THANKFULNESS

Donald R. Givens

The words "thankful, thank, thanks, and thanks

giving," occur quite frequently in God's Word. One

can easily see the importance of this characteristic

through a search of the scriptures.

Thankfulness characterizes the genuine child o

God. His is a life of continual gratitude and thanks

giving. "Thanks" can be defined as: "expressing

gratitude; speaking grateful language (especially as

an act of adoration or worship toward God) ; to ac

knowledge praise; to revere or worship because of

ble ingsreceived."

The person who is thankful will also be kind andconsiderate of the feelings of others. One hates to give a gift and receive absolutely "no thanks" in return. What about all the "gifts" God has given us? We should be grateful for life, food, clothing, shelter,family, and a free land in which to worship andserve Him. Do we EXPRESS GRATITUDE for these things, or are we perhaps somewhat unthankful?Yes, many individuals receive wonderful blessings from the Lord God, but never take time from their busy lives to thank him sincerely.

Thankful

Psalm 100 is a song of thanksgiving and it ad

monishes "all ye lands" to "be thankful unto Him

and bless His name" (verses 1 and 4). The Father

made us, sustains us, and will bless all who love Him.

Jehovah isgood. His loving-kindness endures forever.

Paul reminded the Colo ian Christians to "let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful" (Col. 3:15). The peace found in being obedient to Christ must RULE in our hearts. BE THANKFUL commands Paul. It is not a drudger y or unpleasant burden to give thanks, but a joy beyond measure.

Thanks

David, the inspired psalmist said in Psalm 18:49"Therefore will I give thanks unto thee, O Lord,among the heathen, and sing praises unto thy name." Children of God today, as David, must also givthanks unto the Lord, and singing praises to His glorious name is one of the best ways to thank Him.

The singer of Israel also exclaimed: "To the end

that my glory may sing praise to thee, and not be

silent. O Lord my God, I will give thanks unto thee

forever" (Ps. 30:12).

Ingratitude is one of the darkest and most ugly ofall sins. All sin is ugly, and ingratitude is universallydespised. The ingrate is the one who never stops long enough nor gets far enough from his own selfishness to thank God for all His ble ings which He has so bountifully poured out on His creatures. Do not be guilty of ingratitude — toward God or toward parents, friends, or other, humans who have done so much for you.

Courageous Daniel, in idolatrous Babylon, against the "signed decree" still prayed to the Lord God andgave thanks. Listen to Daniel 6:10. "Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed; he weninto his house; and his windows being open in hichamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon hiknees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime." Even thoughDaniel was later thrown into the pit of lions, he suffered no harm and his faith won the victory

In Luke 17:16 we see one leper out of ten cured

returning to give thanks unto Jesus. What ungrate

ful wretches were those other nine. In which class

are you? In which group am I?

Even our Lord Jesus gave thanks before feedingthe multitudes (John 6:11). What a splendid examplefor us.

Eph. 5:20 commands: "Giving thanks always for

all things unto God and the Father in the name of

our Lord Jesus Christ." Please notice that thanks are

to be given ALWAYS and for ALL things! And then

Paul instructs Christians in I The . 5:18, "In every

thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in

Chr ist Jesus concerning you."

Thanksgiving

An everlasting principle is found in Psalm 50:14which says: "Offer unto God thanksgiving; and paythy vows unto the Most High." Paul reminded thePhilippians to "be careful for nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgivinglet your requests be made known to God." Worry willdo no good. Instead of worrying about what we donot have ... be thankful for what you do have. Wshould be "rooted and built up in Him, and stab

lished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abound

ing therein with thanksgiving (Col. 2:7). And "con

tinue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving" (Col. 4:2)This responsibility of thankfulness is not to be

taken lightly nor ignored. In II Tim. 3:2 we read of

some despicable sins and among them is listed "UN

THANKFUL." Was Paul speaking of you?

What about bowing in pr ayer r ight now an

giving thanks to the Lord God for all His goodness

toward you?

"We all really enjoy Searching the Scriptures. It is one of the very best religious papers today." —

A. B. Newsom, Jennings, Fla.

"I sure enjoy your paper each month." — Randall Elrod, Sherman, Texas.

"The direction taken by some churches in manplaces today shows only too well the need for a paper like Searching The Scriptures." — Donald A. Latner,Umatilla, Fla

"I enjoy the paper very much and would not wantto be without it." — Mrs. J. B. Shull, Louisville, Ky

"I don't always agree with articles, but I like thear the different thoughts." — Bill Drane, Phoenix,Ariz.

"Renew my subscription to Searching The Scrip-lures, which I enjoy so much. I am sure you work very hard in putting out such good articles whichevery Christian should be reading." — Mrs. Dora Smither, San Bernardino, Calif.

"I felt compelled to write and express my appreciation for your fine editorial, 'Respect of Persons,' in the July i ue. I rarely write an author concerning some article he has written, but yours was so timelyand_ well written I wanted to tell you. Searching TheScriptures is a fine paper and you are doing a goodjob with it. It is bound to have lasting effect upothose who receive and read it. With few exceptions the articles are well written and good to read, andthe mechanics of the paper make them conduciveto reading.

"May our Lord continue to bless you with success in this, and all other endeavors to glorify His nameamong men." — Jesse M. Kelley, La Porte, Texas.

"We enjoy the good articles every month i

Searching The Scriptures." — Robert S. Starr,

Crete,Ill.

"I appreciate the paper very much and always look forward to receiving it each month." — Kenneth A. Frazier, Miami, Fla

"We certainly enjoy getting Searching The Scriptures over here." — Sam Binkley, Jr., Australia.

"May the Lord bless you and keep you in the good

work you are doing. Both my wife and I look forward

to each issue." — Bill Haynes, Mar lin, T exas.

"My husband and I both enjoy reading Searching

The Scriptures very much." — Mrs. Mark Webb,Greenville, Texas.

"I appreciate your work." — Irven Lee, Hartselle,Ala.

"VOICES OF CONCERN"

I have difficulty trying to understand how mencan invent a philosophy of religion that so wideldiffers from their fellowmen and then claim that they are all right. Is religion something that is rightjust because one believes it? If one man believes that Christ was born of a virgin, did miracles, died andarose from the dead, and another believes that Christ was born of a woman out of wedlock, died and did not arise from the dead, can both be right? Nowwhen you figure out how a rational, intelligent man can believe two people can be right in such opposite views, you can then explain how a man can believeboth of these views at the same time and not oppose himself. This makes no sense to me, and yet it is thebasis of denominationalism.

In 1966 a book was published on "Critical Studies in Church of Christism" called Voices of Concern,edited by Robert Meyers. It contains 17 chapters by as many writers who claim to have been "within the Church of Christ segment of the Restoration movement" or "recently out of it" (Introduction by Robert Meyers). Some of these I have personally knownin years past when they at least professed to bemembers of the church of Christ.

