DIVINE DISCIPLINEWilliam C. Sexton
The word "Discipline," like many other words, is perhaps not fully understood on the one hand anddisliked on the other. There has been times when discipline was misused and was harmful. Likewise there has been negligence regarding discipline manytimes; this too is harmful. The people of God should be informed concerning discipline which is "Divine" in origin, and be courageous enough to administer it. When men fully understand the purpose of "Divine Discipline," and are spiritual minded as theyshould be, they'll 'be careful to administer DISCIPLINE!
The word "Discipline," has several meanings. Webster says of the word: "1. Obs. Teaching; instruction. 2. That which is taught to pupils. 3. Training which corrects, molds, strengthens, or perfects.
4. Punishment; chastisement. 5. Control gained byenforcing obedience or order, as in a school or army; . . . " The scriptures that point to the discipline of God's people, when fully considered, willreveal the way in which the word can be used. Let us list the scriptures that should be considered when one desires to study the subject: (Matt. 18:15-17;I Cor. 5:1-13; Rom. 16:17-18; II Cor. 2:3-11; Gal6:1-3; II Thess. 3:6-14; Heb. 12:5-11)
God has a purpose for His people, and to accomplish that purpose, discipline must be administered,(Cf. Rom. 8:28). The person called and approved byGod the Father, must be conformed to the image ofHis Son. Discipline is Instructive in nature as well as Corrective. I am sorry to say, but it seems to me that many of God's people are lax and negligent inregard to discipline. When and where this is true,the results are disastrous— souls will be lost! Again I say, that I am sure that many people over the years have been the subject of discipline from people whoclaimed to be God's people, who have been injured and abused— withdrawn from for DOING GOD'S WILL. Such is wrong, neverthele
, we must notallow such to keep us from administering the discipline God requires. Such, I'm afraid, have caused some to fail to administer DIVINE DISCIPLINE.
1. Instructive Discipline: When a person sins, heis to be approached by a "spiritual minded" person,and told of his sins. The aim: that he might see the error of his way and change, so as to be forgiven.
Meekness is required to be effective in this work,(Gal. 6:1). So often this is not done! Shameful arethe results; all who fail here are condemned before God. Various reasons keep us from acting correctlyin such a matter. We may be afraid, or just don't want to become involved; we don't like controversy...who does? Likely we JUDGE the person NO GOOD— thus would be a "waste of time." Po
ibly, as much as any is the po
ibility of being charged falsely. Perhaps many times this does happen, nevertheless we must do our duty and stand against theconsequences. If we desire to get to heaven, we must please God, and this is necessary in order to please Him.
Efforts are to be made, to carry this out successfully. Notice Matt. 18:15-17 and Titus 3:10-11. Steps are set forth to be followed, and we can't discharge our duty without taking those steps. When men have accepted things unauthorized by God's word, or acted contrary to His instructions, they must be told; they must SEE the true nature of their act-then and only then can they correct them— and if they won't correct then, then they are to be dealt the last step
2. Corrective Discipline: When men have been warned, exhorted to understand and accept thtruth; when they FAIL to respond to instructive discipline, then there are specific ACTS that must be taken. The Lord says MARK them, (Rom. 16:17-18). The person is to be identifiable! When the sin has been committed, the MARKING has taken place, then they must be avoided by the faithful,(Rom. 16:17-18). Such is delivered to satan, (I Cor. 5:4-5). When such is done, Christians are then obligated "not to keep company..." with that person, (I Cor. 5:9-11). Paul says to the Thessaloians,"note that man, and have no company with him ..." The purpose of such discipline is to accomplish a desired results— ultimately save the person's soul. First, if such an evil person is allowed to continue in the congregation, all will be effected, (I Cor. 5: 68). Such is described under the figure of leaven—a small part placed in a LUMP, will spread to thewhole. Therefore, separation from evil is necessaryto preserve one's purity— that of the congregation. Secondly, the person's soul is to be secured if possible. In his sinful condition, he is lost. Only if he changes can he be saved. The disfellowship is for the purpose of causing him to SEE the error and consequently effect of his way. This fact is often overlooked, thus it is thought of only as being punishment for his sins. I'm afraid the idea is developedthat we don't love a person when we withdraw from him. Such is NO indication of a lack of love. A mother's discipline of her children, indicates her understanding of the effect of evil, and her love for the child— So it is in the church concerning a brother.
When we fail to discipline, such is evidence that
one of two things is wrong: we either don't under
stand the results of the sin, or we don't care for the
person's soul. Po
ibly both of these wrongs accom
pany our INACTION. May we wake up to reality in
this matter.
When a person has been disciplined— he has been marked— it is difficult to get some to HONOR such. When they FAIL to avoid them, they contribute to the delinquency of that person. When such is donethey relieve the pressure of God's word some; such hinders and renders it ineffective. In doing this webecome sinners!
May we understand: 1. Divine Discipline is that originated with God. He has developed it, and madeit known to us. 2. That Divine Discipline is commanded by God; we don't really have a choice in the matter, if we are to please Him. 3. That Divine Discipline, is sanctioned by God— we aren't talking about a system of correction conceived and developed bman. All such is harmful! 4. Divine Discipline is toaccomplish God's ends. It will accomplish exactlywhat the Maker designed it to accomplish. Faith demands that we administer it faithfully. May we havethe courage and patience and conviction to applGod's word in this matter as well as in all other areas. Are we as informed on this subject as we are on other parts of God's word ? Are we as sure that it will accomplish God's works, effect, as the application of the First Principles? If not, Why? It is possibly because we haven't observed His teachings inoperation regarding this matter as much as we haveconcerning other matters?
2804 Lafayette
St. Joseph, Mo. 64507
THE POWER WORD
Words have power. Words can produce paniamong those of an entire nation. Words can comfort the broken hearts of those in sorrow. Words can create anger that will seek to kill. Words can mislead to the point of destroying people financially, morally, socially, and spiritually. Words can also beused to convert the unconverted and change theattitudes of men and women from evil to righteousness. Be-cause words have such power we are warned in the word of God to be careful what we say and how we say it. Jesus said that "ever yidle word that men shall speak, they shall givaccount thereof in the day of judgment" (Matt. 12:36). Paul wrote: "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may knowhow ye ought to answer every man" (Col. 4:6).
The word of God is much more than the words of men, and the power is far greater. If the words of men will do so much in affecting the minds and lives of men, how much more will the word of God dofor
those who will hear and understand it? Men's words will change from generation to generation, but theword of God will never change. T he words of men will pass away with time, but the word of God will live forever. The word of God is incomparable with the words of men, but many wise men of the world seem to think that their words are as great and powerful as the spiritual words of which Paul spoke in I Corinthians 2.
Paul writes to Timothy that the "word of God is not bound" (2 T im. 2:9). T his means that no man or power can bind the powerful word of God. Men can be bound, as Paul was, but not the word of God.Men may "hold the truth in unr ighteousness" but only to themselves. T he time will come when allsuch will feel the power of the word and know itcannot be ignored or bound.
The word of God will save the lost; the words of men will not. God's word makes men clean: "ye are clean through the word which I have spoken untoyou" (John 15:3). Paul said: "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Rom. 1:16). To the Corinthians he said: "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep inmemory what I preached unto you, unless ye havbelieved in vain" (I Cor. 15:1,2)
The word of God must be received before it will save. James wrote: "Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtine
, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls" (James 1:21). In verse 22 he begins to tell how this word is received: by being doers of the word and not hearers only. Peter says: "Seeing yhave purified your souls in obeying the truth throughthe Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren..." (I Peter 1:22). The word of God is the only power known to man by which the lost souls of humanitycan be saved. But it will save only those who hear and obey it.
