Abraham was called to head a nation of people (Gen. 12:1). His name was changed to Abraham from Abram(Gen. 17:5). This people which came of his posterity werecalled Hebrews or Jews. They were to receive the revelation of God which was given before Christ (Rom. 3:2).
Moses was the first to write by the command of God andgave His revelation to the children of Israel (Acts 7:38).Some say that God revealed Himself in writing beforeMoses, but the first reference to writing in the Bible is inExodus 17:14: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thisfor a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears ofJoshua ; for I will utterly put out the remembrance ofAmalek from under heaven." No historical facts reveal that God ever asked anyone to write before that time.
1. REASONS WHY NO WRITING BEFORE MOSES Several reasons can be given to prove that no earlier
inspired writings existed before God instructed Moses towrite:
(1) No Record of Them. There is no record of any inspired writing before Moses. Moses was commanded to write(Ex. 17:14) ; he did write the words of the Lord (Ex. 24:4).John, the apostle, wrote the last book of the New Testament
— Revelation (Rev. 1:1-3). God spoke to Adam, Noah,Abraham and others, but He did not tell any of them towrite it. That does not argue that man had not learned towrite before Moses, because we know that writing was usedsometime before Moses was commanded to write. It means that there was no written revelation from God to man be fore Moses was commanded to write.
(2) No Reference to Them. There was no reference to any inspired writings before Moses. From Moses to the apostles, Christ referred to the Old writings from God asgiven through Moses. But neither Christ nor any inspiredwriter of the New Testament ever referred to any writinggiven from God before Moses wrote. Joshua was referredto the book of the law when he became the leader of Israel (Joshua 1:8), which was that which was given throughMoses. He was referred to no other written work.
Some have referred to Jude 14, where Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied. But there is no evidence in this passage that Enoch was told to write this, or that he didwrite it. The passage simply says he prophesied. In the absence of any information that he wrote it we cannot assume that.
(3) No Remains of Them. There are no remains of anysuch inspired writings before Moses. Had there been suchwritings from God before Moses wrote, surely God wouldhave preserved it like He did the rest of His word, since Hesaid: "My word shall not pass away."
Some have claimed that some of the writings of older datethan Moses were from God. It is contended by some criticsthat Moses copied these writings later and they became apart of the Law to Israel. One of these writings is the "Codeof Hammurabi." The laws of Hammurabi (probably thesame person as Amraphel in Gen. 14:1) are said to be thebasis for the law of Moses. These were traditions committed to writing before Moses wrote. They are saidto give the history of creation and the laws of conductbetween men, but actually they are full of legendarynonsense, which would have made it impossible for Mosesto have written them and be in agreement with what weknow he wrote. This consists of a code of laws between man and man, but no obligation of man toward God. Hammurabi was an idola-ter and worshipped the Sun-godand other gods (Deut. 4:9).
One of the claims that Moses copied some earlier authoris that some of the words he used are not strictly Hebrew.But that does not prove he copied another author. In spiteof the fact that some of the words used by Moses appear tobe some other language besides Hebrew, it does not meanthat Moses copied them. There were some writings referring to God before Moses, but they did not come from God.
2. GOD BEGAN WRITTEN REVELATION THROUGH MOSES
In 1500 B.C. God spoke to Moses and called him to leadthe Israelites from Egypt. When they came to Mount Sinai,God called Moses up into the mount and there gave him thefirst written revelation. From Exodus 32:15 we learn that the first writing of the Bible was done by God Himself. Hewrote them with His own finger and gave them to Moses.The stones were written on both sides, and were two slabsof stone. Later these were broken in Moses' anger at theidolatry of Aaron and the people in his absence. God thenhad Moses to write these commandments. These tables contained the ten commandments.
During the forty years following the deliverance fromEgypt Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, called the "Pentateuch." These books contained an inspired account of the creation and the history of theworld for the first 2500 years. They also contained thelaw to Israel in detail, and the things concerning their lives,worship and dealings with each other. They contained thepromises made to Israel and the prophecies concerningChrist. During this period of time there is no record of any other person writing by the direction and authority of God.
After the entrance into the promised land Joshua andothers began to write the will of God as they were directed.For about 1100 years different prophets and inspired menwrote the books composing the Old Testament. This writtenrevelation from God stopped about 400 B.C. and nothing else was written from God until after the death of Christ.
About 50 A.D. the New Testament began to be written.Various inspired men wrote giving the history of the lifeof Christ (the four gospels) ; the history of the early churchfor the first 30 years (Acts) ; then various letters to churches and individuals to instruct in the Christian way oflife (epistles of Paul, James, Peter, John and Jude) ; andthe future of the church by John (Revelation). Written inspiration closed about 96 A.D. and there has been nothingfrom God since, and there will be no more revelation from God to living beings on this earth.
During the period of 1600 years, from 1500 B.C. to 100 A.D., about forty men from all walks of life, wrote in two major languages — Hebrew and Greek — giving the willof God to man in the Old and New Testaments. Though many of these men did not know each other, yet they wrotein perfect harmony on all matters. Their writings coveredthe whole history of man and deals with every phase of hislife.
Page 3
REFUSE NOT HIM THAT SPEAKETH
The book of Hebrews introduces us to God's spokesman for the last days. "God who at sundrytimes and in divers manners spake in time past untothe fathers by the prophets, hath in these last daysspoken unto us by his Son" (Heb. 1:1-2). A contrastis drawn between "time past" and "these last days."A further contrast is seen in that he "spake unto thefathers by the prophets" while he speaks "unto us by his Son."
The thought that "God . . . hath . . . spoken" is sublime. What if God had not spoken? The naturalworld testifies to his "eternal power and Godhead"(Rom. 1:20) but it gives us no light as to the character of God, nor a single word as to our relationship to him. Had God not spoken in understandable terms to man we would know nothingof our origin, purpose or destiny. Life would be nothing more than a vain striving after the wind. But, from the beginning of human history, God hasrevealed himself to man in rational terms. To the patriarchs of old he spoke directly. At other times hespoke in a dream or from a burning bush. When theJewish nation was formed, God raised up prophets tobe his spokesmen to "the fathers." Moses was a prophet in a special sense. "Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, asmany as have spoken, have likewise foretold of thesedays" (Acts 3:24). The prophets through whom Godaddressed the nation of the Jews foretold the days inwhich God would speak "by his Son." "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John" (Mt.11:13). These were valiant servants of God who often lifted up their hands to a rebellious and gainsaying people.
The "last days" describes the time periodstretching from the day of Pentecost when the churchwas established and terminating in the second comingof Christ. Once that period began all men must look toJesus Christ and his revelation in order to know the mind of God and to be at peace with him.
The Better Spokesman
God's spokesman for these last days outshines every human spokesman God ever sent. Moses was a most faithful and able servant. But he was a servant in his house whereas Christ was a "son over his own house" (Heb. 3:5-6). Time would fail to describe the greatness of Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Amos and all the rest. They wereworthy as "God's servants, the prophets." Yet none of them could be described as "heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being thebrightness of his glory, and the express image of hisperson, and upholding all things by the word of hispower, when he had by himself purged our sins, satdown on the right hand of the Majesty on high"(Heb. 1:2-3). What honor the Father has shown the human family in sending such a spokesman!
