AWAKE T O THE DANGER

Irven Lee

Peter reminds us that there were false prophets among the Israelites in the old days (II Peter 2 :l-3).He then pointed in our direction and said, "There shall be false teachers among you." Is this prophecycorrect? Is there this danger to consider? He saidthese false teachers "shall bring in damnable heresies." Other translations refer to these "damnable heresies" as "destructive," "fatal," "disastrous," and "ruinous." There is no question as to the seriousness of this danger. Let us awake to this danger which is described by such strong words.

"For there must be also heresies among you, that

they which are approved may be made manifest

among you" (I Cor. 11:19). Why did He say,

"must"? One modern translation uses the words "for

dissensions are necessary." They are necessary "if

genuine Christians are to be recognized." Christians

are tested as by fire. There are many things that test

one's character, and chief among the tests is our

reaction to heresies.

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing theflock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by thespace of three years I ceased not to warn every onenight and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace,which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified (Acts 20:29-32). If we were to summarize this messagfrom the heart of the apostles it would be: Be ver ywide awake to the danger of the very, very grievous

sin of heresy. Factions and sectarian parties are words used to

define heresies. We need to make a careful study of

this deadly sin. The grievous wolves shall enter. Paul

said, "I know this." Who are these wolves? What do

they do, and why ? In Vine's Dictionary of New Testa

ment Words, we find this definition; "That which is

chosen, and hence, an opinion, especially a self-willed

opinion, which is substituted for submission to the

power of truth, and leads to division and the forma

tion of sects or parties (Gal. 5:20) ; such erroneous

opinions are frequently the outcome of personal pre

ference or the prospect of advantage." Please look back over this definition at such expressions as "selfwilled opinion," "leads to division," "personal preference," and "prospect of advantage." You and I are aware that some will speak things which theyought not for filthy lucre's sake. They make merchandise of the souls of men (II Peter 2:3; Titus 1: 11). That is an unholy busine , indeed. This is no

little sin.

Let us now read Rom. 16:17,18 in the Amplifie

Bible. "I appeal to you, brethren, to be on your

guard concerning those who create dissensions and

difficulties and cause divisions, in opposition to the

doctrine — the teaching — which you have been

taught. (I warn you to turn aside from them, to

avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord

Christ but their own appetites and base desires, and

by ingratiating and flattering speech they beguil

the hearts of the unsuspecting and simple minded

(people)." Yes, dissensions, difficulties, and divi

sions in the Lord's church have causes, and these

causes are masculine or feminine in gender. It is

easy to see why they are to be avoided. We must not

let down the guard for they seek a following to divide

the church for some "personal preference," or "pros

pect of advantage." Selfishness plays a part in many

things.

We should be so awake to the danger of heresythat we will work quickly and decisively when itshows its head. "But avoid foolish questions, angenealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man thatis a heretic after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted,and sinneth, being condemned of himself" (Titus 3:9-11). The wise man can discern the difference inthe factious man who is out to divide, and the sincere man who is in error. Apollos was in error when Aquila and Priscilla heard him (Acts 18), but hdid not need to be rejected and avoided. He neededhelp and got it. The good Book suggests that "after the first and second admonition" the heretic is to be rejected. Let every Christian develop his skill inrecognizing this wolf even if he wears a sheepskin.

The malicious words and prating of Diotrephes

would identify the factious spirit. Sheep do not howl,

bark, bite, and destroy as wolves. By their words ye

shall know them (Matt. 7:15-20; III John 9:10). It

was the love of preeminence that put Diotrephes in

opposition to the apostle of love. It was not, of

course, love of truth, or love for the church that led

him to cast out friends of the apostle. Observe the

evident fact that he got a following- to such an extent

that he could have his way for a time. Such men can

cause division and charge it to those who stand for

the truth in love. There are times when the only way

to avoid division is to follow the wolves. This must

not be done. Prompt and ver y firm action on the part of vigi

lant elders in well taught churches may be able to

mark and avoid heretics before they do so much

harm. If given time, or if there are already weak

nesses that give them advantage, heretics can put

the church to an open shame. Let every loyal soul

stand with faithful elders if such elders are bravely

trying to uphold truth.

WHAT IS TRUTH? Never before in my lifetime has the truth of God

been lost to so many people. In every walk of life

truth has little significance to the average person.

Business is no longer concerned with honesty and

truth in dealing with the public; government con

siders truth an expedient to be used only when it

serves the best interests of the state and the officials;

society is rotten with hypocrisy and deceit; religion

makes anything truth that is officially proclaimed

such by religious leaders of the day. Like Pilate who

asked Christ: "What is truth ?" and did not wait for

the answer, most people do not concern themselves

with the answer to this question.

There is no neutrality with Christ. One is either on

the side of the Lord or he is against him. Jesus said,

"He that is not with me is against me; and he that

gathereth not with me scattereth abroad" (Matt. 12:

30). You can not live against the will of God and

claim the benefits of the blood of Christ after death.

Every man must face truth some day. He will

come face to face with the truth of God at the judg

ment (Rev. 20:11,12), and he will know exactly what

truth is then. We can know now if we will search for

it in the word of God. The word of God is truth, pure

truth (John 17:17). It is the word of the truth of the

gospel (Col. 1:5; Gal. 2:5). Truth, all truth, is in the

mind of God. When this is revealed to man by the

Spirit (I Cor. 2:10-ll), he has truth, and nothing but truth.

Truth is consistent. There is no lie in it at all. To the unbelieving Jews Christ said: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, andabode not in the truth, because there is no truth inhim. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it" (John 8:44). "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of

the truth (I John 2:21).

This means that anything and everything that has any part of a lie in it cannot be of the truth. It also means that any lie of whatever degree is of the devil and not of God. Since the word of God is truth (John 17:17), and the truth has no lie in it at all (I John 2:21), it must follow that all truth must be established by the word of God and not by any other standard.

Truth is also singular. God knows the very number

of the hairs on your head (Matt. 10:30). I have no

idea how many hairs are on my head, but Christ said

they were all numbered. It the exact number is 131,

631 (that which God knows), I could guess for a

month and never hit the r ight number. Only this

one figure is truth; all figures would be false. Truth

is singular. Christ said, "I am the way, the truth,

and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by

me" (John 14-6). The truth is found in Christ, in his word.

When one knows what truth is and where to find

it, he may do one of two things about it. He may

reject it or he may accept it. The difference between

these two is the difference between being free and

being in bondage of sin. "And ye shall know the

truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:

32). On the other hand, "And that because of false

brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily

to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus,

that they might bring us into bondage" (Gal. 2:4).

Truth makes free, but false brethren or teachers of

error brings into bondage.

Some change the truth of God into a lie (Rom.

1:25). Some turn their ears away from the truth

and gather teachers who satisfy their itching ears

with lies (2 T im. 4:4). Some do not obey the truth

(Gal. 3:1).

