GOD IS!
H. E. Phillips
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and thfirmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto dautter eth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard" (Psa. 19:1-3)
In every language and tongue, day after day andnight after night, the voice of the creation of theheavens and earth declare the glory and power of God. Little wonder David said by the Spirit of God:"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God"(Psa. 14:1). After looking into the heavens and observing the world in which we live, only a fool woulddeny the existence of God.
The amazing fact of life about us, the majestic wonders of the earth, the awesome depth of space,and the perfect symmetry of the whole works of the universe cry aloud that God is! The foolish and unfounded statements of pseudo-scientists, and the incredible and contradictory explanations of the originof the universe and man by atheists and evolutionists are overwhelmed and swallowed up by indisputablefacts uncovered by true science. The more man learns about himself and the universe in which he lives, the more proof he has of the fact that God is!
Two po
ible sources of information may be givento man upon which he must base his belief in theorigin and nature of himself and the universe: human wisdom and divine revelation. Divine revelation has been ridiculed, rejected and replaced by the self-acclaimed intellectuals of our times. These scoffers assure us that "There is no God," or "God is dead!" Divine revelation says, "The fool hath said in hisheart, There is no God" (Psa. 14:1)
The wisdom of the world may teach a man how tobuild and operate a battleship or make a fruit cake
— the word of God does not deal with these matters. But the origin, nature, duty and destiny of man canonly be known by the revelation of God. The will of God can not be known by the wisdom of the world (I Cor. 1:21)
There are several unimpeachable proofs of the existence of God, but one speaks out with such force to every man that the most radical skeptic must admit his ignorance in attempting to explain it without admitting the existence of God and His creative power. This proof is the very existence and precise function of the universe. It declares the glory andpower of a real God.
Two self evident facts ar e admitted by all: 1Every effect has a cause — something cannot comfrom nothing. 2. Something or someone must beeternal. As we trace the cause and effect back we must finally come to the original cause and this cause must be eternal or we have not traced the effects back to the or iginal cause. T he mater ialist must argue that matter is eternal and some force acted upon matter at some time in the past to produce the universe as it now is. To admit intelligence in creation is to admit God, hence, the atheist must deny any part of intelligence in the origin of the universe. Let the materialist logically explain the followinthree facts about the universe without supreme intelligence, whom we know to be God.
- The greatness of the universe. This earth uponwhich we live is large to us, but it is a tiny planet in relation to the solar system. To man years, life time,and centuries are long periods of time. A distance of thousands of miles is great. But we are staggered by the fact that planets within the solar system are billions of miles away. We are told that our galaxyis so large that it would take light, traveling at the rate of 186,000 miles per second, approximately 100,000 years to go from one side to the other. I cannot comprehend a distance so great. One day has 86,400 seconds, which means that light would travel 16,070,400,000 miles in one day. Now try to figure the distance light would travel in 100,000 years and yowould have the distance across our galaxy. We are also told that there are hundreds of millions more galaxies as large or larger than this one. There has to be some supreme and powerful intelligence tbring all this into being and hold the order of it.
- The minuteness of the universe. The tiny elements and creatures in the universe that man cannot detect with the natural eye show intelligence. It is as impossible for man to understand extremelysmall components of the elements about us as to understand the immense space of the heavens. Atoms and molecules are terms to define the smallest units known of anything, but who understands all about them? Every time man discovers something new about the elements of the univer se, it is always in
harmony with everything known. The harmony anbalance of these units of chemical composition tell of supreme intelligence
3. The design of the universe. How anyone whcalls himself a scientist can deny supreme intelligence in the universe is a mystery within itself. Just one phase of this design is enough to establish beyond doubt the supreme intelligence and power governing the universe.
During the past few days history has been madein space flight. As this is being wr itten three men in a space craft are heading toward earth after ten times circling the moon. If they should safely enter the atmosphere and land on the earth again, thewill have accomplished a feat long dreamed of bmen of science. But there is a limit to man's exploration in space because he cannot live long enough togo to most of the planets in this galaxy, even if hecould travel at the speed of light
The hundreds of billions of dollars spent, ththousands of scientists, technicians, engineers andcraftsmen, and the hundreds of thousands of intricate machines and computers have all worked upothe science of mathematical calculation. Split second timing was used in firing the rockets to achieve the desired speed and direction to reach the moon as it travels at great speed around the earth and thenreturn to earth. Whether some admit it or not, theybased everything upon the knowledge of some intelligence in the movements of the earth and moonand other planets and stars. The use of mathematical timing must admit design in the universe, and design must admit God, because neither man nor chance can produce such accuracy in the movements of these planets.
It is no wonder that the three experts in the spaceflight sent the following message to those upon earth on the evening of December 24 as they circled themoon for the ninth time: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth ..." And so on they read some ten verses from Genesis 1. These men had been where no other man had ever been, and astrained observers they knew God's hand was in itall. They recognized him as the Creator of the heaven and the earth. God is real and this universe is the product of His infinite intelligence and cr eative power. The greatest wonder of all is how a so-called scientist can look at all this and say, "There is no God."
ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF RELIGIOUS PAPERS
In the April i
ue of his now famous Quarterly,Moses E. Lard made an appeal to the brotherhood. In spite of all of his efforts to publish the finest journal po
ible he still had less than fifteen hundred subscribers. The year was 1866 and the CivilWar was just drawing to a close. The Quarterly was in its third year of publication. Read what he had to say carefully and see how little the needs of religious papers has changed.
IN BEHALF OF THE QUARTERLY — We know how unavailing, as a general rule, appeals are when made in behalf of a religious paper. They are too often thought to be made as a matter of course, and hence to have no serious import. We beg that the present one may not bviewed in this light
We are now approaching the end of the third volume, with a subscription list not yet number
ing fifteen hundred. I believe few persons willaffirm that this small number is a just measure of the merits of the Quarterly. Surely it will notbe deemed immodest to think that it might havetwice this number. How easy it would be to increase our list up to this point, a moment's thought will satisfy any one. E ven the most partial effort on the part of our subscribers would accomplish the end. Can not, then, rather will not, each brother who takes the work determine for himself that he will add another name to the list? This done, the Quarterly canbe sustained, and its usefulness much increased. We are most anxious to sustain it, and havewrought hard to this end. Surely our brotherhood need the work. It is in the way of no other paper; and, then, surely its elaborate discussions must do good. To each subscriber, then, I once more appeal in its behalf.
Brother Lard makes three points that were true then and are just as fitting today. (1). The readingpublic takes appeals for an increase in subscriptions as a matter of course. (2). That the quality of thQuarterly justifies a larger list of readers. (3). Ifevery subscriber to the paper would take just a minute of his time to call attention to the paper, thenumber could easily be doubled
SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES with this issue is beginning not the third year of publication, buthe tenth. Nine years ago when the journal was begun, the fight over the liberal tendencies in thebrotherhood was beginning to burn with fires that will last until the judgment. Many unkind things were said by its enemies. Some said it would notlast, and other sources in high places called it another "here today and gone tomorrow paper." It must beclear now, even to the bitterest enemies, the paper is here to stay and that it can be published as long as we desire to give it to the reading public. Thousands of readers are. and have been, enjoying the paper over almost a decade. It has a subscription list manytimes the near fifteen hundred Lard lamented in 1866. Yet, everything that he said about circulation then istrue now.