But wait! This spokesman rises in rank above every angelic messenger God ever sent. Angelic messengers were sent to warn Lot. We read of Michael the archangel and of Gabriel. The law wasgiven "by the disposition of angels" (Acts 7:53) and was "ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator"(Gal. 3:19). This was "the word spoken by angels"under which every ?in was punished (Heb. 2:2). But we have a far better spokesman than any angel, regardless of his rank. "Being made so much betterthan the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained amore excellent name than they" (Heb. 1:4). God never said "Thou art my Son" to any angel (v. 5) buthe said that of the Son. This he did both at the baptism of Jesus and the transfiguration scene (Mt.3:17; 17:5). Furthermore, at the advent of the Son into the world "he saith, And let all the angels ofGod worship him" (v. 6). Never did the Father say toan angel "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever"but he said that of the Son (v. 8; Psa. 45:6, 7). Noangel was credited with laying the foundation of theearth nor making the heavens with his hands. Yet, allof that was said of the Son (v. 10-12). No angel wasever invited to "Sit on my right hand, until I makethine enemies thy footstool" (v. 13). This honor wasonly accorded the Son of God, our spokesman inthese last days.
The Confirmed Word
God does all things well. Not only has he honored man by sending, in the form of man, such an exaltedspokesman, but God has confirmed the word of that messenger in such a way that no doubt can reasonably exist as to the source of his word. This word of salvation which at the first was spoken bythe Lord "was confirmed unto us by them that heardhim: God also bearing them witness, both with signsand wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts ofthe Holy Ghost, according to his own will" (Heb. 2:3-4)? Here we are introduced to the province of miracles, not only in the ministry of Jesus but especially in the work of his apostles. They were promised such confirming power in Mark 16:17-20. Confirmation of the message belonged to the originaldeclaration of it. Not only did Jesus speak God's truth to man, he selected and trained the apostlesand said "as thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I sent them into the world" (John 17:18).They were sent out with credentials (miraculous signsand wonders) to confirm their testimony. Paul said"We have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16). To rejectthe ambassadors of God's Son is to reject the Sonhimself. To reject him is to reject the Father who sent him.
The Inescapable Word
Under God's revelation to the fathers by the prophets (the word spoken by angels) "every transgression and disobedience received a justrecompense of reward." The inevitable question for those who live "in these last days" in which God speaks tous by such a superior spokesman, is this: "How shall weescape, if we neglect so great salvation" (Heb. 2:3)?The answer is that there shall be no escape. The very factthat God has spoken to us obligates us to respond towhat he said. This is the word which shall judge us in thelast day (Jno. 12:48).
It is for this reason that "we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lestat any time we should let them slip" (Heb. 2:1). It is tothis very point which the writer of Hebrews brings uswith his sober directive: "See that ye refuse not him thatspeaketh" (Heb. 12:25). The warning continues "For ifthey escaped not who refused him that spake on earth,much more shall not we escape, if we turn away fromhim that speaketh from heaven . . . Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:25-29). To refuse the word of God's Son is to forfeit eternal life. To hearken to his word is to live now and forever. No wonder the Son of God concluded the sermon on the mount by saying "Every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon arock" (Mt. 7:24). Indeed, "It shall come to pass, thatevery soul, which shall not hear that prophet, shall bedestroyed from among the people" (Acts 3:23). The choice is clear: it is either "give the more earnest heed" and enjoy "so great salvation" or else it is "refuse" and perish. Let none of us be deceived as to ouroption in the matter, nor as to the eternal consequences.
A REVIEW OF REVIEWS ON 'THE LORD'S SUPPER ON SUNDAY NIGHT"
I have on hand three letters in response to my former article on "THE LORD'S SUPPER ON SUNDAY NIGHT" (VOL. XVIII, NUMBER 3). Myschedule has not permitted a careful study and review ofsuch until now. I plan to be back with this column henceforth on a regular basis.
One letter enclosed four articles that formerly appeared in another publication. Obviously, I can not make full reply in this one article to all that material. I have, however, made careful study of it all. I shall dealwith a few points which in my judgment need furthercomment, so far as the real issue is concerned.
One letter manifest a spirit that is unbecoming. However, realizing that strong feelings on an issue sometimes blind one to truth and hinder objectivity, Ishall make brief reply in the hope that obvious mistakes, once pointed out, will provoke more diligent study.
One letter shows sincerity and objectivity, but at thesame time shows a lack of knowledge on the subjectof establishing authority that leads to extremism in a number of things. While time and space preclude a fullreview just now, I shall deal with some primarypoints. I suggest also a more careful study of my formerarticle.
In one of these letters I am accused of being like"institutional sponsoring church brethren, . . . who whenasked to prove their practice . . . and when they can't,they will call you a number of names like anti, hobbest(sic), church dividers and so on." I deny that eitherthese terms or any like them were so used in my formerarticle—not even the spirit indicated by such can befound therein. Again, I am accused of saying that theopposition is "guilty of inconsistency, a prejudicial view,sectarian spirit and division." This is only partiallycorrect and wholly wrong in some instances. I admit ofpointing out an inconsistency—I did not just accuse, butsubmitted proof. If not, wherein did I fail? The expression"a prejudicial view" was used to identify an "appearance" of an effort in view of circumstances. Perhaps the word "arbitrary" would have served mypurpose better. The expression "division and sectarianspirit" referred to the situation in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:10-13; 11:18, 19) to show that to which verse
Page 5
33, "tarry one for another," related. Thus, I am misrepresented again. Then I am accused: "You said,'Furthermore, the resurrection day of our Lord is thereason for the observance of the Lord's supper,' butgave no scripture .... I observe the Lord's supper because in his death he shed his blood for the remission of sins (Matt. 26:28; 1 Cor. 11:26). Sinceyou observe it because of the resurrection day, whereis your scripture?" What I actually said was: "Furthermore, the resurrection day of our Lord(which is the reason for the observance of the Lord's supper at this time in the first place) is shown elsewhere to be the Roman day (from midnight tomidnight)" (Emphasis—MEP). If our respondentknows of another reason, exclusive of this one, or onemore significant for observing it on the first day ofthe week, then let him produce it. He perverted whatI actually said. Other misrepresentations appear inthe letter. Also, arguments are made that were answered in my former article. This respondent needsto read more carefully.
One respondent, who enclosed the four articlesfrom another publication, affirms the Hebrew countof time in Acts 20, hence, a Saturday night meeting and the Lord's supper observance in verse 11. Whilethis position merits some consideration, I cannotaccept it for reasons already stated in my formerarticle. Concerning the expression "ready to departon the morrow," our respondent says that Luke couldhave used an "accommodative meaning" and refers tothe Lord's statement "Are there not twelve hours in a day?" (John 11:9). Notice, however, that in thereference cited, the context shows that a contrast isdrawn between daylight and dark; that "day" is usedto identify the daylight hours and "night" is used to identify the dark hours. There is no evidence of suchuse of the word "morrow" (KJV) or "day" (NASV) inActs 20:7.