All these "Voices of Concern" have two things in common: they were members of the church of Christ at one time, and they all were dissatisfied and criticized what they called "Church of Christism." Fromthis point they go in all directions. Some left completely, some joined various denominations, and some joined the radical liberals, which is just another denomination. Their criticism ranges from personalities in the church to the New Testament doctrine of salvation, worship and the nature of the church.

It is hard for one who has heard the truth and knows anything of the Lord's church to believe that some of these who wrote in Voices of Concern denied baptism for the remi ion of sins, the Lord's supper on the Lord's day, immersion as scriptural baptism,the inspiration of the scriptures, the deity of Christ,and pled for the use of instrumental music in worship, fellowship with all religious groups, and about every innovation ever invented.

I am not interested here in examining any one ofthese essays on what is wrong with the church ofChrist. I am interested for the moment in why thethink as they do. The attitude toward the authorityof Christ is the tap root to all these radical views. The attitude toward the authority of Christ is really an attitude toward Christ himself. It was interestingto note that most of these who wrote in this book were educated in some of the "Christian Colleges" who have for many years emphasized liberal views toward the word of God. Their eggs hatched! The bitter fruits are seen in such books as this one, denying the very foundations of the faith once delivered.

Every chapter in Voices of Concern asserts a belief (of some kind) in Christ, and at the same time denies what Christ teaches in his word. I have concluded that everyone of these who still professes anyfaith in Christ believes the only basis of fellowshipand the only standard of right to be a belief that Christ is the Son of God.

Suppose we take this as the criteria of acceptancewith God. Which Christ shall be the basis of fellowship with God ? It is the one who was born of a virgin, did miracles, called himself the Son of God, diedand arose from the dead; or is it the one born of man and woman, really did no miracles, died and is stilldead ? He cannot be both! Is it the Christ who winks at disobedience to the will of his Father in heaven and accepts all who profess some form of religion, oris it the Christ who demands obedience to his will and will come in flaming fire to take vengeance onthem that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of Christ? (II Thess. 1:8)

And suppose we accept the view proclaimed inVoices of Concern (and many more like it) that alldenominations are right. Of course, they do not believe that all people in denominations will be saved,but they believe one can be saved in any denomination. Some of them limit salvation to "segments of the Restoration Movement." If some one cries that belief in Christ is legalism and too narrow, will ithen be right to accept religions that are anti-Christ ?

This is the principle upon which they left "Church of Christism" as they call it. If there is any difference in principle, I am unable to see it.

The whole problem with these renegades is the authority of Christ. When they understand theChrist, the Son of God, revealed in the New Testament, they will understand that his authority is all;there is no other authority in religion. When theyrecognize this authority and acknowledge it in obedience, they will be in the Lord's church and no other. The Lord only adds to his church, and he adds onlythe saved to his church (Acts 2:47). Segments or heirs of the Restoration Movement will have no more meaning to them than the Reformation Movement orthe Inquisition of the middle ages. I want to be anheir of God through Christ, and "movements" of all kinds can be buried with all other dead movements.

"DO NOT CALL TREASON WHAT THEY CALL TREASON!"

L. A. Mott, Jr.

The Revised Standard Version has a particularlyclear rendering of Isaiah 8:11-13:

For the Lord spoke thus to me with his strong

hand upon me, and warned me not to walk in the

way of this people, saying: "Do not call conspir

acy all that this people call conspiracy, and do

not fear what they fear, nor be in dr ead. But

the Lord of hosts, him you shall regard as holy;

let him be your fear, and let him be your

dread __"

When messengers brought word to King Ahaz thatSyria and Israel had united their forces to invadeJudah and take Jerusalem he was terrified (Isa. 7:1-2). According to II Kings 16:7-9 and II Chron. 28:16-21 Ahaz met this threat by calling upoAssyria.

Isaiah's stand was that Syria and Israel had run their course; there was nothing to fear from "these two tails of smoking firebrands." Ahaz could find safety by trusting in Jehovah rather than by depending upon Assyria (Isa. 7:3-9). But Ahaz would notlisten. He rejected Isaiah's counsel and sent for Assyria. In pursing this policy he brought upon Judah the disaster of which Isaiah had warned (Isa. 7:17-20; cf. II Chron. 28:19-21)

When Isaiah urged dependence upon Jehovah andwarned against foreign entanglements, he was taking a stand in opposition to "court policy." Therefore, just as Elijah before him had been called the"troubler of Israel" (I Kings 18:17) and Jeremiah after him would be accused of treason, "falling awayto the Chaldeans" (Jer. 37:13), so Isaiah's stand would be branded by Ahaz and unbelieving Israel as treason. This is what Jehovah refers to when he warns Isaiah, "Do not call conspiracy all that this people call conspiracy." That is to say, "Do not, likethem, regard trust in Jehovah as treasonous."

As Edward J. Young (The Book of Isaiah) pointed out, Israel was a theocracy, a form of government in which the ultimate ruler was God, the king beingonly his representative.

Ahaz, the son of David, of all men, ought to haveunderstood this. His first question should alwayshave been, "What does the Lord command?" The nation was so low, spiritually, however, that when the prophets advocated that the theocracy act like the theocracy, they were accused of conspiracy. So it has always been. Throughout thehistory of the church, those who have sought tocall the church back to her God-given mi ion and away from her man-made "programs" have been treated as troublemakers.

Jesus Christ is the head of the church, and thchurch as his body must therefore be subject to him,moving only at his direction (Eph. 5:22-24). The person who advocates that the church act in the absence of such divine direction is the one who is guilty ohigh treason. Yet this is the very person who oftenmakes such charges against those of us who insistthat the church act like the church. He has matters just as balled up as Ahaz had them in the 8th century B. C. Is man such a complete fool that he cannot learn anything in 3000 years ?

Box 155

Romulus, Mich. 48174

QUESTION: (The following questions are excerpts from a letter concerning the commentary entitled "People's New Testament With Notes" by B

W. Johnson — M. E. P.) Should we believe everycomment as true, or are such his own opinions? If they're his own opinions, I've heard sermons about man's opinions, and I only want the truth. Was B. W. Johnson a member of the Lord's church ? — L.S.

ANSWER: One's attitude toward any commentaryshould be exactly the same as his attitude toward asermon or a lesson taught in a class or elsewhere. Men are uninspired, and, therefore, fallible. Whathey say or write is subject to error, and ought to be examined with the greatest of care and caution inthe light of the inspired word. We should not listen to any man preach or read what any man may write as though every word were true and above question. The Bereans furnish us a fine example. They"searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11).