First, the reading public takes appeals for increased circulation as a matter of course. I know how busy our brethren are. It is difficult sometimes to find time to even return a book borrowed in a time of need. Calls come to us from every side every day.It is not possible for us to answer them all. I wish,however, there were some way for our readersto know the great effort brother Phillips has put, and is stillexpending, on SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES. In the fullest sense, he is doing our work for us. It is true that he conducts a business in connection with the paper, but I know for a truth, all he has made has been put back into the publication along withprivate funds. For two preachers to carry a load likethis is at times difficult at best. I am asking you as a friend to the journal not to take this appeal as matter of course.
Second. Moses E. Lard in a very humble way suggested that the quality of the Quarterly deserved a greater notice on the part of the brethren. Unless our readers are leading us astray, the same can be
FLORIDA STATE SALES TAX
Beginning at once, please add 4% sales tax on all subscriptions, books and tape or der s sold in the state of Florida.
said for SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES. I am not seeking to put it on the same plane as Lard's Quarterly. Certainly the papers are different in manyways, but we do feel that the quality and diversityof the publication deserves the greatest po
ible reading public. From all over the world there comes letters of commendation for the material and makeupof the paper from our readers. We do not believethat these brethren are hypocrites when they write to tell us that the articles are among the best to be found any where. We have too many readers whocommend the journal for all of them to be wrongBrother Phillips has consistently published a paper that contains a variety of sound articles by the best writers in a great brotherhood.
Third, our brother thought in 1866 that if thfriends of the Quarterly would just help a little, thecirculation could be doubled. Here is what brother Lard had to say over one hundred years ago: "Surelyit would not be deemed immodest to think that it (Quarterly) might have twice that number. Howeasy it would be to increase our list up to this point.Even the most partial effort on the part of our subscribers would accomplish the end." How right hwas, but how slow it was in coming. All students of the restoration know that the history of the Quarterly was short lived and it soon failed because of lack of support by the brethren. It may be foolish on my part, but "I am persuaded better things" of ourreaders. I believe they will make what Lard calls a"partial effort." If every friend, true friend ofSEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES would just take the few minutes required to recommend the paper and show his copy to a friend, thousands could beadded to the list of subscribers. The benefit to brother Phillips would be great enough to justifythe small amount of time and effort required on the part of the reader. A larger list would make it possible for him to have more needed help, better quarters, and greater latitude in improving the publication. He needs all of these desperately. Our readers can help us if they will. Good resolutions are notenough. They have to be put into action. Dear Reader,we need to prove what we have lear ned in onehundred years.
OUTLINES OF FLORIDA COLLEGE LECTURES 1968
Detailed outlines of each speech delivered at the 1968 Florida College Lectures.
Price: $2.00
EUGENE BRITNELL
Eugene Britnell began his regular work of writing for Searching The Scriptures last January. His effective teaching by way of the printed page, however, goes back some 14 years in a monthly paper he edits called "The Sower." His many fine lessons and exposing of error through this medium are wellknown all across the nation. I was happy when heagreed to write a regular column for Searching TheScriptures.
Eugene Britnell was born September 28, 1924 near Russellville, Alabama. He attended schools in Alabama and lived in Franklin County until 1950. Hewas baptized by M. C. Love in August, 1942 and began preaching six years later in Russellville, Alabama. He married Madelene Vandiver and to this union two sons were born. Olen, who married Jane Ward of Lakeland, Florida, is now living in Huntsville, Alabama where he is working as an engineer with IBM. Keith is now 14 and attending school inLittle Rock, Arkansas.
Brother Britnell's first regular work was with the church in Manila, Arkansas in 1950. Since that time he has labored with churches in Newark, Tucker-man, and L ittle Rock, Arkansas. He has been with the Arch Street church in Little Rock for more than seven years. He has preached regularly on radio programs for the past sixteen years and is now on one of the most powerful radio stations in the U.S. Hehas had seven public debates and one written debate with John Simpson on the current issue in thechurch. He preaches in all parts of the nation inmeetings each year. He has written a number oftracts, among which are: "Why Be Just A Christian?", "The First Converts Under The New Testament," "Gems of Truth," "Shocking Quotes," "Missionary And Benevolent Societies," and "The Sponsoring Church."
Brother Britnell has sent a large number of subscriptions for the paper during the past three years. He is a loyal friend and brother to me and is a great encouragement in the publishing of this paper. Icommend to you his articles each month under the heading: Sword of the Spirit.
"WHO SAID THAT?"
A few years ago there was a program on television by the above name. It was a panel show where the moderator would read excerpts from the news stories of the previous week and the panel members would try to identify the author, or tell who said that.
We have a situation in the church today whichreminds me of that program. I speak of those who are more interested in WHO said a thing than iWHAT is said. Like some in Corinth, we have members of the body of Christ who are more loyal tosome man than to the Lord. Whether they accept thing or not depends entirely upon who says it.
A few months ago, a friend of mine was visitingin Abilene, Texas and had occasion to be in the building of the Highland church of Christ. As you perhapsknow, Highland sponsors the Herald of Truth andendorses all of the brotherhood organizations andprojects. Among the tracts on display in the Highland building was one written by brother Jack Meyer,Sr., entitled "The Original Pattern Of the New Testament Church." It is an excellent tract, and we have used them where I preach.
On pages 14 and 15 of the tract, we find this teaching:
"The Church's Two-Fold Work Was Evangelismand Benevolence. Since Jesus' mi
ion was to 'seek and to save that which was lost,' that is the church's mi
ion. In doing so, it was obligated to 'teach all nations' ( Matt. 28:19,20); to be 'the pillar and ground of the truth' (I Tim. 3:14,15) ; to 'sound out the word of the Lord' (I Thess. 1:8). The record showsthat all work wasdone either through individual enterprise (Acts 8:4) or group, congregational effort, without any organization within or without the congregations. In supporting the weak (Rom. 15:1) and relieving the distress (Acts 11:30) it was the same plan followed. Under this system withinabout 35 years from its establishment Paul could sayof the gospel that 'it is in all the world and bringethforth fruit' (Col. 1:6)."
I believe and preach every principle of truth in the above statement. Please note that the tract says that all works of evangelism and benevolences were done either by the individual Christian or the congregation WITHOUT ANY ORGANIZATION WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE CONGREGATIONS. That is exactly what I believe! That statement, if it means what it says, eliminates such organizations as the American Christian Mi
ionary Society, Boles Home,and Southern Christian Home. They are organizations "without" the congregations.
On the back of the above-mentioned tract, I findthe stamp of the Highland Church of Christ, South5th and Highland, Abilene, Texas. Now the poinwhich I wish to emphasize is this: You can give thattract to any Christian in Little Rock (or anywhere else I suppose) and he would accept its contents astruth. But I can take the same tract and stamp iwith the stamp reading "Church of Christ, 1506 ArchStreet, Little Rock, Ark." and many of the same people would reject it. Some of them would not evenread it! See what I mean ? Brethren, have we reached the point that truth is determined by whose two dollar rubber stamp is used on the tract containingthe message?