We can not overlook the fact that the basis of judgment of the world will be the word of God we now have. I know of no recognized work of man that claims to pass judgment on the human race to decide the eternal destiny of men. But Jesus said of his word: "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in thelaw day" (John 12:48).
The scene of the judgment recorded in Revelation 20 tells of the basis of the judgment: "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and thebooks were opened: and another book was opened,which is the book of life; and the dead were judgedout of those things which were written in the books, according to their works" (Rev. 20:12).
With the information before us that we will be judged by the written word, how can men continually refuse to listen, learn and heed this powerful word of God ? What possesses men to substitute the words and will of men for the will of God? Why do multitudes neglect to hear the words of the Lord and gointo eternity without an excuse? I cannot answer these questions, but I do know that no man has ever engaged in conflict with the word of God and come out with victory. No man can defy, reject and neglect the powerful word of God and be saved when life is over. You had better think about it ser iously.
FOOL
Part Three
There are two final words translated 'Fool' in the Old Testament. Evil is generally employed as an adjective describing a 'foolish man'. It implies the opposite to a prudent man (Prov. 12:17) and a wise man (Prov. 10:14).
This fool despises wisdom (Prov. 1:7) and discipline (15:5) ; mocks at guilt (14:9). He is quarrelsome (20:3) ; licentious (7:22) and it is useless to instruct him (Prov. 16:22, 27:22).
SAKAL is used primarily in Ecclesiastes (2:19,10:3,14) and denotes thickheaded or stubbornne
. Driver has said, "The 'fool' is the man who, whether from weakness of character ('evil) or from obstinacy (sakal), lacks the perception necessary to guidehim aright in the affairs of life, and remains consequently an object of satire or contempt to his fellowmen." (An Intro. to the Liter, of the Old Test., p.398)
Marshall Patton has been a constant and loyahelper in the publication of Searching The Scriptures since the very day it came into being. He not onlyaccepted one of the most difficult responsibilities in writing for a religious paper — answering questions
— but he also sent the paper to hundreds of people over the past nine years. He is a thorough student of the Scriptures and does his work well.
Marshall E. Patton was born April 6, 1916 in Collinsville, Texas, to Mr. and Mrs. J. M. Patton. In 1927 at Wichita Falls, Texas, he was baptized into Christ by L. S. White. In the fall of 1934 he enrolled in Abilene Christian College and began preaching the same year. Four years later, on July 13, he was married to Miss Rachael McNatt of Shelbyville, T ennessee. They have two children, Don Ross and LaNelle. Don is now married, has two daughters, and preaches for the Southwest church in Atlanta, Georgia. LaNelle is currently doing post graduate work at the University of Alabama and plans to teach this fall.
Marshall has done local work with churches at the following places: Graham and Nocona, Texas, Cull-man and Birmingham, Alabama, Orlando, Florida,and is now with the Weatherly Heights church inHuntsville, Alabama. He has engaged extensively ingospel meeting work every year for the past thirty years. This work has carried him to the extreme boundaries of our nation in all directions.
Marshall Patton has been a close friend for many years and has been a great encouragement to me inthe publishing of this paper. I am thankful for his fine work, his loyal help with the paper, and his personal friendship.
NOTE: The following letter is reprinted here infull as received (except the identity of writer and place)— M.E.P.
QUESTION: Dear Brother: On page 8 of Julyi
ue of "SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES" you requested a verse that makes one church (congregation) more responsible than another, ABOVE THEIR OWN RESOURCES, in preaching the gospel? I cannot give you that verse on preaching butI can give you something to think about concerningthe work of the church in the benevolent line. This po
ibly can help you see that when God gave a command and told just how to comply with it that wehad better do, to the very best of our ability, thatvery thing in just that very way, but when He told us something to do but did not tell us how to accomplish it in detail, that He expects us to use the best judgment that He gave us to DE CIDE HOW.
In passage you had under consideration (Acts 11: 28-30) the need was in JUDE A. The messengers was Barnabas and Saul and the relief was sent to the ELDERS. When their mi
ion was completed theyreturned from JERUSALEM (Acts 12: 25). ThJerusalem church went everywhere preaching theword (Acts 8:4). If we follow this spread of theGospel we find it was preached in Samaria, 8:Azotus, vs 40 and all coastal cities, Ceseraes,churches in JUDEA, Galilee, Samaria (Acts 9:31
A.D. 38). Now perhaps some 4-6 yrs. later Paul and Barnabas carried the relief to Jerusalem to the ELDERS. It seems to me that some one or ones had to use some judgment for this relief for it was for the brethren in JUDEA and we have shown yothat they were at a number of places. I ask whatkind of cooperation was this and who supervised it?
Some 18-20 years later there was a collection taken and finally taken to Jerusalem by a company obrethren from many places. McGarvey says, there were 9 that put up at Philip's house on the way tJerusalem. Perhaps 7 of them are named in Acts
20:4 then there was Luke and Saul. After reachinJerusalem they were gladly received (Acts 21:17).In 24:17,26 money is mentioned or its equivalenbut nothing about the details of the distribution ofthe relief. Somebody must of had to use judgmentin the matter of distribution.
Brother, lets not make a mountain out of a molehill. Your Brother, F.A.T.
ANSWER-— In reply to the above letter I shall notice those things primarily pertinent to the i
ue under study. The reader will notice a very significantI conce
ion made in paragraph one: "I cannot giveyou that verse on preaching but I can give you something to think about concerning the work othe church in the benevolent line." Thus, our querist implies that while authority for the sponsoringchurch (the i
ue under study) cannot be found inevangelism, it can be in benevolence. From this heconcludes that authority for the latter is authorityfor the former. However, a careful examination ofwhat he gives in the "benevolent line" shows that there is no authority for the sponsoring church in either. Let me point out, however, that what hehopes to help me to see (Note the latter part ofparagraph one) is something I already see, witwhich I am in agreement, and on which I need nohelp. I must add, however, that whatever "how" (expedient) is selected in such matters must first belawful (1 Cor. 10:23). Furthermore, paragraph onimplies that church obligation, above its own resources, in benevolence justifies a church assumingan obligation, above its own resources, in evangelism. T his simply is not so.
There is a work of benevolence for which a congregation may be obligated over and above all others
— even beyond its own resources. That work would involve objects of charity within that congregation. Such was the case in the New Testament examples of one church sending to another church. For that reason the contribution was sent to the "elders" or to the church in which the need existed, as we shall see pr esently. We do not see one church assuminga work above its own resources, even in the field ofbenevolence, for those outside its own membership.
Now, here is something our brother cannot find in the New Testament concerning the work of the church— even "in the benevolent line." Yet, this is what we have in the case of the sponsoring church,whether it be in benevolence or evangelism
Our brother's efforts to find the sponsoring church in his last two paragraphs fail of their objective andshow a lack of knowledge of all that is revealed on the mater. In Acts 11:27-30 we find that the need was in Judea, in which territory existed several churches (I Thess. 2:14; Gal. 1:22). This our brother admits. However, he a
umes the contribution tohave been sent to the Jerusalem elders and then distributed by them through Judea. This, of course,makes diocesan elders out of the Jerusalem eldershipin this matter of benevolence. If they could act in this capacity in one matter, in how many more matters might they so act? Furthermore, if they mayso act, then what is wrong with the denominationaldiocese ? In my former article I mentioned this pointwithout further comment. Since this error has been exposed several times over, I presumed that no onewould want to take that position now. However, itseems that I understand the presumptive powers of our brother.