But a few love the truth and search the scriptures

for it (2 Thess. 2:10; Acts 17:11). They believe the

truth (2 Thess. 2:10). They obey it and receive a

pure heart — forgiveness of sins (I Pet. 1:22).

Our efforts in publishing this monthly paper is to emphasize the truth of God's word. We call upon every reader to "search the scriptures" to see whether these things be so. If we have erred, let us know about it that we may make the proper corrections and be in harmony with real truth — the word of God. But do not forget that your opinion or will is no more truth than mine. If either of us are out of

step with the word of God, we are wrong. Truth is the word of God. I want to make this one thing clear, and I can speak

only for myself. I have no intention to compromise

or associate myself with religious error, if I know

it, for any consideration. I love the truth just as it is

revealed in God's word, if I know my own heart. I

intend to live and die by it. That is my only hope in

eternity. "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth

shall make you free." Amen.

QUESTION — Does Isa. 29:11, 12 have any refer

ence whatsoever to the Book of Mormon ? — L. B. ANSWER — The verses mentioned above read as follows: "And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is lear ned, saying, Read this, I praythee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And thebook is deliver ed to him that is not lear ned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned." The answer to the question is an emphatic No! Anyclaim that Isaiah's prophecy here involved the will of God to be revealed at some future time is definitely false. This is evident from the context. Verse one shows the prophecy to relate to "Ariel, the city where David dwelt."

Without going into detail concerning the various views as to why Jerusalem is here designated "Ariel," suffice it to say that it was "the city where Daviddwelt." Scholars agree that this is Jerusalem. The inhabitants of Jerusalem (Jews) of Isaiah's day were objects of God's wrath, and his judgment was to be poured out upon them (verses 1-8). Within these same verses we learn that those used of God to accomplish this purpose suddenly suffered defeat andJerusalem was delivered. Then the reason for God's judgment upon Jerusalem is set forth in figurativelanguage:

"Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, andcry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the Lord hath pour ed out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the pr ophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the wor ds of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is lear ned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is deliver ed to him that is not lear ned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:" (Isa. 29:9-13).

They were full of error and were reeling under its influence as a drunken man. T hey had become sohar dened in sin that the "vision" — the r evelation from God — had no effect upon them. It was as the wor ds of a sealed book and, again, like an illiter ate man trying to read. While they continued with a form of religion, their heart was not in it, and their doctrine was from men (verse 13).

Jesus described a similar situation among the Jews of his day: "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hearnot, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, andshould be converted, and I should heal them" (Matt.

13: 13-15). Jesus also applied the language of the above prophecy to some in His day who were guilty of similar sins (Matt. 15:8, 9).

COMMENTS TO EDITORS

"Keep up your good work in Searching The Scriptures."— Warren R. Cheatham, Cupertino, Calif."We appreciate your fine magazine . . . "— Mrs. Charles Geer, Bradenton, Fla.

"I believe you have rendered a valuable service inthis discussion of I Cor. 11:1-16. The article bybr other Cogdill as well as those by br ethr en Huttoand Needham are fine . . . Thanks for producing it."

— Granville W. Tyler, Decatur, Ala.

"I have enjoyed this publication ver y much, andbelieve that it is doing much good for the cause of Christ."— Henry Elliott, Port Richey, Fla.

"We enjoy very much the fine articles which appear in Searching The Scriptures, and pr ay thatthose who walk the highway of liberalism may seethe error of their walk while there is yet day, andr etur n to the old paths."— Nick Har vilak, T or onto, Ohio.

"I get a lot of help and strength from it and onlywish it could be a weekly paper. I know God willbless you and all who help you in this great work."— Mrs. May Adkins, Brooksville, Fla.

"We enjoy Searching The Scriptures very much. Keep up the good work."— W. J. Hatfield, Miami, Fla."Your paper is excellent and greatly appreciated."

— Hubert Showalter, Ontario, Canada.

"We look forward to every edition of SearchingThe Scriptures. It is very enlightening." — C. H. Miller, Sarasota, Fla.

"I would like to say how much I enjoy your magazine and appreciate your fair-mindedness in printing both sides of a question without abridgement. Do you have any other readers in England ?"—

B. J. Boland, Surrey, England.

"My wife, my daughter and I enjoy it very much.We have learned many valuable lessons from studying and meditating upon the writings of faithful brethren." — P. J. Cavender, Nashville, Tenn.

"Your good paper is very profitable to my wife and me, and we enjoy it very much." — C. A. Cornelius, Pea Ridge, Ar k.

"Keep up the good wor k. I enjoy it so much. T he only thing wr ong is that it doesn't come oftenenough." — Mr s. B. R. Smith, Alpena, Ar k.

"We certainly enjoy reading Searching The Scriptures. I want to thank you brethren for all yourefforts in printing a wonderful paper." — Felix Duke, Dickson, T enn.

'"I r eally enjoy Searching The Scriptures and would not want to miss an issue of it. It is one of the best papers published." — Herbert Knight, Paducah, Ky.

"You have a very good paper, true to the Book, which is the main thing. I read every line of it."

— Herman Sweeney, Charlotte, Tenn.

"We hope Bob West continues with his amusingpictur e type sermons and his gift of saying a lot with a little space." — Mrs. Rosemary Bailey, Miami, Fla.

"As long as br ethr en have the str ength and conviction to write such articles as appear monthly inSearching The Scriptures, the future of the cause of Christ cannot help but prosper." — K. E. Thomas, Kirkland, Ill.

"I enjoy your paper so much." — Dr. Patricia Clifford, Forrest City, Ark."I enjoy reading your paper Searching The Scriptur es, and would like to keep it coming." — Homer

W. Walker, Norwalk, Calif.

"I am enclosing check f or r enewal of Sear ching The Scriptures. It is a fine paper and we enjoy every wor d of it. Only wish mor e people could and wouldread it." — Russ and Dot Lee, Istachatta, Fla.

"We certainly enjoy reading your paper and trust you will continue the good wor k of setting forth the truth." — H. L. DuBois, Noblesville, Ind.

"I want to thank the one responsible for my receiving Searching The Scriptures. It is a wonderfulpaper filled with gospel teaching which is so greatly needed today and every day." — Mollie King, Hohenwald, Tenn.

"Once again our personal thanks to the editor ofSearching The Scriptures for a fine publication. Weespecially appreciate the recent article by Ward Hogland, a review, on "A Plan For Unity." A brother would have to be blind or hardened in heart not to see the pattern prescribed by God." — A. S. Kirk,Mineola, N. Y.

"I continue to enjoy Searching The Scriptures very much. It is an excellent medium for the presentation of truth by able men." — E lvis Bozarth, Montebello, Calif.

"I continue to enjoy as well as profit from each edition of Searching The Scriptures. Keep up thegood wor k." — Bob Walton, Columbus, Miss.