I charge that the Highland church is inconsistent. They don't act according to the message in the tracts which they distribute, and they wouldn't allow manyof us to preach the same message in their pulpit free of charge. Perhaps this only proves again that yocan't trust brethren to make the correct applicationof the principles of truth which they profess to believe.
I recently observed another example of this same thing. Several churches in this area use brother Reuel Lemmons in meetings, and I noticed that one of the large churches recently promoted the FIRM FOUNDATION in its bulletin and urged the members to subscribe. Just a few days before that bulletin was printed, brother Lemmons wrote an article entitled "Elders And Homes Again" wherein he disagreed with Gayle Oler, Foster Ramsey and the GOSPEL ADVOCATE position. Let us notice a few statements from his article:
"You do not put homes under elders — if they are ordinary homes, managed by the parents who created them — but if they are built by the church, maintained by the church, and supported from the church treasury, they are not 'homes' in the ordinary senseof the word, but are child care arrangements, created,built and supported by the church. Then, they are works of the church, and all work of the church is done under the direction of the elders of the church."
"If the work of the church is to provide care for the fatherless, as the New Testament church in Acts cared for the widows, and that care included a placeto eat and sleep — a 'home' — which it could well have done since they were a long way from their homes, then that care is to be under the direction of the elders.
"Furthermore, the church in Jerusalem made arrangements itself for the administration of the care which the church provided. We repeat that under the board arrangement the church neither provides the care nor the administration of the care. All the church provides is money. The board provides the care, and the superintendent and staff administer the care. We want to ask again for someone to tell us what the church provides under the board arrangement in the care of orphans?
"We repeat our syllogism: (1) all the WORK of the church is directed by the elders of the church.
(2) Caring for orphans is a WORK of the church. (3) Therefore this WORK of the church should be done under the elders of the church."There you have brother Lemmons' reasons for opposing a board — and he is right! As I said beforemany churches in this area will accept that kind ofteaching when done by brother Lemmons. They maynot act accordingly, but at least they don't complainabout it and try to brand him in some way. But whenthe SAME KIND OF TEACHING is done in our paper, over our radio programs, or in our pulpit, it is rejected by many and we are called by some derisive name.
Brethren and friends, when we come to consider "Who said that," the only distinction we need tomake is between inspired and uninspired men! Ourrespect for a man does not mean that he is alwaysright, nor does our prejudice against a man meanthat he is wrong. Our real concern should always be,"what saith the Scripture?"
QUESTION— (The following is a series of questions received from the same individual. These I propose to answer in order and according to number.)
(1) Is Matt., Mark, Luke and John binding on Christians today? (2) If the le
ons Jesus taught in these 4 books are not mentioned again after Acts 2, by oneof the other writers are these teachings binding?
(3)
Is the Great Commission, Matt. 28:18-20, binding on us today? (4) Explain Mark 16:15-16. (5) IMark 16:17 of whom is the writer speaking? Is hetalking about the same people in verses 15 & 16?
— J.H.
ANSWER— (1) This question must be entered with a "yes" and "no." Some things in these books are binding today and some are not. These books provide, primarily, a record of the life of Christwhich life was lived under the law of Moses. DuringHis personal ministry He taught that not one "jot" or "tittle" would pass from the law till all was fulfilled (Matt. 5:18). Again, during His personal ministry Jesus taught that what was written in the law of Moses should be observed (Matt.. 23:1-3). In the light of these verses we must conclude that anythingJesus taught that differed from the law of Moses was not binding until after the law was abrogated at the cross (Col. 2:14). During this time Jesustaught many things in anticipation of His kingdomwhich was soon to be established. Thus, He worked to prepare a people for His kingdom. A careful consideration of the context, the law of Moses, things that differ from it, all determine whether or notwhat was taught was binding then (under Moses) orwould be (under Chr ist) in His kingdom
(2) While Acts 2 marks the beginning of things under the authority of Jesus Christ, it is not necessary to find things taught in the first four books of the New T estament wr itten again after Acts 2 inorder for such to be binding today. Things in these books which were taught by Jesus in anticipation ofHis kingdom could not and did not become effective while the law of Moses was in force, (See Notes on Number One.). Acts 2 marks the beginning date for such matters so far as being in force is concerned. Remember, such things have been "confirmed untous by them that heard him" (Heb. 2:3). Matthew,Mark, Luke, and John wrote these things after the occasion of Acts 2. What they wrote has been confirmed by the miraculous power they manifested while writing these things (Heb. 2:4). They, therefore, provide a true record of the life of Christ. (3) The Great Commission of Matt. 28:18-20 is binding on us today. I n harmony with the above
obligations Luke's record of the Great Commi
ion shows that Jesus commanded them to "tarry iJerusalem until they were endued with power from on high" (Lk. 24:49). Thus, they were to wait tillPentecost (Acts 2) before preaching "repentanceand remission of sins in His name among all nations" (Lk. 24:47).
While the Great Commission was given directly tothe apostles, it applies indirectly to all Chr istians. The apostles were commanded to teach those baptized "all things" that Christ had commanded them. Unless someone can show that the forepart of the Great Commi
ion is a work peculiar to the apostolic office, it follows that it is a part of the "all things" made binding upon all disciples.
(4) In the absence of any particular question about Mk. 16:15-15, I'm at a loss to know what to explain.The passage is largely self explanatory. It is Mark's account of the Great Commission. It briefly states the conditions of salvation and damnation. The conditions of salvation from alien sins are simple andclear — belief and baptism: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." The condition of damnation is equally clear — unbelief: "but he that believeth not shall be damned."
(5)The writer is speaking of the same people iboth instances, namely, "believers." However, ishould be noted that verse seventeen does not sathat the "signs" would follow all believers. Spiritual gifts (See I Cor. 12:1-11) were distributed amonbelievers throughout apostolic days. From the apostles such power was received (Acts 8:18). T hese "signs" served to "confirm the word (Mk. 16:20Heb. 2:4), strengthen and sustain churches (Rom. 1:11) until the full revelation of the will of Christ.
GENESIS 1 AND 2— LITERAL OR FIGURATIVE? (No. 2)
Home says (INTRODUCTION, Bk. ii, chap. 1,sec. 1, pages 371-378, 281-284, "The literal meaningof a word is to be given up if it is either improper,or involves an impo
ibility, or contains anythingcontrary to the doctrinal or moral precept delivered in other parts of scripture." Lamar affirms (p. 103there is no instance of FIGURATIVE language thatdoes not come under SOME CLAUSE of the following RULE and hence we can determine readily by itwhether any given text is figurative or literal. "Allscriptures are to be regarded as FIGURATIVE which are either declared to be such, or which thevarious attending circumstances show to be such, or which, when taken literally, contravene any general precept, or are contrary to evident reason and the nature of things." Taylor Lewis in THE SIXDAYS OF CREATION (p. 19) says, "We have no difficulty in detecting these styles — the mythicaland the parabolical — in the scriptures WHEREVER THEY MAY OCCUR. When we meet such a passage as this, 'The trees said to the bramble, Rule thouover us' — or — 'T hou has brought a vine out ofEgypt and planted it' — or 'My beloved had a vineyard in a very fruitful hill' — we have no trouble in determining its character." Zimmerman (DarwinEvolution and Creation), after citing the quote oLewis, adds, "The intelligent reader, whether he can read the original languages or not can recognize myth and a parable and distinguish between prose and poetry, literal and figurative language." (p. 45).Your present scribe maintains the Bible contains matters that are HISTORICAL, POETICAL ANPROPHETICAL and it isn't very difficult for anysincere and careful student to ascertain which is which. Anyone can see the difference between theprose and historical record of Gen. 1 and 2 and thePoetic account of creation set forth in Psa. 104:5-9;8; 19; and Job 38:8-11.
