WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE RICH? H.
E. Phillips
To some degree just about everyone wants to be rich. The sad part is that most want to be rich inearthly treasures and care nothing for true riches. "Rich" is a relative term and does not say how much wealth one must have to be considered rich. It would depend entirely upon comparison with others. The word does not tell the nature of the wealth. One may be rich in one thing and poor in another.
The Love of Money
T he Holy Spir it war ns: "But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows" (I Tim. 6:9,10). Here those who "will be rich" are those who "love [money," and while they covet after it, they depart from the faith and bring upon themselves many sorrows. I suppose there is nothing that has not beendone or will not be done "to be rich." One sure way to make a fortune is to devise a scheme which promises to make men rich and offer it for sale. The greed of men will drive them to invest in or purchase the plan in the hope of becoming rich.
False Concept of Riches
I can tell you how to be rich! But unlike some of the get-rich-quick schemes, I do not propose to offer you the "uncertain riches" that fade away with time. "Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy" (I Tim. 6:17). The tendency to trust in uncertain riches is plainly taught by theLord in a parable of a certain rich man whose ground brought forth plentifully. His major concern was to find the room to store his wealth, and when he had made ample arrangements he thought to say within himself: "Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry." God called him a fool and said he would die that night. Now what about his riches? Jesusconcludes by saying: "So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God" (Luke 12:21).
T he man who thinks he is r ich because he has much money, property, stocks and bonds, and allthat is considered wealth in this world is miserably mistaken. The lukewarm church in Laodicea considered itself rich. "Because thou sayest, I am rich,and increased with goods, and have need of nothing . . ." (Would not a man in this state be considered secure and successful?) "...and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked" (Rev. 3:17). I could hardly imagine a worse condition, yet these people thought of themselves as being rich, increased with goods, andhave need of nothing. In reality they were wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.
True Riches
"I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich . . ." The real wealth comes from God and we must "buy" it. "Buy the truth,and sell it not" (Prov. 23:23). This suggests that the truth is obtained by some effort on your partand at some expense to you. Whatever you have to pay for it, do not sell it for any consideration.
Now, do you really want to be rich? I mean rich in the full sense of the word, with riches that cannot be taken from you. The Laodiceans were to "buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich." "Buy" cannot mean that value for value is given, because there is no price man can bring to purchase the priceless riches in Christ. This simply indicates the effort on the part of the one desiring these riches to obtain them. The "gold tried in the fire" is the pure gold refined by fire and separated from the dross. "T hat you may be r ich" is that true wealth in contrast to the riches of this world.
Jesus taught that men should "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth andrust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt. 6:19-21).
How to Become Rich
The true riches come from God through Christ — "But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus" (Phil. 4:19).They come through Chr ist by the gospel. Paul said he had been made a minister "to fulfill the word of God; even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is manifest tohis saints: to whom God would make known what is the riches of his glory of this mystery among theGentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col. 1:25-27). "That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of theFather, and of Christ; in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col. 2:2,3). AgainPaul said: "Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ" (Eph. 3:8).
All this means that you can be r ich if you willhear the word of truth concerning the unsearchable riches of Christ and understand it. But you must do something to receive these riches.
Both Jew and Gentile must call upon the nameof the Lord to be saved (Rom. 10:13). In order to call upon him, they must believe; and in order tobelieve they must hear; and in order to hear, theremust be a message given and a messenger to preach it. In the verse leading to this point we read: "Forthere is no difference between the Jew and Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him" (Rom. 10:12). The Lord is rich only tothose who call upon him, and this is done by obeying the truth believed.
James 2:5 says that the poor in this world are "rich in faith." Of course, this does not mean that one who is poor in things of this world is automatically "rich in faith." Since the whole context is dealing with "respect of persons" even in the assembly, based upon how much of this world's riches one possesses, the "poor" would be those saints who are not rich in goods, but rich in faith. A wealthy manmay be "poor" in that he does not regard his wealth as important when compared to his faith in Christ.
The Lord said unto the church in Smyrna: "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan" (Rev. 2:9). This church was in poverty, yet they were rich! How can this be ?The answer, of course, lies in the difference between the riches of this world and the riches of faith in Christ. Moses elected to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; "esteeming the reproach of Christ greaterriches than the treasures in Egypt" (Heb. 11:25,26).
False Values
Not many can be persuaded to accept the riches that come by faith in Christ. They are not nearly so interested in the treasures in heaven as the treasures of this world. In this affluent society in which we live anything that is not valued in terms of dollars and cents is not important. The great majority would not turn around for the privilege of learning the truth of God's word. Most are not concerned about what their children are taught by way of television, movies, books, magazines, not to speak of back alleys and lonely roads in parked cars. Just so they can "make plenty of money" to "provide fortheir children," nothing" else makes any difference Your child needs money less than anything else in this generation. He needs to become rich in things that extend beyond this life. He will never be rich, even if you leave him a million dollars, unless you teach him the wisdom of God that he may be r ich in faith.
How much would you give to be rich indeed?Searching The Scriptures is not an expensive magazine in terms of present monetary values, but itstrives to contain an abundance of wealth in the things that really count. For $3.00 you can receive this magazine for twelve months. For the small sum of $10.00 you can send four subscriptions to friends and relatives. Is this too much to spend for goodreading material that deals with the destiny of thesoul? Find the r iches of the wisdom of God in Christ, and obey it; you will be rich beyond anything this world can offer.
| SEND YOUR SUBSCRIPTI ON T O P. O. BOX 17244 T AMPA, FLORIDA 33612 | BE A FRIEND AND |
| "SEARCHING THE SCRIPT URES " FOR THE T RUT H | HELP A FRIEND |
| A large number of you have received this paper through | |
| the generosity of a fr iend or relative. Some of these who have | |
| not agreed with our efforts have r enewed when their sub | |
| scription expired. We hope you will do the same. T his is cer | |
| tainly a commendable spirit to be willing to study questionable | |
| YOUR SUBSCRIPTION | matters of current interest today. We certainly do not construe |
| $3.00 per year | your subscription as an endorsement of either the policy of this |
paper or the subject matter found therein. We do commend you for being willing to read the evidence we present to ascertain the truth on any subject. If for no other reason you should be informed as to what "we teach" on various issues of the day. When one closes his eyes and stops his ears in the sear ch for truth, he is like the Phar isees whose prejudice deprived them of the truth taught by the Lord. Send in your subscription today. The price is $3.00 per year.
