used either to describe a providential dealing of God with that which has alr eady beencreated or in connection with "bara" which qualifies the meaning and renders it specific in the sense of origination of the truly new." (And he cites, as illustrative of this, the ORIGIN of the universe, of life and man). J. Oliver Buswell comments upon John 1:3 as follows (Baker's Dictionary of Theology, page145) "The common English version reads, 'All thingswer e MADE by Him and without Him was not anything MADE that was MADE.' But the word 'made'translates, not a form of 'poieo,' to make, but of 'ginomai' to come to pass or to come into being."

WILLIAM EDISON WELLS D.

M. Black, Perrine, Fla.

On October 5, 1967, J. C. L edford and W. H. Moulton conducted the funeral services for William Edison Wells in the meeting house of the Greenville, Florida Church of Christ. He passed away in his home on October 3, 1967. Except for brief illnesses, he wasblessed with good health for 97 1/2years.

Brother Wells was born February 19, 1870 in Ousley, Georgia. He was baptized into Christ in June of 1894 in the Haines Pool about 4 miles north of Valdosta, Georgia. He spent much of the 73 years following his baptism in study of the scriptures andteaching his fellowman. Although his eyes weakenedwith age, he managed to read for a long time with alarge magnifying glass. He memorized long portions of scriptures for use in" later years when he could no longer read. His life served as a commentary of steadfast belief in II Timothy 2:15 showing-to all who knew him that those who study God's Wor d caneffectively teach it.

Brother Wells operated several mill businesses inGreenville. After retirement from these, he found plenty of time for his enjoyment of the various religious denominational radio programs. Many timeshe challenged these "sectarians" (as he always calledthem) to prove their doctrines by the Bible. I havebefore me a letter of March 30, 1955, written by him challenging a preacher of the Church of God to prove his err oneous teachings. He was 85 when that letter was written. At 88 he was still writing and makingplans for a meeting at Greenville. Often he used hismimeographs to reach as many as he could with hiswritten sermons. He tried to use every opportunity to teach God's Word to those in Greenville. With much help from Brother Irvin Lee, Brother Wellswas able to ar ouse enough inter est in the Tr uth inGr eenville in November 1939 to hold a meeting.Brother Lee preached during this meeting. Several wer e baptized and thus a congr egation of the L or d's people met at Brother Wells' house until the meeting house was completed about Januar y, 1941. Br other Wells was a contemporary of some of the pioneers of the Lord's Cause in this country. He shared a close friendship and work with the late Brother W. A.Camer on. Among his corr espondents was the late Brother J. D. Tant, a man greatly admired by Brother Wells.

Brother Wells' body was laid to rest in the Ever green Cemetery in Greenville, Florida. Survivors are his devoted wife, Minnie, two sons, Edwin and William Carl. Six daughters: Mrs. Belle Cone, Mrs. Claudia Sanders, Mrs. Ruth Day, Mrs. Virginia McNair, Mrs. Louise Joyner and Mrs. Mary Lee Hull; 23 grandchildren, 46 great grand children and 6 great great grandchildren. He is also survived by his sister, Mrs. Jennie Conine, his brother, Bertie Wells and several nieces and nephews. His family, as well as his manyfriends, were greatly blessed by his faithful exampleand knowledge of the scriptures.

B. G. Hope, 1253 Chestnut St., Bowling Green, Kentucky — Since the last week in September I have preached in meetings at the following places: DryFork near Glasgow, Ky., Temple Terrace, and Lake Shore in Jacksonville, Florida. Two were baptized atTemple Terrace. Bro. Sam Binkley is the respected preacher there. He is making plans to go to Australia in August of 1968. T her e wer e no visible r esults at either of the other places. Bro. Chas. Holton from 12th Street in Bowling Green preaches at Dry Fork twice a month. He is doing a good work. Bro. OaksGowen is pr esently the pr eacher at L ake Shor e. He is loved and respected by the congregation but has accepted an invitation to move to Orlando.

I have been handicapped in my pr eaching sinceApril due to throat surgery — the removal of a benign tumor from a vocal chord. I'm almost normal now and had but little difficulty speaking in the recent meetings in Florida.

The church here has decided to employ another preacher who will assume the heavier part of the local work. This arrangement will enable me to accept more invitations for meetings.