Concerning John 20:19, he says that in connectionwith the statement "for it is toward evening, and theday is now far spent" (Lk. 24:29), "We could heremake allowances for 'polite exaggeration.' To visitors we say, 'It is not late,' when it really is. Similarly, they could have been stating, 'It is late,' when reallyit was not." In reply, let it be observed that it could never be "late" and "not late" to the same personfrom the same point of view! It might be "late" toone and "not late" to another, depending upon their viewpoint or that to which they relate the word"late." It might be "late" and "not late" to the sameperson from different viewpoints. However, sincethere is nothing in the context of verse 29 to relatethe thought of its being late other than its naturalmeaning and the chronology of events as set forthin Jno. 20:1, 19; Lk. 24:1, 13,21, 33, 36), we mustconclude that the late evening is meant in John
20:19. (See also the meaning of the word "evening" as set forth in my former article.) While I am persuaded that the "first day" should be observedaccording to the custom and time wherever one maychance to be, I have submitted the above to showthat the Hebrew count of time is not to be bound exclusively.
One respondent differs only over the idea of "Segmental Observance," or which is the same, offering the Lord's supper twice on the same day todifferent ones. He denies the inconsistency of hisposition, which I pointed out in my former article, onthe basis of the Lord's supper being specifically authorized while other items of worship are generically authorized. According to his concept, thespecifics of the Lord's supper preclude a secondarrangement whereas other items of worship may beengaged in at will anytime and anywhere. This identifies our brother's problem. Here he needs help!
What are the specifics of the Lord's supper? Our brother answers: "God has given his specifics on thesupper, that is, we must remember his death (Matt.26:26f; Acts 20:7), it must be done as God has commanded only on the Lord's day and as the churchis together assembled." These may be summarized asfollows: 1) In remembrance of Him, 2) On the firstday of the week, and 3) In an assembly of saints.Now, here is the crux of the problem: When oneaspect of some thing in specific, it does not followthat every aspect of the same thing is specific. Thisgets back to the age old question of determining justwhat in an example is binding exclusively. Just becausesome things about the Lord's supper have been madespecific, does not mean that the number of times it isprovided within the specified time is also specific. Onedoes not necessarily follow from the other. Both may bespecific, but if so, there would have to be evidence foreach. The Lord's supper is specific in relation to whatday. Singing is generic in relation to what day. Concerning the Lord's supper, if the example of thenumber of times provided within the specific day isbinding exclusively, then it follows concerning singing that the example of the number of times on whateverday is likewise binding exclusively. This involves the inconsistency pointed out in my former article: "The'no class brethren' are guilty of inconsistency when they insist upon specific authority for the class arrangement for teaching while at the same time accepting generic authority for other arrangements forteaching, e.g., an arrangement whereby the churchteaches through the distribution of literature, tracts,radio and TV preaching, home Bible studies, etc. Those who oppose providing the Lord's supper twiceon the same day are guilty of the same basic error,namely, inconsistency. While insisting upon specific authority for a second provision of the Lord's supper,they accept generic authority for a second provision for other items of worship on the same day. If the example of Acts 20:7 excludes a second observance for those hindered from the first, then the examples ofspecial meetings (Acts 14:27; 15:30) would likewiseexclude a second meeting on the same day for the same purpose for those hindered from the first. Furthermore, on this basis, respect for the examplesof assemblies in the New Testament relative to the number of times in one day would exclude all assemblies on the same day except one. The truth ofthe matter is the law of materiality demands that the number of times in all these items of worship be regarded as irrelevant or immaterial. Thereis nothing spiritually significant about the number oftimes. The "day" has spiritual significance—the number of times does not.
While other matters worthy of further study arefound in this letter, I feel that I have gone to theheart of the matter for this individual. We must be careful to act always by divine authority, but remember that it is also possible to bind where Godhas not. The latter assumes a fearful prerogative thatbelongs only to deity. I would not want to stand inthe shoes of such an one in the judgment.
MASONRY—A FALSE RELIGION
There are many questions regarding Masonry. Is ita religion? What do they teach? If it is a religion, weneed to urge brethren to come out of it, and we needto warn others not to get "caught up" in it. Also, weneed to warn our young people against becoming involved in it as there is a strong inclination toanyone to do so as you are promised that "if you area Mason, it will help you 'get ahead' in this world."
In this article I will be quoting from a number ofauthentic Masonic books. I will be quoting from theKentucky Monitor, a book given to every Mason inthe State of Kentucky; Morals and Dogma, a bookwritten by Mr. Albert Pike and prepared for theSouthern jurisdiction of the United States by the supreme council of the thirty-third degree, and published by its authority. Also, I will be quoting from Mackey's Revised Encyclopedia, written byAlbert G. Mackey, a thirty-third degree Mason. So,if the quotations are incorrect regarding what Masonsbelieve, we will have to blame those who are Masons.
Is Masonry A Religion?
The first question we need to ask is: Is Masonry areligion? Many Masons deny that the Masonic Lodgehas any connection with religion. However, note the following quotations. ". . . on the contrary, we contend, without any sort of hesitation, that Freemasonry is. in every sense of the word, exceptone, and that its least philosophical, an eminently religious institution—that it is indebted solely to the religious element it contains for its origin as well asits continued existence, and that without this religious element it would scarcely be worthy ofcultivation by the wise and good. The tendency of alltrue Freemasonry is toward religion. . . . Masonrythen, is indeed a religious institution; and on this ground mainly, if not alone, should the religious Mason defend it" (Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Vol. 2, pp. 617, 618, 619). "Every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion, and its, teachings are instruction in religion" (Morals and Dogma, Page 213). "This is because Masonry is a religious institution, and we thereby show our dependence upon our trust in God" (Kentucky Monitor, Page 41).
The Bible teaches that there is "one body" and that the body is the church (Eph. 4:4; 1:22-23). TheBible also teaches, "For the husband is the head of
Page 7
the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church:and he is the saviour of the body" (Eph. 5:23). Thus Christ's church is not the Masonic Lodge. Therefore,if the Masonic Lodge is a religious institution (andthey affirm that it is) it is an institution establishedby man and not by God. Which brings up our nextquestion.
Is It A Human Or Divine Institution?
"It is to this institution, born of heaven in the gray of the world's morning, before poets sang orhistorians wrote, that I am privileged to accord you aCraftman's greeting" (Mackey's Ency. Vol. 1, Page194). ". . . and if a man yields himself to it, he will need neither churches nor ordinances except for theexpression of his religious homage and gratitude" (M& D, pp. 211-212).
The Bible teaches that Christ established his church. In Matt. 16:18 Jesus said, "And I say alsounto thee, That thou are Peter, and upon this rock Iwill build my church; and the gates of hell shall notprevail against it." Christ's church was established on the first pentecost after the resurrection of Christ, according to Acts chapter 2. To try to be a memberof the Lord's church and the Masonic Lodge is making an effort to serve God and worship Himthrough a human institution. And, the above teaching of the Masonic Lodge is false.
Is What Masons Do Called Worship?