We can profit greatly from the proper use of commentaries. Often information of a geographical or historical nature is supplied that sheds light on thmeaning of some passages. Sometimes the etymologyof words, customs and traditions peculiar to the dayand countr y in which the text was wr itten ar e pointed out, which information often helps in determining the full meaning of verses. Some commentaries present conflicting views on controversial passages. Thus, the reader is able to see both or all sides of the i ue under study and an exposition of theerror involved — at least from the author's viewpoint. For this reason I warn against relying upojust one commentary. By comparing different ones, a more objective study can be made, erroneous views can be more readily discerned, and the truth in the light of God's word can be determined moreconclusively.

Knowing the religious affiliation of the author of a commentary should help one to know what areas are likely to be in error. Commentaries written bour brethren are, of course, more trustworthy, especially, in matters relating to "first principles," but even then all should remember that such are uninspired, and, therefore, subject to the most careful scrutiny in the light of the sacred text.

While B. W. Johnson was a member of the Christian Church, his membership therein was before that church departed from the faith as far as it has today.Because of this and his association with the "Restoration" work, his knowledge and comments on theplan of salvation are far more worthy of confidencethan those by men of other denominations. His comments are brief, and they were designed for theaverage individual who might not care for or need more scholarly and technical information so often needed by preachers and teachers. When properly regarded, his commentaries serve well the purpose intended.

Concerning "opinions", no doubt our querist has heard some good sermons on the subject. However,it should be remembered that not all opinions are necessarily evil. Sometimes opinions are formed on"unrevealed" matters (Deut. 29:29), e.g., Why diNicodemus come to Jesus by night (John 3:2)? While several reasonable answers may be given, noneis conclusive, because such information is "unrevealed." Such opinions should be kept to the individual himself — never pressed upon another or made a test of fellowship. Then, there is the area of "expedients" (I Cor. 10:23), which involves man's opinion or judgment. As long as such opinions are exercised in harmony with what the Bible teaches on the subject, all is well. Such are generically authorized. Nodoubt, our querist has in mind the opinions of men on matters that are "revealed," e.g., Is water baptism a burial? The Bible clearly reveals that it is (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). Yet, there are those whoaffirm that either sprinkling or pouring will do just as well. This position has for its support human opinion. There are other practices in religion today thatinvolve going beyond and contrary to what irevealed. All such have for their foundation human opinion. These we must guard against with the utmost care (Deut. 4:2; II John 9; Rev. 22:18, 19).

(Barton W. Johnson was born in a log cabin inTazewell County, Illinois in 1833. He was a distinguished scholar in his time despite his frail health. He graduated from Bethany College in 1856 andranked among the foremost in his class. He taught atEureka College and became its president. In 1864 he "took the chair of mathematics at Bethany Collegeand stayed until the death of Alexander Campbell.He worked for the American Christian Mi ionarySociety and became corresponding secretary after the death of D. S. Burnet. He became editor of The Evangelist at Oskaloosa, Iowa, and in 1882 he merged with J. H. Garrison who edited The Christian. This became known as the Christian-Evangelist. He was involved in the liberalism that brought into being theChristian Church.— Editor.) (From The Search For The Ancient Order, by Earl West, pages 254, 255.)

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED IN PROOF OF EVOLUTION NATURAL SELECTION (NO. 5)

ITS INADEQUACY (No. 3). In 1862 J. D. Hooker wrote Chas. Darwin and challenged his claim that Natural Selection was IN ANY SENSE a 'creative agency'. Darwin's reply indicates Hooker (his letter is lost) said something like this: "Your theory oEvolution by Natural Selection implies that if every organism had survived and produced offspring, thenEVERY KIND OF PLANT AND ANIMAL THAT EXISTS AND HAS EVER EXISTED WOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED WITHOUT ANY NATURAL SELECTION AT ALL." Darwin had never thought of this before. For a few anxious days herealized that Paley could not be disposed of as easilyas he had imagined. He said to Hooker that this part of his letter "fairly pitched me head over heels with astonishment — when you took me there I was astounded. I DO AND HAVE ALWAYS FULLY AGREED." (Limits of space prevent exploring this in full but details can be found in R. E. D. Clark's DARWIN BEFORE AND AFTER, pp. 88-90, also Bales and Clark WHY SCIENTISTS ACCEPT EVOLUTION pp. 48-51). Scientist R. E. D. Clark says,"Today, perhaps, few would be disposed to deny thatNatural Selection may possess CREATIVE POWER

— at least to a very limited degree. But behind the ASSUMPTION that Natural Selection can create NEW and useful structures there lies an ASSUMPTI ON to the ver y existence of which Darwinians were singularly blind even when, like Darwin himself, they were honest enough to admit the difficulty. — But, today with our much greater knowledge ofand familiarity with, complex systems, we know thatSTEADY, UPWARD rises, of the kind DEMANDED BY MATERIALISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS, ARE UNKNOWN TO SCIENCE ("UNIVERSE: PLAN OR ACCIDENT?" p. 123).

Prof. Goldschmidt of Univ. of Calif, (previously mentioned) in his THE MATERIAL BASIS OFEVOLUTION proves in detailed fashion that Natural Selection and Mutations CANNOT ADD UP TO NEW SPECIES. Even Huxley has to admit, "It must be admitted that the direct and complete proof of the utilization of Mutations in evolution under NATURAL CONDITIONS HAS NOT YET BEEN GIVEN." Mayr, in his GENETICS AND THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES says, "It is a fact that not EVEN A SINGLE NEW TYPE OF ANIMAL OR PLANT HAS EVER BEEN PRODUCED. Only variationsof the 'basic kinds' which may even revert back to the original can be IN NATURE at the present day"(1963— P.F.). — "For no NEW GENES arise by theintroduction of NEW GENETIC MATERIAL LIKE D N A." Dobshansky (1953) GENETICS AND THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, p. 3, admits the DISCONTINUITY that exists IN NATURE among BASIKINDS. — This is also stressed by T. H. Morgan inEVOLUTION AND ADAPTION, p. 42, "Within the period of human history we do not know OF SINGLE INSTANCE of the transformation of one species into another one." (Last five quotes from EVOLUTION OR CREATION, Zoologist Prof.Enoch, pp. 77-78, 83-84)