Twelfth Street congregation is a good church. It is blessed with a dedicated eldership and an outstanding class teaching program. I know of no other church with more trained and qualified teachers. The attendance in the classes is not what it should be but perhaps future plans well executed can improve this. The worship services are well attended. We have a number of University students.

Bro. Bob Crawley did some extraordinary preach

ing in a ser ies of meetings that closed October 22. There wasone baptism and one restoration.

(B. G. Hope will do any church good in a meeting.He has the two important qualities that make one a good preacher: he knows and respects the word of God and loves the souls of men. — Editor.)

Sam Binkley, Jr., 206 Park Ridge Ave., TempleTerrace, Fla. 33617. For several months my wife andI have been planning to go to Australia to work in the vineyard of the Lord. Our plans are progressing in afine way at this time, and it appears now that we will be going about the first of August, 1968. The Eastside church of Christ in Athens, Alabama, withwhich I labored as evangelist about five years, wilprovide my full monthly support, and the church here in Temple Terrace will provide more than one half our travel fund. We are grateful for the opportunity of having such fellowship with these two fine churches, and the backing of faithful Christians will make the work easier. Pray for us that we mayrecognize the adversaries, overcome the obstacles,and seize upon the opportunities to build up the bodyof Christ, to the end that souls may be saved

At this time a definite decision has not been made as to what city I will be living and working in. Several have been considered, and there seems to be a dooropened in all of them as well as in many other cities in that vast country-Brother Robert Harkrider has supplied me with very valuable information whichhas helped me in making a decision as to what section of the country to go, and will be helpful also indeciding exactly what city. There is a great need for more workers in Australia where opportunities seem to be unlimited. If you would be interested ingoing, now or later, and would like to know more about the work in that country, I will be glad to beof whatever help I can.

John W. Pitman, P. O. Box 103 — Fayetteville,Ark. 72701 — We are interested in moving to workwith a congregation who needs a preacher with some support. It might be that a house could be suppliedby the church and a little added to the present support. We have three children. We can move as soon as arrangements are made with some congregation. Wecan be reached at phone: 442-8357, area code 501, or to the above address.

Don Keele, Osprey, Florida — The church of Christ in Osprey, Florida, is in need of a full time preacher. Anyone interested would have to provide some of his own support. Those interested contact me at 312 BayVista, Osprey, Florida 33559, or phone 966-2285.

David L. Waldron, 4736 Quinwood Lane, VirginiaBeach, Va. 23455 — A new work has been started in the Norfolk, Virginia area and at present the church consists of three families now meeting in thehome of one of the families. As far as is known at this writing, the nearest conservative congregation of our Lord's church is about 100 miles away in the city of Richmond, Virginia. There are several so-called "church of Christ" groups in the area butthey are either extremely liberal, or are in reality part of the "Christian Church" in organization andpractice.

If you are coming to or through this area, winvite you to worship with us. If you know of anyonein the "Tidewater" area who might be interested inassisting with the work here, contact me at the aboveaddress. My phone number is 499-2404 (area code 703).

John W. Pitman, P. O. Box 103, Fayetteville, Ark. 72701 — I am in position to move and work with acongregation who needs a preacher. We desire to locate with a congregation not able to fully support a man. We have most of our support. We have 3children and I am 44 years of age. Contact me at the above address or phone HI 2-8357 (area code 501).

Doyle Banta, P. O. Box 446, Athens, Ala. 35611 —

After four years with the Sardis Springs church at

Athens I am now back with the Carriger church for

my second work. During the years at Sardis Springs

we erected a new building and also witnessed growth

in every phase of the work. Carl Witty is with them

now and doing an excellent work. Our work at Car

riger is most pleasant and encouraging. We baptized

two recently.

BIBLE LANDS TOUR

Visit the historic Bible lands with Christians,April 29 through May 20th, 1968. Tour led for second

year by Ferrell Jenkins and William E. Wallace. Com

plete price from New York, $1038. Financing avail

able at low interest for 24 months. For complete

tour folder on this trip of a lifetime write Ferrell

Jenkins, 491 E. Woodsdale Ave., Akron, Ohio 44301.