Zimmerman also says (p. 45), "NONE of the
characteristics usually a
ociated with parables can
be found in the narratives in Genesis. W. W. Otey
in his Origin and Destiny of Man discusses the "alle
gory" argument for Gen. 1 and 2 by stating, "the
evolutionists (Theistic or Christian) says, 'The Bible
is not a book on science'. No, but it is largely a book
of history. And if the history is false, how can its
moral teachings, that grow out of its history, be re
lied on?" (p. 127). Earlier Otey says, "It is some
times said that the "history" in Genesis is an 'alle
gory'. We do not believe allegory; We believe histori
cal facts. Allegory is a figure to illustrate a historical
fact. If the supposed fact does not exist the allegoryis meaningless — it has no basis. If the "history" in Genesis is taken as an 'allegory', simply an illustration to reach a reality, then what is the reality that it teaches? BY NO POSSIBLE TURN OF THE IMAGINATION CAN IT BE MADE TO FIT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!! It has to do with the origin of man on the earth. It is impossible to twist it so as to describe the theory of evolution. Creation if the only theory advanced to explain the origin ofman. The history of Genesis either records and explains the creation of man or it is entirely meaning
le
." (p. 122)
In the cla
ic work of Joseph Angus (THE BIBLE HANDBOOK), written almost 100 years ago, weread, "The words of Scripture must be taken in their common meaning, unless such meaning is shown to be inconsistent with other words in the sentence,with the argument or context, or with other parts of Scripture — the meaning of a word will often bemodified by the connection in which it is used. Interpret according to the context. This rule is often of great THEOLOGICAL importance, (pages 180,186-187)." Further on Angus says (p. 406), "The word Genesis is from the LXX, in Greek, 'Origination.' The book is one of ORIGINS, and may be divided into two parts: I. OUTLINE OF PRIMAEVAL HISTORY until the designation, in the call of Abraham of the Chosen Race, chapters 1-11." Dunga(mentioned earlier) gives the RULES by which thmeaning of words shall be ascertained, "Rule 1" ALL WORDS ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THEIR LITERAL SENSE, UNLESS THE EVIDENT MEANING OF THE CONTEXT FORBIDS.— Figures are the EXCEPTION, literal language theRULE ; hence we are not to regard anything as figurative until we feel compelled to do so by thevident import of the passage." (thirteen other Rules are given, pages 184-194.) On the next page (195)he begins a discussion of FIGURATI VE L ANGUAGE and how we can know and recognize such as figurative? T he sense of the context will indicate it
ibility
—
if a literal interpretation will cause one passage
to contradict another — when it is SAID to be fig
urative — when the literal meaning demands actions
that are wrong or forbids those that are good — etc.
Dungan then gives the RULES for the interpreta
tion of figurative language, (for more detailed study
read pages 195 to 225). In Lamar's ORGANON OF SCRIPTURE we find a
lot of the same type of material and arguments. "Thus the whole apparatus of verbal communicationhowever arbitrarily it may have been formed, is regulated by a principle as fixed and certain as anythingelse, viz: WORDS ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THEIR USUAL AND MOST OBVIOUS SIGNIFICATION — THAT WHICH MEN HAVE AGREED TO GIVE THEM — AND WHICH AGREEMENT IS INDICATED BY CUSTOM — EXCEPT WHERE CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSITATE A CHANGE,IN WHICH CASE THE AMOUNT AND KIND OF CHANGE IS TO BE MEASURED AND DETERMINED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES, (p. 87-88)." Beginning on page 276, under THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WORDS, the writer lays down two axioms andthen he says (p. 283), "upon these two foundations we now place two general principles or laws for the interpretation of words, which, it is believed, WILL COVER THE WHOLE SUBJECT AND SCIENCE OF HERMENEUTICS, SO FAR AS THE PRIMARY INQUIRY INTO THE MEANING OF WORDS ISCONCERNED." Lamar has two rules under his FIRST GENERAL PRINCIPLE and five rules under his SECOND GENERAL PRINCIPLES. Without going into detail we suggest he gives, with great thoroughne
, the rules or points we have mentioned and others to which I did not refer. He says, "IN DETE RMINING THE ME ANING OF A WORD IN ANY GIVEN CASE, THE PRESUMPTION IS ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF ITS PRIMARY OR GENERAL USE. This is to be taken for granted UNLESS THERE EXISTS POSITIVE PROOF TO THE CONTRARY". (Lamar makes this good point for us to keep in mind, "throw the burden of proof upon the opposite side — make "them show why the normal,ordinary, meaning COULD NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED"). He continues, "No change or modification should be made in the primary sense, in anygiven case, except what is proved to be necessary bythe circumstances of the case. — The general meaning of a word must be modified to the extent obviously REQUIRED by the context — the primarymeaning of a word must yield to the NATURAL DEMANDS of the subject matter (context) — The general meaning of a word must be modified to the extent required by the scope or design of the passagein which it occurs." (see pages 85, 87-90; 102-104,276 to 312, — Lamar's ORGANON OF SCRIP TURE). A brief but good work on this important theme, is HOW TO STUDY THE BIBLE, by Way
mon Miller, Pages 27 to 34. (To be concluded)
-------------o ------------
"EXAMINE YOURSELVES"
Olen Holderby, San Pablo, Calif.
In referring to the apostolic association withJesus, John said, "T hat which we have seen andheard declare we unto you, that ye also may havfellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ" (I Jno. 1:3). John wanted the Christians to be properly informed, sharing the apostolic knowledge. Paul expressed the same desire: "Whereby, when ye read, yemay understand my knowledge in the mystery oChrist" (Eph. 3:4). Christians, thus informed, wouldbe prepared to "earnestly contend for the faithwhich was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). It is my purpose, in this article, to pass on that which I have seen and heard the past few years; that whichI believe to be doing severe damage to the cause of Christ. I came to California in 1953, having spent the previous four years in Arizona. Therefore, what I have to say applies, basically, to this area; though I see no reason why it should be limited to this area alone. Paul advised the Corinthians to "Examine yourselves" (II Cor. 13:5). This is a challenge for
every member of the church, especially to preachers
and elders, to "examine yourselves;" and to do so in
view of the things contained in this article.
First, I want to take note of the fact that the church has made wonderful progress in California the past fifteen or twenty years. Many battles for truth have been fought and won. "Sound" congregations of God's people meet throughout the state. One cannot share in this without being proud of such progress; yet, one is humbled to think of all that yet remains to be done. "Liberalism" continues, in its own way, to flourish, drifting more and more toward the camp of denominationalism. Occasionally a few will forsake this floundering ship and return to their "first love." In most instances preachers and elders have led the fight for truth; many of these, quite naturally, become very well known. In the midst of the fight, their influence for good was strongly felPreachers, perhaps because of their mobility, havbeen more prominent. Yet, out of the successes of this battle has come serious and dangerous practices which threaten the purity of the Lord's church. I shall address myself to these things for the balance
of this article.