Why would any one want to a
ume somethingcontrary to God's order? God's order is for each church to have its own elders (Acts 14:23; 20:17Phil. 1:1). Since the contribution was for "brethren in Judea," and since there were several churches in Judea at this time, it follows, in the light of God's order, that the contribution was sent to the elders of these churches respectively. Furthermore, since I Peter 5:2 restricts the oversight of elders to the church of which they are members, they could no
have acted as diocesan elders in this matter— even
in the "benevolent line"— without violating this di
vine limitation. The place from which they returned
to Antioch is irrelevant to the identity of the elders
to whom the contribution was sent. In view of other
interest, it would be only natural for them to end
their journey and mi
ion in Jerusalem, spend some
time there, and then return from that place
Since our brother mentions McGarvey, let mquote further from him: "The manner in which the elders of the churches in Judea are here mentioned,without a previous notice of their having been appointed, shows the elliptical character of Luke's narrative, and it results from the circumstance that he wrote after the churches had been fully organizedand all of the officials and their duties had become well known. The elders, being the rulers of the congregations, were the proper persons to receive thegifts, and to see to the proper distribution of themamong the needy." (ACTS OF APOSTLES by J. W. McGarvey, Part Second, pp. 230,231) Thus, this eminent scholar never even thought of any action on the part of these elders except that which accords with God's order as pointed out above
The contribution mentioned in our brother's last
paragraph was administered within the Jerusalem
church. If this is not so, then it was used for some
purpose other than that for which it was sent (Rom.
15:25,26). There certainly was no sponsoring church
in this work of benevolence. Thus, we see there is no
authority for one church to a
ume a work, above
its own resources, for those in other churches— even
in the "benevolent line." When our brother says
there is noting said about the details of the distribu
tion of this relief, I agree. This, however, involves
no point at i
ue. Elders may administer such funds
at their discretion within the church of which they
are elders— so long as the expedients used are first
lawful (I Cor. 10:23)
Our brother warns, "... lets not make a mountain out of a mole-hill." By this he implies that thesponsoring church is only a mole-hill or a lawful expedient. The above observations show him to be dead wrong about this. The sponsoring church is not inthe doctrine of Christ, generically or specifically. The guilty are transgressors and according to John "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in thdoctrine of Christ, hath not God" (II John 9). This makes the sponsoring church a "mountain." MaGod help honest, sincere souls to see what a "mountain" of error it really is.
The week of September 30 through October 6found me in a meeting with the Glenwood Hills congregation in Atlanta, Georgia. Just a few years ago I preached for various churches in that great cityspending over two months of my life with them. I marvel that there have been so many changes in the years that have gone by. This column is designed not only to give a report of the present condition of the churches in that area but to look at the direction in which the liberal churches are moving.
REPORT ON THE ATLANTA MEETING
The outlook for the church in Atlanta and central Georgia is bright. This is the only conclusion that we could reach after the effort with the Glenwood congregation where brother Ed. Nowlin works as the' evangelist. Brethren came from all over the centralpart of the state and it was good to see many oldfriends of years past. I could not help but think ofthe meetings in Atlanta in the years that have goneby. Two at West End, one or two at East Point and a tent meeting at Hapeville that lasted almost amonth. In those years the cause in Atlanta was just beginning to make progress: Now those congregations have embraced the liberal thinking of the dayand I can no longer preach for them. It is always with a note of sadness that we turn memory back in this way.
ONE EXAMPLE
The liberal congregation in Decatur which was asmall congregation a few years ago and is still notwhat we would call a large church, announced in the papers during my stay in Atlanta that they were to build an apartment house for senior citizens at acost of three million dollars to be operated by thechurch. Of course that is to be done with someone else's money (I guess the federal government) andputs the church in the property management business in a big way. T hink of the problems if themoney does come from the government or from some other equally demanding source. They will have to.rent to all (regardless of character, etc. In doingthis, they will have to take in those who drink so they will have the beer in the churches' refrigerators, etc. If not this some equally disturbing problem. The church would not have dreamed of such a departure a few years ago when I held the meetings. This is just one example of how far from the Lord's purpose for the church the brethren have drifted.
FIVE CONGREGATIONS
If I have the correct information there are now five congregations standing for the "old paths" in greater Atlanta. The surprising thing is that all ofthem are about the same size and all but one have grown to their present size in the last few years. T hey ar e all just under or over the one hundr ed mark. I hope that the list is accurate. Glenwood,where brother Nowlin preaches, has already been
mentioned. I think that this is the oldest. The, others
are Snapfinger Road with brother Scott Owen, South
west with Don Patton, Embry Hills with J. D. Tant
and Mabelton with Moody Swahn.
OTHER CHURCHES NEAR ATLANTA
There are a number of other congregations near
Atlanta and all of them attended the meeting. They
are the congregation in Marietta where brother
Hugh Davis preaches, Lawrenceville with brother
Gary Ogden, Rome with brother Calvin Allen,
Gainesville with Ron Lehde, Pine Grove with James
Chason, Jonesboro with Gene Grant and brother
McClain, Jasper with E. C. Owen and Covington
with Jim Ward. There may be others but this is the
thirteen congregations that attended the meeting.
WHAT OF THE FUTURE
No one could in one short week make a real appraisal of the true condition of a great section likeAtlanta and central Georgia but one thing impressed me about the general picture and that was the leadership that seems to be present in all of these congregations. The men that I met and talked with seemed to me to be well above the average. They have been through the fire and know what has to be done to make the church grow. The Glenwood congregation where I preached had a dozen men who were active and informed. It is true that the churches are small and several of them have completed new buildings and are in debt but they are strong enough tomeet their obligations and support a preacher. Thechurch in Marietta where Hugh Davis labors is ready to build a new meeting house.
CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE
A number of brethren could be singled out fortheir contribution to the work in Atlanta and I do not have a list of all of them. Continually brother Ed Nowlin, who when called upon to compromise at West End went into the class room for eight years to support himself while preaching the all sufficiency of the church, would be at the top of the list.
"I appreciate the copies of Searching The Scriptures which you have sent to me. You publish a fine paper — with good men writing for it and worthwhile articles. I look forward to reading it in themonths ahead." — Paul C. Keller, Lubbock, Texas.
"I am looking forward to receiving the paper for I know it is one of the best in the brotherhood, or at least this is my feeling on the matter." — Marvin E. Young, Spokane, Washington.
"Enclosed you will find my check for $3.00 for the renewal of Searching The Scriptures which I continue to enjoy very much. Keep up the good work."
— Frank Chumley, Sumter, S.C."Keep the paper coming. I enjoy it." — Karl Diestelkamp, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
"Please renew my subscription for a year toSearching The Scriptures. I enjoy the paper very much." — Bill Cavender, Groves, Texas.
"I believe the paper is better than ever. I enjoy themonthly columns by various brethren." — Larry R.Devore, New Carlisle, Ohio
"I continue to enjoy the paper, and it looks better all the time." — Tom Oglesby, Glasgow, Ky
"I enjoy reading Searching The Scriptures verymuch." — Mrs. E. L. Bunch, Forrest City, Ark.