"Masonry is a worship; but one in which all civilized men can unite" (M & D, Page 526). Just asthe Lord has instructed His people from His Wordconcerning the different items of worship (singing,praying, partaking of the Lord's Supper, giving,teaching) so those who are Masons have some ofthese same items. For example. Masonry teachesprayer. "In the light of that lesson (that Masonry isa religious institution. JTS) prayer becomes a duty aswell as a privilege of every Mason" (Ky. Mon., P. 28). Also, Masonry practices a Lord's Supper."Question: What is to us the chief symbol of man'sultimate redemption and regeneration?0 Answer: "The fraternal supper, of bread which nourishes and of wine which refreshes and exhilarates, symbolic of the time which is to come, when all mankind shall beone great harmonious brotherhood: . . . And thus inthe bread we eat and the wine we drink tonight, manenters into and forms part of us the identical particlesof matter that once formed parts of the materialbodies called Moses, Confucious, Plato, Socrates, orJesus of Nazareth" (M & D, page 539). "To our Jewish brethren, this supper is symbolical of thePassover, to the Christian Mason, of that eaten byChrist and His Disciples, when celebrating Che Passover;He broke bread and gave it to them saying, 'Take Eat! This is my body:' and giving them the cup, He said, 'Drink ye all of it! For this ismy blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins:' thus symbolizing theperfect harmony and union between Himself and thefaithful; and His death upon the cross for the salvation of men" (M & D, page 540). In this sameconnection, LIFE magazine, a number of years ago, (October 1958) carried a full page story with a pictureof Masons eating this supper at a table shaped like a cross.
Christ said in Luke 22:29-30 that his disciples wereto eat and drink at His table in His Kingdom—not inthe Masonic Lodge. It, the Masonic Lodge, is areligious institution and has worship services as wehave shown in this article. More next month.
HUMAN ACCOUNTABILITY
I seriously doubt that there is a subject more farreaching or more deserving of attention than is thesubject of human accountability. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people are wandering aimlessly through life without regard to their relationship to God argues graphically the need of impressing every man with the fact of it. The failureto convict people concerning it is no doubt the causeof so much disinterest and apathy in religion. I amfirmly convinced that proper treatment of the subjectwill still strike fear into the heart of the sinner,arresting his conscience so that he will more readilyconsider the truths of the gospel of Christ. Furthermore, a discussion of the fact of human accountability serves to encourage and exhort the child of God toward more faithful service.
Just what is accountability? Even the component
parts of the word suggest its meaning. To account
for something is to explain to someone your actions
regarding that thing. For instance, in Matthew
25:14-19, the Lord explains how that a certain man
was about to travel into a far country. In order to
insure the protection of his possessions, he called in
his servants and "delivered unto them his goods.
And unto one he gave five talents, to another two,
and to another one; to every man according to his
several ability; and straightway took his journey."
Verse 19, following Christ's explanation of each
man's conduct, says, "After a long time, the lord of
the servants cometh and reckoneth with them." The
point of the parable is that each man was called upon
to account for his actions regarding that which had
been committed to his trust. The Lord argues that
they should have been ready for such a reckoning.
Notice that the word "accountability" has another
part. It not only implies a reckoning, but tells us the
subject of such a reckoning; it is giving account for
one's ability. Man is a volitional creature. That is,
he is so constructed as to be the controller of his own course and, ultimately, his own destiny. He can respond to this ability by choosing either to serveGod or the forces of evil; it is his decision to make(Cf. Rom. 6:16). Any man possessed of full mental capability knows inherently, because of his own consciousness, that he is a creature fitted for choice.Because of such a cognizance, he feels at once responsible (to himself, if no one else!) for making good choices, ones that are beneficial. And his recognition of the fact that he obviously did notcreate himself makes him immediately amenable inhis own mind to his maker.
Every man is accountable. There is no such thing as a man who is mentally adequate, but who is notresponsible. Paul says, "for we shall all stand beforethe judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As Ilive, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me andevery tongue shall confess to God. So then every oneof us shall give account of himself to God" (Rom14:11-13). It is foolish beyond words for people todisregard and ignore human accountability. The Bible teaches emphatically that it is a personal fact! In thepassage just cited we see that every knee shall bow; every tongue shall confess; and every one of us shallgive account of himself to God. (Cf. Ezk. 18:19-20)Every man is accountable.
Man is accountable to God. After having createdhim, God revealed himself to man. Man has never been without the availability of sufficient informationwith which to worship and serve God. That does notargue that he has always availed himself of such information, but even those who have wilfullyrejected His truth always had that truth available orthey could not have rejected it (Rom. l:18-ff). The Scriptures are replete with information concerning aday of reckoning before God; a day during which "the books will be opened" and every man will be judged according to the truth of God. In his discourse at Athens (Acts 17:31), Paul states that"he hath appointed a day in which he will judge theworld in righteousness". Peter states in 2 Pet. 2:9that, "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust untothe day of judgment to be punished." Such other passages as Matt. 25:31-46; 2 Pet. 3:7; Jno. 12:48;and Revelation 20:11-15 give irrefutable testimony tothe fact of our inevitable interview with God. The mere fact of accountability assumes judgment. Andthe surety of judgment presupposes that both remunerative and vindicatory actions will be taken byGod at that notable day.
But it is not enough to affirm that man is accountable for his abilities unless we understand what his abilities are. We have before affirmed that man is responsible for making choices, but in relation to what? Let us see.
Man cannot create, so he cannot be held accountable for the basic laws of necessity. Nor can man destroy and therefore he can only be responsible for restructuring that which cannot exist but by another's power. Man can discover, learn, and
change, working all the while with things as theypresently exist. This means he is responsible for whatever choices will result in the benefit of all concerned. In short, he is responsible for what heCAN do to effect the ultimate good of all. In this connection, man has two basic areas wherein heincurs primary or first obligation. They are 1)Attitude and, 2) Conduct. In these areas he doesexercise complete control. They are inseparablyconnected together and the latter is sequential to theformer. Every man has an attitude and so he is responsible to God for it; every man must, likewise,account for how he has fitted that attitude into his manner of living. For these two abilities man must account to God.
Man is responsible for what he thinks and that iswhat his attitude is all about. Attitude is a personaldisposition or manner in regard to another person orthing. It is how a man thinks. Attitude is acquired,not inherited and, left unattended by informationfrom God, will naturally degenerate to the lowest evilpossible. But when that attitude is influenced by theWord of God, it becomes the source of great good,not only to the person who maintains it, but to allthose with whom it comes in contact. God's information shapes and molds good attitudes byteaching proper thinking. It shows man the properdispositions, inclination, purposes and goals. It causes man to use his ability of reason for high andquality purposes instead of coarse and low designs towhich man stoops when separated from the influenceof the divine directive. Time and again, the Scriptures warn vehemently against the tendency ofman to give lodging to evil thoughts and base notions (Matt. 5:21-48; Mk. 7:21; Prov. 4:23, etc.). Remember that since it is formed mainlythrough associations, an intimate relationship withthe Word of God is indispensable to the formation ofa good attitude.
Man is responsible for his conduct. Conduct is merely the manner in which a man deports himself,how he chooses to go, his manner of living. In Matt.7:13-14, Christ enjoins the responsibility of a rightconduct. The broad "way" he describes has referenceto an undisciplined and unrestrained mode of living,while the strait "way" refers to a manner of living that is law-restricted and disciplined. A man's conduct is the "way" he goes. No man can read theBible for very long and not see clearly that Godcounts man obligated for the "way" he lives (Cf.Heb., Chapter 11). Having given a system for thecontrol of his path of pursuit, it is only logical toassume that God will hold man accountable for how he follows it.