"Appreciate the fine work you are doing there at Forest Hills and through the paper." — Kent Harrell, Camden, S. C.

"I might add, "Searching The Scriptures" appears to be highly regarded in these parts. As long as youcontinue your pr esent editor ial policy, the highquality of good material, and your own stand for the truth, in my judgment, it will continue to gr ow. I especially appreciated the special articles in theOctober issue. Your manner of handling this subject was commendable. Do keep up the good work!"—Olen Holderby, San Pablo, Calif.

"I continue to hear good things about SearchingThe Scriptures and pray the Lord will grant you the strength and wisdom to carry on the work."— Bob Harkrider, Australia.

"WOULD YOU AFFIRM?"

I suppose ever y gospel pr eacher back thr ough the years has received challenges for debates which hehad to refuse. Fortunately, I haven't had to turn down many challenges on the polemic platform butadmit I have refused a few. I was rumbling through some old letters the other day and found a challenge which was hilarious. You will understand why whenyou r ead the pr opositions. T he challenge came back in 1957 while I was in the heat of battle over institutionalism. I was living in Ft. Smith, Ar kansas and doing all I could to save congregations from the tide of liberalism which was fast sweeping many congregations into error. The challenge came from a youngpreacher by the name of Franklin Morgan, who atthat time was preaching for the Oak Cliff church inDallas. I under stand that Franklin had lived in E aster n Oklahoma and had hear d me pr each and debate. In deference to Franklin, may I say his letter wasnice. He said, "I have great respect for your ability to debate. I have no debates on my r ecor d, but I believe I could handle my position ver y well in apublic discussion. However, I would only be interested in a 'high level' discussion that would be in search of truth, and in search of grounds for agreement." Someone had told him that I had split the church in Poteau, Oklahoma. He wrote me rebuking me for something I had not done and at the close of his letter issued the challenge for a debate.

I will give the propositions exactly as they were written more than a decade ago. Please remember as you r ead them that this young pr eacher had never debated and didn't really understand the issues within the confines of the church. In the propositions he assumed the very thing to be debated. The first proposition he wanted me to affirm. I want you tonotice the wording. "The scriptures teach that it isan act of righteousness and a practice of pure Christianity to divide congregations, cause confusion within the brotherhood, go to law before the unjust against other brethren and destroy the peace of the brotherhood for the sake of advancing a controver sial issue." Deny, Fr anklin Mor gan.

Notice he wanted me to affirm that it was an act of righteousness to divide a congregation over a controversial issue. Now, this was real generous of Franklin. What isn't a controversial issue? Is God controversial? Is Christ controversial? Isn't baptism controversial? As a matter of fact, what in all theBible isn't contr over sial? You can see this youngman was an amateur in polemics. He also wanted me to affirm it is right to cause confusion and go to lawover a controversial issue. Great shades of Aristotle,

how gracious can one man be? Only an idiot wouldsign such a proposition. He a umed in the proposition the very thing to be debated. According to his proposition I would be admitting that I was guiltyof being a church divider. The proposition made him entirely innocent of any of the vices and made Hog-land the culprit! His propositions were completel

ambiguous.

The second proposition is the one that brings down

the rafters! It reads as follows: "The scriptures

teach, that in all purely local matters, such as per

tain to their own order and discipline, congregations

are independent of each other; and should ordinarily

be allowed to manage their own affairs, according

to the word of-God, in whatever way they may think

best: But in all matters of general interest, such as

pertain to the increase, order power, glory and effi

ciency of the whole body, these several congregations

may cooperate according to the word of God, in order

to better accomplish any of the great and benevolent

objects for which the church was established onearth." Affirm, Franklin Morgan.

Neighbor, how would you like to sign your JOHN HENRY to that monstrosity? This is one of thelongest propositions I had ever read. The thing was so ambiguous that I would neither affirm nor denyit. He wanted Ward Hogland to DENY congregational independence. To any informed person this would sound like a joke. T his was one of the things I was fighting about. He said that congregations should "ordinarily" be allowed to manage their ownaffairs. Wouldn't that make a fine discussion? I

wonder how much territory "ordinarily" would

cover? He said he would affirm that congregations

may cooperate according to the WORD OF GOD.

Now, it would take a brave person to sign a proposi

tion like that. He went on to say that congregations

should be allowed to manage their own affairs in

whatever they think is best. Brethren, here is the

cause of many of our problems. Brethren are doin

what they think is best rather than doing what th

Lord has commanded. Such an attitude will lead to

the downfall of any congregation. A person would

need to have his head examined if he tried to deny

such a proposition. Imagine, if you can, a preacher

stupid enough to deny that congregations may co

operate according to the word of God!..

It was after I read this proposition that I started laughing and almost fell out of my old swivel chair. I learned that it is not a disgrace to refuse to debate some people. Without seeming facetious I wouldlike to say that almost anyone would debate if yougive them enough handicap. Gentle reader, if youaspire to debate please give your opponent credit for having some good judgment.

"DECENTLY AND IN ORDER"

J. Wiley Adams, Macon, Georgia

In a congregation without elders some system oforder must prevail in carrying out congregational matters. Paul said, "Let all things be done decentlyand in order" (I Cor. 14:40). This implies a plan or system whereby authorized matters may be properly attended to. This brings up the question of who is to decide on such a system and who is to carry outthat which is decided.

NOT THE WOMAN

Headship does not belong to the woman (I Cor.11:3). In her relationship to the man she is to besubject. God designed man for headship, not thewoman. Therefore, it is not the woman's place ttend to the business of the congregation. Manywomen in the church today need to learn this. It is quite evident that many have not learned it yet. This creates a tedious situation many times and confusion and strife are the result. God is not the author of such confusion (I Cor. 14:33). The woman shouldlearn where her place is and abide therein.

NOT THE BOYS

When young men obey the gospel that does notmean they are grown up or mature. It might be all right for the young men to attend business sessions some of the time but they should be more seen than heard. They can learn much by such to help them infuture days. But the business of the church is too weighty for lads to handle.

NOT THE UNFAITHFUL

Many times unfaithful men will show up at nearly every business meeting. They want to have a "voice"but they are not nearly so zealous about other phases of the work. Often they never show up except oSunday mornings, now and then at a gospel meeting,but they avoid work details and any responsibility ofnote. They are usually adept at criticizing theefforts of the rest, however. It makes no sensewhatever for backsliders to be given equal voice with

faithful men, or any voice for that matter.

WHO, THEN?

A business meeting of faithful men is when and where congregational matters should be arranged.Matters of doctrine cannot be decided. That has already been done. Matters of judgment and expediency are the only matters that can be decided on, such as the service schedule, who is to lead singing,teach the classes, clean the building, who will waiton the Lord's table, who will pass the emblems around, etc. A plan for carrying out these and other congregational matters should be decided on thebasis of mutual agreement. A ignment of various tasks and jobs should be done in this decent and

orderly fashion.

