LET NO MAN DESPISE THY YOUTH

Youth is a vibrant and thrilling period in life. The churning energy for achievement in desired fields, theenthusiastic response to every challenge, the surgingcuriosity for the unknown, the multicolored imagination and daydreams for all kinds of goals andsuccesses, and the undefeatable pursuit of life in itsfullness all combine to constitute that section of life span we call Youth. Of course, I am here speaking of a class of people and not every individual in thatclass. There are some young people who have nogoals, no ambition, no opportunities, no happinessand no desire for the good life. They produce very little that is worth much in the course of their life time. I believe these are in the minority among theyouth of America and the world.

Our hopes for the future of the church, the familyunit, the nation and the world rests with our youth oftoday. Just a few more years and those of us at mypoint in life will "sleep with our fathers" and the youth will take from us the helm to guide civilizationand survival of the world. An awesome thought! Butwe moved into this position when our fathers retiredfrom the scene of action and relinquished their laborsand responsibilities to us. Whether we did the kind ofjob with the world we should have done may be aquestionable issue, but we have but one remaining chance to redeem ourselves as the aged in contrast tothe youth: we must call their attention to the taskbefore them and give all the instruction and encouragement we can give to them now. We mustpoint out their weakness, failures and mistakes. Theyexpect us to do it, and we owe it to them. It is important also that we give them a good example ofpersonal integrity, individual responsibility, honest labor and sincere devotion to God. We must emphasize their strength, commend their successesand underscore their outstanding accomplishments.

"These things command and teach. Let no mandespise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, inspirit, in faith, in purity" (1 Tim. 4:11,12). Since Timothy was instructed to "LET NO MAN DESPISE THY YOUTH", we must conclude that youth CAN be despised, and that youth holds responsibility for it. I believe the aged can be despised the same as youth. It all relates to a behavior unbecoming the age period in the life ofthe person.

The word "despise" here means "to think down upon or against anyone . . . hence, signifies to thinkslightly of, to despise." (W. E. Vine). Young peopleought to avoid any situation that would shame theiryouth. "Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them thatcall on the Lord out of a pure heart" (2 Tim. 2:22).

While youth is a beautiful period in life, it is alsothe most dangerous period in life. This is true because of the energy, strength and agility packedinto a youthful body with a sharp, active mind whichoften lacks the judgment and proper direction tocontrol and utilize this power. It often results in lifelong physical and mental suffering and even self-destruction.

There are general and specific areas of behaviorthat may contribute to the "thinking down" or "regarding lightly" young people. "Youth" is a relative term ,but for my purpose here I shall classify "youth" as between that age of individual accountability of the beginning teens to about 30 years of age. I recognize the difference between age15 and age 25, but there are attributes of youth inboth. During this period you may expect to find some of the purest hearts, most sincere, humble, thoughtful, generous, honest, kindest, respectful, courteous, gentle, obedient, conscientious, hard working, intelligent, thankful, submissive youngpeople of any generation. You may say, "These are notmy kids." Perhaps not, but they are out there and they belong to someone who loved and cared forthem.

During this period you may also expect to find arrogance, super-self-esteem, pseudo-intellectual

supremacy, rebellion, and that cocky, conceited, self-

assertive attributes that shine through every other

characteristic. These general terms describing the

behavior of some youth also characterize many aged

people who have never grown up as they should.

The last twenty eight years of my preaching life

have been spent in college and university cities. My

wife and I have had thousands of young men and

women in our home throughout these years. Very

close and lasting ties have been made during this

period. By far the majority of these young men and

women have been well mannered, respectful, honest

and spiritually minded. A very few have been

otherwise. Hundreds have been to my office for hours

of talks about problems growing out of their

disregard for the proper behavior in life. Most of

them were looking for direction and encouragement.

There are three specific causes for youth being despised which I want to mention here. The first isthat attitude of an arrogant, conceited, smart aleckwho has no respect for authority. His whole life seems devoted to the destruction of the "establishment" and to degrade the honor and dignity of age and maturity. A thoroughly disgusting scene is that young preacher who envisions himself as God's gift to this generation to lead them from darkness to the great light. He extols his deep insight into the mysteries of God and attempts toprove his claims by cute rhetoric, silly questions, andridiculous and immature exposition of relativelysimple passages from God's word. He thinks himselfto be an intellectual genius. Young people know heis "faking it" and are unimpressed. All others aredisgusted with his hypocritical, self-conceited shows. He is making a fool of himself and causing hisyouth to be despised. The fruits of his labors are usually the come-as-you-are liberal, social-gospel mixed with the Calvinist-Pentecostal-Cultism. In short, his labors might produce anything but the truth of the gospel.

A second cause for youth being despised is the disrespect for self. He or she has no regard fordecency, order, appearance and good manners, but isfilthy, unkept, lazy and indecent, a person who hasno regard for responsible relationship to other people.He cannot be motivated to learn or take any action tobetter himself. A young man or woman may think itclever to mock parental or civil law, but it isn't long until they are flouting the law of God. Young people,you may get by with some things for a while, but theprisons of this nation are filled with men and womenwho thought they could do as they pleased to everybody.