"I enjoy Searching The Scriptures. Please keep upthe good work. Brother Wayne Mitchell had your paper sent to me nearly one year ago. I've enjoyedevery copy. I am in a wheel chair and would be gladto get papers from any of the brethren or church bulletins." — Ray Pennington, Baker Fork, Cinda,Ky. 41728.
"I want to say it is one of the best papers I have read and look forward to receiving it ever ymonth. I would also like to let it be known that a loyal con-gregation has been established here at Russellville (Ark.). The church is meeting in mhouse now and would like to extend an invitation to all in this area to worship with us. We are located on Arkansas Road 331, one mile east of 1-40 and Highway 64 East." — Allen D. Harper, Russellville,Ark.
"We continue to enjoy and appreciate this fine publication." — W. C. Sawyer, Louisville, Ky
"T hanks for a ver y good paper and we commend all for the fine work being done to destroy error and teach the truth." — R. W. Ford, Ridgeway, Va
"T he quality of your paper has been vastly improved with the additional writers this year. Itshould be a rich source of study for those interested in a 'thus saith the Lord' for what they believe. Keepup the good work." — Charles Goodall, Tampa, Fla
"The articles are timely and all should appreciate your stand for the truth." — Leo E. Collier, Maitland, Fla.
"Of course, I still enjoy getting Searching The Scriptures. Keep up the good work that you are doing in it." — J. T. Smith, Dayton, Ohio
"Yours is the finest and most informative material I know of anywhere." — E. Paul Price, Borger, Tex.
"I continue to enjoy Searching The Scriptures because of its subject matter and layout." — Jim R. Everett, Miranda, Australia.
"You are doing a good job." — G. D. Dean, Fort Smith, Ark.
"I still enjoy this fine religious paper very muchContinue the good work and God bless you in thework." — Arnold Ray Wilmouth, Cookeville, Tenn.
"I have to agree with Edward Fudge — the proper attitude is sometimes missing when brethren disagree. I appreciate the attitude manifested by yowhen disagreeing with some brother." — A. B. McKee, Waycro
, Ga.
"Keep on publishing your fine paper. It is a good work, and I personally find it very edifying. May the God of heaven continue to bless you in service in His kingdom." — Major Wallace Little, APO, San Francisco, Calif.
"I have enjoyed each issue of Searching The Scriptures. Each i
ue is very informative." — Roy B.Cain, Wauchula, Fla
"T he work you are doing with this paper is without a rival in the field in my judgment. My wife passes it on to others when we have read it." — John Wilson, Chico, Calif.
CREATION? OR EVOLUTION?— BOTH ACCEPTED "BY FAITH" (No. 3)
(In the September i
ue two errors in typesetting slipped by us. In the second paragraph the first word "Quote" should be "Quite". In the second columnpage 5, line twelve, the statement should be: "Acreature without intelligence," instead of: "A creature with intelligence." We offer these corrections to make the article as accurate as possible to theoriginal as received from brother Foutz— Ed.)
The above heading is true because questions having to do with "ORIGINS"— "T HE BE GINNING" of the universe, this earth, its life forms, and especially MAN, involve things about which man cannot KNOW. They involve past events which took placbefore ANY MAN had an existence. Both the creationist and evolutionist declar e this to be true. Hence, the PAST and all we know about it that cannot be known by MEMORY can only be known btestimony. T his is why we developed fully in thlast two i
ues the point that either position manaccepts he must accept it "BY FAITH." Evolution is simply NOT a scientific FACT, capable of demonstration or experimentation, but a philosophy, accepted by faith. Not only is this true, because of the very nature of the things which we are dealing, butMANY scientists and MANY evolutionists franklyadmit it is accepted "by faith." (Already a number have been quoted to this effect in the two previous i
ues). We could enumerate dozens of admi
ions relative to their faith, many quotes from such menfound in dozens of books, but since almost everyonehas the booklet EVOLUTION published in Toronto,Canada, (or can obtain it easily) I suggest you read pages 62, 63, 64 and 75 in 13th Edition and pages 12,28, 47, 54, 74, 76 and 80 in the 15th Edition for much information on this point. Also pages 95 to 105 in the fine book WHY SCIENTISTS ACCEPT EVOLUTION by brother Bales and the late brother Robert Clark.
But, before we close this contrasting study between Creation and Evolution we want to show that there are ONLY these two alternatives and WHY many of the scientists chose E volution rather than creation: 1. Prof. D. M. S. Watson said, "Evolution itself is accepted by Zoologists, NOT because it has been observed to occur— or can be proved by logicallycoherent evidence— but because the only alternative, special creation, is CLEARLY INCREDIBLE." 2. Sir Arthur Keith, "Evolution is UNPROVED and UNPROVABLE. We believe it only because the onlalternative is special creation and that is UNTHINKABLE." 3. Profe
or L. T. Moore says "The more one studies Paleontology the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on "faith alone"— the only alternative is the doctrine of special creation,which may be true, but is IRRATIONAL." The DOGMA OF EVOLUTION, page 22. (All threquoted from EVOLUTION PROTEST MOVEMENT pamphlet WHY I BELIEVE IN CREATION by Newman Watts.) 4. The late Prof. L. T. Moore also said,"Our faith in the idea of Evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the ANTAGONISTIC doctrineof special creation. "THE DOGMA OF EVOLUTION, page 304. 5. G. G. Simpson, in his speech atthe Darwinian Centennial Convocation spoke of a believer in Creation and Supernaturalism as an immature and wishful thinker. He then said, "Life maconceivably be happier for some people in the other worlds of SUPERSTITION. It is po
ible that some children are made happy by a belief in Santa Claus,but adults should prefer to live in a world of realityand reason." THE WORLD INTO WHICH DARWIN LED US, Science, Vol. 131, April 1, 1960, pages973-974. 6. H. S. Sheldon in his debate with Douglas Dewar IS EVOLUTION PROVED? said the dogmaof creation was "SILLY." He wrote, "I must therefore say quite bluntly that I regard the hypothesis of special creation as too foolish for serious consideration." He also maintained the "anti-evolutionist people are removed from the class of people with whomit is po
ible to conduct a RATIONAL discu
ion." WHY SCIENTISTS ACCEPT EVOLUTION, pag
93.