In Gal. 6:7-8, Paul says, "Be not deceived; God isnot mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to the flesh shall ofthe flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to theSpirit, shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." This passage deals clearly with conduct, showing that eachman is responsible for his own manner of life and further affirming that God will reward every man
Page 9
according to how he has lived. It should be noted,too, that acceptable conduct is not to be measuredmerely in terms of negative holiness. James 4:17states that, "to him that knoweth to do good anddoeth it not, to him it is sin," showing that positiveaction is just as vital as is the leaving off of those things which are prohibited by God (See Matt. 7:24-27).
The conclusions are inescapable. Man is accountable to God, for by God does he "live,move, and have his very being" (Acts 17:28). God hasgiven him volitional ability and ability makes himaccountable. It should be carefully remembered that God is noting our handling of the abilities withwhich he has entrusted us. And such accountability assumes a day of judgment andthat judgment assumes rewards, both of approvaland condemnation. As a result of knowing such tobe the case, we should hasten to give due consideration to our present state of affairs, for "it isappointed unto man once to die, but after this cometh the judgment".
Evolution, the Piltdown Man and Mars
Jim Gabbard
Box 686 Gonzales, LA 70737
I have just read a lecture, delivered in 1927, bybrother G. C. Brewer, on the theory of organicevolution. At that time evolution was on the definite upswing and on the minds and in the conversation of a very great many people. The Scopes trial had justconcluded, in which John Scopes had been brought totrial in Dayton, Tennessee (1925) for teaching organicevolution in the state school system.
The trial attracted national attention and was treated sensationally in the press throughout the nation. A large newspaper in New York financed thedefense for Scopes and brought the best known attorney of the day, Mr. Clarence Darrow, who haddefended the murderers of little Bobby Franks(Leopold and Loeb) in Illinois, to defend Scopes. The prosecution brought in William Jennings Bryan, the silver-tongued orator, who had three times run for the office of President of the United States, to helpthe other side.
Scopes was found guilty of violating a Tennesseelaw which forbade teaching anything contrary to theBook of Genesis account of the origin of man. That law was immediately repealed. The theory of organicevolution grew by leaps and bounds for the next few years. However, there were a number of disturbingthings about that theory.
One of the knottiest problems for the evolutionists,from a scientific view, is that there are no intermediaries. It would not escape even a dunce thatif evolution, without intelligent direction, occurred,there would be all kinds of horrendous intermediaries. There was a lot of talk about missing links in thosedays, but scientists continued to promise that they'd soon find them. The missing link dominated discussions about the evolutionary madness in thosedays.
A group of scientists in England decided to attempt to partially silence the critic in this connection. They took a bunch of old bones found ina gravel pit at Piltdown Common, Sussex, betweenthe years 1909 and 1915, and added the mandible of an ape to the bones, and carefully cut, carved,scraped and shaped them and came up with themissing link between ape and man, and called it the Piltdown Man.
In 1953, however, men of science noted somethings as strangely wrong with the now famous Piltdown Man, and proved it a fraud. That, as would be expected, dealt a stunning blow to the evolutionary theorists. They recovered, however, by
the massive use of textbooks for schools throughoutthe world, from kindergarten through the graduate process in the universities.
Leave it to real science to prove truth and exposeerror in academic matters. (The Bible is truth in spiritual matters). The United States Space Program,trying incidentally to prove evolution, has dealt it another devastating blow which may prove to have more of a negative impact than the fraudulent Piltdown Man.
The scientific community has been in general agreement for some time that the Planet Mars maycontain all the conditions necessary for the evolutionof life, a belief which was pretty well confirmed bythe recent explorations to that planet by Viking I and Viking II, in 1976.
The sad news for the explorers is that there is nolife on Mars. If the conditions for organic evolution exist, and no evolution took place, what will be theinevitable conclusions as these facts dawn on more and more people and as they are articulated on awider and wider scale?
We'll just have to wait and see, but it occurs to methat it (probably with a few more failures) could spell bad news for organic evolutionists.
Imagine how you may have reacted had you beenin Peter's place. A vessel comes down from heavencontaining all manner of beasts and creeping thingsof the earth and fowls of the heaven. A voice commands: "Rise, Peter, kill and eat." This must have been quite impressive. Furthermore, Peter seems to have no doubt that this is from heaven and that the voice is that of the Lord's, for in his reply Peter addresses the Lord. What would you have done? Would you have quickly set aside any prejudices and preconceived notions, gotten up andobeyed the command? Maybe you would have, butnot Peter! Notice Peter's reply: "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that was common and unclean" (Acts 10:14).
Think for a moment about Peter's reasoning. He did not intend to eat these beasts because he had never before eaten such animals. In his commentaryon Acts J. W. McGarvey makes this observation:
"His thoughts went no farther in justification of his boldness than the fact thathe had never in his life eaten anythingunclean, as were some of the things he wascommanded to eat; but in thus abstaining heknew that he was obeying a law which Godhimself had given to his fathers, and he couldnot at the instant take in the thought thatGod was now abolishing one of his own laws"(page 203).
Have you considered how often people, like Peter,base their reactions to an argument or their conviction on a subject simply on what they have orhave not done before, or what they have or have notthought of before?
1. SOME WOULD JUSTIFY WHAT THEY DO ON THE BASIS THAT THEY HAVE "ALWAYS DONE IT." "My mother, father, grandparents and great grandparents have always gone to church here,so surely this is where I should be a member" somewill reason. Batsell Barrett Baxter in his booklet QUESTIONS AND ISSUES OF THE DAY defendedchurch contributions to colleges on the basis that "This is the time honored position held by our brethren ..." and he stated that there is "no reason to abandon the solid ground of this historic position"(page 27). But Peter said: ". . .ye were not redeemedwith corruptible things, at; silver and gold, from yourvain manner of life handed down from your fathers"(1 Peter 1:18). The traditions of men are not authority, but are the very thing we need to beredeemed from. Paul wrote, "Beware lest any manspoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, afterthe tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Colossians 2:8).
Whether I deem something "time honored" or "historic" makes no difference. Because I have done something for years, does not make it right for me tocontinue it without Bible authority.
- OTHERS (LIKE PETER) OBJECT TO SOMETHING BECAUSE THEY HAVE "NEVER DONE IT." This is no more valid ground to objectto a thing than our former point is for doing something. If some special class is suggested for the congregation to be held at times rather than the "traditional" Sunday and Wednesday meeting times,some will be uncomfortable with it simply becausethey have never heard of such a thing. Objections may arise such as "No one will come"; "We getenough instruction in our regular classes"; "It willtire everyone out", etc. Some will not teach a class,make a talk, lead a song, or knock on doors, because"I have never done it before". Do they think otherswere born doing these things? If we see a commandof God we need to obey it whether we have obeyed itbefore or not. If I see an opportunity to do good (James 4:17) or to exercise my talents (Matthew 25:14-30; Hebrews 5:12-14) I ought to do these things whether I have before or not. Perhaps someare afraid of the fact that if they do try somethingthey have never done before, then they never againcan rely on the excuse "I have never done it" in orderto get out of some responsibility!