Whatever happened to the "yes sir" and "no sir"? Now it is "yeah" and "naw" to everyone. Such response to the aged by youth reflects poor trainingand a bad attitude. All my life I have respected ageand maturity by my manner of address to them. I was taught to say "Mr." or "Mrs.", "brother" or 'sister" instead of "hey, you", or some such casual first name address that would indicate some familiarity with experience and maturity to which onethinks himself equal.

Finally, the specific problem of youth that is sodespised is the self-esteemed Goliath who thinks thetop is upon the carcasses of those veterans of many

PREACHERS, PAY YOUR DEBTS

(EDITOR'S NOTE: This article originally appearedin the November, 1970 issue of TRUTH MAGAZINE,when we were then writing for that paper. It appearsthat what was said then is much needed now. C.W.A.)

Not long ago, a brother who runs a book and supply business asked me to help him draw up aletter appropriate to send to preachers and otherswho have bought books and other items which theydo not pay for. This was not the first time I had heard complaints from brethren who run publishing businesses. Some preachers will buy books on credit,run up a big bill, and then suddenly begin to avoidthe very business which extended to them such courtesy. They ignore statements, and sometimes willmove leaving no forwarding address.

It has been a joke in the general world of businessfor a long time that preachers are poor credit risks.In fact, it is not just a joke. In nationwide surveys furnished to business establishments, their credit rating is near the bottom of the totem pole. A business man told me several years ago that when hefirst went into the furniture business, other businessmen warned him about extending credit to the threeP's - plumbers, painters and preachers.

This is a sad state of affairs and causes religion ingeneral to be regarded as a mask for hypocrisy. Thereare many cynics in modern society, and such conducton the part of those who are supposed to be uprightand to be teachers of good things, only serves toconfirm their misgivings.

What saith the scriptures? Thieves will not inheritthe kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11). "Let him thatstole steal no more: but rather let him labor with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have togive to him that needeth" (Eph. 4:28). "Lie not oneto another" (Col. 3:9). When a man buys something,promises to pay for it, and then never does, he is athief and a liar and shall receive the eternal reward of such. I don't care if he preaches every Sunday!

passes away — and the years will change youth to ageand after that physical death. Live to the fullest yourdays of youth. You will know them only once. But letme urge you, young people, to so live that youryouth will not be despised. Live so you can go to heaven when life here is over. Respect, honor, andlearn from age, and when the years transfer you fromyouth to age, you will have qualified to be respected,honored and to teach the youth that will follow youto do the will of God.

"Providing for honest things, not only in the sight ofthe Lord, but also in the sight of men" (2 Cor. 8:21).For a number of years I have been associated withvarious papers and publishing businesses run by someof the brethren. No major paper can survive withoutselling either advertisement, services or supplies unless it is published by the very wealthy. Thatwould let most all of my brethren out. Those in thepublishing and book and supply business know wellof what I write. Several years ago I had an agencywith the GOSPEL GUARDIAN Co. to sell books for them. They gave me a discount and I sold at retail price so that both of us made a profit — theoretically, that is. At one point in this arrangement, my bill got pretty high with the company due to the large number of books I had soldon the promise of different brethren that they wouldpay me as soon as they could. I trusted them for I thought they were honest and would keep their word.But when I did not get paid, the company did noteither and they had bills to pay. It became necessaryfor me to pay the bill out of my pocket, which I did,because in reality I had created the debt, in goodfaith, you understand, but it was my responsibility nonetheless.

There are some reasons why preachers have trouble

along this line.

(1) Many are inadequately supported. Their income does not begin to meet the cost of living.Yet, they feel a need for books in their library. It ishard for a preacher to go into a book store and notbuy two or three books, when he realizes how much he needs them in his work. I suppose you couldcall some of it "impulse buying." Regardless of how well or how poorly one is supported, it is dishonest to create a debt which one knows he cannot pay. Some brethren have been dishonest with themselves and the brethren where theywork by agreeing to work for what they know in the beginning is inadequate support. (2) Some are just poor managers. Regardlessof how much some make, they are always in debtand close to disaster. They do not know how to save, or to be sparing. Whatever their eye beholds, they must have. Don't worry about the bill, yet! I believe there is as little business judgment manifested among preachers as in any segment of society. (3) Some have high-minded families. There are some evidences of just plain envy on the part of somepreachers' wives because the wives of the other brethren have more of this world's goods than theydo. Some men are keenly sensitive to this reaction intheir wives and in a rash moment, desiring to compensate for this apparent inequity, go on a spending spree without regard for the family budget.Preachers need to know how to teach their children to sacrifice and that they cannot have everything theirheart desires. (4) Unexpected emergencies can ruin anyone.Sickness or accident can strike in any family. A manwithout "fringe benefits" may be ill-prepared for sucheventuality. Brethren ought to stand behind preachers in such times of crisis. (5) Some just do not practice what they preach. Paul told Timothy to take "heed to thyself and to the doctrine" (1 Tim. 4:16). "Thou therefore which

teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou thatpreachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?"(Rom. 2:21). Have you ever preached a sermon ofhonesty? Does it apply to you, or are you exempt?There have been preachers who created debts all overtown which they knew were beyond their ability whenthey created them. They then decide to move, andthe brethren for the first time come to realize theyhad been supporting a dishonest man. Some men dare not come back to the town from whence theyhave moved, in the daylight — they just might meet acreditor!