So the scholars (?) have spoken; they have madtheir choice between two opposing doctrines and they have chosen Evolution. Is it because of FACTS which support it? evidence which proves it? testimony that compels it? Certainly not! It is simplybecause the only other alternative is CREATION or SUPERNATURALISM and that is: "SILLY""UNTHINKABLE", "INCREDIBLE", SUPERSTITION", and "IRRATIONAL". (All of these terms have been, and are being, used by Evolutionists in referring to the doctrine of Creation). And one othe most commonly used terms is that it is "IRRATIONAL." Yet I doubt that anyone has ever read anything as silly, absurd, incredible and IRRATIONAL as most of the things the Evolutionists tell us. For example, the odds, they admit, against evolution happening— Huxley said not 100 or 1000 to 1 but the numeral 1 followed by enough zeros to fill 4 books of 500 pages each— ONE CHANCE IN THAT MANY THAT IT COULD HAPPEN. See EVOLUTION IN ACTION, pages 31-32 by Julian Huxley. G. G. Simpson said such was IMPOSSIBLE "but it must have happened, for after all we are here." (as if to say there is no other way to accountfor our being here— P.F.) See CRS Quarterly, July1964, pages 5-6. After the same Huxley said "Though natural selection is an ORDERING PRINCIPLE it operates BLINDLY— WITHOUT CONSCIOUS PURPOSE OR ANY AWARENESS OF AN AIM", DrHimmelfarb caustically remarked, "Posing as a massive deduction from the evidence it ends up as an ingenious argument from ignorance." EVOLUTION (15th Ed.) page 47
However, in rejecting something these men call IRRATIONAL they accept something that IS IRRATIONAL. This is brought out very vividly in an article in February 16, 1968 i
ue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. The writer, Calvin D. Linton, in considering"The Myth of Automatic Human Progress" declared "But it remained for the nineteenth century and the rise of theories of evolution for the views to come to the dogma that all environments tend inevitabltoward perfection. Why this is so was never clearly stated. There simply is FAITH that the universe is so constituted. 'CHANCE' will see to it (or, NATURE and her 'resident forces' operating blindlyand without intelligence will make it so— P.F.) BUT 'CHANCE' IS SIMPLY A NON-TERM, IDENTIFYING THE ABSENCE OF REASON, PURPOSE, INTENTION AND WILL; IT IS ODD THAT 'REASON' SHOULD PUT ITS 'FAITH' IN THAT WHICH IS, BY DEFINITION, NON-REASON, Page 3. SEvolutionists, as those mentioned, reject creation because (3) it is the only alternative to Evolution and (2) it is irrational, incredible, silly and unreasonable and then hold to a philosophic dogma "BFAITH" that is irrational and unreasonable in the extreme.
J. G. Vos (quoted in August i
ue) makes the same point in his book SCRIPTURAL REVELATIONEVOLUTIONARY WORLD VIEW, Page 6, "Theevolutionary world holds that CHANCE, not mind,is the denial of a cause, it is the negation of all causation. It is the opposite of law, it is the enthronement of utter chaos. So NATURE becomes a book WITHOUT AN AUTHOR, A COMPOSITION WITHOUT A COMPOSER, A BUILDING WITHOUT AN ARCHITECT AND BUILDER. IT WAS NOT PLANNEDIT JUST HAPPENED. Billions and billions of years of 'time' plus oceans and oceans of 'chance' are supposed to account adequately for the existence of unfathomable examples of complexity as the humanbrain. Time plus Chance equals organism, is theequation involved. A popular newspaper commentator recently dismissed some of this nonsense with the terse comment: 'GO MAKE A SEED!" (End Vos' quote). How long would it take one, with acareless hand and reckless abandon, throwing various paints at a canvas, to accidentally (or "bychance" draw the picture of a man?— But is MAN more easily made, BY "CHANCE" than his picture?
T he best way, I believe, to close these three le
ons on this special theme is by calling attentionto the many evidences of doubt and uncertainty onthe part of the Evolutionary Scientists who speakand write. Who has MORE RATIONAL, CREDIBLE AND REASONABLE EVIDENCE FOR "HIS FAITH" — the Creationist or Evolutionist? How strong is the latter's belief? How confident is the evolutionist in the foundation upon his "faith" is based? Is he sure and certain that his "FAITH" rests on a sturdy foundation? Read (and listen totheir MANY, MANY words and phrases express their ignorance, doubt and uncertainty. And it does-not just involve Chas. Darwin who said, in his two most famous books, "we may well suppose" over 800 times. This great doubt did not JUST exist 100 years ago when men knew so little about these things and "science" had not made the progress and discoveries of our day. Most evolutionists would say the uncertainty of Darwin, Wallace, Lyell, Thos. Huxley, etc.,could NOT be evident in our "enlightened" age. Well, that is what the evolutionist would like people tbelieve and that is what the uninformed "swallow" because some "scientist" or college professor said it. BUT, DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT! There is the same uncertainty today, FOR THE ANSWER TO THEBASIC QUESTIONS WE ARE DISCUSSING AREJUST AS UNKNOWN BY OUR GENERATION AS IN DARWIN'S DAY. During the past 10 years I have accumulated a file of many articles, WRITTEN DURING THAT SPAN OF TIME, BY MODERN MEN OF SCIENCE. They have been taken from Textbooks, reference works (such as World Book)and especially from up-to-date articles in papers and magazines (such as Life, Look, Saturday Eve. Post,Readers Digest, etc.). I have dozens of these articles, expressing in HUNDREDS of instances, with various words and phrases, their doubt and uncertainty. If anyone should call this statement in question, I can and will cite them. All of these articles are permeated with the very words and phrases used by Darwin and men of his day or H. G. Wells andthose who lived somewhat nearer our time.
In a recent WORLD BOOK-YEAR BOOK Prof.
L. S. B. Leakey, in "MAN'S BEGINNING," in theshort space of ten pages, used such words andphrases (perhaps, probably, it may be, we suppose, etc.) 42 times, (page 108-118). The Reader's DigesATLAS, page 140, in discu
ing man's origin andevelopment, in ONLY 21 lines, used such expressions 7 times. In our discu
ion with the Rice University biology professor, while replying to a question we asked, he said this (EXACTLY THIS, IN THIS SEQUENCE), "Probably, I thing, perhaps,
— ." This is about as unsure and uncertain as one can be. So, if, in trying to answer these important questions on "origins" — how life and man came into being, the Evolutionist must qualify them b"perhaps," "we may assume," "I think" or "probably," what do these men REALLY KNOW about these things and who can place any degree of confidence in ANYTHING they say on these vital themes?
STATEMENT OF PUBLICATION
Searching The Scriptures is a religious publication, devoted to the studyof the word of God. It is owned by H. E. Phillips. The publisher and editor is H. E. Phillips. 14902 No. Blvd. (mailing address: P. O. Box 17244), Tampa, Florida 33612, co-editor, James P. Miller, 2523 W. Diana, Tampa, Florida 33604. The average monthly circulation during the past twelve months was 6,850. H. E . Phillips is managing editor. T he subscription price is $3.00 per year in advance.
HUNGER AND THIRST AFTER RIGHTEOUSNESS
Donald M. Alexander, Tampa, Fla.
"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled" (Matt. 5:6). God has always provided food for His people.God made man and created all the food and drink man needs to sustain life and to satisfy his hunger and thirst. Innate within man is a desire to eat and to drink. But when His children were without food in the wilderness, God give them manna from heaven and told Moses to speak to the rock for water.
Can a man exist without satisfying his hunger and quenching his thirst? Can a man "get by" if, after he has been given food and drink in abundance,he suddenly decides that he will neither eat or drink ? Suppose a man came to the conclusion that he would eat wood instead of food. Would he live ? Was it God who gave us the knowledge of what to eat — vegetables, meats, fowls, fish, etc. ? Can we not say then that Almighty God knew that man has both a desire to eat and a need to eat the r ight thing in order tosurvive? Spiritually-created man is no different in this respect.
If the spiritual man had no need of food and drink,then why did Isaiah prophesy of the day when "the sure mercies of David" (meaning Christ) would offer satisfaction to "every one that thirsteth" ? Whydid he compare the Word of God that would comethrough Christ to rain that watereth the earth "and maketh it br ing forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater."? If sin-laden men had no need of a better diet than what this world offers him, then why did Jesus proclaim himself tobe "the Bread of Life" in John 6:35, and the "living water" in John 4:10?
On the other hand, if it is not necessary for the
spiritual man to have a desire — the "hunger and
thirst" — for food and spiritual drink, why did the
writer of Hebrews chide those who were content with
milk instead of progressing as Christians and devel
oping a "taste" for "strong Meat" (Hebrews 5:13) ?