First, I offer a list of some of those practices which
I have observed the past few years:
1. Preachers virtually ruling whole congrega
tions. I flatly charge that in practice it is no
less than the "Pastor System."
- Elders being mere "figure-heads" and "yes
- men" for preachers.
- Where no elders exist, the preacher is often
granted the authority to use whomever he
chooses in the pulpit.
4. Scriptural discipline of one congregation is
completely disregarded by other congrega
tions. T his may be brought about, in part, by
the fact that many preachers get the mail, and
the congregation remains uninformed.
5. A preachers' clique exists, and is being per
mitted to just about control the thinking of
many congregations. Such clique has, it seems,
just about become a "clearing-house" for in
coming preachers. It appears evident to some
that as long as one does not cross any member
of the clique, it doesn't matter much what else
he does.
6. Preachers who are in out-right rebellion
against God's Word, living in sin, being upheld
by at least some of the clique and used in pub
lic services of the church.
7. Preachers not practicing what they preach,
and what they condemn in others they often
do .themselves. This is especially true with
reference to "hob-nobing" with liberals or
apostates.
8. The disposition of church members to permit
TIME instead of REPENTANCE to abolish
( ?) sin.
9. General disrespect shown for the elders of the
congregation, and the apparent unwillingness
of many to work under elders.
- General looseness in Christian living in many
- places.
-
. Elders or congregations hiring preachers with
little or no investigation as to their soundness
or character. Many investigations appear to be
limited to the "clearing-house" mentioned in
number 5, above.
12. The tendency toward a "professional clergy,"
limiting their obligations to appearing before the public two or three times per week, plus
keeping his "social house" in order. I do notcharge that these conditions exist in all congregations, but the fact that they exist can hardlybe denied. Through the past few years I have heard both elders and preachers, in various places, express concern over the existence of these things. Perhapsall of these could be thrown together under one heading : Lack of respect for God's Word. However, such enumeration as I have given should enable us to geta better view of what is actually happening. With the exception of number 11, all of them can be seen as a violation of the scripture. It may be that these things are products of the circumstances — so much time being spent opposing such innovations as the Herald of Truth and orphan homes that these matters have been overlooked. Regardless of how they may havcome about, the fact remains that they are wrongs
which must be corrected. (to be continued)
THE NEWS LETTER REPORTS
".. . They rehearsed all that God had done with them..." — Acts 14:27
Robert Harkrider, P. O. Box 52, Caringbah, N.S.W.2229, Australia— Brother and Sister Sam Binkley,Jr., their son Don, and daughter Sarah Barnes, arrived August 30th to begin four years of work inAustralia. It is a great joy to us and a boost to the Lord's work in this country for them to be here. Theyhad tentatively planned to move to Armidale, butafter the gospel meeting in Melbourne the needseemed to be more urgent there, so they have movedto work with the Keon Park congregation. Their address is: 32 Myrtle Grove; Preston, Victoria 3072Australia. I wish about ten more faithful preachers could be persuaded to come immediately (even this would leave us sparsely scattered). How often each of us who are here have felt the need to be in several places at once— "the harvest truly is great but the laborers few." Garreth L. Clair, 6144 W. Frier Dr., Glendale, Ariz. 85301— The work here has been very rewarding this last twelve months. There are signs of continued growth in all areas. This period has seen 41 additions to the church here. Of this number we have lost 19. The contribution has doubled, the attendance at allservices has also doubled. The property is free andclear of debt. I have conducted meetings at Glendale (local) and a lecture series in Phoenix (Monte Vista).Meetings scheduled for Wichita, Kansas, Mesa, Ari
zona, and a
istance in V.B.S. at Tucson, Arizona. -----------o--------Robert J. LaCoste, 6545 S. E. 66th Ave., Portland,
Oregon 97206— We have received Searching The
Scriptures for many years and at this time would
like to tell you how much we enjoy the wonderful
work that you are doing with the printed page. W
have concluded seven and a half wonderful years with
the church at Glendale, Arizona which meets at 6801
N. 60th Avenue and have now moved to Portland,
Oregon to work with the South East congregation
which meets at 7404 S. E. 57th Avenue. Since our
arrival here in August, two have been baptized and
two identified. When in Portland, worship with us. Kenneth Hirshey, 5007 Wyaconda, Hannibal, Mo.
— John Pitman of Mountain View, Arkansas has jusclosed an eight day meeting, October 13-20, with thechurch at Bowling Green, Mo. Brother Pitman's preaching was plain and pointed with the meetinwell attended. The church at Mountain View is youngand small in number. Because of limited finances theyfound it necessary to discontinue support of brother Pitman. He is without funds now and is trying tacquire meeting appointments until the school year is over. This man is a good sound preacher. Churches
in need of meetings would do well to contact him.
Fred A. Shewmaker, 230 S. Wall St., Wilmington,Ohio— Brother C. D. Plum preached in a meeting at Wilmington, Ohio November 10-17. The preaching was excellent. Six of our young people were baptized into Christ.
This was to be brother Plum's last meeting in 1968.He is to enter the hospital in December. I know that he would appreciate the prayers of faithful brethren everywhere during his confinement. Brother Plum is in his seventy-first year of life. He has a wealth ofexperience and uses blackboard le
ons which hemakes plain enough for the children to understand. If you are planning a gospel meeting for 1969 anhave not called a preacher to do the preaching, mayI suggest that you call C. D. Plum, 2503 Liberty St.,Parkersburg, W. Va. At this time he has 13 meetings booked but is not confined by local commitments. He would do you good.
Elvis Bozarth, 536 N. Poplar, Montebello, Calif. 90640 — My meeting work for 1968 has now ended with meetings as follows: 74th Street, Chicago, Ill.,Clairemont Mesa, San Diego, Calif., Montebello,Calif., Northside, Ft. Wayne, Ind., Beatrice, Neb.Englewood, Chicago, Ill., Sioux City, Iowa, MaconMo.
Due to the health of my wife, my meeting work away from home will be curtailed in 1969 and subsequent years. This step is taken with reluctance because there is more need for preachers to get out into the fields than ever before. Of the eight churches named above, only three had full time preachers when I was with them. With experienced preachers increasingly going into secular work, fewer young men givingtheir time to full time work for the Lord, and thadditional churches being established and salvagedfrom liberalism, the preacher shortage is likely toget worse before it gets better. It is hoped that those now supported full time will circulate more and work harder to save souls and build up the brethren.
Herbert Knight, 1616 Clay St., Paducah, Ky. 42001
— I closed my work with the Linwood church inShreveport, La., on July 28th, and moved the nextday to Paducah, Ky. to begin work with the ClaStreet church (formerly Northside church). This is the only conservative church in the Paducah area. The church building is located at 1520 Clay Street. In the last three months one has been baptized, three restored, and one identified. S. Leonard Tyler conducted our first gospel meeting November 11-17. He did his usual good job and the le
ons were wellreceived by all who attended the services. Anyonhaving friends in this area that I might contact cannotify me at the above address.