- SOME REJECT AN ARGUMENT BECAUSE THEY "HAVE HEARD IT BEFORE". Several years ago a preacher, with whom I was discussing some of the issues between brethren, made the argument that Galatians 6:10 authorizes the churchto offer benevolence to those who are not Christians. I replied that the context shows that Gal. 6:10 is a command to individuals rather than the church. His only answer was, "Oh, I have heard that before." Ofcourse, I had heard his argument before too, but that isnot what made it fallacious. It was wrong because it
Page 11
was contrary to the Bible. Many seem to have thisattitude. When Bible truth is presented to them, ratherthan grappling with it they try to shrug it off as unworthy of consideration since it is nothing new tothem. This seems to have been the thinking of the menof Athens in Acts 17. Their interest was in hearing a"new doctrine" and "strange things". They did notreally want to test and accept the truth, but they justwanted something to challenge their worldly intellect.
Truth is truth whether you have ever heard it before or not. If you have heard it before, your responsibility to obey it is even greater.
4. OTHERS REJECT AN ARGUMENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE NEVER HEARD IT BEFORE. Recently I was pointing out to a friend ofmine how I felt the Lord's name was used in an objectionable way in a secular song. But he could notsee any problem with it primarily because he had just"never thought of it that way". Even if my contention had been wrong, it would not have been wrong because he had never thought of it.Our personal thoughts and judgments can be wayoff base (Proverbs 14:12).
Some want to continue doing somethingunscriptural because they have always done it. Othersrefuse to do what they ought because they have neverdone it. Some will reject a principle because theyhave heard that before, it is nothing new to them.Others will reject a truth because they have neverheard of such a thing. These contradicting attitudessimply show that if someone is not willing to putfaith in God's word and accept what ever he findstherein, he will find a way to rationalize his error.Such people are trying to direct their own steps, andthe Lord says this cannot be done (Jeremiah 10:23).They are walking by sight rather than by faith (2 Corinthians 5:7).
All of us need to be careful about the way we studyand arrive at conclusions so that our convictions are truly based on God's word rather than on human reasoning or the traditions of men.
THE BIBLE CONTAINSCONTRADICTIONS
Jimmy Tuten, Jr.
I have purposefully selected the caption of thisarticle in an effort to arrest the attention of our readers. Please observe that I have said the "Bible contains contradiction?;" I have not said that the Bible contradicts itself. I do not believe that there are narratives and accounts in Scripture that are at variance with each other. Modernists view the gospels for example, as substantial sameness which finds diverse expression (Harry R. Boer, above The Battle, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1977, P. 59). Mr. Boer further asserts that there is a "remarkable difference between the Synoptics collectively and the gospel of John" (Ibid., P. 62). I do not deny thatthere are problems in the New Testament, but theseproblems are removed by systematic, orderly in-vestigation of scripture. Our confidence in the Bible need not be weakened by efforts of infidels and modernists to destroy the truthfulness of Sacred Scriptures. These efforts have been demonstrated in times past to be feeble and flimsy. The design of suchactions is to poison the minds of mankind with reference to the unity of the Bible. The Sacred Scriptureis inspired and has stood where it has alwaysstood! Unaffected and unmolested by its assailants.It genuineness shines brighter than ever.
When I talk about the Bible containing contradictions, I am saving that the Bible flatlycon-tradicts the opinions and ideas of men. The veryfact that the "world by its wisdom knew not God,"and "the preaching of the cross is to them that perishfoolishness," demonstrates that the wisdom of God as revealed in the Scriptures contradicts human dogmas and doctrines. It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps (Jer. 10:23). Man has his opinionsrelative to certain subjects, but the Bible contradictsthose opinions by giving the truth on the matter.
The Bible Contradicts What Man Thinks of Himself
It has always been the boast of the unrighteousand the ungodly that they are wise ones. Throughthe use of reason the wise man feels that all thingsmust be demonstrated or understood in the light ofnatural laws. He frowns upon the believer who walksby faith and not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7). Yet, with allhis reasoning and rationalizations about God, theskeptical philosopher reaches no real goal in life. His thinking is useless and leads him into the abyss ofinfidelity. Instead of arriving at God, the wisdom ofman denies the existence of God (1 Cor. 1:21). TheBible contradicts this human reason by saying, "ifany man thinkethhe_knoweth anything, he knoweth not yet as he ought to know" (1 Cor. 8:2). Men say,"we are wise; we need not the God of the Bible." The Bible says that, "professing themselves to be wise,they became fools" (Rom. 1:22). Further, man feels the need for self-exaltation, but the Bible says thathe ought "not to think of himself more highly than
Page 12
he ought to think" (Rom. 12:3).
The creature called "man" must understand that without God he is nothing. He is most pitiable andwretched if in this life only there is hope. Man is a creature of choice (Josh. 24:14). He must choose between the wisdom of man and the wisdom of God;between truth and error; salvation and condemnation,and, heaven or hell. Men simply do not want toaccept God's ways. They feel that they can acceptwhat pleases them and still be acceptable to God.
The Scriptures contradicts this reasoning by saying, "not everyone that sayeth unto me, Lord,Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but hethat doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven"(Matt. 7:21). It is not enough to do something. Wemust do that which is prescribed in the Divine plan(1 Tim. 1:13; 1 Pet. 4:11). Man's choice is to eitherdisobey, or obey God. If he seeks to obey God, hemust obey in the manner prescribed by God in thepages of the revealed Word.
Man may feel no need for a Saviour, but the Bibleteaches that man is a sinner and that he does need a Saviour (Rom. 3:23). As a sinner man is totallydependent upon the captain of our salvation (Heb. 9:14). In fact, in "none other is there salvation: forneither is there any other name under heaven, that isgiven among men, wherein we must be saved" (Acts4:12, ASV).
The Bible Contradicts What Man Thinks of God
The wisdom of man denies the primal truth thatthere is a personal, supreme God of the universe.Many among the wise call themselves "atheists" in spite of the fact that the world and the fullnessthereof mirrors the glory of the Great "I Am." Theseindividuals look up to the bright heavens and thevariegated earth and calmly reason, "there is no God!" They reject the supernatural God on the basisthat such belief is contrary to natural law. Revelationdeclares not only the mind of God and His existence,it declares that it is He who made the heavens and the earth. The Atheist knows that we cannot demonstrate God's existence, but what he refuses totake into account is the solemn fact that he cannot demonstrate that there is no God! Atheism is a probability: no more and no less. In order to say withabsolute certainty that there is no God, one wouldhave to be a God himself. The one thing the atheistmay not know is the fact of the existence of God.
Yes, the Bible contradicts the thinking of thosewho say that there is no God. It says, "the fool hathsaid in his heart, there is no God" (Psa. 14:1). Manmust know God and place his confidence in Him byaccepting the revelation of the mind of God. The Spirit of God has revealed God's mind (1 Cor. 2:11).The heavens declare His glory (Rom. 1:19-21). Itremains for man therefore, to accept the Scriptures asthe revealed will of God. "Without faith, it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to Godmust believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder ofthem that diligently seek him (Heb. 11:6).