CLUB OF FOUR FOR $10.00 Help us preach the pure gospel to "every creature" by sending a club of four today.
DO SOMETHING NOW!
This religious paper must have your subscriptions to continue to do the good it has done in the past to encourage a search for eternal truth. Good intentions will not help. Be a friend and co-worker with us by sending three subscriptions with your own renewal — all four for only
$10.00
Why not Send a List and Pay Monthly?
30 for $5.00 per month 65 for $10.00 per month
WE NEED YOUR HELP TO INCREASE THE CIRCULATION
QUESTION: Is a person who is baptized into the
Christian Church our brother? If so, when does he
become an erring Christian? Would he become a
Christian and an erring Christian at the same time ?
— O. H. (Other questions from the same letter will be answered later. — M. E. P.)
ANSWER: In order to cover all that might be inthe mind of our querist and readers on the issue raised by this question, perhaps several po
ible situations ought to be considered. The i
ue is more involved than it might appear at first. However, ifI were required to answer the above question, as it is worded, with brevity and without equivocation, I would simply reply: No, only those who have beenbaptized into the church of our Lord can be calledour brethren. It is a fact that those who are scripturally baptized are baptized into the body of Christ (I Cor. 12:13), which is His Church (Eph. 1:22,23)Hence, the real i
ue is whether or not one has been scripturally baptized
This, however, raises another question: Is it possible for one to be scripturally baptized by a preacher of the Christian Church and upon the basis of that baptism be received into that church, yet, be our brother in the Lord? I believe that such is po
ible. This, however, does not mean that all who are in the Christian Church have been so baptized and are our brethren. In fact, I am convinced that many thereinhave never obeyed the gospel of Christ, though theyhave complied with the demands necessary to makthem members of the Christian Church. The following observations should help to make clear the differences between the above mentioned situations.
When one is scripturally baptized, the Lord adds him to His chur ch (Acts 2:47). T his chur ch towhich he is added is not a local congregation, butrather the church in the aggregate. This universal church is simply a spiritual relationship — without earthly or tangible arrangement or organization — and includes all the saved. Scriptural baptism puts one into this relationship (I Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:2223; Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). Such baptism, however,does not, of itself, put one into any local church. Membership in a local church is established by mutual agreement on the part of the congregation and the one seeking membership therein — with both parties acting in harmony with the word of theLord. A local church controls its own fellowship(Acts 9:26). Generally, it is understood that whenone obeys the gospel at a given place that he desires membership in that particular congregation and will thereafter be counted as such. If this is not true of the one being baptized, the exception to whatgenerally understood should be made known some way.
In the light of the above, we must conclude that is po
ible for one to be scripturally baptized andadded to the Lord's church, and thereafter establish membership in any religious organization on earth that will accept him. Of course, he should establish membership in a local church of Christ. However, he were ignorant of God's pattern forsuch in name, organization, worship, and work, hemight establish his membership in something else. While this would make him an erring brother, Icannot see how such would invalidate his former obedience.
This raises another question namely, can one to scripturally baptized who does not have an understanding of truth on God's pattern for the locachurch in the matters mentioned above? I believe that he can. The truth preached by Peter on Pentecost and obeyed by about three thousand did not touch on these matters, yet, they learned enougtruth to comply with God's spiritual laws that brings about the new birth. As new born babesthey had much to learn, and, no doubt, did as theycontinued in the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2:42).
For this reason, I answer our querist further by saying, no, one does not become a Christian and an erring brother at the same time. He canhowever become a Christian and then become an erring brother the very next moment by tryingto worship God in an unauthorized way or bysome other viola-tion of God's holy law. It should be remembered that God's spiritual laws are noless immutable than his natural laws. When certain conditions are met a birth results. This is true in both realms.
It seems to me that the real issue involves the question of what are the conditions that bringabout the new birth ? Briefly stated these are: faith, repentance, confession, and baptism (Heb.11:6; Acts 17:30; Rom. 10:10; Gal. 3:26,27). This baptism must have the proper prerequisites (faith, repentance, and confession), the right design,namely, for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), and,of course, it must be a burial in water (Acts 10:47,48; Rom. 6:3,4; Col. 2:12). No where does the Bible condition the salva-tion of an individual on the character, life, faithful-ness, or spiritualityof the one doing the baptizing. If so, many are lost and don't know it, nor indeed can they find itout.
It should also be considered and admitted here that some denominations demand baptism as an initiatory rite into their fellowship. Most ofthese teach that one is saved before baptism. Such bap-tism is without the scriptural design, and is,there-fore, invalid. Some denominations teach baptism for the remi
ion of sins, but upon closer examination it is usually found to involve aadding to or taking from a proper concept ofbaptism, e.g., those of the "Jesus Only" persuasion. While the Christian Church generally teaches baptism for the remission of sins, their teaching is so weak on this point, and their practice of opemembership so prevalent, no doubt many whosubmit to baptism under the influence of their preaching do so with a denominational concept of baptism. Such fails to meet the scriptural conditions that bring about the new birth. Hence, it is imperative that when one comes to us from the Christian Church that the greatest of care be exercised in examining his baptism in the light of theBible.
No doubt there are some who see only one situation in relation to this i
ue. They conclude that since membership in the denomination called the Christian Church is established by an alien by baptism into it,and since scriptural baptism is into Christ or His spiritual body, the church, and not into a denomination, that any baptism by which membership isestablished in the Christian Church is unscriptural. Surely none will deny the po
ibility of the abovehowever, I deny that such is necessarily true of anyand every baptism by which membership is established in the Christian Church. I make this denial upon the basis of the fact that membership by aalien can be established in the Christian Church in different ways. They will accept for membership onewho has been scripturally baptized — one whose baptism involves both the proper prerequisites and design. In such instance the person being-baptized would do so as a penitent believer with a view tobeing saved, getting into Christ, having his sins remitted, and being added to the Lord's church. Even though such a person may have a misconception ofthe Lord's church, such misconception affects onlyhis service and worship as a child of God. This misconception does not affect the spiritual laws by whichlone is born againOn the other hand, if one's concept of the Lord's church is denominational — a great invisible church composed of a multiplicity of visible denominations on earth — that membership in it is established by some experience other than obedience to the gospelin its purity, and that membership in any one of thedenominations on earth is established by baptism into such, then it follows that such misconception affects one's becoming a child of God — even the Spiritual laws that bring about the new birth — and,therefore, invalidates his baptism. What one must know in order to become a child of God is not complicated or difficult to understand. Rather, it is ver y simple and clear. However, the denominationalism of our day involves so many perverted views on baptism, it is not uncommon to find me whose baptism misses the mark so far as the simple, clear, divine requirements are concerned. In such instances, all such should follow the example of those in Ephesus whose baptism failed of its objective. When they lear ned of their error, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts19:1-5), i.e., with the baptism our Lord authorized.