Sir James Gray in SCIENCE TODAY, pp. 29-30,declares, "We either have to accept Natural Selection as the ONLY guide to the mechanism of evolution and be prepared to admit that it involves a considerable element of speculation, OR FEEL IN OURBONES THAT NATURAL SELECTION OPERATING ON RANDOM MUTATIONS LEAVES TOO MUCH TO CHANCE — If we look on organic evolution as one of 'Nature's' games of chance it seems just a little strange that she should have dealt quite so many winning hands." Prof. C. H. Waddington oEdinburgh, though an evolutionist, frankly says concerning Natural Selection and Mutations, "This is the theory that if you start with any 14 lines of coherent English and change it one letter at a time,keeping only those things that still make sense, youwill eventually finish up with one of the sonnets of Shakespeare — it strikes me as a LUNATIC SORT OF LOGIC, and I think we should be able to do better," SCIENCE TODAY p. 38. (For other good material on this see DOES SCIENCE SUPPORT EVOLUTION? pp. 58-61; THE PHANTOM OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION, pp. 188-192; AFTER ITS KIND, pp94-99.) No wonder Dr. W. R. Thompson, in writingthe I ntrod. to the Second Edition of Darwin's ORIGIN OF SPECIES said that Darwin had not proved that species had ORIGINATED by NaturaSelection. He declared, "I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point OR THAT HIS INFLUENCE IN SCIENTIFIC AND PUBLIC THINKING HAS BEEN BENEFICIAL." The PROBLEM OF ORIGINS by Phillip E. Hughes (This INTROD. is alsoavailable in a large tract form — P.F.). And Prof.Bently Glass of John Hopkins and Chairman of theBoard of Scientists who put out all the B.S.C.S. Textbooks said, "In regards to Natural Selection, andafter ALL the argument for it are considered, the bottom of THAT chariot has dropped out andScientists will NEVER ride in THAT vehicle again.(The Book of Popular Science, 10 Vols., 1953, p2863.)

We believe we have proved, to any unbiased andobjective person, in these last three issues, from MANY scientists (most are evolutionists) the Inadequacy of Natural Selection in doing what it MUST do for the "theory" of Evolution, with common ancestry and descent, to be true. But before we close our study on Natural Selection we want to make one other point and that is, observation, without exception, shows that "NATURE" left alone, withouthuman intelligence, intervention and ingenuity noonly is unable to produce a new species but it cannot even develop and improve its OWN existing species. Left alone to "Nature" what will happen to thfine chickens and horses, the beautiful roses andlilies? WE KNOW THEY WILL DEGENERATE. (See Evidences of Degeneration in GOD AND THE COSMOS, pp. 328 etc.) Just as J. B. S. Haldane said (in our last i ue) improvement has been noted onlywhere there has been IMPOSED CONDITIONS made by MEN. Sir W. Dawson says, "We may also say that ALL THINGS left to themselves tend to degenerate" ibid. 329 (also UNIVERSE — PLAN OR ACCIDENT, pp. 123-124 and various statements,along this line, in sermons compiled by E lam inTHE BIBLE VERSUS THE THEORIES OF EVOLUTION).

So among many plants and animals we have great development and improvement but under the conditions imposed by, and the wise direction of, MAN. How much more beautiful the roses and eveningprimroses but only under the guiding hand of Lammerts and deVries. Whether it be Gregor Men-del and his peas, Muller and his fruit flies or Burbank and his vegetables, human intervention and intelligence made the changes that brought improvement. "Nature" with its Natural Selection, "that undefined and undemonstrable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient SOMETHING" (Hughes), "Natural Selection", that substitute for God (Darwin,Before and After, p. 87) can NEVER CREATE THE "NEW" AND, LEFT ALONE, CANNOT EVElIMPROVE IT.

(Next I ue: Mutations as Proof.)

A LETTER TO MY BRETHREN IN FLORIDA Jefferson David Tant During the last week of June I was involved with

a summer camp on the campus of Florida College.

This was my seventh year to work with the camp

and through my enjoyable a ociations with man

fine young people, have become aware of some situa

tions that need to be brought to the attention to

those that love the tr uth. E ver y year we have a

problem with clothing, or the lack of it, and it gets

worse every year. Most of our campers are from

Florida, and therefore we expect to have a greater

share of problems with these youngsters, but their

numbers is not the only problem. The basic problem

is a lack of teaching on problems relating to youthful

lusts.

In our brochure advertising the camp, we stated plainly "Shorts or other brief apparel will not beworn at camp," but some completely disregarded such notice, and we were constantly battling thhemlines. In the Bible class I taught on the first dayof camp, we studied in detail the question of modest apparel. The class of some 120 teen-agers was very attentive, and many favorable remarks were heard. Several expressed appreciation for the lesson, and

indicated that their convictions were changed as a

result of the study. But isn't it sad that these

children have to come to a summer camp to learn how

to dress? T hey ought to be lear ning this at home from their parents and in church from their elders, preachers, and teachers. One young lady from Lakeland stated that she had "grown up" in the church, and had never heard a lesson on modest apparel. A girl from Tampa called her parents and asked them to bring her some longer dresses to wear. I listened with distress about a young Christian who was subjected to ridicule in a Bible class in one of the Tampa churches because she was the only one in the class who stood against dancing. (Even some of the elders' children dance.) My mouth must have hung open as I was told about an elder in Orlando who some time ago denned "lasciviousness" as "laughing too much." The same city has witnessed in the past a preacher taking the young people of the church out on a beach

party. Brethren, these things ought not so to be!

There was no joy in stating such, but I had to tell my class that it seemed to be true that many preachers had either lost their convictions or their courage with respect to the problems of dancing, modest apparel, etc., when they came to Florida. You mayquestion that statement, but the evidence is there. I am aware that there are some preachers in Florida (and other similar areas) who do stand boldly upon the truth, but it cannot be denied that many seemingly are not willing to buck the tide. May I call to your attention the words of the Lord to Ezekiel: "Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at mymouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thougivest him not warning, nor speakest to warn thewicked from his wicked way, to save his life; thesame wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand . . . Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given himwarning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand" (Ezek. 3:18, 20).

Consider also Paul's testimony: "Wherefore I

testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the

blood of all men. For I shrank not from declaring

unto you the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:26-27).

Brethren, which attitude will you take into judg

ment with you ? "For am I now seeking the favor of

men, or of God? or am I striving to please men? if I

were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ (Gal. 1:10).

4011 Phyllis Place

Decatur, Georgia 30032

JUDGED BY THE WRONG STANDARD

Have you ever noticed that when critics attack the Bible they invariably base their criticism upon some perversion or abuse of the Bible? Since the Bible is the inspired, infallible, and inerrant revelation of the mind of God (I Cor. 2:10-12), no effective or justifiable attack can ever be made upon it.

Many people believe that there are contradictions between the Bible and science. Did you ever discuss evolution or some similar subject with such people? They will often say, "Well, the Bible is not a book of science, you know." The statement is true, but theimplications are false! The Bible was not written to serve as a textbook of science, yet it teaches nothing that is contrary to scientific facts. There are contradictions between the Bible and scientific theories, and between perversions of the Bible and scientific facts. But the Bible, when correctly interpreted and applied, is in perfect harmony with the facts of science.

When people argue that the Bible is contrary toscientific truth, they usually equate the Bible withCatholicism or some other false religion or human creed. They judge the Bible by the wrong standard. Some critics still refer to the case of Galileo vs. the Catholic Church, but they err in thinking that theposition of the Catholic Church was a true representation of the teaching of the Bible.