WHAT THEN?

When faithful men, in a decent and orderly ar

rangement, and upon the basis of mutual agreement

upon matters of judgment, make plans and decisions

for the furtherance of the Lord's work, the rest

should abide by such.

It is not the prerogative of anyone to annul such or ignore the arrangements that have been made

under these appropriate circumstances. No man or

woman should set in motion another set of plans of

their own making. This is usurpation of authority

and reeks of self-will and the desire for preeminence.

If one person has the right to do this, would not

everyone have the same right? And if we all should proceed to do this, would that not result in chaos

and confusion? To ask is to answer it.

If a man is faithful in all things he will be inter

ested in church business matters. If he is interested

as he should be, he will attend the business sessions.

A faithful man has a right to be heard in the busi

ness meetings. There is no other arrangement that

is proper. To attempt to have a voice independently of

the business meetings shows lack of cooperative

spirit, self-will, and to say the least, makes his motive suspect.

When a woman has a matter to bring up that needs to be considered, she should present it to a faithful man who in turn should relay the message to thmen in the business meeting for due consideration. The one who presents the matter should in turn tell the sister of the action taken on the matter. The faithful man should be her husband if that is the

case. If not, then any faithful man would do.

Such an arrangement as this is scriptural because

it observes (1) decency and order, (2) the headship

of man, (3) the subjection of the woman, (4) th

equality of faithful men, and (5) is a fair and just

method for carrying out the Lord's work through

the local congregation. Brethren, think on these

things.

J. Wiley Adams, 2346 W.

Marion Road, Macon,

Georgia 31206

"EXAMINE YOURSELVES"

Olen Holderby, San Pablo, Calif.

(Continued from last month) I have spoken out against these things, both pub

licly and privately. I have insisted that it takes agood deal more than just opposition to the Herald ofTruth and orphan homes to constitute a "sound" congregation as far as God is concerned. This speakingout has not been exactly the popular course to pursue, especially with some preachers. Back in 1965,after speaking out on these matters, one preacher received a letter (the letter is still available) informing him that, "You have two weeks to make a decision before we take action;" and he was to be exposed throughout the state. Now, the preacher never did find out who the "we" were, nor what action was to be taken against him. T he only action that ever came to his attention was a string of falsehoods concerning his personal life. The habit of answering your opponent by an effort to smear his character belongs to the camp of the "liberals," who could have gotten it from either denominationalism or politics. Those who take pleasure in such practices should carefully study Rom. 1:32. Now, I desire the friendship of my preaching brethren, but I count the Lord's friendship much more to be desired (Gal. 1:10). Another preacher explained that there were two waysto take fellowship: 1). The way the world uses it, 2).The way the gospel uses it. My reply was, "Fine, Iaccept that; now you tell me which one is to be used." Needless to say, I never did get an answer. A young preacher friend of mine was advised, "Go see Brother --------------; he will tell you how to preach where you're going." When another preacher was asked

why he would practice a certain thing, the reply was,

"Brother said it's all right." Brethren, these

are not manufactured fears! They are real, very

real! As Pat Broaddus used to say, "Anyone that

can see through a barbed-wire fence can see" these

things. While I may well be wrong, I would judge

that both elders and we preachers are to share the

blame for permitting such conditionsto develop. This

being the case I assume it would be worthwhile for

us to take a brief look at some specific scriptural

instructions to both.

Peter advises the" elders to take the oversight ofthe flock, not "as being lords over Gods' heritage, butbeing ensamples to the flock" (I Pet. 5:3). Elders, ifthe flock is to follow your example, what will be their attitude toward the church, toward God's Word, and toward their duties as a Christian? Will they learn to not think of men above that which is written? (ICor. 4:6). The apostle Paul a igns the elders the duty of feeding the flock (Acts 20:28; I Pet. 5:2).The fact that the elders may call on others to perform certain tasks in connection with this feeding is not denied. What is denied is that the elders have the right to turn this oversight over to a preacher oranyone else. Elders, as long as the preacher is "among you" he sustains the same relationship toyou as other members of the congregation — namely,he is under your oversight! God is going to hold theelders responsible for watching for the souls of theflock (Heb. 13:17). Elders, "examine yourselves;"examine the situation where you are. Have any of these things permeated the congregation where yolabor? How long shall preachers be permitted to run the congregations? I have no desire to shame anyone. I do, however, want to call attention to the factthat God's order has sometimes been corrupted; perhaps unintentional, but nevertheless corrupted. Brethren, these things ought not so to be! It seems to me that while we have tried to close the gate tinnovations on one side, we have left the other side unguarded. Yes, I'm still insisting today that it takes more than just opposition to the Herald of Truth and orphan homes to constitute a "sound" congregation

in God's sight. (to be continued)

GENESIS 1 AND 2 LITERAL OR

FIGURATIVE? (No. 3)

In the long battle between the forces of the Crea

tionist and Evolutionist much has depended upon the

answer to this question. Does the first two chapters of

the Bible set forth literal language involving actual

events, or are its words and terms used figuratively ?

Are we to "spiritualize" its language and say it is a

"poem," "parable," "allegory," or "myth"? As men

tioned in a previous article we are willing to apply the

same rules, relative to the law of language involving

interpretation and hermeneutics, to this literature

and language as we would to ANY literature. (Read

the previous two articles which give some of these

laws or rules by which we can determine whether

language is literal or figurative).I know that if Gen. 1 arid 2 are "figurative" they do

not speak of actual events that transpired — they do

not relate to HISTORICAL matters. Adam and Eve

are "mythical" — no such people ever existed and

yet, THE GENEALOGIES OF BOTH GEN. 5 AND

11 MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE EARLIER CHAP

TERS OF GENESIS ARE HISTORY! Adam and Eve

were real people and a part of a historical record of

human beings. Was Enoch a REAL person? What

about Noah or Abraham ? Adam is found along with

these men. Were David, Jacob and Ruth actual Old

Testament beings (Matt. 1; Luke 3) ? Most all would

agree that they were HISTORICAL persons. But in

Luke 3 we read not only of Abraham, Jacob and Enoch

but "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son

of Seth, which was the son of ADAM, which was the

son of God" (vs. 38). NOW, HOW CAN WE HAVE A

"CHAIN" OF GENEALOGY, INVOLVING HISTORICAL, HUMAN, BEINGS WHEN THE FIRST

"LINK" IS MISSING, BECAUSE IT IS A "MYTH"?