Thomas C. Hickey, Jr., 12702 North Central Avenue, Tampa, Fla. 33612 — I am very much interested in compiling a complete list of the church of Christ which meet in Florida. I would like to call upon anyand all who will contribute to such an effort to send me the information you have including the nam(i.e., street or community name) by which a givechurch is known, its correct mailing address, and thename, address and telephone number of some responsible person connected with a particular congregation. If someone from each county or area wouldcontribute to this effort, it would be po ible to make a fairly complete list. Those who make substantial

contributions to such a list will receive, upon request,

a copy of the completed list. Thank you.

Ralph R. Givens, 387 Nobottom Road, Berea, Ohio44017 — I begin work with the church in Berea,Ohio, January 7, 1968, having moved here from Susanville, California. I would appreciate receivingbulletins from churches in this part of the country.

David Fraser, Clermont, Florida— After about two and one-half years with the church in Chiefland, Florida, I have moved to Clermont to work with thechurch in this town. The church is small but faithfully standing in the "old paths." Since moving thfirst of November there has been one baptism andone restoration. The prospects for a good work are encouraging.

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 17244 Tampa, Florida 33612

JENKINS-HEINSELMAN DEBATE

Akr on, Ohio

December 4-8, 1967

1ST NIGHT: "Resolved: It is scriptural for a local church of Christ to contribute funds from its treasury for the care of the needy to such institutions as Mid-Western Children's Home, Cincinnati, Ohio and Potter Orphan Home and School, Inc., Bowling Green, Ky." Bill Heinselman affirms — Ferrell Jenkins denies

2ND NIGHT: "Resolved: "It is not scriptural for a local church of Christ to contribute funds from its treasury for the care of the needy to such institutions as Mid-Western Children's Home, Cincinnati, Ohio and Potter Orphan Home and School, Inc., Bowling Green, Ky." Ferrell Jenkins affirms — Bill Heinselman denies

3RD NIGHT: "Resolved: "It is not scriptural for a local church of Christ to contribute funds from its treasury for the preaching of the gospel to such as the Herald of Truth Radio and T.V. programs conducted by the Highland church of Christ, Abilene, Texas." Ferrell Jenkins affirms — Bill Heinselman denies

4TH NIGHT: "Resolved: "It is scriptural for a local church of Christ to contribute funds from its treasury for the preaching of the gospel to such as the Herald of Truth Radio and T.V. programs conducted by the Highland church of Christ, Abilene, Texas." Bill Heinselman affirms — Ferrell Jenkins denies

FOUR REELS — $12.00

SMITH-WADE DEBATE

West Chester , Ohioand Dayton, OhioNovember 27-December 1, 1967

FIRST TWO NIGHTS: "The scriptures teach that an assembly of the church of Christ for the communion must use one cup (drinking vessel) in the distribution of the fruit of the vine." AFFIRMATIVE: Ronnie F. Wade NEGATIVE: J. T. Smith

LAST TWO NIGHTS: "The scriptures teach that when the church comes together for the purpose of studying the word of God, a systematic arrangement of classes may be used for such study wit h women teaching some of the classes." AFFIRMATIVE: J. T. Smith NEGATIVE: Ronnie F. Wade

FOUR REELS — $12.00 GRIDER-TOTTY DEBATE

Glasgow, KentuckyNovember 13-16, 1967

FIRST TWO NIGHTS: It is unscriptural for churches to contribute to one church, as is done in the Herald of Truth, to preach the gospel.

A. C. Grider affirms — W. L. Totty denies LAST TWO

NIGHTS: "It is scriptural for churches to build and maintain benevolent organizations for the care of the needy."

W. L. Totty affirms — A. C. Grider deniesFOUR REELS — $12.00

GARRETT-SMITH DEBATE

Tr enton, Ohio October 30-November 3, 1967

1ST NIGHT: "The scriptures teach that God does not employ the preaching of the gospel is a necessary means in the regeneration of sinners." Eddie Garrett affirms — J. T. Smith denies

2ND NIGHT: "The scriptures teach that God uses the gospel as a necessary means in the regeneration of sinners." J. T. Smith affirms — Eddie Garrett denies

3RD NIGHT: "The church of Christ, of which I am a member, is in origin the church of the New Testament." J. T. Smith affirms — Eddie Garrett denies

4TH NIGHT: "The Primitive Baptist Church, of which I am a member, is in origin the church of the New Testament." Eddie Garrett affirms — J. T. Smith denies

FOUR REELS — $12.00

GARNER-WOODS DEBATE

Montgomer y, Alabama

November. 13-16,1967

1ST NIGHT: "The scriptures teach that salvation is by gracethrough faith before and without water baptism."AFFIRMATIVE: Dr. Albert Garner

NEGATIVE: Guy N. Woods 2ND NIGHT: "The scriptures teach that baptism in water, to a penitent believer, is for, or in order to, the remission of past,

or alien, sins."