BAPTIZED, CHRISTENED OR SPRINKLED
The Arch Street church in Little Rock, where I preach, recently received the following letter: Reverend and Dear Sir:
We are attempting to ascertain whether or not ----------------------has ever been baptized, Christened or sprinkled.
This party was born at Little Rock on February11, 1947. The parents were-------------------. This party, or at least certain members of the family, attended your Church from childhood to 1960.
It will be deeply appreciated if you will check your records and advise me as to whether or not you have any record concerning the baptism, christening orsprinkling of this person. If so, please indicate thedate and specify whether or not this was a baptism of water.
Thanking you in advance for your kindness and asking a remembrance in your prayers, I a
Very respectfully yours,
Rev. Lawrence P. Graves
The letter came from the office of the Catholic Diocese of L ittle Rock. Mr. Graves is a Catholic priest. For obvious reasons, I have deleted the names of the person and the parents.
For a number of reasons, this letter is very interesting and revealing. Note that Mr. Graves makes a clear distinction between baptism and sprinkling. Heis right; baptism is not by sprinkling and sprinklingis not baptism. The Catholic Church freely admits that it changed the practice from that which was taught by the Lord and the inspired apostles. In achildren's column in a Catholic paper called "Our Sunday Visitor" June 19, 1955, "Father" Ray Gribbin wrote the following
"Hello girls and boys! Today I have a riddle foryou. It is this: What is it that almost every Catholic church has, that can be inside the church or outside the church, and is used mostly by people who do notknow what it is for?
"Give up? Well, it is a baptistery. And a baptistery, in case you have never heard the word before, is a building or a part of the church in whichpeople are baptized. Since the people who are baptized are usually babies, they don't know what itis for.
"Of course; when I gave you the riddle I fooled you a little bit, because I said that the baptister y can beeither inside or outside the church. This is true, butin our country we hardly ever see a baptistery outside the church.
"In the old days, though, and in other countries,people liked to make a special building for baptism. And there was good reason for this. In those dayspeople used to get baptized by walking into the water and 'ducking' their whole bodies. And most of thepeople who were baptized were grown-ups. So, as we can see, there had to be a big pool of water and lots of room for the people to stand. It was also a goodidea to have rooms for the people to change theirbaptism gowns."
Some admi
ion, isn't it? And to think that Protestant preachers who sprinkle infants try to provesuch by the scriptures! The Catholics admit thatthey changed the practice from immersion to sprinkling. T hey did not legalize spr inkling until theCouncil of Revenna in 1311 A.D.
Can you imagine a person being baptized and noknowing what it is for? Where did Christ or his apostles ever authorize or practice infant baptism? The Bible says that baptism is a burial (Rom. 6:4Col. 2:12) and that it is for a penitent believer (Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:38; 8:37). This is why the people "in the old days" were baptized by "duckingtheir whole bodies." Who had the author ity tchange that practice?
Notice that Mr. Graves wanted us to indicate whether or not the baptism of the person under consideration in his letter was a baptism of water. Whatelse did he think we would use for baptism? See Acts 8:36 and 10:47. I wonder what he would have thought had I replied that our records indicated that the person was baptized in buttermilk!
My friend, if you have been sprinkled, or if yodid not know what your baptism was for, you should now realize that such came from Rome and not heaven. You should be buried with the Lord in baptism for the remi
ion of sins and raised to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:1-6). You can't afford not to correct your mistake!
MADISON IS MARCHING AGAIN
Several months ago a brotherhood was shocked to see the Madison church, just out of Nashville, Tenn,,evidence she had departed so far from the faith that a denominational preacher would bestow upon her a Distinguished Service Award. Most of us thoughtthat we had seen just about everything. But Madison continues to march into denominationalism.
Today (Sept. 10, 1969) I received in the mail acopy of Jimmie Lovell's Action for September and quote from page 2. Lovell tells of a trip from California back to his native state of Tennessee and tells of the places where he spoke. He says, "Then in the evening to Madison — our largest church with some 3300 members. The elders, Ira North and Charles Brewer, also humbled our souls by selecting me as the first to receive a beautifully prepared parchment which reads: 'Madison Church of Christ presents this certificate of merit and bestows the degree of
L. L. D. representing Distinguished Loyalty anLabor in the service of the Lord upon James L. Lovell in recognition and appreciation of his many years of earnest endeavor to promote peace in a brotherhood and encourage churches to carry out the greatcommi
ion of Christ — to preach the Gospel in althe Nations of the World. The Award bears no academic significance. It is a token of a sincere desire on the part of one congregation to fulfill the Divineexhortation to render honor to whom honor is due. Presented with appropriate ceremony on the 27tday of July 1969 at the Madison Church of Christ,Madison, Tennessee in witness thereof the Elders and Ministers affix their signatures' — and their signatures were affixed."
T his is just another sign of the times in which we live. There are some things that we should note about this article.
(1) Madison recognizes a man who is known for his softness by faithful brethren over the nationFor several years many of us have been on the mailing list of Action. I do not read every word in it but do look over it to see what action is taking place among some of the brethren. Many projects are promoted by this paper, false teachers are commended in nearly every i
ue, and faithful gospel preachers who dare speak out against Lovell's departures are rebuked often by Lovell. Yes, I believe the Bible verse that says honor those that are due honor(Rom. 13:7). But I do not believe any honor is due one who helps lead brethren away from New Testament teaching.
(2) If the action of Madison is the teaching of Rom. 13:7, then they are the first to practice it since Lovell says he is the first that Madison has so honored. Just think of all the churches today and Madison is the first to obey this verse. When Paul wrote these words to the Roman brethren, wonder if hethought that one day some church would read these words and say we will give some brother an L. L. D. degree? Not at all. No New Testament church ever obeyed this verse by giving a degree upon some false teacher. The colleges for several years havebeen giving degrees to some brethren and the degrees are not worth any more than the paper upowhich they are written. These unearned degrees have made a number of brethren act foolishly. But noNorth's Madison church is not to be outdone by theschools, so North will get the church into the degree giving busine
.