If any one in this section of the county has an old mimeograph machine that they are not using, I would appreciate hearing from them. I need one so that I can publish a bulletin to mail to members of the 11 liberal churches in the Paducah area.
Alan E . Martin, 115 Patricia Dr ive, Tonawanda,
N. Y. 14150— I and my family recently moved to theBuffalo, New York area. We are presently worshipping with the brethren at Jordon, Ontario, but we are interested in locating conservative minded brethren in our area. I have done considerable inquiring and as yet have not had any success. If we could locate a family or two, we might be able to start meetingin the Buffalo area. Please give me any information you have of brethren in this area. Phone (716) 6926772.
Donald R. Givens, Novato, Calif.— After 3 1/2years in Novato, Calif., I will be moving to Port Arthur, Texas to preach for the Thomas Blvd. congregation of that city. An enjoyable and spiritually beneficial 3 1/2 years have been spent in Novato. Our new address (church building) will be2948 Thomas Blvd., Port Arthur, Texas 77640. I request that brethren in that area send me their bulletins.
Walton Weaver, 4211 Vann Avenue, Memphis,Tenn. — I am now working with a new work here in Memphis, presently meeting at 3896 Jackson Avenue. We have been averaging around 30 in attendanceeach service since we started in mid-October. I need about $200.00 per month in support. The $350.00 I now have promised is from the local work here, Winchester Road in Memphis, Franklin Road in Nashville, and Northside in Conway, Arkansas. Any information about the work, or references with respectto the work or me, will be supplied upon request. I may be reached by phone at: (901) 327-9683.
A new work has been started recently in SoutMemphis with about six or seven families meeting onState Line Road in Whitehaven. This makes six good sound churches in Memphis, plus the work that was started back in April of this year in West Memphis,Ark.
George C. Garrison, 1200 E. Kettleman Lane, Lodi,Calif. 95240 — The new congregation meeting in theStockton Inn, Room B, Highway 99 and Waterloo Road, Stockton, Calif., will continue to hold services at the same address while trying to secure a building.A county ordinance will not allow our meeting in acommercial building.
Anyone traveling our way will be a welcome guest.
We meet at 11 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. for worship and
at 10 a.m. for Bible study. Mid-week services are
announced on Sunday. If you know of anyone living
in or around Stockton that you would like contacted,
or in Tracy, Mantica or Lodi, we would be happy to
do so. We have baptized six since July and have sev
eral studies.
In the month of November I was with the church
in Red Bluff, Calif., for a meeting directed to th
church. There were six responses and the attendance
was good. Also, the church in Saratoga had me over
for a personal workers training cla
. Three weeks
later they have 19 classes and 50 people in them. In
March of 69 I will be with the church in Rosebury,
Oregon for a meeting.
Kenneth A. Frazier, 1450 S.W. 24th Ave., Miami,
Fla. — I began work with the Southwest church the first week in November and anticipate a good work.
Dearl Hooten, 1720 N. 22, Pasco, Washington99301 — The Lord's body meeting at 3221 W. Court St., Pasco, Washington will be in need of a preacher to work with them as of June, 1969. The church here is a result of a conservative stand against modern innovations and consists of 30 members.
Pasco is located in an area with a population o100,000 and growing rapidly. Financially the church is able only to pay $300. per month toward the support of a preacher so secular or outside support would be necessary. Those interested please contact: church of Christ, 3221 W. Court St., Pasco, Washington99301.
THE ST. LOUIS DEBATE
A. C. Grider
On December 9, 10 and 12, 13 Brother Floyd DChappelear and Brother Arthur G. Blackwell debated the Orphan Home and Sponsoring Church arrangement in evangelism. I moderated for Brother Chappelear and W. L. Totty served in that capacity for Brother Blackwell.
The debate was conducted on a high plane and I believe much good will surely come from the discussion. Brother Blackwell apparently thought he hadan advantage, being approximately twice as old as Chappelear. In fact he had "warned" that he was going to handle Chappelear rather roughly. Hestarted out by declaring publicly that he would debate Chappelear 365 days out of the year. But thedebate ended with Totty wanting to debate me iIndianapolis, another preacher wanting to debatChappelear in Muncie, and with Blackwell NOT wanting to debate anybody anywhere anytime.
Brother Chappelear, who was himself converted to the truth during my debate with Guy N. Woods, conducted himself like a veteran debater. He presented argument after argument and chart after chart that were never touched by Brother Blackwell. In fact there were near forty of Chappelear's charts whichwere completely ignored by Blackwell. On the other hand, Chappelear examined the scriptures used bBlackwell and showed that they were being perverted and twisted to fit a false doctrine.
The brethren who supported Brother Chappelear were more than satisfied with his efforts. Many of them expressed to me their complete satisfaction with the work he did. It certainly was a pleasure for me to serve as his moderator. I did very little exceptto keep time as Chappelear had the situation well in hand from start to finish of the debate.
It is to be hoped that other such discussions can be arranged all over the country as there are still honest people who will accept the truth when thehave a chance to hear it.
Brother Totty agreed to let me come to Garfield Heights for a four night debate on Limited Benevolence. We shall announce the time as soon as it can be agreed upon.
720 Shelborn Dr., Owensboro, Ky.
MARY'S OTHER CHILDREN —CHRIST'S BRETHREN
Due to the great amount of mythology which has been circulated concerning Mary, the mother ofJesus, we have determined to study what the NeTestament has to say about her other offspring, andthe language originally used in connection therewith.
At the outset let it be clearly established that we sincerely believe in the virgin birth of Christ, because the Bible so teaches. We do NOT, however, believthat she perpetually remained a virgin subsequentto the birth of Christ, Roman Catholicism to the contrary notwithstanding, inasmuch as such a doctrine violates much New Testament scripture.
ROMAN CATHOLIC MARIOLOGYOR MARIOLATRY
In a footnote concerning Matt. 13:55, the Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible states concerning theexpression 'His brethren': "These were the children of Mary the wife of Clophas, sister to our Blessed Lady, (St. Matt. 27:56; St. John 19:25,) and therefore, according to the usual style of the Scripture,they were called brethren, that is, near relations to our Saviour."
Another Roman Catholic Version (Spencer's) as
serts: In Hebrew phraseology cousins were called
brothers and sisters. As the perpetual virginity o
the Mother of God is an article of faith which follows
from Luke 1:34, and is supposed in John 19:26-27,
it would be heresy to say that the persons mentioned
in the text were the natural brothers and sisters of
Our Lord. It is commonly supposed that they were
the children of Mary, the wife of Alphaeus (or
Clopas), and cousin, or po
ibly sister, or sister-in
law of the Blessed Virgin."
From the above copied footnotes, we think we have
given the accurate Catholic position on the subject.
We shall proceed to show its fallacy.
NEW TESTAMENT INSPIRATIONON THE SUBJECT
In the next few paragraphs, we shall present anEnglish translation of the original Greek, with the
actual Greek word for cousin, sister, brother obrethren inserted in parentheses beside the English word used. We ask that you particularly note the DIFFERENT Greek words used for BROTHER,
KINSMAN, COUSIN, etc.