The Bible Contradicts What Man Thinks of Christ
In spite of the vast amount of evidence testifying to the historical position of Christ and the revelationof His Divine nature, many deny that Jesus existed.Some indeed admit that there was a man who lived nineteen hundred years ago called "Christ," but deny that He was the Son of God. Some say that Jesus was a myth, or legend, existing only in the imaginations of man. One person maintains that "thevirgin mother conceived this idea of God and gaveher ideal the name Jesus" [Christian Science And Scriptures Contrasted, by Robert A. Hadden). Justas the Arians of the third century argued that Christwas a form of supreme angel, but not eternalor of Divine essence, so some today look upon Jesusas merely the master product of evolution. He is saidto be simply a great ethical teacher. Arianism finds its expression today through Jehovah's Witnesses who say, "before our Lord came into the world, he was created an angel and none otherthan the archangel Michael (Prophetic Program of Jehovah's Witnesses, by Keith L. Brooks). Theyfurther state that Jesus was not a combination of "two natures, human and Divine." He was simply "aperfect human being, nothing more." The Mormonsadvocate that Jesus was the son of Adam-God and Mary (Mormonism Examined, Keith L. Brooks).
If Jesus is the result of the imaginations of the writers of the New Testament, then their imaginationexcels the thinking of any group of men before or after their existence. The invention of Jesus would be a miracle as great as the actual existence of JesusHimself! The dramatization of Christ on the part of agroup of men writing at different times and placesthrough such varied and difficult aspects is absurd.Truly, the extravagance of such a position is its ownrefutation. If Jesus is simply a great man, a religiousgenius without anything supernatural about Him,then He is the world's greatest liar! How can the skeptic possibly call Him "a good man?" Would a good man lie? To say that Jesus was not all that Heclaimed to be, is the same as saying that He was animpostor. Why did He refuse the throne (Matt.4:8-9)? Why did He choose the disgrace of the cross(Phil. 2:6-8)?
The Bible says Jesus was the Son of God. Recorded therein is the testimony of God, of the HolySpirit, and of Angels to the Deity of Christ (Matt.3:17; 17:5; Jno. 15:26-27; Matt. 1:21; Acts 1:10-11).Even the enemies of the Lord testified that He was God's Son (Matt. 27:17; Mk. 15:39). One said Hewas "Jesus which is called Christ," and the othersaid, "truly this man was the Son of God." TheScriptures also declare that Jesus was co-existent andco-eternal, as well as co-equal with God, the Father(Jno. 1:1-14). Archaeologists corroborate the accuracy of this testimony. Even though the spadehas not turned up all secrets of the past, enough evidence is on hand to show the doubting Thomasesthat the Gospel story is not pious legend.
Conclusion
What you think of yourself, God and Christ will determine where you will spend eternity. Do notallow your thinking to be contradicted by the Bible.
Page 13
The Word of God will never pass away and we will bejudged by it some day. We are wholly dependentupon God and need the salvation He offers through His Son Jesus. Let us show proper regard for self,respect for God, and love toward Jesus by obeying Christ today. "He that believeth and is baptized shallbe saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:16).
JAMIE RHODEN, 8150 Driggers St., Jacksonville, FL 32205 —James P. Miller was with the Marietta church in Jacksonville for a week-end meeting Nov. 4, 5 and 6. There were four responses and record crowds each night. Although brother Miller's health is not what he would like it to be, it certainly has not affected his ability to preachGod's word. He did a masterful job of expounding the gospel. He left following our meeting for a meeting in Montgomery, Alabama and was to be with the South Jacksonville church the last of the month, if the Lord is willing (as he would surely say).
DAVID PATTERSON, 563 NE 5th St., Crystal River, FL 32629 — On November 10 I moved to Crystal River to begin a full-time work
with that congregation, the first man to work here in that capacity.Currently we have 19 members and our attendance runs in the 20's and 30's. We feel the church here has taken a big step forward and lookoptimistically toward the future. We encourage those traveling south to stop and worship with us. The building is just off U.S. 19 on state road
44. We would appreciate receiving bulletins from around the country.
JIM ALLEN, Box 181, Oglethorpe, GA 31068 — We came to the work here in July, following Art Adams. The work is growing. Since July we have had four baptized and five restored. The congregation is atpeace and the future looks good.
GARRETH L. CLAIR, 711 Santa Anna, Mesa, Arizona 85201 — After three years with the church in Dumas, Texas (6th and Meredith) we are now settled in the work at 61st and Hibbert Street inMesa. We enjoyed our work in Dumas and recommend the work and theleadership there. Since September, in Mesa, we have had 31 restorations,one baptism and two have placed membership. We had a meeting inDecember and presently are improving our meeting facilities. We are to begin two new classes in January. The first one will be a 90 minute class on Thursday nights dealing with the Holy Spirit. The second classwill be a ladies Bible class on Monday mornings. Visitors to the Valleyof the Sun are welcome to attend services here with us. GARY HARGIS, Rt. 1, Box 60, Mekinock, North Dakota 58258 — We moved to Grand Forks, N.D. on April 1, 1977 to work with an on-fire group. During their first year they grew from 9 to 38 in at-tendance.Two families, the Doc Daughertys and Jim Lohmans, started the workhere. With several restorations from liberalism and 6 baptisms plus much hard work, they had grown to 38 by the time we came. Since them theyhave not slowed down. There have been 12 baptisms and 5 restorationsfrom the base. We now number 55-58 when all are present. Six of theseare non-members with whom we are now working. As a result of a men's training class started by Don Bonner of Jamestown, ND., we now have four men who handle Sunday night preaching. They are DocDaugherty, Jim Lohman, Wally Ireland and Kelly Stowers. Three of these have been faithful Christians for less than two years and one foronly 6 months.They do very fine. Weneed $8,000 for a loantobuya lot.We can put down $2,000 but need $8,000 more at 8 % interest. If you know of anyone who can make such a loan please let us know. (Editor's note: It was a thrill for the family and me to worship withthese brethren last August on our way to Utah for a meeting and to speak to their Sunday morning assembly. It would do brethren from areas where congregations are more plentiful much good to visit brethren insuch places.)
Roy Cogdill At Expressway STEVE WOLFGANG, 3712 Warren Ave., Louisville, KY 40215 — During the week of October 24-30, 1977, members of the Expresswaychurch of Christ, 4437 South Sixth St., Louisville, KY had the privilege of hearing Roy E. Cogdill preach in a gospel meeting. Themeeting was well attended by Expressway members and by a number of community visitors who are not members of the Lord's church. SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES readers who have known brother Cogdill through the years will rejoice to know that he has regained a measure of health and strength and came preaching with thesame fervor, force and clarity which has been characteristic of himthrough the years. Without meaning to turn the pages of this paper into an "adulation sheet", we do feel that good news regarding thosewho have fought long and valiantly in the Cause should be reported.Although brother Cogdill's health has not been the best in the last few years, at this time he appears to be in better health (and seems to feelmuch better) than he has for some time. He spoke each night for nearly an hour, sometimes more, to above-average crowds (which puts the lie tothe idea that brethren will not abide lengthy sermons; they win, SOLONG AS THE PREACHER HAS SOMETHING TO SAY)! At a special Saturday morning session on the Charismatic Movement, hespoke for nearly two hours and answered questions from the audience. He spoke three times on Sunday, and participated in the call-in radio program of the Preston Highway church along with this scribe and JamieSloan of Douglas Hills (where brother Cogdill held a meeting last fall).Brother Cogdill went from Louisville to Danville to conduct a meeting there, and we have received a good report of his continued good health and forceful preaching to good audiences there. While we do not wishto fall victim to the wrong of thinking of men "above that which iswritten" (1 Cor. 4:6), we feel that brother Cogdill's long experience (hewill mark his 55th anniversary of preaching on November 20) and his evident ability make him an exceptional proclaimer of God's word.