Galileo (1564-1642) learned that the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun. His ardent support of this view was the cause of his difficulty with the Roman Church. In 1616 he was given a formal warning. He further provoked the CatholicChurch by his work "The Great Systems of the Universe." He was called for an Inquisition in October, 1632. No one knows what happened, but he uttered a formal recantation of his views and was compelled by the tribunal to live in strict seclusion for the rest of his life. But he was right, and the Catholic Church, not the Bible, was wrong! The Bible does not teachanything which is contrary to what Galileo discovered. It was the Pope, not the Bible, that was wrong, yet many people still feel that the Bible was in conflict with the discovery of scientific facts.

I read a book recently entitled "The Comfortable Pew" which serves as another example of what I am talking about. The author is Pierre Berton. It is billed as "A critical look at Christianity and the religious establishment in the new age." But it is not a look at true Christianity, but rather a look at religious error which has been mistaken for true Christianity.

Mr. Berton was a minister in the Anglican Church in Canada. He became discouraged and disappointed with his church and all organized religion. He left it, and now from the outside he has written his book of criticism. But as you read his book, you discover that the doctrinal positions which he came to reject were never taught in the word of God. For example,read the following from him:

"I was married in the United Church, not for anyspecial reason save that it was my wife's church. It was of little consequence to me who officiated. Butwhen the first child arrived, I had to make some decisions. I felt it proper that my children should beexposed to whatever message the Church had for them, and that they should then make up their own minds, on the basis of this teaching and their ownobservations, as to whether or not they wished tocontinue into adulthood as active churchgoers.

"Accordingly, I made plans to have my daughter christened an Anglican. In preparation, I read theAnglican order of service for the Publick Baptism of Infants. I found I could not, without hypocrisy, take part in it. The very first phrase that 'allmen are conceived and born in sin' stuck in my craw, for I simply did not believe it.

"First, I do not believe that any new-born baby is either sinful or angelic. She inherits certain characteristics that I would under no circumstances consider sinful; apart from that, she is an empty slate, waiting to be written upon. She may acquire sin, but at the time of christening she is innocent.

"Second, and this is perhaps the crux of the matter, I refuse to believe that the act of procreation, which is at once the most sublime and mysterious and ennobling of all acts, can be designated as sinful. This is the clear implication of the passage in thePublick Baptism of Infants. It is also implicit in agood deal of the Church's teachings down through the ages."

There you have it. A just criticism if I ever heard one! In fact, other than his contention that theChurch ought to be directly involved in the social revolution of today, I agree with every criticism which he offered. He made his mistake by not going directly to the Bible to see what it taught concerning the state of infants as well as the other doctrines which he found unacceptable. He should have read such passages as E zekiel 18:20; Matthew 18:3;

19:14 and I John 3:4.

So here is another good man who has rejected the word of God because he judged it by the wrong standard — this time the doctrine of the Anglican Church.

My friend, before you reject the Bible, you hadbetter make sure that the doctrine which you find unjust, unreasonable and unacceptable is actually taught in God's word. Instead of being the truth, what you reject may be only the ignorance or prejudice of some pope, preacher, church, convention or human creed. If you are going to consider the Bible,please do so on the basis of what it teaches and don't be guilty of judging it by the wrong standard!

"CONFLICTING TESTIMONY"

Back in 1934 Ben M. Bogard and Aimee Semple McPherson had a debate in Little Rock, Arkansas. It is my under standing that it lasted for only onenight. It was probably the most unique debate ofthat decade because it put together on the polemicplatform a male and a female! I can't recall this taking place in the annals of history. T his, no doubt, put Mr. Bogard at somewhat of a disadvantage. When a man gets into a public debate with a woman, he has a number of handicaps; the least of which is not the fact that she is a woman! Mr. Bogard was no doubt fully conscious of this situation. Mrs. McPherson was the founder of the Four Square Gospel Church with headquarters at Angelus Temple, Los Angeles, California. Bogard charged Aimee withbringing several thousand well organized admirers. He said they were under her hypnotic control almost perfectly. When Bogard tried to speak, the McPhersonites would boo, cat-call and hoot. D. N. Jackson, his moderator, tried to maintain order but failed.The proposition for the debate was, "Divine healing and miracles as taught and manifest in the Word of God, ceased with the Apostolic Age." May I say to the credit of Ben Bogard that he did an excellent job on his affirmation. He had his material organized in a fine manner and completely routed the McPherson theory. This proves that a man may be completelyright on one subject and completely wrong on another. Bogard has debated scores of our brethren on Baptism and Apostasy. In doing this his weakness was manifest, in that for the sake of Baptist doctrine he offered the word of God as a sacrifice on a partisan altar! How could a man be so right on one subject and so wrong on another? The answer is creeds and theology!

An incident came up during that debate whichwas very interesting. Mrs. McPherson, in trying tosustain her proposition called a witness to testify. Bogard objected but to no avail. A Mrs. E. W. Ottie claimed to have been a former member of Bogard's Baptist church. Bogard spoke from his seat and denied this affirmation. He said the woman had never been a member of his church. This Mrs. Ottie testified that a doctor by the name of White told her she had two cancers on her face. She claimed the doctor wanted to take them off but she did not have the price. She testified that when Mrs. McPherson prayed for her the two cancers began to draw anddraw and then they both dropped off.

This infuriated Ben M. Bogard so he wrote to the doctor and received the following letter: "I treated Mrs. Ottie for some warts on her face. They were not cancers. I used the electric needle and told her that in from two to four days the warts would dropoff. My treatment was successful because just fourdays after I applied the electric needle she went to Mrs. McPherson and was prayed for and the warts did drop off as she said, and just as I told her theywould when I treated her. I was present in the tabernacle when she made the statement and some one asked me why I did not get up and contradict her. I did not want to get into trouble by facing that mob and decided to keep still but I told several before leaving the tabernacle that I cured her and Mrs. McPherson got the credit for it. Incidentally I havenot been paid for the treatment and the thanks I got was to be advertised as a failure." This letter was signed by H. L. White, M. D. (Bogard McPherson debate-Page 47)

The so called divine healers from Aimee SemplMcPherson down to Oral Roberts all use the same old tricks. They will use false witnesses like the Jews when they crucified my Lord. According to the testimony, Mrs. Ottie committed two wrongs. First, she lied in saying the doctor had diagnosed her case as cancer. Second, she evidently refused to pay her doctor bill, which is dishonesty. Paul said, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transformingthemselves into apostles of Christ. And no marvel;for Satan himself is transformed into an angel olight. Therefore no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as ministers of righteousness" (ICor. 11:13-15)

A second doctor by the name of E. B. McDonald also testified that Mrs. Ottie had lied. She had asserted that this doctor had also diagnosed her case ascancer. He flatly denied this and wrote a letter toconfirm his denial. T hus, at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word was established.