(3) This degree is an appeal to vain glory. Ndoubt others will be presented with degrees from Madison as time goes on as this is the first. Men want to exalt the head, whereas God beautified the feet of the gospel preacher. "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, anbring glad tidings of good things" (Rom. 10:15). God has already purposed the gospel (Eph. 3:10-11), so he does not need one to improve upon the message. God requires the faithful transmission of thegospel message. Feet that are faithful to go into all the world and preach the gospel is what is neededtoday. When men get to thinking they are somebody, they become puffed up and want glory that is vain in God's sight. "Simon Peter, a servant... of Jesus Christ" was good enough for Peter (II Pet. 1:1). "Paul. .. the servant of Jesus Christ" was goodenough for Paul (Phil 1:1). If these were goodenough for them, then "a servant of Jesus Christ" should be good enough for me and any other gospel preacher. Faithful gospel preachers will be pleasedto be known as a servant of Christ. Compromisers of the gospel must be doctored — they are the kind of doctor that can't do you any good.
"TONGUES"
James L. Denison, Tampa, Florida
For many years we of the churches of Christ have
contended with our various Pentecostal friends that
the "tongues" of Acts 2 and 10 chapters and I Cor.
12 and 14 chapters referred not to unintelligible jab
bering, but to the speaker using earthly languages of
that day. Also, that these languages were unlearned
by and unknown to the speaker, but known to th
audience.
At last, some in the Pentecostal fold have now
publicly admitted that this is a correct exegesis of
the "tongue passages"!
In the Dec. 6, 1968, i
ue of Christianity Today,Carl G. Tuland wrote an article entitled "The Confusion About Tongues". He argues that the "tongues" in Acts 2 chapter are known languages,but that the "tongues" of I Cor. 12 & 14 chapters were "ecstatic babbling" or "ecstatic utterance". Two quotations from his article will suffice to show this to be the aim of the article. "T hat these heterais glo
ais (other tongues) were foreign but known languages is evident... Clearly the 'tongues' at Pentecost were intelligible speech in a variety of languages ..." And; "Paul goes to great lengths to hold before the church of Corinth the fact that their 'tongues' are not intelligible speech, only ecstatic babbling", i.e., unintelligible jabbering of a min
highly intoxicated emotionally.
In the April 11, 1969, i
ue of Christianity Today,
the editor notes that this article "... brought
large response from our readers. Many wanted to see
something further published. At our request ORAL
ROBERTS RECOMMENDED SOMEONE TO
WRITE FROM THE PENTECOSTAL PERSPEC
TIVE. (Emp. Mine, JLD). The resulting essay is b
Howard M. Ervin, dean and professor of Old Testa
ment at the Graduate School of Theology, Oral Ro
berts University, Tulsa, Oklahoma."
In his article, Mr. Ervin argues that the 'tongues'
on the day of Pentecost and at Corinth are exhibi
tions of exactly the same kind of phenomenon. His
line of reasoning is :
1. "On the day of Pentecost the disciples spoke in
other tongues 'as the Spirit gave them utter
ance' (Acts 2:4). The tongues at Corinth were a
'manifestation of the Spirit' (I Cor. 12:7)."
2. "The biblical writers understood these utterances (both on Pentecost and at Corinth,JLD) to be bona fide languages". He gives Acts
2:6 and I Cor. 12:10 coupled with I Cor. 13:1, as
proof.
3. "Tongues produced the same reaction in the
skeptics in both Jerusalem and Corinth" (Acts
2:13-15, I Cor. 14:23)
4. All were of an edifying nature. In Acts 2:11
they spoke in "tongues" of the "wonderful works of
God"; in Acts 10:46 they "magnified" God in
"tongues"; and in I Cor. 14:3-5, 22, 27-28, Pau
says "tongues" were "for a sign" and edifica
tion."
Now note that concerning these "tongues" Mr.Er vin says
1. "The biblical writers understood these
utterances to be bona fide languages. At Pente
cost believers spoke the 'dialects' of the assem
bled multitude (Acts 2:6). The Corinthians
spoke 'families of languages' (I Cor. 12:10),
expressly defined as 'the language of men and of
angels'" (I Cor. 13:1)
2. "The 'other tongues' at Pentecost were
unknown to the speakers but intelligible to those
who spoke those particular dialects" (Acts
2:11).
3. He argues that the speakers on Pentecost were po
ibly in a state of ecstasy in as much as their conduct was mistaken for drunkenness. Therefore, to be in a state of ecstasy does notprove that one's speech is an ecstatic babbling".. . the fact that they spoke intelligible languages at Pentecost" even if in a state of ecstasy, would indicate that if the Corinthians were in an ecstatic state, the tongues they spoke
were not "ecstatic utterance or babbling", but
"authentic languages".
4. "But why tongues ? (i.e., foreign languages,
J.L.D.). Why not our own language ?.. . When
we speak our native tongue, we speak the words
that are in our minds, words that in choice, in
flection, nuance, and color manifest our personahties. When we speak in 'tongues, as the Holy
Spirit gives utterance,' we speak those words
that are in the mind of the Spirit, words that
manifest His personality unfettered by the cen
sorship of the human ego."
T he article by Mr. Ervin is vague as to whether he thinks Paul, et. als., ever actually spoke, or had
the power to speak, in the "language of angels". See
the quote above. Also, he never definitely states
whether he believes that one today still has the "gift
of tongues"; though the reader is led by the use of
the pronouns "our" and "we" in the last quote above
to believe that this is Mr. Ervin's belief. This, of
course, is a related, but nevertheless different, point
than the one under discussion.
I doubt if Mr. Ervin speaks for all Pentecostals in saying that the "tongue" passages of the Bible havereference to known and authentic languages of that day. However, we are glad that some of the Pentecostal element have learned the true teaching of the Bible regarding this point. We hope that it will not be long until they also learn that "whether there betongues, they shall cease" (I Cor. 13:8); and didcease when the Scriptures were given in their full
ness and completion (I Cor. 13:10-12, Eph. 4:11-13).
"THE MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON"
With all the recent publicity that the ApolloEleven project received, I was attracted to a briefstatement made by Alexander Campbell, during his debate with the Roman Catholic Bishop, John B. Purcell, in Cincinnati, Ohio, in the year 1837.
Mr. Campbell was taking the Bishop to task for an assertion that... "If the Pope were a poor wanderer in the mountains of the moon, it would notdestroy his (the Pope's) authority . .. though thesee of St. Peter should be vacant for seventy years."