As we said in an article several months ago, trying to circumvent Gen. 1 and 2 by denying that it is literal does not really help the infidel and evolutionist, forGod has so fixed the Bible that it stands or falls together. Not only do we encounter the Adam of Gen. 1 and 2 in Luke 3 but numbers of other passages refer to both Adam and Eve. II Cor. 11:3 mentions how Eve was led into sin. In I Tim. 2:13-14 Paul says, "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adamwas not deceived but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." Jude (vs. 14) refers to Enoch (mentioned above) and said he was the seventh from Adam. But we believe the strongest argument thatAdam really was a person is to be found in Rom. 5:12-19 and I Cor. 15:21-22, 45-47 where there is avivid contrast between what happened to a mannamed Adam and later with Jesus Christ. We have a contrast between the result of Adam's act and later what came about due to what Christ did. We have set forth the first Adam and the second Adam. We have the type and ante-type, the shadow and substance, which is all rather meaningless if there were no first Adam, a real, human, being. Let us quote from these two contexts of scripture, "Wherefore, as by ONE MAN sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all havesinned: For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from ADAM to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of ADAM'S transgression, WHO IS THE FIGURE OF HIM THAT WAS TO COME. But not as the offense so also is the gift. For if through the offense of one many bedead, much more the grace of God and the gift by grace, WHICH IS BY ONE MAN, JESUS CHRIST,hath abounded unto many. — For if by ONE MAN'S OFFENSE death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offense of one, judgment cameupon all men to condemnation; even so by the rightousness of one the free gift came upon all men untojustification of life. For as by ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE many were made sinners; so by the OBEDIENCE OF ONE SHALL MANY BE MADE RIGHTEOUS" (Rom. 5:12-19).

In another passage which relates in part to the same thing, we read, "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as IN ADAM we all die, even so in CHRIST shall all be made alive. — And so it is written, the FIRST MAN ADAM was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spir itual but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The FIRST MAN is of the earth, earthy: the SECOND MAN IS THE LORD FROM HEAVEN" (I Cor. 15:21-22; 45-47). Now as a result of the ACT and SIN of the first man, ADAM, sin and death came into the world. As a result of what the first man did ALL MEN DIE PHYSICALLY. None can escape it. It is an appointment all men must meet. But from the second man came a certainty of the resurrection and just as surely as we die, because of what the first Adam did, we can be assured ALL will be raised by what the last Adam did. So Christ nullified or counter-acted what the first Adam did. (Of course I acknowledge Jesus Christ did "much more" (Rom. 5:15, 17) than set aside the certainty of and hopele ness in physical death by a uring men that there will be a resurrection and by His resurrection immortality is assured. He made salvation and forgiveness po ible for all men because of their OWN individual sins, over and above the effects they all share due to Adam's transgression. But, the "much more" is not the point of discussion and argument in this article). I am interested in the meaning and argument of Rom. 5 and I Cor. 15 (citedabove) IF NO SUCH PERSON EVER LIVED ASADAM? IF JESUS CHRIST, THE SECOND ADAM,REALLY LIVED, HOW COULD ADAM BE A"MYTH" OR A "LEGENDARY" FIGURE ? What did the second Adam cancel out, offset, counteract (orany such term one would use) IF THERE WERE NO FIRST ADAM ? IF NO SUCH PERSON LIVED AND NO SUCH EVENT TOOK PLACE AS HIS "OFFENSE" "TRANSGRESSION" AND "DISOBEDIENCE" ? We maintain the entire context and CONTRAST is meaningless and absurd if THERE WAS NO FIRST ADAM? — NO FIRST MAN? — IF THERE WAS NOTHING DONE? NO ACT OF OFFENSE OR TRANSGRESSION? IF THERE WAS NO SUCH ACT THERE COULD BE NO PENALTY FOR SUCH AND HENCE NOTHING FOR THE SECOND ADAM TO COUNTERACT OR

RECTIFY! Let the Evolutionary fraternity tell us the mean

ing and argument of the inspired Paul in these twopassages. Let the theologians, who tell us what abeautiful parable, poem and myth Gen. 1 and 2 are,enlighten us relative to this contrast. As stated in our last article the burden of proof RESTS WITH THEM. I accept the language and words in Gen. 1 and 2 in their ordinary and normal meaning and usage.This is the RULE in the law of language. Let them show us WHY these chapters and their words are EXCEPTIONS — why they cannot be accepted in the literal way but demand that they be used in the figurative sense. I insist, if Gen. 1 and 2 are NOT literal and historical, there was no Adam and Eve! But whatabout the garden of Eden ? the serpent ? Satan — the devil? the temptation? (II Cor. 11:3) the sin or offense? the disobedience and transgression? the penalty ? the curse ? a Savior or the need of a Savior and a remedy for Sin. IF NO ONE SINNED? WHERE DOES THE "FIGURATIVE" END AND THE "LITERAL" AND "HISTORICAL" BEGIN? HOW DO YOU KNOW? BY WHAT LAW OR RULE DO YOU DETERMINE SUCH? — Paul Foutz

(Next month we will deal with a SPECIFIC exampleinvolving either Figurative or Literal language as we discuss the "DAYS" of CREATION. Was each day a"literal" day or was it an age or eon — a period of tens

and hundreds of thousands of years?)

THIS I BELIEVE

Voyd N. Ballard, Lafayette, Calif.

I believe that as we grow older our hope grows stronger and our desire to go to Heaven becomes greater. We are in a better position to appreciate the one hope (Eph. 4:4) which we have "as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil" (Heb. 6:19)

I believe that even though the "outward man perish yet the inward man is renewed day by day"(II Cor. 4:16)

I believe this hope belongs exclusively to the faithful child of God and that faith is the foundation for this hope (Heb. 11:1).

I believe this faith is produced by the Word of God (Rom. 10:17) and is the "evidence of things not seen."

I believe that God, in His wisdom, has revealed unto us "all things that pertain unto life and godliness through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue" (II Pet. 1:3)

I believe He has given us "all things" through the gospel of His Son, and therefore, this gospel is allsufficient. It is the "power of God unto salvation toeveryone that believeth" (Rom. 1:16)

I believe man must accept God's Word at face value, not because it agrees with human wisdom,but because God said it. Faith and a knowledge of God never comes from the wisdom of man for, "the world by wisdom knew not God" (I Cor. 1:21)

I believe that our faith in God and His word will save us and assure us a home in Heaven. This is the faith that obeys without question. T his is the faiththat never argues with God (Rom. 9:20). This is the faith that says, "Speak Lord; for thy servant heareth" (I Sam. 3:9).

I believe there is a crown of righteousness laid

up for every faithful child of God who has fought a

good fight, finished the course, and kept the faith

(II Tim. 4:7, 8). Therefore, "let us run with patience

the race that is set before us" (Heb. 12:1) that we

may one day wear that crown with joy and thanks

giving.

FLORIDA STATE SALES TAX

Beginning at once, please add 4% sales tax on all subscriptions, books and tape or der s sold in the state of Florida.

THE NEWS LETTER REPORTS

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

THREE MONTHS IN AUSTRALIA Sam Binkley, Jr.