The doctor said she had warts on her face but she said they were cancers. This shows how far some people will go in trying to defend false doctrine. Paul said, prophecies would fail, tongues would cease; supernatural knowledge would vanish away buwhen that which is perfect is come, then that whichis in part should be done away (I Cor. 13:8-10).

James said, "But whoso looketh into the perfectlaw of liberty," that which is perfect is the New Testament in completion. False teachers try tmake "That which" refer to Christ but to no avail. Paul would have said "he who" if he had been talking about Christ. Sometimes folks bring up I John 1:1, "T hat which was from the beginning." However, we must keep in mind that John used theneuter relative and was not talking about Christ as a person only but those characteristics which he asthe Word possesses. Paul was not doing this in I Cor. 13.

CLUB RATE SUBSCRIPTIONSFOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR ONLY $10.00SEND THEM TODAY!

PAT BOONE IS 'ON THE MARCH'

For several years now brethren have watched the actions of one of the leading entertainers in thechurch with many misgivings. Little by little he has stepped further and further away from the truth. His activity this year is an indication of what is happening among the liberal churches of Christ. To many it will be shocking; others will not care.

Pat was on hand when Ira North and the Madison church received the Guide Post award earlier this year. Such rejoicing on the part of all of these brethren show the denominational concept they haveof the church and the Bible.

I have before me a copy of GO which is the monthly publication of Campus Evangelism sponsored by the Broadway church in Lubbock, Texas. The i ue is April, 1969. This i ue tells about howsome college students were going to Daytona Beachto take Jesus Christ to those on the beach duringthe college spring vacation. There are several disgusting things found in the i ue of GO, but one ofthem is Pat Boone present on the beach to tell people about Jesus Christ without any kind of shirt on. Can you imagine the apostle Paul or Peter goinginto such a place and taking off their clothes in order to tell people about Christ? Certainly peopleon the beach just like people everywhere else need to hear of Christ and obey him, but what kind ofan impression is going to be made upon them bysuch action by not only Boone but several others who are connected with GO. Yes, this is the samecrowd that tried to share the gospel with those on the beach with folk songs and instrumental music.

The Akron Beacon Journal of May 17, 1969, tells about Pat being featured at Cathedral of Tomorrow, a Pentecostal church. He is advertised this way,"Our special guest for this final night of revivawill be a musical talent we all know. T he voice of Pat Boone has long been enjoyed by both young andold. Rex Humbard's Television Ministry has beenstrongly instrumental in the recent re-dedication of Pat Boone's life to Jesus Christ. He and his family are constant testimonies to the wonders of knowingChrist as their personal Savior. Pat will inspire uswith his testimony and entertain us with manysongs of faith."

But Pat leads the liberals yet further into denominationalism. About the middle of June, Pat was guest of honor on Oral Robert's program 'Contact.' I saw this program on June 19 over WSIX-TV from Nashville between 9 and 10 p.m. There were several things said which should shock us into what is happening in the liberal movement in the church. In the beginning of the program Pat said, "It's great to be here, and I'm telling you, this is a fine show! A fine program in ever y way, and I think God is going todo some mighty things with it." A little later in the show he had this to say about the musical group, "I make a few tours myself, and I'd love to borrowthem sometime. They're good, and everything that God does should be first cla , and everything he does himself is, so they're great spokesmen." Roberts preached for awhile telling about how he hadhealed people in different parts of the world andthen Roberts said to Pat, "And now on Contact, just as I've stood and prayed for the healing of Jordan and Israel, I want to stand here and pray for thehealing of our country, for the healing of people,and I'm going to ask you to join me. World Actions Singers, would you touch one another? You friends here in the audience, would you touch one another? And Pat, you and I will touch one another in thename of the Lord. Pat, I know you're concerned for the healing of our nation and your faith in God can change men's lives." It was here that Roberts and Pat each put one hand on a globe of the world and put the other hand around each other as Roberts prayed his prayer of faith. When the program went off the air Pat said, "God bless this hour, Oral, anbless me and Shirley, who was here too, and we're very grateful we could be part of it."

Gospel preachers have in the past and will continue to oppose Roberts and his false doctrine. Butlook at how the liberal have been led by Pat to joinup with the denominational world, Oral Roberts included. How many of the liberal preachers will have the courage if they do not approve of this to say so in an article?

When Oral Roberts comes into your town it willbe interesting to see what the church of Christ there does. Faithful ones will continue to oppose this false teacher. Unfaithful ones might just be found supporting his efforts. Any way Roberts has the answer to those that will not go along with him now.He can tell any members of the church of Christ that Pat Boone approves of what I am doing. To which he should be told that he and Pat are servingthe same master.

THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TRANSLATION — PART II

Maurice Barnett

The Witnesses claim that the plan of God through

the ages in both the Bible and history is for His own

vindication. He wants to prove Himself superior

to all.

"Hence an important part of His great pur

pose is the vindication of His reproached and

misrepresented name. His vindication is more

important than the salvation of men" (Let God

Be True, p. 29).

".. . Vindication of Jehovah's name and sov

ereignty is the foremost doctrine of the Bible"

(Ibid. p. 163).

In keeping with-this, their doctrine denies the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and they refer to themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses instead of Christians. They have also inserted the name Jehovah into their New World Translation 237 times.

The name Jehovah in Hebrew is represented bwhat is called the Tetragrammaton. It is represented by the English letters JHVH or YHWH. The term Jehovah is an arbitrary rendering of the consonants,as any vowel could be injected. The name could aswell be Johevah, Jihivih, Jahavih, Johiveh, or manyother combinations. The Society claims however that they have restored the divine name to the scriptures ; quite arrogant in view of the facts.

The NWT "translators" claim that the texts of our Bible have been tampered with. A vast conspiracy supposedly took place to get rid of the nameJehovah from the New Testament. Notice agaifrom the NWT Forward (1951), p. 18.

"T he evidence is, therefore, that the originatext of the Christian Greek Scriptures has beentampered with, the same as the text of the LXX has been. And, at least from the 3d centur y

A.D. onward, the divine name in tetragrammaton form has been eliminated from the text bycopyists who did not understand or appreciate the divine name or who developed an aversion to it,po ibly under the influence of anti-Semitism. In place of it they substituted the words kurios (usually translated 'the Lord') and theos,meaning 'God.' " Now, by what evidence do they say this ?

1. They assume that Matthew wrote his life of Christ originally in Hebrew, and would have hence used the tetragrammaton.
2. A recently found fragment of the Septuagint, supposedly from the 1st or 2nd century B.C., containing the second half of Deuteronomy shows the tetragrammaton instead of ky'ri-os or the-os'. The NWT then states that this proves that the original LXX did contain the divine name where-ever it occurred in the Hebrew original.
3. They then state that Jesus and His disciples used the Septuagint when quoting from the Old Testament, which definitely used the tetragrammaton, as they just proved.