The seventy year figure had been quoted by Mr. Campbell as being the period of time that there was no Pope reigning in Rome at all, but the alleged "see of Peter" had been transferred to Avignon in France. There was almost a half century during which there was one "Pope"(?) in Italy, and another "Pope"(?) in France. Finally, there were THREE "Popes" (?); Benedict XIII, the Spanish Pope, Gregory XII, the French Pope, and John XXIII, the Italian Pope. Now, quite recently, the Roman Catholic Church had asecond John XXIII, thereby hoping to erase the idea that there ever was a former John XXIII.
But, to get on with the "Mountains of the Moon," Bishop Purcell was asserting that in the event thePope were a wanderer in as far away place as the "mountains of the moon," that his alleged authority would still prevail.
The only thing overlooked by Bishop Purcell wasthat Jesus stated: "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" (Matt. 28:18b). This leaves no authority whatsoever for the Pope, be he on earth or on the moon. By the way, this leaves no AUTHORITY for any mere man in matters spiritual.
THEY ALL CRY ALIKE
It is my purpose in these articles to not only discuss denominational error which has occurred during debates in which I have engaged but also tomake known this error in other discu
ions. Debates in some ways bring out the best in a man. Arguments one might normally make in the pulpit are weighed and scrutinized much closer before a polemic encounter. I found out the hard way that some of the things I had preached from the pulpit wouldnot stand the heat of controversy. A good opponenwon't let one get by with "loose statements."
Back in 1952, an unusual debate was conducted inStillwater, Oklahoma. It brought to the platform brother Eldred Stephens and Mr. Eric Beevers, pastor of the St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church. I am not sure but I believe the only other debate with the Catholic people was the Campbell-Purcell debate of a by gone decade. This made the discu
ion rather unusual. If one should read the affirmation of this Roman Catholic Priest and not know that he claimed to believe the Bible, one would think one was listening to an Infidel! He was trying to show that the New Testament was not the Supreme Court. He affirmed the Supreme Court was the living voice ofthe living church, which of course was the Catholicchurch. In order to discredit the New Testament, he made the same old lock, stock, and barrel arguments of the infidel. He argued that about half of the people of the world cannot read, therefore, the NewTestament couldn't be the Supreme Court. Of course,about half of the people couldn't understand the "living voice" of the Catholic church but he forgot toremember this! He quibbled about errors in translations; tampered with the textual problems of theBible and then argued that the Catholics had preserved the sacred scriptures. He brought up denominational division and tried to perpetrate this on theBible. In one of his speeches he not only denied thescriptures as the Supreme Court but also demonstrated his ignorance on how authority was established in the Bible. This is the same cry we get from the denominations as well as our own digressive brethren. On page 87 the Catholic priest said, "The New Testament does not contain all of Christian observance. I'll give you an example: Mr. Stevens worships on Sunday. Will Mr. Stevens show me one textin the Old or New Testament which says that we are to worship on the first day of the week ? The seventh day isn't it? The Sabbath, the seventh day? Not thefirst day. Oh, it says that the Christians gathered together as was their custom on the first day. Wait a minute! They may have gathered as we Catholic do. We gather seven days a week. We go Monday,Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturdayand Sunday. But the point is this: You can't changea definite command of the old law, the seventh dayto the first day, without some very positive evidence in the New Testament. Where is it? You know, our Seventh Day Adventist friends, at least in this point, are very logical. If you don't accept the voice of the living church and you accept the authority of the written word, then you certainly shouldn't worshipon Sunday. You should worship on Saturday.
This Roman Catholic priest, in the above, garbled a couple of scr iptures together. I suppose he wastrying to come up with Acts 20:7 which says, "Andupon the first day of the week when the disciplescame together to break bread ..." He made the same fatal mistake of most innovationists. He pressed brother Stevens for a scripture in which the Lord ever told his apostles to wr ite anything. Whebrother Stevens told him that the Lord told John to write in the book of Revelation he countered by saying, "But that wasn't while the Lord was on earth," as if that would make any difference! It just goes to prove that some men won't accept the truth if itshould walk up and bark in their face. This reminds me of Baptist preachers who say, "Where did theLord ever say if you are not baptized you will bdamned ?" As if the Lord has to put it in the exacterminology of Baptist preachers. When we point out scores of scriptures which say one must be baptizedto be saved they come back and say, "Yes, but it still isn't worded like I said it had to be." As if they coulddictate to the Lord about his terminology.
You will notice the Catholic priest demanded ascripture which says the Old Sabbath had beenchanged to Sunday. Certainly such a scripture could not be found. But one can abundantly show that the Old Law was abrogated (Col. 2:14). He can showby APPROVED EXAMPLE the first day of the week was the day on which the Lord's Supper was observed. Since the Catholic Priest let it be known that he would not accept APPROVED EXAMPLES, hdemonstrated two things: First, his ignorance of the Bible and also HOW authority is established within the text! I pointed out in a preceding article inSearching The Scriptures that our problem in thechurch was a denial of APPROVED EXAMPLES. Now I want to go on record to show that this is also a problem among our Catholic friends. You will observe ; he did not want brother Stevens giving Acts
20:7. He said, "I don't want a quotation that can be construed. It demands a positive explicit quotationto change that." T his makes it quite clear that theRoman Catholic would not accept the APPROVED EXAMPLE of Acts 20:7; but that the text had tobe worded to suit him. T his is basically the sameproblem within the confines of the church. I quoted II Cor. 11:8 to a brother not long ago. It says, "I robbed other churches taking wages of them to doyou service." I emphasized that this is an approved example of sending direct to the evangelist and notthrough a sponsoring church. I pointed out that the churches in Bible times sent direct to the preacher and not through a society or sponsoring church. Myfellow preacher replied like the Catholic priest, "Yes,but I want a scr ipture that says it is wrong to send to a sponsoring church." Gentle reader, I couldn't find it in the terminology that he demanded so hecontinues to push his innovations. I couldn't findBaptism worded like Vernon L. Barr wanted it so he is still a Baptist! Brother Stevens couldn't find theFirst Day of the week worded like the Catholic priest demanded it so he is still a Catholic! But brother, the Word still speaks through APPROVED EXAMPLES and you had better listen! (Phil. 4:9)
Box 166
Greenville, Texas 75401
------o----
NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS ON BAPTISM: THE BAPTISM OF JESUS
L. A. Mott, Jr.
Were a debater defending the scriptural position on the design of baptism, he would affirm the proposition that baptism is necessary to salvation, andwould then be obliged to set forth arguments to support that affirmative. The obligation of his opponent would be to examine these arguments and point out their defects. But he might also legitimately seek to discredit the affirmative position by setting forth counter arguments of his own. This brief series of articles tangles with the negative arguments felt by the writer to be either the strongest or the most frequently used.