It was 6:15 on a cold, cloudy Friday morning whenthe airplane on which my wife Rebecca, son Dandaughter Mrs. Sarah Barnes, and I were riding landed at the airport in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Robert Harkrider, Jim Everett, and Harry Henderson were there to meet us, and, after being cleared through customs, to take us out to the Harkriders home. Thus began what has been so far, and what appears to be in the future, a very busy schedule in the preaching of the gospel in Australia. The followingSunday I preached in the morning at Port Hacking inSydney and Dan preached in the evening, and we haveboth been pretty occupied in preaching ever since.

When I came to Australia tentative plans were for me to move to Armidale in New South Wales, butafter the gospel mi ion in Melbourne September 8-22 in which Robert Harkrider did the preaching and five other gospel preachers worked, it was thought wise for me to move to Melbourne. I did go to Armidale and talked with brother Cecil Stone before making afinal decision about where to live.

In the three months we have been here I have traveled over 9,000 miles, preached in gospel mi ions in Bundaberg, Queensland and Sydney, New SoutWales in addition to the regular preaching in the Melbourne area. While most of our work presently is being done in the Keon Park area in North Melbourne, at present I am preaching on Sunday morning at GlenHuntley in South Melbourne and teaching a Biblclass on Wednesday nights in Frankston (40 miles south of where we live). Dan is preaching at KeoPark and also teaches the Bible class in Frankston while I am away, as well as the Bible classes at Keon Park. The opportunity at Glen Huntley came when thebrethren who had been meeting there for the past seven years decided to discontinue their meetings there and go elsewhere to worship. Upon learning ofthis, brother Alf Dow, who began the work at Keon Park and whose family attends there now, and I approached the brother who owns the building where these brethren were meeting and asked if he wouldrent the place to us to have religious services. He isaware there is a difference in our views concerningthe type of oversight in some of the "campaigns" and some projects involving congregational cooperation,and was glad to rent to us. Brother Harold Comer was present for the first Sunday meeting there, December 1, and plans to be there most of the time after movingto Melbourne about January 1. In the meantime I will be meeting with them and preaching there. There were 34 present last Lord's day morning, December 8.

There is still a great need for more workers in Australia as there are more invitations than the few of us can possibly accept. There are several places where there is a need for a full time evangelist to work and we are able to get there to preach only occasionally. If you know of some faithful brother who is interested in coming and willing to "spend and be spent"

in the Lord's service please have him contact us. If

you are a faithful brother and interested, why not

write me ? It may be that you know of someone who

is now or planning in the future to be in the Melbourne

area. If so please have them get in contact with me.

Sam Binkley, Jr. P. O.

Box 12 Thomastown,

Vic. 3074 Telephone:

465-2283

Thomas F. Shropshire, 1210 Elsa Jane, Bossier City, La. 71010. I moved to Bo ier in Feb. of 1968without a urance of enough support to live on. moved because the brethren here needed a preacher to help them in the work. It was necessary, and still is, for me to provide my own residence and utilities. I had the a urance of only $275.00 per month when I came. I have been able to stay because I have raised some additional support and have received a few special contributions from other places and sources. At present I am receiving $425.00 per month. $50.00 of which is for a very limited time. I need to replacethis $50.00 and raise an additional $100.00 per month in order to have adequate support under the circumstances.

The church has enjoyed some growth since my com

ing and the prospects look favorable for continued

growth. The brethren here have been and are bein

taught to a ume as much of my support as they can,

as rapidly as they can. It is possible that the needed

additional support will not be needed for more than a

year. The brethren have increased my support $50.00

per month over what they promised when I came. In

addition to this they have supplied extra support on

other occasions.

Brethren who read this, PLEASE give serious con

sideration to our needs here.

B. G. Hope, Rt. 3, Box 318, Beaver Dam, Ky 42320

— Since I began work here, October 1, three havebeen restored and one baptized. The opportunities in this area are great. I have found that the church here is made up of dedicated people as a whole. They appear to be very zealous and cooperative in their endeavors.

Clark C. Buzbee, P. O. Box 278, York, Ala. 36925—On November 11-14, 1968, Tom Oglesby met G. E. Page in a public debate in Glasgow, Ky. All four sessions were held in the meeting house of the West-wood church. Bro. Oglesby was endorsed by thWestwood church, and Bro. Page was endorsed bthe Becton and Center churches. The interest and attendance was good with an increase in attendance being noted each night. About 150 people were present the last night. W. L. Totty was moderator forBro. Page, and this writer served as moderator forBro. Oglesby. The first two nights Bro. Oglesby affirmed the unscripturalness of the Herald of Truth, and the last two nights Bro. Page affirmed the scrip

turalness of church donations to benevolent organiza

tions. Bro. Page is a veteran debater, but this was

Bro. Oglesby's first public debate. He proved himself

to be a very capable defender of the Truth. I have pre

pared a detailed report of the debate. Anyone ma

have a free copy of this report by writing me, Clark

C. Buzbee; P. O. Box 278 ; York, Alabama 36925.

Ralph Joiner, 1303 Overlook Terrace, Titusville,Fla. 32780 — The new year finds me beginning labors with the good congregation in Titusville after almost two years of full-time work with the church in Punta Gorda. Words cannot properly express the appreciation of my family and myself for the financial andmoral support given us in the past by various congregations and the help and encouragement given us by many individuals. All correspondence should be addressed to: 1303 Overlook Terrace, Titusville, Fla32780.

Eugene Britnell, Little Rock, Ark., January 21.Brother Irven Lee of Hartselle, Alabama recentlydelivered four le ons on the HOME here at the Arch Street church. They were outstanding, and delivered to large and appreciative crowds. His le ons should be delivered to every church in the nation. I am convinced that such would do more good than the average gospel meeting.

We have baptized five so far this year, and our work

is making good progress. I have eleven meetings

scheduled for this year. When in this area, worship

with us at 1506 Arch Street.

REPLY TO AN ANGRY ROMAN CATHOLIC!

An article entitled, "I am An Angry Man" habeen published in at least two different Catholicpublications; Mary Magazine — Sept. & Oct. 1957;and The Assembly, which is the Official Organ of theDetroit (Mich.) General Assembly, Fourth DegreeKnights of Columbus. The author, Edward F. Keating, doesn't seem to mind admitting that he IS angry, and has a chip on his shoulder.

In his first paragraph, the Catholic author says:

"I hope that many more men like myself will begin

to take some (chips) for their own shoulders." This

suggestion is a far cry from the teachings of the Man

of Galilee who said: "Blessed are the peacemakers:

for they shall be called sons of God." (Matt. 5:9).

Carrying a chip on one's shoulder is certainly NOT

the attitude of making peace, but that of creating

strife! However, thus far in his article, the Catholic author has not informed his r eader s just WHY he

is ANGRY, and wants other Catholics to don their

shoulder-chips!