Matt. 12:46-50. "He was still speaking to the
crowds when who should be waiting outside but his
mother and his brother s (adelphoi), desiring to
speak to him. 'Please,' someone said to him, 'your mother and your brothers (adelphoi) are waitingoutside, wishing to speak to you.' But he protested and said to the messenger: 'Who is my mother? And who are my brothers (adelphoi) ?' Then, with a wave of his hand toward his disciples (mathetas), he said: 'Look! Here are my mother and my brothers (adelphoi). Yes, anyone that does the will of my Father in heaven is brother (adelphos) or sister (adelphe)or mother to me." (Kleist-Lilly Version.) Please notice the similarity between, the word for brother
and sister.
Matt. 13:55-56. "Is not this the carpenter's son,
whose mother is called Mary, and his brethren (adel
phoi) James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And
do not his sisters (adelphai), all of them, live near
us?" (Knox's Version.) Again, please note the simi
larity of the Greek words for BROTHER and SIS
TER.
Mark 6:3-4. "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother (adelphos) of James, Joseph, Jude,and Simon? And are not also his sisters (adelphai)here with us? And they took offense at him. AndJesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, and among his own kindred (suggenesin), ..." (Confraternity Translation). Notice the difference in the words for KINDRED and BROTHER! Not the same root-word at all. There'll be more of this as we progress in ourinvestigation.
Luke 8:19-21. "Once his mother and his brothers
(adelphoi) came to visit him, but owing to the crowd
could not get an interview with him. So this message
was brought to him: 'Your mother and your brothers
(adelphoi) are waiting outside, wishing to see you.'
He protested: 'My mother and my brothers (adel
phoi)', he said to them, 'are those who hear God's
word and live up to it.' " (Kleist-Lilly Version.
Luke 1:36. "And behold thy cousin (suggenes) Eli
zabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age;
..." (Douay-Rheims Version.) Here we have a word
for COUSIN, but it is by no means the same as the
one for BROTHER or SISTER. It IS related to the
translation of KINDRED, shown above. Certainly
Elizabeth was Mary's COUSIN, but NOT her SIS
TER. You see, there IS a Greek word for COUSIN,
as well as for BROT HE R.
John 2:12. "After this He went down to Caparnaum, Himself, His mother, His brethren (adelphoi)and His disciples (mathetai); and they stayed there not many days." Spencer's Version.) In this verse,please note the difference between his BRETHREN (literally 'from the same womb', says Thayer) and
DISCIPLES.
John 7:3 & 5. "But when the Jewish feast of Tab
ernacles was near, his brothers (adelphoi) said to
him: 'Quit this part of the country and go to Judea.
Your disciples (mathetai), too, should see what you
are doing . . . Even his brothers (adelphoi), by the
way, did not believe in him." (Kleist-Lilly Version.)
Again, the difference between BRETHREN and DIS
CIPLES is manifest.
Acts 1:14. "All these (the eleven Apostles, men
tioned by name) with one mind continued steadfastly
in prayer with some women and Mary, the mother of
Jesus, and with his brothers (adelphois). (Kliest-
Lilly Version.) Thus, the BROTHERS of Jesus who
accompanied his mother, Mary, were listed sepa
rately from the Apostles.
Gal. 1:19. "But I saw none of the other apostles,
except James, the Lord's brother (adelphon)
I Cor. 9:5. "Have we not the right to travel about with a woman who is a sister, as the other apostles do, as the Lord's brethren (adelphoi) do, and Cephas?" (Knox's Version.) He adds a foot-note: " 'Woman may also be translated 'wife'; and -that may be the sense intended. We know that St. Peter was married, and his wife, if she was still alive, mayhave travelled with him on his missionary journeys ..."
The several Greek texts in my library give two
words "adelphen gunaika" meaning as the Kin
James renders it, "a sister, a wife". In any event
the Catholic translator Knox, admits that po
ible
meaning. However, the actual reason for using the
reference of I Cor. 9:5, was to show that the BROTH
ERS of the Lord were again listed separately fro
the apostles.
Luke 4:12. "... Whenever you give a lunch or sup
per, do not invite your friends (philous) or brothers (adelphous) or relatives (suggeneis) or well-to-do neighbors (geitonas)." (Kleist-Lilly Version.) In this verse are listed four different Greek words with their respective English meanings. Please take note of the difference between BROTHERS and RELATIVES (many times rendered kinsfolk or kinsmen)
Luke 21:16. "You will be betrayed even by parents
(goneon) and brothers (adelphon), by relatives (sug
genon) and friends (philon); and they will have
some of you put to death." (Kleist-Lilly Version.)
Once again notice the two different words used to
designate RELATIVES and BROTHERS.
When Jesus was walking by the sea, he saw two
brothers (adelphous), Simon and Andrew. After
going further, Jesus saw 'other two brothers' (adel
phous), James and John, the sons of Zebedee. (See
Matt. 4:18 & 21.
In every case, to my knowledge, of blood-brother
relationship being expressed, the word adelphos in
one of its forms is ALWAYS used. Where a general
kinship is expressed, the word suggenes in one of its
forms is used. Check some of these following exam
ples:
When E lizabeth announced that her infant son
would be called John, her neighbors and kinsfolks
(suggeneis) stated: "There is none of thy kindred
suggeneis that is called by this name (John)." (See
Luke 1:58 & 61.)
When Jesus was twelve years old, he became sep
arated from Mary and Joseph while on a journey to
Jerusalem ... "And thinking that he was in the com
pany, they came a day's journey, and sought him
among their kinsfolks (suggenesin) and acquaint
ance." (Luke 2:44.
When Cornelius made preparations to hear the
gospel preached, he called together his kinsmen
(suggeneis) and intimate friends (philous). (See
Acts10:24.
In verses 7, 11, and 21 of the last Chapter of Ro
mans, Paul sends greetings to several of his kinsmen
(suggeneis), naming Andronicus, Junias, Herodian,
Lucius, Jason and Sosipator.
Paul wrote in Romans 9:3... "For I wished myself
to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren
(adelphon), who are my kinsmen (suggenon) accord
ing to the flesh.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The word adelphos is translated BROTHER, 34
times according to Young's Analytical Concordance
to the Bible. Adelphotes is translated BRETHREN
one time, and BROTHERHOOD one time.
The word suggeneia, is given as KINDRED three
times: suggenes is given ten times for KIN, KINS
FOLK, KINSFOLKS, OR KINSMAN; and twice it is
rendered COUSIN.
Roman Catholicism claims that the Hebrew lan
guage had no equivalent word to distinguish between
'brethren' and 'cousin'. With that claim we take no
i
ue. But we wish to point out that the New Testa
ment was NOT written originally in Hebrew. Greek
was the language of the New Testament writers, and
the language in which it was originally wr itten.
The constantly increasing importance which Catholicism accords to Mary can best be recognized by the statements, decrees and definitions that have beenmade by the Church Councils down through the ages.
In 553 A.D. at the Council of Constantinople, the
doctrine of the Virgin Birth was denned. It is this
teaching which goes beyond the teaching of th
Scripture and asserts that Mary remained virginal
AFTER the birth of Christ. In commenting upon this
subject, B. L. Conway, a Catholic priest admits: "We
will never know to a certainty the exact relationship
of the four brother s, James, Joseph, Simon an
Jude."