John 1:31
The first of these is based upon John 1:31. John the Baptist said he came baptizing in water in order tomanifest Jesus to Israel. Bogard and others haveargued that Jesus was baptized not to make him the Son of God but to manifest him as such. So, men are baptized for the same purpose — not to make them sons of God, but to manifest what they already are.
Answer
No. 1. Men are not sons of God in the same sense as Jesus is the Son of God, as the distinction made in John 20:17 implies. Jesus was not made the Son of God by baptism. But neither was he made theSon of God by faith. Does that imply that men do not become sons of God by faith ?
No. 2. The Negative reveals his misunderstanding of the text. John is not speaking of the reason hebaptized Jesus in particular. He is explaining thepurpose of his baptism in general. The subject is not why he baptized Jesus but why he baptized anybody
— i.e., why he came baptizing in water. John baptized the penitent, and thus had a group prepared for the coming of the Messiah. When the Messiah arrived on the scene John pointed him out to these disciples as the One whose coming he had predicted (cf. John 1:29-37). Thus he came baptizing people in water in order to manifest Jesus as the Messiah.
That John's baptism also had a second general purpose is clear from Matt. 3:11, which also has been misunderstood because of the failure to perceive that John is speaking of the general purpose of his baptism, and not of the effect of his baptizing an individual upon the individual baptized.
Box 155, Romulus, Michigan 48174
BROKEN CISTERNS
Larry R. DeVore
"Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet not gods? But my people have changed their glory for that which does not profit. For my people havecommitted two evils; they have forsaken me, thefountain of living waters, and hewn them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water" (Jer. 2:11,13).
These words penned by the prophet so many years ago seem as up-to-date, and as applicable to God'speople as if they were written today. Many of ourbrethren today have turned away from God (changed their gods by changing or perverting thegospel) and so are no longer glorifying God according to His will in the church (Eph. 3:21). Our brethren are following strange gods (the gods of institutionalism, sponsoring church arrangements, modernism, etc.). In building and maintaining these human institutions (some so-called gospel preachers spend all their time doing just that), they are hewing them out broken cisterns that can hold no water. That is, these institutions are not of God; not authorized of God, and therefore will be rooted up in that last day! (Matt. 15:13). There is scarcely any humanism inreligion today that some of our brethren have not borrowed from the sectarians. They ought to givethem back!! I am not a prophet, but I predict that in a few years, a number of the liberal congregations of our brethren will have the instrument of music in their worship (several of our preaching brethren already are saying it would be alright, it is just ourtradition not to have it, and it would give us unity ( ?) with the conservative ( ?) Christian church). But the New Testament still says for Christ's Disciples to sing, nothing else (Col. 3:16-17; Eph. 5:10 et al). Those content with the Lord's plan will abide by His will. Others never will be content with "the simplicity in Christ." It seems strange to have to continue to teach the church on this subject when a casual look at the Christian church shows us so clearly the fruits of digression. But some folks never learn from past history. I had just as soon use "instrumental prayer" in the worship as to use "instrumental music." My prayer is that at least some of our institutional-minded brethren will get sick of all the digression in the church and come back to God and the Bible. The prophet wrote, "Thus saith the Lord, stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walktherein" (Jer. 6:16). Each and every one of us need to be constantly "examining ourselves," and seeking for the "old paths" in order to please our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (II John 9). Let us speak andpractice as the oracles of God teach (I Pet. 4:11). It is a great source of encouragement today to see, in the midst of digression, a host of gospel preachers proclaiming the true doctrine of Christ and the New Testament church, and many new congregations being started and older congregations standing for the "old paths," and growing both spiritually andnumerically. "Wherefore, my beloved brethren, beye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in thework of the Lord, forasmuch as your labor is not in vain in the Lord" (I Cor. 15:8).
THE NEWS LETTER REPORTS
"... They rehearsed all that God had done with them..." — Acts 14:27
FAITHFUL FILIPINO PREACHERS NEED SUPPORT
Wallace H. Little, 5514 Wales, San Antonio, Texas 78223 — We have recently completed a long (10,000mile) trip, speaking before seventeen churches trying to interest brethren in the U.S. in having fellowship with faithful Filipino preachers. The results were two more of these men fully supported, bringing to twelve the total with full support, with aadditional three partially supported. This still leaves a good many with nothing at all, however.
These men are standing firm for all God's truth,including opposing the institutional errors being pushed by the Philippine Bible College. Because of their opposition to the evils of this school, the faithful native preachers have suffered considerable persecution at the hands of the liberal brethren. The liberals are doing their best to prevent conservative preachers from being effective, and they have notbeen too particular in the tactics used, such as tryingto get the support provided a conservative preacher stopped. This has been done by writing the supporting church and making false charges against theman, to cast enough doubt that the U.S. brethren consider withdrawing their fellowship
This is especially disturbing because it is verydifficult for a man to work at a secular job in thPhilippine nation and still have enough time left tobe an effective preacher. The secular job will take upfar more than eight hours a day, five days a week so that little time is left to devote to study and teaching. This is why it is so imperative that these men be supported unless we wish to see the church in the Philippine Islands go by default to the liberals.
All of these men can be supported for one-fourth or less than what an American would require. Several of them need only $75.00 to $90.00 a month. Afew would require $150.00 to $200.00. For this, aimmeasurable amount of good will be done. Manychurches will be pulled back — this is still po
ible there. A large number of aliens will hear God's word convict them of their sins and a portion of these will obey Christ. One man has converted almost intacttwo congregations from one of the denominations and another has taught and baptized over 100 precious souls into Christ in the last eighteen months. Both of these men are fully supported.
Brethren, please consider this appeal. Contact mefor the names and addresses of these men, alonwith my recommendations concerning them. Gowill bless you in this.
Edgar E. Holcomb, 1015 Nebraska Ave., Lorain,Ohio 44052 — Guy Roberson of Hollywood, Florida will be the speaker in a meeting at the church ofChrist, 36350 Chestnut Ridge, North Ridgeville,Ohio November 17 through 23. This is a small church but several of us enjoy very much Searching The Scriptures, and I personally pray for much good to come as a result of your efforts.