In the second paragraph the writer states: "I am

a Catholic, an American father, and, as such, I have

certain rights that I am tired of seeing attacked."

However, this assertion ends the paragraph and we

still do not know just what 'rights' of his have been

'attacked' and by whom !

In his fourth paragraph, he tells us: "I've smiled and shrugged off patronizing insults that were to ed at me under the guise of tolerance." No example hasbeen given yet, but he's getting warmer as to his subject... it has to do with 'tolerance'!

His fifth paragraph informs us that the "... first

reaction of those I (he) am attacking will be resent

ment at being called hypocr ites. At this point

don't care." So ends another paragraph ... but now

we know that he is 'attacking' someone himself,

whom he deems to be a hypocrite.

His seventh paragraph gets down to the core of his

anger: "...When the children ask me why it is

wrong to sing hymns in honor of Mary, the Mother

of God. it is only normal that I become excited. From

what they say, I gather that their playmates are re

peating adult comments to the effect that Catholics

are somewhat simple-minded people who worship

statues and substitute a human being for God."

In reply to the above statement of my unknow(but angry) friend, may I point out that the NewTestament contains no COMMAND, EXAMPLE orNECESSARY INFERENCE, that can be construedto teach that Christians are to "sing hymns in honor of Mary." Nor does the New Testament term Marythe "mother of God." However, the ConfraternityVersion does teach: "All Scripture is inspired by Godand useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice: that the man of Godmay be perfect, equipped for every good work" (II Tim. 3:16-17). Now. if the practice of singinghymns in honor of Mary is a GOOD WORK, then the Scriptures would so Leach! If Mary is to be defined as the 'mother of God,' rather than the New Testament terminology as the mother of God's Son, thensince such language is not to be found in the NewTestament, IT IS NOT A GOOD WORK!

As for Catholics worshipping statues, their con

duct contradicts their denials! The Bible teaches

concerning graven images and creature-likenesses;

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them" (Ex.

20:5). Yet, the Roman Catholic VIOLATES that

PLAIN Biblical instruction! What our Catholic author needs to recognize, is,

that he is living in a Nation that PERMITS the exercise of ALL religions, without denying the rights of any. Therefore, the non-Catholic children withwhom his Roman Catholic offsprings associate,HAVE THE RIGHT to criticize the religious practices with which they may differ. Author Keating has that same right, but he need not become ANGRYand urge his fellow Catholics to don their shoulder-

chips!

In his ninth paragraph, the writer indicates that

some people, by their actions, may give his children

the idea that they are 'second-rate' citizens, because,

as he puts it, "they happen to love God and His

Church." However, the New Testament Christians

were certainly not considered to be the cream ofsociety by the Roman Empire, as the Apostles went about teaching and ultimately writing the New Testament. Even so, what our Catholic author needs to prove, rather than merely assert, is that the Roman Catholic Church IS God's Church! This is a task, we predict, that he cannot do!

Finally, in his tenth paragraph, the writer arrives at the real subject about which he is so ANGRY! Namely, the "so-called separation of Church and State," as he phrases it. He then at length, bemoans the "separation of Catholic citizens from as many of their American rights as po ible." What all of our complaining Catholics need to recognize, IS, that this Country gives them the freedom to establish Church-owned and Church-operated schools. The Roman Catholic Church is using and enjoying that FREE DOM . . . yet, after she enters into the operation ofher Church-schools, voluntarily, she (and her subjects) begin to cry and complain about not havinALL the facilities and services that the tax-supported and publicly-owned educational institutions posses. THEIR COMPLAINT IS OF THEIR OWN MAKING. To use an expre ion, "They havmade their own bed, and are now having to lie iit." Other citizens with various religious persuasions have similarly used the Government-granted freedom . . . and we hear very little complaint from them . .. probably because they recognize that they may atany time, stop teaching their own sectarian tenets in their own schools, and then send their children to the tax-supported schools. It is merely a matter of determining which is the more important: (1)Teaching their own tenets and not having ALL the facilities that they might desire; or, (2) Laying aside the sectarian teachings in order to have more material enjoyments for the children. It is not a hard decision to make; but our Catholic friend should not cry, complain, and become ANGRY, because of a decision that he has made!

In the 11th paragraph, he says: "If separation ofChurch and State means that the clergy are not supposed even to influence legislation, then let all ministers resign as lawmakers." In this suggestion, theauthor has a pretty good idea . . . however, the NewTestament church had no distinction between what people today sometimes call the 'clergy' and th'laity'. They were all the same ... all Christians are their own priests, with Jesus Christ as the High-priest (See Rev. 1:6). The church of our Lord has no business in politics. . . Christ's kingdom is NOT of this world!

In a still later paragraph, our Catholic writer reminds us that; "No one complained during WorlWar II about" the high per centage of Catholics who volunteered for the Armed Forces." However, we would like to also point out, that there were more Roman Catholics serving the Axis Powers, than were serving the Allied Nations. So, that argument doesn't prove anything!

In his 19th paragraph, our ANGRY friend, says:"I don't condemn the public schools." This is, ofcourse, very kind and broadminded of him, particularly in view of this next statement, which we copfrom a Catholic paper: "If, without consulting their pastor, and for subjective reasons of their own, they(Catholic parents) send their child to a public school, THEY ARE GUILTY OF A MORTAL SIN... (Emphasis mine. LWN. From The Liguourian, Sept1950). Canon Law No. 1374, also teaches that; "Catholic children should not frequent non-Catholic, neutral, or mixed schools." Thus, if our friend's children are made to feet 'second-rate' does it not appear that the Catholic Church's regulations have made it so?

CONCLUSION

I want our ANGRY writer to know that I am NOT angry! I do not expect to follow his urge of 'puttinga chip' on my shoulder. It is just such an attitudethat causes the Nations in which "Roman Catholicism is in the majority, to lead the world in ignorance and illiteracy!

THANK GOD, THEY TOLD THEM!

In December of 1968, three American astronauts, Borman, Lovell and Anders, made the most amazinand exciting voyage in the history of man. They traveled to the moon, orbited it ten times and returned to earth without a single problem and witamazing accuracy. The whole thing seems incredible, but it happened and we cannot deny it. As I writethese lines, I can see a large color picture of the earth on the wall of my office. It was take from the vicinity of the moon, a distance of 240,000 miles. It is a beautiful thing to see, but it sure makes one feel little and insignificant. It brings to mind the great questions of Psalm 8:3,4: "When I consider thheavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and thestars, which thou hast ordained ; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?"

In a nation which has achieved unprecedented greatness because of its faith in God and His word, it seems strange that there are responsible peoplwho would misunderstand the purpose of a mi ion such asthat of Apollo 8.