Then, why did the inspired apostle Peter command
the "elect" who were still "babes" to "long for" the
spiritual milk of the word, "... that ye may grow
thereby." (I Peter 2:2)?
God created man with all the natural desire for
food and drink that man possesses. The words of
Jesus and the words of the inspired writers of the
scriptures give the Christian all the nourishment he
needs to grow up to be strong in the Lord. T hus,
if a man dies of spiritual starvation, it will not
occur because God did not prepare the meal.
We condemn strongly the person who says he has
no need of the "Bread of Life"; we offer no sym
pathy for the individual who says, "I'll eat some
thing else" in a Gospel-starved religious world. What
about the Christian with a cupboard full of Bibles,
workbooks, commentaries ... but no appetite!!!
"Blessed ar e they which do HUNGE R and
THIRST after righteousness, for they shall be filled."
HAVE YOU RENEWED YOUR SUBSCRIPTION? DO IT TODAY!
THE NEWS LETTER REPORTS
"... They rehearsed all that God had done with them..." — Acts 14:27
Wiley Adams, 2346 W. Marion Rd., Macon, Ga.31206 — We have terminated our work with the church at Waynesburg, Pa., after having worked with these brethren for slightly over three years. This town is located in the extreme southwest corner of Pennsylvania adjacent to the West Virginiapanhandle. It is a town of around 8,000 more or less and the Waynesburg congregation is one of fourchurches in Greene County. Of these two are liberal,one is on the fence. The brethren own a brick building in a nice neighborhood which will serve them well for a good while to come as growth is somewhat limited here. They have a good house for thepreacher to live in located a half block from the building. Some outside support would be required. This work needs a seasoned man who is willing topersevere. The work will not be an easy one but aman is badly needed there. These brethren have notasked me to say this but I am doing it anyway thelp them. Any preacher interested contact one of the following: Worley Shriver, R. D. 5, Box 174,Waynesburg, Pa. 15370 or James B. Vitarelli, 655 Bonar Avenue, Waynesburg, Pa. 15370.
We began August 1st with the Bloomfield congregation in Macon, Ga. This congregation is three years old, having begun as a result of liberalism permeating the other churches of the area. Brother John Gasaway who lives in Gordon, Ga., has preached for them on a Sunday basis during thatime. He is to be commended for a job well done ihelping these brethren at such a time. Cooperation of sound brethren in several places has resulted in full support for us in this work. At present the meeting place is a rented community building on O'Hara Drive (a loop street). Those pa
ing by who neeinformation should call 788-5882 or 788-5016. Those who are traveling north and south on 1-75 should take 1-475 (by-pa
) and exit at the Holiday Inn. Call us from there and further instructions will be given. You are pretty close to us at that point. We encourage traveling brethren to stop and worshipwith us. My new address is: 2346 W. Marion Rd.Macon, Ga. 31206.
Brother Conway Skinner of Beaufort, S. C, was with us in a gospel meeting Aug. 19-25. One confessed wrong and two identified themselves with us having formerly been with one of the liber al churches in the area. The challenge is a big one. Webelieve this work will grow as the member s seem to have a mind to work.
M. E. Young, Roseville, Ohio — The church is now meeting in Roseville, Ohio where it has been meeting for a little over a year. I have just moved here from Spokane, Washington, as of the 14th of July,1968. This is my first full-time work, as I came here out of the Air Force.
We are now meeting in the Grange Hall, which islocated on Athens. Road. Our meeting times are as follows: Bible study, 9:30 a.m.; worship assembly
10:30 a.m".; and evening service, 6:00 p.m. Our midweek service is Wednesday at 7:30 p.m
This is the only sound congregation in this area as far as I know. There are some which support thebrotherhood innovations, while others stand against these things, but have too far in the other direction with all kinds of teaching which cannot be found inthe Word of God. If any reading this magazinknows of someone in Roseville and would like for me to see them, wr ite to me: Mar vin Young, 18 E lm St., Roseville, Ohio 43777.
John W. Pitman, P. O. Box 272, Mt. View, Ark. 72560— Churches may contact me for meeting work at the above address until schools are out in the summer, at which time a new address will be given.Churches that are not able to have meetings will be the ones that I will consider, as about all that will be expected in the way of pay will be my expenses. I will be willing to go far and near in order to help assist churches in the preaching of the Word. Myphone is: 269-8514.
W. C. Moseley, Venice, Calif. — After over 4 1/2 years of labor with the Venice Blvd. church inVenice, Calif., I will be moving sometime in Januaryto work with the Northside church of Christ in Tucson, Ariz. At the time of this writing, the churchhere in Venice is looking fore someone to come andwork with them. I highly recommend the church here to anyone who is willing to work for the Lord's cause. The congregation in Venice is composed of around 90 members, has a nice meeting house and adequate support for a preacher. Above all, they are sound in the faith. Any who might be interested should contact the elders at: 1503 Venice Blvd.Venice, Calif. 90291.
H. C. Henderson, Jr., Chief land, Fla.— T he church in Chiefland is still in need of a full time preacher. We need a man with at least several years experience. We are in a growing community and this should prove to be a rewarding work. Anyone interested may contact Ray Smith or Jerry Smith in Chiefland. Phone: 493-4429 (daytime) or 493-4665 ( night time).
Leroy Henry, Gulf port, Mi
. — We are a small congregation worshipping in rented quarters whichare quite adequate. We are located in MississippCity, which is now a part of Gulfport. At present our membership consists of about 12 faithful members and their children and a few who do not come as they should. We are about equal distance from Keesler Air Force Base and Gulfport Navy CB Base, so the majority of our membership is always military which is always on the move. We are the only sound congregation between Pascagoula, Mi
, and New Orleans, La. James Cooper has been workingwith us but has moved to Mason, Ohio to work with a new congregation. Anyone interested in this work who has or can get support, please wr ite me, P. O.Box 1821, Gulfport, Mi
.
James L. Denison, 3402 Henderson Blvd., Tampa,Fla. 33609 — Brother Harold Dowdy of Jacksonville, Fla., closed an excellent meeting for us on October 11, with 2 responses. This brings the totalnumber of responses at Henderson Blvd. to 29 for the past five months.
Otis Jordan, P. O. Box 414, Perry, Fla. — My family and I enjoyed almost three years, a very harmonious work with the brethren in Titusville. We feel a great deal of good was done while there. It was hard to make the decision to leave the goobrethren there, but felt that maybe someone else could do more good there and we could be of just as much use in another place. We then made the decision to move to Perry. We did so with a lack of adequate support. The church here is not able to fullysupport us and we are receiving partial support fromthree other churches at present. Our total supportjust now is less than $100.00 a week. We really need at least $125.00 to have the necessar y things andtake care of our obligations. We have four in our family and my daughter and I are under constant doctor's care for allergy, which poses an extra need. I would be grateful to hear from any who would bewilling to help, and will be glad to furnish information concerning myself. Brother Roy Cogdill told me to use him for a reference and I have other well-known men to attest to my soundness in preachingthe gospel
The church in Titusville is still in need of a good
man. I commend them to anyone. They are a fine
group and stand firm in the faith. Please contact
Ed Barker, 27 Garnet St., Titusville, Fla. 32780.