Radford J. Petty, 3316 West Layton Ave., Englewood, Colo. 80110 — On August 1, 1969 I began work with the University Hills church which meets at 3098 South Glencoe Street, after spending three year s with the chur ch in Brooksville, Flor ida. Though few in number, the brethren here are welltaught and show a great boldness in proclaiming thetruth. They began meeting in a dwelling in 1968, andhave converted it into a comfortable meeting house. In August of this year, David Harkrider preached in a meeting which was a great encouragement to all. I look forward to a fruitful work here. UniversityHills is the only conservative church in south Denver. We would welcome members who move into this area to work and worship with us. When traveling south on Interstate 25, exit on East Yale Avenue, goone block west, turn south on Glencoe Street.
A. B. Newsom, Jennings, Fla. — The Oak Grove church of Christ is in need of a preacher. If you are considering a move and would like to locate in north Florida, please contact us by writing to: H. R. Royal,Route 1, Jennings, Florida 32053, or phone 938-2355.
Elders, church of Christ in South Houston, Texas 77587 — In December brother Ray Votaw will return to the South African scene for the fourth time. Since 1952 South Houston has supported him wholly or in part in preaching locally or in South Africa, as well as providing a part of travel funds. Currently he is in need of $3,000 on this travel fund for himself and family. We recommend him to Christians everywhere, endeavoring to interest you in this behalf that the cause of the Lord might be furthered. Please send assistance to: Ray Votaw, Route 2, Box 313B, Buna, Texas 77612.
The Elders: Maurice M. Powell Jim
F. Wellman Tant Williams, Jr.
Jady W. Copeland, 16324 Lassen, Sepulveda, Calif.
— Having been in Long Beach, California for ten years (6 with East Long Beach and 4 with Studebaker Road) I moved to Sepulveda the last part ofAugust. We have two fine elders here, and a working group of about 120 saints. We are one of two conservative churches in the San Fernando Valley othe L.A. area. Worship with us when in the Las Angeles area.
Charles Limburg, 4733 Eagle Way, Palm Springs,
Calif. 92262 — The church in Palm Springs, Califor
nia is looking for a full-time gospel preacher. Those
interested can contact the brethren through: Walter Clark, 740 Paseo El Mirador, Palm Springs, Calif92262. Phone: (714) 325-6522.
I am to begin work with the T ustin/Santa Anachurch the 1st of November. We look forward to a good work with this fine church. The decision tomove was difficult to make as the brethren in Palm Springs have been most wonderful to work with.
Brother Bob Bolton of Ontario, California is to hold a gospel meeting in Palm Springs November 10th through 16th. Bob is an excellent preacher and the brethren anticipate a good meeting. This is his second meeting with this church.
Kent Harrell, for North Hixson church, P.O. Box 143, Hixon, Tenn. 37343 — The members of the North Hixson church wish to make public their sincere appreciation for the teaching done by brother
J. T. Smith during the week of October 6-10.
In April of 1969, brother Charles Holt had approached some of the brethren from North Hixson asking them to engage someone to meet him in debate on certain i
ues concerning the nature of thechurch and the eldership. Brother J. T. Smith was contacted, and he agreed to meet brother Holt. Propositions were eventually worded and signed bthese two brethren, and the date was set.
About six weeks before the scheduled datebrother Holt informed the brethren at North Hixson and brother Smith that he had decided not to gthrough with his part of the debate. By this time,brother Smith was well prepared and he accepted aninvitation to come to North Hixson and present his material anyway
On Monday and Tuesday evenings brother Smithdiscussed the nature of the church as it is revealed in the New Testament, in contrast to the ideastaught by brother Holt in his writings. On Wednesday evening the sermon was directed to the NorthHixson church. On Thursday and Friday evenings,the le
ons dealt with the New Testament teachingconcerning elders, as opposed to brother Holt's beliefs as set forth in the Sentinel of Truth. Brother Holt was present on Monday, Tuesday and Fridayevenings.
The brethren at North Hixson were highly pleased with the manner in which brother Smith conducted himself, and felt that a great deal of good was accomplished by the le
ons he presented.
David O. Lanius, Jr. — I will terminate my work with the West End Avenue church of Christ in McMinnville, Tennessee, the first of the year, and willbegin laboring with the Millersville church of Christ which meets on the Louisville Highway in Millersville, Tennessee.
The work in McMinnville is a very good work. In the past 15 months, two have been baptized and 1have identified with the congregation. Upon mleaving the congregation here will be in need of a faithful gospel preacher. Anyone interested in thework in McMinnville may contact Bro. A. T. Wood,Route 5, Box 117, Smithville, Tenn. 37166, phone934-3416; or Bro. Fred Moore, Route 4, McMinnville,Tenn. 37110, phone: 473-4260.
Ron Lloyd, 3510 Chandler Highway, Tyler, Texas 75701 — 1 have been working with the church here since August, 1968, having moved from Westside church in San Jose, Calif. It was difficult to leavebrethren I had known so long, but the welcome here was warm and the attitude of faithful brethren encouraging. A fine meeting place has been provided here within a period of one year following the beginning of this work. We invite anyone travelingthrough or living in this area to worship with us. Services are at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. Lord's day an
7:30 p.m. on Wednesday evenings. The building is just inside Loop 323, on Highway 31 on the West side of Tyler.
Herschel E. Patton, 106 Fairview Dr., Mt. Pleasant, Tenn. 38474 — Divorce is a burgeoning problem, as you well know, throughout the land and even in the churches of our Lord. In dealing with this problem, I believe in the old adage — "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." If young people,and others contemplating marriage, are made aware of the great and serious responsibilities which marriage involves, surely they will enter the relationshipwith greater care and be better prepared to make asuccess of it. With these things in mind, I have written a tract which you may order from me at theabove address. Price is $.20 per copy, 25 for $4.50,50 for $8.00 and 100 for $15.00.
---------------o ---------------
Arnold A. Granke, Jr., 1201 West 28th St., Erie,Pa. 16508 — My wife and I have been worshippingwith the only congregation of the Lord's church inErie, Pa., since March. Although we have earnestlycontended for the faith, and attempted to exert an influence for good, the struggle has been in vain,
-as the church here has become bogged down in ththroes of liberalism, and an attitude of disregard for the word of God pervades nearly every aspect of the church's work, as well as the lives of the members. For this reason, we feel that we can no longer labor in good conscience with them.Erie is predominately Catholic and the nearest faithful congregation of the Lord's church is about100 miles away, to the best of my knowledge. The need for a sound Gospel preacher to help sow theseed is great. Because of the influence of the congregation already established in this city, the work maybe hampered somewhat. However, with patience andhard work, the Gospel could flourish here. At thepresent time there are only the two of us who ar
-interested in a "Thus saith the Lord." We will make every scriptural effort to assist in raising support
-for any faithful preacher who is interested in comingto help establish a new work here. If you are interested in coming to Erie and helping with this work or know of anyone who is, please contact me at 1201 West 28th Street, Erie, Pa. 16508.