A lengthy article by the A ociated Press appeared in the newspapers on December 18, 1968. It was written by Mr. Howard Benedit, AP AerospaceWriter. The headline read: "Moon shot is key tman's knowledge of solar system." I now quote from the article:

"Until man has visited the moon and brought backsamples of the lunar surface, there will only be conjecture about such things as the moon's origins, There are many theories.

"One holds that the moon at one time was part of

the earth and that it split away many millions of years ago and became an earth satellite.

"Another theory says the moon originated completely independently from the earth and during its travels through space was captured by the earth's gravitational field. Still another theory holds the earth and the moon essentially originated at thesame time as 'twin planets,' perhaps created by thesame gas cloud.

"T hus a trip to the moon may r esult in knowledgethat can clear up this scientific mystery as well as lead to understanding how the earth itself was formed, why it has oceans and continents and whythere are upheavals that create mountains andislands.

"Scientists generally agree that our solar system, controlled by the sun, was formed more than four billion years ago, possibly by a great gas cloud spinning out from the sun or by the collision of twomassive stars."

According to Mr. Benedit, we spent millions of dollars and the astronauts traveled half a million miles in search for some information on the originof the earth and moon. Such is typical of many scientists, intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals of our time who rely upon human wisdom rather than divine revelation.

Well, the astronauts, aided by the scientists and no doubt many men of Mr. Benedit's attitude, went to the moon. But it seems that they had a different mission in mind. They were not searching for information on the origin of the universe, for they hadthat information with them when they left the earth!

Late on Christmas eve, millions of Americans watched the live telecast from the moon as the astronauts made their final trip around that heavenly body. As the camera moved across the lunar surface, theshadows on the craters began to lengthen as they moved into the darkness of the moon's night. As the three humble and courageous men came to the close of their message back to "the good earth," they announced that they had a message for us all. Then, inturn, they opened the King James Version of the Bible and began to read. "In the beginning Godcreated the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and dar kness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved uponthe face of the waters ..."

Perhaps this was a surprise to everybody, and as

they began the reading my first words were, "Thank

God, they told them." By this I meant that they had

given the scientists their answer. This was the most

impressive thing that I ever witnessed, and I must

conf ess that I found it impossible to hold back the

tear s of joy and appr eciation. What an honor and

another "first" for the inspired and indestructible

word of God! I have often wondered how some of the

scientists on earth felt as they heard those eternal

words from Genesis one.

I under stand that those ver ses do not contain the

whole counsel of God, yet I verily believe that that

reading from space will make a greater impression

upon the minds of scientists, skeptics, and the youth

of our world than all the pr eaching of all gospel

pr eacher s f or many year s to come.

In retrospect, a remarkable effect of the moon

voyage was not so much its capacity to draw men's

gaze outward as its powerful force in turning their thoughts inwar d on their own condition and that of their troubled planet. The feat that should have beenthe perfect object for extroverts made introverts of us all.

We were more gripped by the majestic pictures of the earth as seen from the moon than by the weird landscape of the moon. Gazing back on the earth's warm green and blue against the bleakness of the void, Capt. James A. L ovell deliver ed per haps the classic line of the journey when he spoke of the earth as the "grand oasis in the great vastness of space."

L ong ago some sage r emar ked that what menneeded was not so much reforming as reminding. Ithink men need both, but they must be reminded before they can be reformed. The astronaut's eloquence was a bur ning r eminder that God made the"grand oasis" and that it is not being tended as it should be by its greedy inhabitants.

Once again man has pr oved that no scientific fact is in conflict with the word of God. Concerning theorigin of the universe, consider these beautiful andmeaningful statements:

"To him alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endur eth for ever. To him that by wisdom made theheavens... To him that stretched out the earth above the waters ... To him that made great lights . . . The sun to rule by day . . . The moon and stars to rule by night: for his mercy endureth for ever" (Psalm 136:4-9).

"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwellethnot in temples made with hands. Neither is worshiped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing,seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things" (Acts 17:24,25). The reader is urged to read all of Paul's sermon to the Athenians.

From the Apollo pictures, there is now no doubtthat the earth is round and that it is floating through space. T he old pr ophets of God knew that long ago."It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth ..." (Isaiah 40:22). "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7). How did those men know about space and the rotundity of the earth ? There is only one answer: ".. . holy men of God spake as they wer e moved bythe Holy Spirit" (II Peter 1:21).

Yes, the Christian has nothing to fear from thefacts of science. Every new discovery further confirms the existence of God and the veracity of his word.

WHY I BECAME A CHRISTIAN, A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

PART No. 1Joseph Lee Block

I am a member of the church of Christ and have been since Mar ch 17th, 1946. L eading up to the step I took should be important to many people, and I hope some one will benefit by it.

I was bor n in Boston, Massachusetts on November 7th, 1902 of strict Orthodox Jewish parents andraised in the same manner. There was nothing different in my youth than any other Jewish boy r aised in the same faith. When I reached the age of seven, I was sent to Hebrew School under the guidance of a very strict Rabbi, to learn about the Jewish way of life and how to conduct myself as one ... While attending Hebrew school each day we were taught more and mor e of what we have to know. I n my youth I was always asking questions and they tell me I still do. I studied diligently and at the age of 13 years, Iwas Bar Mitzvah, this is the time a boy of this agebecomes responsible for his own sins and is responsible directly to God.

I believed and accepted this and went to the synagogue each morning, afternoon and evening sevendays a week. I prayed to the Almighty God to make me worthy of the many blessings bestowed upon me,but to make me doubly worthy of the wonderful parents who raised me.

My family consisted of three brothers and two sisters, with myself there were six children. We were all br ought up the same way, in the Orthodox Jewish Faith. My sisters and brothers were always ready tohelp me in any way that was needed. You see, I was the baby of the family, even at this age, my oldestsister still calls me the baby.

At the age of 19, I started to study with a great man, Rabbi Springer, who since has passed away. I was willing to lear n mor e and mor e about Judaism, how they lived and how they struggled for their freedom. If I live to be of a ripe old age, I shall never forget the wonderful way Rabbi Springer explainedthings to me. The love in his heart, the compassion for other s surpassed no one, in the entir e neighbor hood, he was loved and respected by all in the little town of East Boston, by Italian — Polish — Irish and many other s, he was a well lear ned man.

After studying with Rabbi Springer for four years, you see, I was preparing myself for the RabbinicalSchool to become a Rabbi, I told the Rabbi I was unable to continue with the studying of Judaism and he asked me why. I could not answer him as I did notknow myself why, but I assume it was a gr eat shock to him. I told my par ents the same thing when I went home and they asked me why, and again I had noanswer. Well, they talked to me, between the Rabbi and my parents, for a long time, I still had no answer. Now, this did not hinder me from going to the synagogue each day of the week, three times a day, I still wanted to know about my religion. I kept the faithto the best of my ability.

HAVE YOU RENEWED YOUR SUBSCRIPTION? DO IT TODAY!