4. On pages 30-33 of the Forward, they give 19sources of the use of the tetragrammaton in the

N.T. by various other manuscripts.

Just how good is this evidence? (1) In the first place, there is no evidence to prove Matthew wrote in Aramaic. (2) The fragment of the Septuagint shows only that in one instance someone used the tetragrammaton. But in thousands of other copies of the Septuagint it is not used. Yet, the NWT declares that all others than their own one fragment are substitutes and forgeries. This fact takes care of number (3) above. The 19 manuscripts mentioned in point (4) carry no weight on the matter. They are all translations from Greek back into Hebrew. The earliest of these 19 manuscripts is 1385 A.D.These arguments of theirs do not prove a conspiracy against the Bible.

Their rule for inserting the name Jehovah is given on page 20 of the Forward. "How is a moder n translator to know or determine when to render the Greek words ky'ri-os and the-os' into the divine name in his version? By determining where the inspired Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Then he must refer back to the original to locate whether the divine name appears there. This way he can determine the identity to giveky'ri-os and the-os' and he can then clothe them with personality." We can certainly have noquarrel with reference made to Jehovah in some passages of the New Testa-ment when an Old Testament passage is quoted, and when Jehovah is referred to in that Old Testament passage. Butactually, He is not so referred to in the New. T her e is no Greek equivalent for the tetragrammaton, and so the inspired men simply referred to Lord or God. The NWT is completely unwarranted in inserting the name Jehovah 237 times in the text,and 72 other times in the margin.

How consistent have they been with such insertions ? In one instance, or two, they have stuck to it quite embarrassingly. In John 1:23 a quotation is made from Isaiah that refers to the coming Messiah. The NWT gives it "I am a voice of someone crying out in the wilderness, 'Make the way of Jehovah straight,' just as Isaiah the prophet said." Then Luke 1:76, "But as for you young child, you will be called a prophet of the Most High, for you will go in advance before Jehovah to make his ways ready ..." We compare these statements with John 3:28 NWT: "You yourselves bear me witness that I said, I am not the. Christ, but, I have been sent forth in advance of that one." One says Jehovah, the other Christ, both referring to the same person. To call Jesus by the name Jehovah is unthinkable for the Witnesses, but here it is in their own translation.

In Isaiah 45:23 Jehovah says "that to me every knee will bend down, every tongue shall swear ..." (NWT). This passage is quoted in Romans 14:11, and referred to in Philippians 2:10-11. This latter passage says

"So that in the name of Jesus ever y kneeshould bend of those' in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus is

Lord to the glory of God the Father" (NWT). The NWT Forward quoted above says that when the word kurios (Lord) is found, and is based on an Old Testament passage referring to Jehovah, that itshould be rendered Jehovah in the New Testament. But, they went back on their own rule in this passage. They, would have had to translate it "JesusChrist is Jehovah." Romans 10:13 is similar: "For everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will besaved" (NWT). Why not, in verse 9, translate the same word, kurios, as "Jesus is Jehovah" and be consistent ?

T hey ar e in trouble again over application ofIsaiah 44:6, 48:12 where Jehovah declares "I am the first and I am the last." In Revelation 1:8 (NWT) it says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, 'says Jehovah God,' the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty." Now connect this with Revelation 1:17-18 (NWT)

"And when I saw him, I fell as dead at his feet. And he laid his r ight hand upon me and said: 'Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and Hades." This last passage refers to Christ, as does Revelation 2:8. T hen Revelation 22:13 (NWT) states: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Ver se 16shows that Jesus is doing the speaking. So Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, First and Last, Beginning and End; the same claim made by Jehovah.

Despite their perversions, the Witnesses' own translation gets them into trouble.

1606 W. Indian School Rd.

Phoenix, Arizona 85015

THE NEWS LETTER REPORTS

"... They rehearsed all that God had done with them..." — Acts 14:27

FROM THE BAUER FAMILYP. O. Box 549, Que Que, Rhodesia, AfricaMrs. Doug Bauer

Writing this report this month has fallen uponmy shoulders, and since my husband is not homeI'm afraid I am a little late in getting the report out. At the time of this wr iting Doug has been inthe hospital for ten days and is responding well ttreatment. The doctor appears to be well pleased with the results of the treatment Doug has been receiving, and I am sure that this quick response has been due to the many prayers by all the Christians who have heard of Doug's illne . Thank you for the prayers. While Doug is away we are making aneffort to keep the work moving. Brother Foy Shorfrom Gwelo has said he will make the journey (40miles) each Lord's day to conduct services for us. The African preacher here, brother Conrad Tsiga, is taking care of the African side of the work, and I am attempting to keep visiting all our contacts.

The O. Fred Liggin, Jr. family from Pretoria,South Africa, spent a few days with us at the beginning of the month, and it was actually they whotook Doug the 140 miles to Bulawayo to the hospitalwhen he needed to go. It was wonderful havinthese very good friends of ours to stay with us, and speaking for myself, I was so happy to see them I could have cried. Fred preached for us the Lord's day morning that they were with us, and it gavesuch wonderful joy when two came forward desiringbaptism. These were both young folk, our second eldest daughter, Myfanwy, and O. Fred Liggin IIIFred and Fran's eldest son.

The African work has gone ahead with leaps andbounds. Many months ago, when we had our office and hall in town, we printed and displayed tracts in the Afr ican language. Some Afr ican men visitingQue Que from the Gokwe area went into the office and asked Doug if they could buy tracts to take home with them. We gladly gave them what theywanted and some weeks later they returned for more tracts. These men belonged to the group knownamong the Africans as "Apostles." This month Conrad Tsiga made a trip to Gokwe to visit with thechurch already established there and was told of a group of people who were being taught from thevery tracts which had been handed out from ouroffice. Conrad visited these people, talked with themand asked them if they understood what they were teaching. T hey told him that they wished to knowonly the truth, and that when they knew enougthey wanted to be baptized. Conrad then explainedcarefully to them, replied to their questions, anbefore leaving the area baptized 23 people, and others at the previously established group. Gokweis an area where Doug has long wanted to go and we have been hindered in this by lack of funds. I know that when he returns and hears this news, nothingwill keep him from going to see these people whhave this earnest desire to know.

Garreth L. Clair, 6144 West Frier Dr., Glendale,Ariz. — During the month of September two havebeen baptized into Christ, and one was restored. The work continues to increase.