AFFIRMATIVE: Guy N. Woods

NEGATIVE: Dr. Albert Garner 3RD NIGHT: "The scriptures

teach that a child of God may so apostatize and fall away from grace as to be finally lost in hell." AFFIRMATIVE: Guy N. Woods NEGATIVE: Dr. Albert Garner

4TH NIGHT: "The scriptures teach that if is right to use instrumental music in Christian worship." AFFIRMATIVE: Dr. Albert Garner NEGATIVE: Guy N. Woods

FOUR REELS — $12.00

BINGHAM-HIGHERS DEBATE

Corinth, Mi i ippi November 20-24, 1967

FIRST TWO NIGHTS: "It is in harmony with the Scriptures for churches of Christ to contribute from their treasuries to benevolent institutions such as Childhaven, Southern Christian Home, and others of like character." AFFIRMATIVE: Alan E. Highers NEGATIVE: W. Eural Bingham

LAST TWO NIGHTS: "The scriptures teach that in benevolence churches of Christ may relieve saints only." AFFIRMATIVE: W. Eural Bingham NEGATIVE. Alan E. Highers

FOUR REELS— $12.00

PLEASE CHECK YOUR EXPIRATION DATE AND SEND YOUR RENEWAL TODAY

TWENTY-SECOND ANNUAL LECTURE PROGRAM OF FLORIDA COLLEGE

Hutchinson Memorial Auditorium, Temple Terrace, Florida

January 22-25, 1968 THEME:

Pressures Of Contemporary Life

MONDAY, JANUARY 22 7:30p.m. "Right: What Determines It?"..............................................................Luther Blackmon

8:30 p.m. "Unbelief: Sources And Forms"....................................................................... Bob Bolton

TUESDAY, JANUARY 23

9:30 a.m. "The Relationship Of Young People To Their Elders" ................................Jady Copeland

10:20 a.m. "The Holy Spirit" ..............................................................................Franklin T. Puckett

11:20 a.m. "Problem Of Human Responsibility And Organization".............................James W. Adams2:20p.m. "The Church: Its Nature And Structure" ................................................Roy E. Cogdill

3:20 p.m. "Contemporary Prophetic Cults" ................................................................Homer Hailey

4:20 p.m. "Palestine — Visual And Verbal Pictures".......................................................Melvin Curry7:30p.m. "Conscience: Conflicts And Crises" ........................................................ Clinton Hamilton8:30p.m. "Hypocrisy: Prevalence And Perversity"............................................. Warren Cheatham

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24

9:30 a.m. "T he Problem Of Self" ................................................................................ Hoyt Houchen

10:20 a.m. "The Holy Spirit"................................................................................ Franklin T. Puckett

11:20 a.m. "Problem Of Human Responsibility And Organization".............................James W. Adams2:20p.m. "The Church: Its Nature And Structure" ................................................Roy E. Cogdill

3:20 p.m. "Contemporar y Prophetic Cults" ................................................................ Homer Hailey

4:20 p.m. "Palestine — Visual And Verbal Pictures"....................................................... Melvin Curry

8:30 p.m. "Life: Biological And Psychological Dilemmas"..........................................Charles Branch

THURSDAY, JANUARY 25

9:30a.m. "Will He Find T he Faith?" ........................................................................ James Finney

10:20 a.m. "The Holy Spirit" ...............................................................................Franklin T. Puckett

11:20 a.m. "Problem Of Human Responsibility And Organization".............................James W. Adams

2:20 p.m. "The Church: Its Nature And Structure"....................................................Roy E. Cogdill

3:20 p.m. Alumni Program

7:30 p.m. "Death And The Resurrection: Problem Of Purpose And Destiny"............Eugene Britnell