His love for the souls to whom he preaches in manifest in the earnestness with which he preached the gospel. The saints at Expressway were truly edified.
In our opinion, one of the main contributions brother Cogdill has made in his efforts to teach the truth as widely as possible has been the numerous books, debates and tracts he has authored. Perhaps the bestknown of these has been The New Testament Church, first written nearlyforty years ago (1938). Besides going through nearly twenty printingeditions into about a dozen foreign languages involving nearly a quarter of a million copies, the book has, in his own words, "done a lot of preaching at places I could not or would not be allowed to go." While he was here he replied to a recent request from the American Braille Societyin Los Angeles to grant permission for them to publish The New Testament Church in Braille so that even the blind may now have access to this thorough and scriptural study of the Lord's church.
This scribe counts it a rare privilege and honor to have been associated with brother Cogdill in this effort and to have had the benefit of sitting at his feet during this period. We bid him Godspeed and wishfor him continued health and many more opportunities in preaching the gospel.
An Unusual Baptism GEORGE FLEM, Vacaville, CA — The prison located in Vacaville, California is called "The California Medical Facility." One of the convicts housed there is the subject of this account. Raised a RomanCatholic, as a man, he became a murderer. He shot and killed a father of seven children, tried to shoot a policeman and kidnapped a hostage to obtain a get-away car. Approaching a road block he attempted to usethe hostage to get through. A policeman shot him in the back, hittingthe spine and paralyzing him from the waist down. After hospitalization he pleaded guilty before a judge and received a sentence of life, without parole, plus 15 years. He was then transferred toVacaville to receive medical care for the paralysis.A Christian from another state came to see him and contacted me about him. He received a Bible which he began to read. Conversations, letters, bulletins, and our local "Ask Your Preacher" program were all employed to assist in his study. Finally, I received aletter from him acknowledging the authority of God and rejecting the authority and doctrines of men. He desired to obey the gospel. Having taught high school in a prison some years ago I knew there would beproblems. Certainly they would not let him out to be baptized. In addition, he was paralyzed and would require special care in the baptism. A medical facility, however, has therapeutic tubs deepenough for complete submersion. With permission from the authorities of the prison I received his confession and baptized him in a therapeutic tub. I will never forget the happiness he expressed as he came up out of the water, a new creature in Christ Jesus. Glory be to God! The powerof the word of God reached through an upbringing in a false religion, a life of crime, and even a brutal killing to touch the heart of this man,bringing about obedience. Who said that the plain, simple gospel haslost its power? GOD STILL GIVES THE INCREASE.
TRADE, ANYONE? WILLIAM B. WRIGHT, 246 Putnam Lance, Weirton, WV 26062
— I have about two volumes (it may be three) of Christianity Today (unbound) for the late 1960's. I also have an almost complete set ofTruth Magazine for the years since 1964 (with the exception of the pasttwelve or fourteen months). I also have some issues of other journalssuch as the American Christian Review, Bible Hearld, etc. for the 1950's. I keep them for two basic reasons: (1) Reference; (2) I'm a pack-rat. But, the fact is I have no real storage space for such matter and I would like tobe rid of them. On the other hand, I would like to have smaller (butreliable) journals in a binding I could conveniently keep and have forreference. Examples of this are: Searching the Scriptures and ThePreceptor. Is anyone interested in a trade? I would be happy to make it on a 3 or 4 to 1 basis. I'm interested in quality, not quantity.
Page l5
JIMMY TUTEN, JR., 6710 Dorchester Rd., Apt. 2200H, Charleston, SC 29405 — Our work at Ashley Heights is progressingnicely. Attendance averaged 48 during the month of October. Wejust closed a gospel meeting with James P. Needham preaching. Itwas outstanding in every way. Brother Needham did his usual outstanding job of preaching the pure gospel and the brethren supported him diligently. In the meeting we baptized three and onewas restored. If you know of anyone in any branch of the militarylocated in Charleston who is looking for a sound church, put them intouch with us. You may phone 803-552-4308 or 803-553-4970.
Preachers Needed MILBRIDGE, MAINE — Isn't there anyone out there who loves our souls enough to sacrifice at least a year for us who are trying to hold onto the truth? The church at Milbridge very badly needs someone to come here and work with us. We do not need an unstable man, a novice or a troublemaker. Two men in the past have been willing to come and work with us (one even sold his home) but neither was able to find adequate support to come.Why was this? Are there no men who are willing to help us, and no congregations which will supply what they need to work in this hard field? The church here can supply $200 a month and with better teaching might be able to do more. The rest will have tocome from elsewhere. Why can't we find the help we need? Contact Alvin West, Harrington, Maine 04643. EXTON, PA — The church meeting at 217 Whitford Road is looking for a man towork with them on a full time basis. Partial support is available. Address replies to Church of Christ, c/o Everitt Wood, 1207 Farmington Lane, West Chester, PA 19380 or call collect 215-363-8042.
Debates THOMAS G. O'NEAL met J. W. Holcomb in a debate on women
teachers in some Bible classes at Cannonsburg, KY Nov. 28, 29, 30 and then at 5th Avenue in Bessemer, AL on Dec. 29, 30,31. Barney Keith moderated for Tom O'Neal. We regret not getting this printedprior to these discussions but received the announcement too late.
H. E. PHILLIPS of Tampa, Florida will meet JACK GIBBERT of Newport, North Carolina in a debate April 17, 18, 20 and 21 atFredericksburg, Virginia. The subject will be divorce and remarriage. The first proposition is that "The Scriptures teach that the guilty party (the one put away for fornication) has the scripturalright to marry another." Jack Gibbert affirms this while H. E. Phillips denies it. The second proposition is that "the guilty partymust be reconciled to his/her former mate or live a celibate life fromthat point forward." H. E. Phillips will affirm this and Jack Gibbert will deny. The third proposition is that "The Scriptures teach thatwhen a man puts away his wife for any cause other than fornicationand subsequently marries another that his first wife must remaincelibate or be reconciled to her husband." H. E. Phillips will affirmand Jack Gibbert will deny. The final proposition is that "when a man puts away his wife for any cause other than fornication and subsequently marries another that his first wife then may put himaway for fornication and she has the scriptural right to marryanother" Jack Gibbert will affirm this position and H. E. Phillipswill deny. After January 1st you may contact Roland Worth, Jr., 417 Rann Court, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 for information as tothe location for this debate.