Jimmy Tuten, Jr. — During the month of September (22-28), I was with the York Road church inCharlotte, N. C, for a series of gospel preaching.This church (which meets at 5327 York Road), we believe is the largest in the state that opposes innovations in work and worship. Though they number less than a hundred, they own their building, preacher's house and more than enough land for expansion purposes in years to come. They are rapidly moving to the point where they will become completely self-sustaining. Their zeal and growth is apparent.
Jerry Parker (formerly of Spring & Blaine, in St. Louis) is zealously laboring with the brethren. He is doing an outstanding work in a hard field. He and the brethren are working together harmoniously, and their growth is steady.
Capacity crowds were present at most of the services, some coming from as far away as 100 miles on two or three occasions. There were two baptisms in this meeting.
I am to be in Benton, Illinois, October 20-26 andPeoria, Ill., where Hiram Hutto is preaching for two days (Nov. 21-22). I will be appearing with other speakers during this meeting.
I began my eighth year with Spring & Blaine last Sunday (October 5). Our seventh year has been our best while in St. Louis. From January to October 5, we have had 51 responses, 35 of which have beenbaptisms. Spring & Blaine continues to labor zealously and harmoniously. (6316 Pernod Ave., St.Louis, Mo. 63139.)
CRISES AMONG THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
Maurice Barnett
A doctrinal change and a new date for Armageddon has become necessary for the Jehovah'sWitnesses, due to a crisis in membership, and persecution. William Schnell, in a Year-End Report exposing the Witnesses, gives the following figures: "In the U.S.A. during the year ending August 15,1967, we find that 18,152 newcomers were baptized, but that 2,859 were disfellowshipped and that 26,500 have fled Watchtower slavery. In Germany during the fiscal year of 1966, there were 2,869 baptized and 2,569 left the work. Thus, already in 1966 there were only 300 more Jehovah's Witnesses at work. But this year in almost all countries of the world there is a definite decrease below the year 1966."
Part of the problems of the Society stem fromthe deception of the World War II years. Treachery by some leaders of the Society there have just been brought to light in recent years. It has turned many away. In Africa the problem is quite a different one. For years the Watchtower teaching was that all government was of the devil; they were anti-government in most all things. T his suited the Africans because they were opposed, generally, to their white governments anyway. Then when upheaval pushed out the white governments and the native Africans took over, they did not want any more of the antigovernment teachings of the Watchtower Society. As a result, the Witnesses have been banned andpersecuted in several countries. Witnesses are leaving the Society by the thousands. Included in thedepartures is the Branch Servant, the direct Society representative, in Malawi. And, many other lesser officials of the Society have left. This has prompted some reaction from the Society.
For years the Society taught that Romans 13:1referred to God and Christ, ("the higher powers"), and the Watchtower Society and its representatives ("the powers that be"). By this they subjugated the Witnesses. After all, didn't Paul say that they were to be subject to the higher powers and the powers that be, (God and the Watchtower Society) ? Current events, especially in Africa, have prompted them to change positions on this passage. They now teach that it refers to civil government, which wehave tried to tell them all along. By this they try to show some of the governments that they are not so anti-government at all. They have a big task ahead of them. Following is a reply made by the President of Malawi to a reporter's question, carried in News-week Magazine in March of 1968.
"You see, this is again where you Western people, the British and the Americans, don't understand. In America, nobody takes any notice ofJehovah's Witnesses, because you have a highlyorganized state in which nobody cares. A person can be a crank in America because the country is so well organized that nothing these cranks can do can affect anything. But here it is not like that.
"Jehovah's Witnesses are a nuisance. If they just said, 'I do not believe in government,' or, 'I do not want to be taxed,' nobody would say anything against them. But they do not stop at that. They go to others saying, 'Don't pay tax. You are a fool.'
"We have here what we call a self-help scheme. You see, we haven't got the money to build schools or hospitals, so we say the people must build schools and hospitals for themselves. But what dothe Jehovah's Witnesses say? T hey say:
" 'You are fools. Why should you be buildingschools or hospitals? Let the Government do that. Don't you do that.' They stop others from doingthings which are good for the community.
"But not only that. Instead of sticking to their religion and preaching at their church, they go to other people's houses, knock on doors, and, despite people saying that they are Presbyterians or Anglicans or Catholics and don't want to be preached to, they say:
" 'Oh, you are going to hell. I must come andsave you.'
"T hey insist on preaching to a man who does not want to listen. And when a man gets annoyed and beats them, they say:
" 'That is what I want you to do. I want you to beat me, so that I can take you to the police so that you can be arrested.'
"Well, it is this kind of thing which the Government would not tolerate, because people were being beaten."
Q. "Have you banned Jehovah's Witnesses in Malawi?"
A. "Definitely, we have banned them. T his is the fourth time they have been banned in this country. The first time they were banned was in 1906, then again in the '20s, then again in the'30s; so this is the fourth time now. T hey havebeen banned, released, banned because they have always been a nuisance here."
Another approach by which they try to recouptheir losses is a new date for Armageddon. Althoughthey have set dates many times before, they do not seem to learn their le
on. They insist it must come within the lifetime of those who lived in 1914. Russel set 1914 as Armageddon. Everything he predicted for that year failed to happen. Rutherford then set 1918, then 1925. They expected it in 1938,1946, and 1954. Now they have set it again for 1975. Nathan H. Knorr, President of the Society, recently sent a confidential letter to leading Witnesses of the world. He set two measures to be used to help overcome their present problems, as mentioned in this article. Witnesses were instructed to renew efforts to reach those who have fallen by the wayside, andpush the new motivation of Armageddon in 1975There is no mention of salvation in Jesus Christ. This is foreign to their approach. But, they are worried over recent setbacks, and they have cause to be. 1606 W. Indian School Road Phoenix, Arizona
ue in which James P. Needham and Hiram O. Hutto discuss I Corinthians 11:1-16. All this material is now produced in bookletform. $ .60 per copy 6.00 per dozen 40.00 per hundred
HAVE YOU RENEWED YOUR SUBSCRIPTION? DO IT TODAY!
PLEASE CHECK YOUR EXPIRATION DATE AND SEND YOUR RENEWAL TODAY