O. Wayne Cobia, 106 North Forrest, Forrest City,Ark. — August marked the completion of my first year in preaching the gospel of Christ. During theyear there were seven baptized, two restored, anseven identified with the work here. Travelers between Little Rock and Memphis may note that asound congregation meets at 403 Fu ell St. Mason Harris of Dyersburg, Tenn. will be in a meetinghere Sept. 29 through Oct. 5.

Donald R. Givens, 4349 Vassar, Port Arthur,Texas — The church on Thomas Blvd. in Port Arthur will have a gospel meeting October 6-12 with brother Jack Holt preaching. I will be preaching in a meeting with the Pine St. congregation in NapaCalifornia on Oct. 19-26, 1969.

Rodney M. Miller, 2222 Wendell Ave., Louisville,Ky. 40205 — After almost three years of very profitable and pleasant work with the Haltom City congregation in Fort Worth, Texas we will be movingto work with the Wendell Avenue church in Louisville, Ky. Brother Ward Hogland helped to provide a great climax to our labors here with one of thegreatest meetings in the history of the congregation. Record crowds were in attendance and two souls were baptized into Christ. The work stands yet to make great gains for the cause of Christ with a very able and talented young man, brother DavidLewis, who is coming September 1 to begin workWe look forward to the work with the Wendell Avenue church and realize a great potential there. Our new address will be 2222 Wendell Avenue, Louisville, Ky. 40205.

C. A. Kirkpatrick, 211 Carter St., Tompkinsville,Ky. — The Lyons Chapel congregation at Tompkinsville, Kentucky has just completed a series of gospel meetings with Charles Holton, Bowling Green, Ky.,doing the preaching. Nine were baptized and three restored. This congregation continues to grow.

Voyd N. Ballard, 6801 No. 60th Ave., Glendale, Ark. 85301 — The work continues to make goodprogress at 60th Avenue here in Glendale. We have had five baptized and two restored this week. This makes a total of eight baptisms and three restorations in less than two months. Interest and attendance are good at all services and several who are not members of the church are attending services regularly.

DEBATE THWARTED

There was a debate scheduled to begin on June 16th to continue the 17th, 19th and 20th in themeetinghouse of the Gap Road church of Christ near Batesville, Arkansas. The disputants were to havebeen Elmer Moore and J. W. Kornegay. Bro. Moore was to have taken the position that Bible classes are scriptural and that women may teach some ofthe classes. He was to have also affirmed the scripturalness of a plurality of containers in the Lord's Supper. J. W. Kornegay, of Brickton, N. J. was to have taken the opposite position. I was to have moderated for brother Moore while a brother Brown was to have been the moderator for brother KornegayBrother Moore had the first speech and had spokenfor exactly nineteen (19) minutes when Kornegaythrew in the towel. He stated that brother Moore was too smart a man for him to be able to answer his arguments. He further stated that Elmer was too far over his head. Kornegay's moderator spokeup and said that Kornegay was incapable of carryingon an intelligent debate with brother Moore. Wetried to persuade them to continue with the debatebut they could not be persuaded to do so. Brother Brown claimed to be an experienced debater, budeclined the offer to go through with the discu ion. Since brother Moore had journeyed all the way from Kerrville, Texas for the debate the Gap Road brethren were determined that his efforts would not be futile. T hey asked that he speak each eveninthrough the 20th on the issues that were to have been discussed in the debate. He graciously consented and did just that. Elmer is a fine preacher and excellent debater. In my opinion the arguments which he advances are unanswerable.

H. L. Bruce

Box 242

Mount Pleasant, Texas 75455

John A. Thurman, Lake City, Fla. — The new congregation that was formed in Lake City in October,1966 now has its own building, a house which hasbeen converted into a meeting place by the members of the congregation during the past month or so. The building is located at 4406 South Marion Street,1/2 mile south of the Lake City city limits on Highway 441, south between Nebraska and Ohio streets. Our services are at 10 a.m. on Sunday morning foBible study, 11 a.m. for the morning worship, an

7:30 p.m. on Sunday evening and Wednesday evening. We are currently installing air conditioningand trying to make the building as comfortable aspo ible. Much sacrifice and work has gone into securing a permanent location. Several members of the congregation and a few sound churches in Tennessee and Florida have helped us in our efforts. We still have some other things that will later need to be done, but for this time we have an adequate facility to meet the needs of the congregation. The property is located on three acres of land which provides room for expansion.

We need someone to come here and hold a gospel meeting. We are not able to do more than provide aplace for him, but some congregation may wish to "give" us a meeting by sending their preacher. We need someone who will be able to do some personal work in the new neighborhood and sub-division as a part of the meeting. Brother Vernon Crawfordand I share in the preaching and teaching now. Whave approximately 25 members. Worship with us when in this city.

A GOOD DEBATE Voyd N. Ballard

A four nights' public debate was conducted August 18-21 in the Veteran's Hall in Atwater, Calif. The subject was the establishment of the church. Mr. A. A. Harris of Winton, Calif, represented theMi ionary Baptist Church and I represented thechurch in Atwater.

In many ways I consider this one of the best debates in which I have engaged in more than 25 years of debating. The debate was well planned and weladvertised both by our brethren and by the Baptist people. Large crowds attended every session. Thirteen different congregations of the Lord's people iCalifornia were represented at the debate. Brethren from as far south as San Diego and as far north as the San Francisco area attended one or more nights,with several brethren coming from far away placeand staying for the entire debate. T he Baptist people also attended well.

I had never met Mr. Harris before and I think he came into the debate with some misgivings becausesome had told him that I was "mean," and a "mudslinger." T he last night of the debate Mr. Harris mentioned the things that some had told him, anthe following statement was taken from the tapes and in his own words: "I want to say that Mr. Ballard has conducted himself in a courteous manner and attitude, and as a gentleman in this debate. I want to say this and I am sincere about it. Because of some things that were said to me before the debate by some people who came to me and told mthat Mr. Ballard didn't conduct himself as a gentleman in debate. One particular man had a lot to sayabout Mr. Ballard, but Mr. Ballard has made him aliar. Just wanted to say this for I believe in givinhonor to whom honor is due."

Brother Olen Holderby, preacher for the church in San Pablo, California, moderated for me in the debate and did his job well. Mr. Harris is an averagedebater of the Bogard type and did as well as anyof them can do. I left him propositions on the planof salvation and if he signs them we hope to return to Atwater at a later date to debate the plan of salvation with him. In addition to members of the church and Baptist people we had several from various denominations in attendance. The brethren in Atwater will follow up on those who have indicated an inter est in the tr uth.

J. Edward Nowlin, 2957 Glenwood Road, Decatur,Ga. — I just closed a good meeting with the church at Tunnel Hill, Ga., with five restored. Brother Ralph Oliver is doing a good work there, and Glen-wood Hills is helping support him. I have some time for meetings in 1970, wherever brethren may wanme. Searching The Scriptures continues to be one of the best gospel papers.