In 431 A.D. the Council of Ephesus defined the
dogma that Mary is the mother of God. However
another Catholic writer, F. J. Sheed, on page 93 of
his book entitled, "Theology and Sanity", says:
"... for He alone (the Son. L.W.M.) assumed a
human nature and in that nature suffered and died
for us." Therefore, if Christ the Son ALONE, too
upon himself the HUMAN NATURE, then MARY is
NOT the mother of God!
In 1545 A.D. the Council of Trent first met. Amongits definitions was one to the effect that Mary lived a sinless life, as had her Son, Jesus Christ. This idea first took hold as a tradition and was finally confirmed by this 16th Century Council. The Bible, however says: "If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (I John 1:8.
In 1854 A.D. the doctrine of the 'Immaculate Con
ception' which claims that from the ver y momen
of her conception in the womb of Anne, she was ex
empt from the stain of what Catholics call 'original
sin'. In any event, it was a further attempt to deify
the mother of Jesus. It is also interesting to note that
B. L. Conway also admits: "The Scriptures nowhere
expressly teach this doctrine ..."
In 1950 A.D. the dogma and article of faith, th'Assumption of Mary' was defined by Pius XII, as being 'divinely revealed'. This dogma teaches that the BODY and SOUL of Mary went into heaven after her death, and were 'shortly afterwards' reunited. In any event, they claim, her body was preserved from corruption. Of course, it is unfortunate, that they donot even know where her death took place. Again, wequote the priest, B. L. Conway on this subject: "It cannot be proved from the Bible, or from contemporary historical witnesses ..." If the witnesses of that time do not establish it, and the Bible does not prove it, then upon what 'divine evidence' does PopePius XII base his new dogma?
In 1921 A.D., Pope Benedict XV granted permission for any dioceses requesting to do so, the rightto celebrate a Mass under the title "MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACES" in honour of Mary. More recently, some theologians have indicated that the next step in the deification of Mary will be to proclaim her "CO-REDEMPTRIX" with Christ in the salvation of souls.
Some of the philosophers of the world have also
pointed out, that most of the heathen religions in
corporate a male deity and a female deity into their
beliefs. These same philosophers have predicted that
Roman Catholicism is merely progressing to th
same point in its evolution or metamorphosis.
As these different dogmas and doctrines are devel
oped, they require certain glo
ing over of Scriptural
teachings and quotations. T his has been the case
with the various New Testament references to the
blood-brothers of Christ.
Catholicism will never get the Greek words ADELPHOS and SUGGENEIS to mean the same thing.ADELPHOS meant brother when the New Testament writers used it, and it STILL DOES. SUGGENEIS meant KINSMAN or COUSIN or RELATIVES when it was included in the New T estament, andit STILL DOES. Catholicism cannot change it!
ARE LUKE AND ACTS HISTORICALLY RELIABLE? — No. 2
This is the second of two studies designed to il
lustrate the fact that Luke uses technical historical
terms in technically correct ways. Of course, con
servative Christians expect Luke to do this; bu
these studies are presented chiefly for use in discussions with those who do not accept the inspiration
and authority of the Bible.
ASIARCHS
In Acts 19:31, Luke uses the term "asiarchs" to denote the "chief men" of Asia. This term is rare in literature, but frequently met with in inscriptions.
GALLIO'S JUDGMENT SEAT
In Acts 18:12, there is a reference to Gallio's
judgment seat (bema). This "judgment seat" ha
been identified in the ruins of the ancient city o
Corinth.
ROMAN INFLUENCE
Not long ago the Lord Chief Justice of England,Lord Hewart, made this statement to his fellow classicists: "It is not often stated, yet perhaps it is the fact, that the best short general picture of the pax Romana and all that it meant — good roads and posting, good police, freedom from brigandage and piracy, freedom of movement, toleration and justice is to be found in the experiences written in Greek, of a Jew who happened to be a Roman citizen — that is, in the Acts of the Apostles."
The basis of the foregoing statement is evident to
anyone familiar with the book of Acts. The explicit
references to things Roman and the allusions, are
abundant. The author names the emperors Augus
tus and Tiberius in his Gospel and in Acts names
Claudius (11:28) and refers without name to Nero.
Of Nero, Luke uses three titles: Augustus, Caesar,
and Lord (Acts 25:21, 26).
CIVIL OFFICERS
Local civil officers of Rome are mentioned cor
rectly : proconsuls in senatorial provinces, like Gallio
in Achaia (18:12) and Sergius Paulus in Cyprus
(13:7).
PROCURATORS
Roman governors or procurators in procuratorial
districts like Felix (24:3) and Festus (25:1) i
Judea are mentioned correctly by Luke.
SPEARMEN
Roman soldiers of various ranks are mentioned including, besides infantry and cavalry, a kind ofpersonnel not elsewhere named or otherwise identified, the dexiolaboi ("spearmen").
PLEASE CHECK YOUR EXPIRATION DATE AND SEND YOUR RENEWAL TODAY
TWENTY-THIRD ANNUAL LECTURE SERIES OF FLORIDA COLLEGE
Hutchinson Memorial Auditorium, Temple Terrace, Florida
January 27-30, 1969 THEME: Biblical
Interpretation: Principles and Practice
MONDAY, JANUARY 27
7:30 p.m. "Conformed or Transformed" ............................................................................ Don Bassett
8:30 p.m. "Holding Forth the Word of Life"......................................................................Peter Wilson
TUESDAY, JANUARY 28
9:00 a.m. "Inspiration of Scripture" ....................................................................................... John Clark
9:55 a.m. "The Science of Beginnings" .............................................................................W. D. Burgess10:50a.m. "Figures of Speech" ................................................................................. James P. Needham
11:45 a.m. "Poetry" ............................................................................................................... Melvin Curry
7:30 p.m. "The Lord's Day Contribution"...................................................................Almon L. Williams
8:30 p.m. "They Knew Not God" ..................................................................................... Robert Turner
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29
9:00 a.m. "Liberalism's Use of the Bible".................................................................................John Clark
9:55 a.m. "The Beginnings and the Atomic Clock".......................................................Charles R. Rice
10:50 a.m. "Symbolism" ......................................................................................................... Irvin Himmel
11:45 a.m. "Song of Solomon" .............................................................................................Homer Hailey
8:30 p.m. "All T hings to All Men"........................................................................................... Cecil Willis
THURSDAY, JANUARY 30
9:00 a.m. "Equipping Youth to Meet Liberalism" ............................................................ John Clark
9:55 a.m. "The Philosophy of Science"...................................................................... Arthur M. Dowell
10:50 a.m. "Prophecy" .............................................................................................. Clinton D. Hamilton
11:45 a.m. "Song of Solomon"...............................................................................................Homer Hailey
7:30 p.m. "Why Florida College?" .................................................................................James R. Cope
8:30 p.m. Florida College Chorus
TAPES OF THESE LECTURES AVAILABLE Any Two Speeches On One Tape — $4.00
Order from
PHILLIPS PUBLICATIONS
P. O. BOX 17244 — TAMPA, FLORIDA 33612