John A. Thurman, Lake City, Fla. — In the springwe had a gospel meeting under a tent with Frank Jamerson doing the preaching. In October (20-27)Mel Meyers of Bloomington, Ind. held a meeting in Lake City in the Garden Center at 400 South Hernando at Dade Street. We now have a weeklyradio program on Sunday morning at 8:15 a.m. oWGRO radio, 960 on the dial. Presently the congregation is interested in the po
ibility of purchasingland or a building in the near future, the Lord willing.
Ralph Givens, 387 Nobottom Rd., Berea, Ohio
44017 — One was baptized here September 29. We
have recently purchased lots on which to build a new
building.
Ward Hogland, Box 166, Greenville, Texas 75401
— In 1968 my meetings began with the Hollywood church in Miami, Fla. From there meetings took me to Springhill, La.; Pensacola, Fla.; Booneville, Mi
.;Martinyille, Ark.; Huntsville, Ala.; Cash, Texas;Lewisville, Texas; Austin, Texas and Lawrenceburg,Tenn. In March I engaged Vernon L. Barr, Baptist in a four nights debate on Baptism and apostasy. I am now in my eighth year with Walnut Street. Visit with us when in this area.
Gale Cummings, 800 Denise St., Altus, Okla. —moved to Altus, Oklahoma in May of this year towork with the church meeting at 1105 S. NavajoeSt. We meet each Sunday at 10, 11, and 6 and thenagain on Wednesday at 7:30 p.m. Brother Jesse Kellyand his good wife started the work here some three years ago and since that time the membership haincreased to 30 faithful Christians who are workingtogether in love. Yater Tant of Lufkin, Texas waswith us in a gospel meeting beginning the 18th oSeptember, and Lindy McDaniels will be here starting the 20th of October for a week's meeting. We welcome any faithful Christian living in this area to join us in the work and worship here in Altus. Visit with us whenever you are in this area.
Don Bassett, 531 McElroy Rd., Memphis, Tenn. 38117 — I have recently moved to Memphis, Tennessee and begun work with the East Memphis church. Three fine elders, Dalton Priestly, Harl Puckett, and Wendell Davis, oversee the church here.
David Smitherman, Victoria, Texas — On September 1 of this year I began work as evangelist for the Glascow St. church in Victoria, Texas. The brethren here want to take this means of informing the readers of Searching The Scriptures that a congregation working and worshipping after the New Testament patter n can be found in Victor ia when passingthrough on vacation or when moving to this area. We are opposed to all human institutions that menwant to attach to the church to do the work that God gave the church to do. We are located North of Victoria, three blocks off the Hallettsville Highway iNorthcrest. Brother Albert Jennings of Yoakum,Texas will be holding our fall meeting this year and in 1969, brother W. L. Wharton and brother John Iverson have been scheduled to be with us in similar efforts.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
D. E. Lively, Ruskin, Fla.
After eight years trying to establish a sound congregation in the Ruskin area, about all that we haveaccomplished is about 10 or 12 baptisms, most othem have moved away. Others have moved into the area (a majority now) of "ultra extremists" teachers with their doctrines, and they have about takecharge of the church here. Gary Ethridge waspreaching here and is now gone away after Charles Holt's doctrine. Several different Bible scholars and teachers have been trying to teach and explain thtruth to these who are in so much error, but seemingly so far they are "unteachable."
My wife and I do NOT believe this false doctrine
and cannot continue to take any further part
neither in this teaching nor in fellowship with those
who teach it. We just do not want anything more to
do with this kind of doctrine. We hate to say it
after .this many years, but due to these circum
stances we have decided to give up here in Ruskin.
We seem to have made a failure against so much
opposition to the truth.
This is our position and warning to the churches
that have been supporting the work here. All the
churches who have been supporting this work will
do well to thoroughly investigate the conditions here
before continuing further with the support.
My wife and I join in giving all you good people our heartfelt thanks and appreciation for your wonderful consideration and support in the past. We thank you for your help while we had hope for the work in Ruskin. It is now gone completely from the faith.
D. E. and Ada W. Lively
"EATING IN THE MEETING HOUSE" (3)
In two previous articles on this subject, we havereviewed an article written under the above heading, and given other statements and quotations on thesubject. It is my contention that there is no divineauthority for the church to build and maintain facilities for social activities. It is true that the church may build the necessary facilities for doing any work which God has commanded, but where did the Lord ever command the church to assemble for the purpose of eating a common meal or engaging in anykind of social or recreational activity ?
Assuming that church operated kitchens, "fellowship" halls and recreational facilities were permissible, such work could still be condemned because it is inexpedient. In the first place, such a practice will nearly always cause disagreement and division whenintroduced into the work of the congregation. And in the second place, there is the matter of priority; so many other things are of far greater importance. For example, preaching the gospel of Christ to alost world and taking care of those worthy people who are in need of the necessities of life.
At this point, I want to give a statement by Ralph
T. Henley in "A REPORT FROM THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IN JERUSALEM, ISRAEL," dated April, 1962. This was a newsletter from brother Henley to churches in America. Incidentally, this complete newsletter was read by Char les Chumley at themorning service of the church of Christ, Granny White Pike, Nashville, T ennessee, June 17, 1962. I have a friend who was in the audience on that occasion and obtained a copy of the article.
Writing under the subheading "Fellowship Halls" brother Henley said:
"It is very difficult for me to believe that these are expedient when the world is lost in sin; when two-thirds of the world's people do not know the true God, never heard of the Christ, nor seen a copy of the Bible. There is not enough money to support gospel preaching. Many nations do not have a single gospel preacher and many others have only one or two. There is not enough money to care for the poor, naked, and sick. As long as there is one person inthe world who has never had the opportunity to hear the word of God, how can elders of the churches justify spending the Lord's money to build these halls of entertainment. I should think the food would stick in the throats of church members as they keep the halls hopping as class after class and group after group burn the electricity nightly. Money for such endeavors is justified since it comes from the Bibleclasses to buy the appliances, utensils, cabinets,tables, etc. Many of the church kitchens I have seen are more expensive than any I have seen in a private home. Elders and preachers argue that if the members don't eat together they will not come to church. It they do not provide the entertainment for the church members' children, then the devil's crowd will. All of the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by all the churches in this manner each year is equated and justified as one would justify a water cooler. Surely, such a man who resorts to such a low tactic is aware of it in his own mind and he needs to be an object of pity."
Those who endorse and practice the social andrecreational activities in the facilities of the church, also go all out for the same thing in the church sponsored camps. Writing under the subheading"Summer Camps" brother Henley offered the following sound and timely advice:
"Recreation in a Christian environment is good for children but it is a work of the home and not of the church. It is my personal responsibility to furnishentertainment and recreation for my children. Yetpreacher after preacher in increasing numbers is called upon to take time out to get ready for the 'camp'. He spends all Spring preparing his brochure of camp activities to be mailed to the city, countyand surrounding states. Then he spends his summer in a couple of camps. He leaves his preaching togather up athletic equipment. All this hustle andbustle is justified on the grounds that a Bible class is taught there. Sometimes young people from Christian homes are baptized. Yet, the same preacher has a good air-conditioned building to use in place of the camp. He says that by using a camp one can entice non-members' children and teach them. Let us not merchandise the gospel. Inherent in it is the onlyenticement needed to save. Let us not forget. If wemust furnish entertainment to get the members' children to attend church then we have drifted farther than I believed."
These statements are worthy of careful consideration. Someone has said that a church that must rely upon ice cream suppers, tea parties, and chickendinners for its growth is as cold as the cream, weak as the tea, and dead as the chicken. Amen!
"There is nothing to offend me in the modern church. The minister gives a sermon on juvenile delinquency one week, reviews a movie next week,then everyone goes downstairs and plays bingo. The first part of a church they build nowadays is the kitchen. Five hundred years from now people willdig up these churches, find the steam tables and; wonder what kind of sacrifices we performed." These are the words of a Jew in LIFE MAGAZINE, October 6, 1958.
Under the heading "The Proper Use of Church Buildings" brother John W. Hedge wrote the following in the FIRM FOUNDATION a few years ago.Read it carefully
"A chur ch house is just what that name means,a house erected by the church to facilitate its religious activities. Whatever, therefore, comes within the scope of the work and worship of the church must determine its proper use. The question is whether or not a church building may be used for other purposes.
"It has been said that 'a church building is notthe church, not a sacred thing, therefore may beused for other than religious purposes.' But haveyou heard anyone say that a church building was erected for any other than religious purposes? Church buildings are not erected as places in whichto eat, sleep, and make merry. True, a church building may, in case of emergency, be used as a placein which to eat and sleep; but it was not erected primarily for that purpose. Song books, the elements of the Lord's Supper, the loaf and fruit of the vine, are purchased by the churches to be used in divineservices. Who would think of using these in secular ways after they have been acquired by the churches to be used in divine services?
"Believe it or not, there is rather close connection between a church and the building erected by it iwhich to carry on the work and worship of God, even as there is between a family and its dwelling place.Of course, the church building is not the church anymore than a dwelling is a family. The fact that achurch building is erected primarily to be used inreligious activities, should cause us to stop and think before we use it for other purposes. A church building is erected, not for those who would come for the hot coffee and doughnuts, but for those who come'hunger ing and thir sting after righteousness.' Achurch building is erected, not for those who wouldcome for fun and frolic, but for those who come to meditate on God's word and worship in quietne
. Surely it is good for Christians to associate together,but the church building is not a 'social center' meeting place. Rather it is a spiritual center meeting place."
"Do you know that the church of God is not designed to be a place of feasting and revelry; noeven a place where to partake of your ordinarymeals? Can it be, that you will come to the place ofpublic worship, and make them the scenes of feasting and r iot? E ven on the supposition that ther e had been no disorder; no revelry; no intemperance; yet on every count it was gro
ly irregular and disorderly to make the place of public worship a placefor festival entertainment" (Barnes' Notes on First Corinthians, p. 231
The church is a spiritual institution, and as such it has no business engaging in that which is social or worldly. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of thisworld ..." (John 18:36). "For the kingdom of Godis not meat and drink (eating and drinking, ASV) ;but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the HolGhost" (Rom. 14:17). When we see so manchurches engaging in that which anyone should know is not a work of the church, we do not marvel that many people have lost respect for religion andthe church.
After all of the quibbles have been offered and the arguments have been made in behalf of church-sponsored social activities, the inspired apostle still says, "What! have ye not houses to eat and to drink in ? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?" "And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation" (I Cor. 11:22, 34). I judge it wise to follow these explicit statements and the clear implications to be found therein. What about youEUGENE BRITNELL
CHARLES HOLT WON'T DEFEND HIS DOCTRINE
J. T. Smith, 300 Haynes St., Dayton, Ohio 45410
It is with sadness of heart that I make the statement contained in the above title. I have followed the writings, the work, and the debates of Charles Holt with great interest for the past ten years. I was pr ivileged to hear brother Holt in the debatehe had with Roy Deaver in Jacksonville, Florida. I thought then, and I still think today, that he did aoutstanding job in defending the truth against brother Deaver. But, brother Holt has gone the wayof the liberal, the modernist, and for the most part the sectarian — HE WILL NOT DEFEND HIS DOCTRINE.
In May, it was my privilege to be engaged in a series of meetings with the North Hixon church in Hixon, Tennessee, a suburb of Chattanooga, Tennessee. Brother Holt now resides in the Chattanooga area. No sooner had I arrived in Chattanooga thana brother began to tell me about some of the teachings of Charles Holt. He then told me that brother Holt had been employed by them to preach for themregularly, but even before he began, the brethren at North Hixon learned of some of the modernistic teaching that he was doing and asked him to come and talk with them — and he refused. Of course they did not allow him to come and preach for them after this incident.
When I was in the meeting, several of the breth
ren asked me if I would be willing to meet brother
Holt in a public discussion. I was hesitant to do so;
but the last night of the meeting, I made up m
mind that I would and called a meeting of the breth
ren there and asked them if they would be willing
to endorse me to meet him and provide their facili
ties. They said they would be happy to do so, and if
their facilities were not adequate they would pro
vide larger facilities to accommodate the crowds.
Having this assurance and vote of confidence from
them, I came home the next day and soon wrote
brother Holt telling him of the request that was
made by several brethren in their area for a publi
discussion on his views. I suggested that he defend
the positions that he and others had been setting
forth in the Sentinel of Truth (a paper of which he
is the editor) and urged him to write propositions
that he would be willing to defend and send them
to me. Until this good day I have not heard one word
from him. Today, 1 called one of the members of the North Hixon congregation in Chattanooga inquiring of any progress that was being made; and hetold me he had seen Charles recently and had asked him about the discussion. Brother Holt's reply was, "I don't intend to fool with even answer ing brother Smith." That is exactly what I have re-ceived from every liberal preacher and modernist I have challenged in the past few years — not even a reply.
After I finally decided that brother Holt was notgoing to answer my letter and send propositions, I sent him the following signed propositions.
Every essential feature that marks a local-church of Christ as a distinct church, organization or institution, is from man and not from God.
Affirm __________________________
Charles A. Holt
Deny___________________________
J. T. Smith
The New T estament teaches that the local ekklesia of Christ is an organized functional entity.Affirm __________________________
J. T. Smith
Deny___________________________
Charles A. Holt
Elders (overseers, bishops) are to be appointed inevery congregation to oversee the flock which isamong them.
Affirm __________________________
J. T. Smith
Deny____________. ______________Charles A. Holt
The New Testament teaches that the word "elder" is only a word of comparison and is never used to show that one must meet qualifications in order to be ordained or appointed — exalted to a position of oversight.
Affirm__________________________
Charles A. Holt
Deny___________________________
J. T. Smith
These propositions that I asked brother Holt to affirm were taken from the Sentinel of Truth. The one on the church was taken, word for word from a statement he made in his paper with the exception of the word "local." The other one on the eldership is asummary of several statements that he made in the
S. O. T. He has REFUSED not only to sign the propositions, but even to answer the letters I have written to him. I contend this is NOT the Charles Holt we have known before that was a defender of the faith having had probably fifty debates. Brother Holt has become soft in his defense of what he believes the Bible teaches. He is not willing to defend his false teachings. Surely those who had been led to believe that the doctrines mentioned above have some merit, will now begin to wonder; seeing that the "great defender" is no longer willing to defend.Look long and hard, brethren, for they cannot be defended. If you think they can, get brother Holt tosign his name to the propositions. He has a standing invitation with me to debate the above propositions in Chattanooga (with no travel expense, because helives there; with no expense for facilities, for theNorth Hixon congregation will provide them; and I will even let him use my overhead projector to show his charts and provide him with the pens and plastic sheets to make them on) anytime he will sign thepropositions and dates can mutually be agreed on.
I predict that in view of this development, his teaching and the Sentinel of Truth will soon "fall by the wayside." T hings usually work that waywhen you have a doctrine you don't think enough of to defend.