All of us have had to buy things on credit. Wehave all had times when our pay did not go as far aswe hoped it would. Emergencies arise among themost upright of heart. An honest man can go to hiscreditor when such a situation arises, face him manto man and explain the circumstances and ask fortime, promising to make payment as soon as possible. Then, by all means, let him keep hispromise when that time comes. I was born and rearedthrough childhood in the depression years of ourcountry. Money was scarce and times were hard. I have gone with my father to face business men — perhaps to pay $1 on a debt when the man needed$10 on account. But I never saw one who was not willing to be patient with an honest man who wasdoing the best he could and who was willing to facehis creditor and discuss the matter openly. Theyknew they would be paid and they were.

Preachers are always being asked by brethren indifferent places if they know of a man who can comeand work with them. Others can do as they please,but I do not intend to recommend to brethren anywhere any preacher who is known to beat hisdebts, even with brethren who sell books. I haveheard brethren in such businesses say the samething. There are some brethren who are well known and exceedingly capable who are guilty of this dishonest behaviour. If any of these should readthese lines, then don't get angry with me. Just pay your debts!

This study considers the claim that I Cor. 7:11gives conditional permission to leave a marriagepartner, in spite of the plain command of verse ten,"depart not." Having seen four reasonable alternatives to the one interpretation that would grant permission, we are forced to the conclusionthat authority to depart cannot be established fromthis passage. We looked at Bible warnings againstthe evil results of separation. We will conclude thisstudy with a consideration of some of the more practical aspects of the problem.

Problems of Prohibition

When the question of separation arises and one

suggests that it is not justified by the scriptures

(rather, forbidden), the objections heard most often

have little to do with scripture. These objections are

based on what appears to be practical situations that

make application of absolute laws seem unreasonable.

We should be reminded from trying to teach what

the Bible says on other marriage issues that this is a

very dangerous approach. One can always propose

"situations" that make any absolute law appear

unreasonable.

If you need examples, look to Fletcher's Situation Ethics. He rationalizes a justification of everythingfrom lying to murder by this method. Absolute lawsagainst anything will appear to our human eyes to beimpractical in some situations. The alternative to absolute laws (proposed by Fletcher) is even more impractical as well as unscriptural. He would determine morality by human judgment. Relying onhuman judgment in the midst of difficult, pressure-packed "situations" is not only impractical but actually absurd. Perhaps this is even more apparentin the midst of the emotion of marital problems.They tend to lend themselves to "situations" that make God's law seem unreasonable.

The fact of the matter is that difficult situations are irrelevant in the face of divine command. We recall that the Christians of Asia Minor were told to maintain their obedience unto death (even if theywere killed), Rev. 2:10. The writer of Hebrews setsforth as examples those who "were tortured, notaccepting their deliverance, that they might obtain abetter resurrection" (Heb. 11:35). In Phil. 2:5-8, Paulrefers to Christ's example, telling us that He became obedient unto death, "even the death of the cross."He says, "Have this mind in you." Do these passages sound as if the threat of personal sufferingmight justify not submitting to a divine command?

While experience indicates that claims of mistreatment or suffering in a marriage relationshipare often exaggerated or even completely fabricated,still some are very true. "What if he really does beather up?" It seems that in this situation she should bepermitted to depart. However, what seems obvious tous must not be allowed to determine our action (Jer.10:23). Christians must be guided by the Spirit, nomatter how foolish it may seem to our natural inclinations (I Cor. 2:13, 14).

In most instances, with the help of brethren,

practical solutions to this problem can be found

without disobeying the command, "depart not."

However a failure to escape from the suffering which

may result from obeying this or any other command,

does not argue against that obedience. The apostle

Peter said, "By no means let any of you suffer as a

murderer, or a thief, or evildoer, or troublesome

meddler; but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him

not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify

God" (I Peter 4:15, 16, N.A.S.).

Hopefully, the readers of this study reject the philosophy of "situation ethics" and fully realize thatGod's laws must be obeyed regardless of the consequences in difficult circumstances.

Problems of Permission

It might be easier for some to appreciate the wisdom of the Holy Spirit in this matter if weconsider the fact that there are as many, if not more,practical problems with the position that allows separation.

If one concludes that the law against deserting a spouse is conditional, the conditions that justify departing must be assumed. Matt. 5:32 clearly indicates that there is only one condition. Nevertheless, we often hear, "One should not depart,but if they have to. ..." What does that entail? Shejust can't stand him? He just can't take it any more? These expressions could refer to circumstances ranging all the way from squeezingthe toothpaste tube in the middle to beating. People get very upset over a wide range of things.

The response of our brethren is just as varied.Some say, "I can't really say that you are wrong inleaving." Others say, "You must have a very good reason" (whatever that means). Still others say,"You are definitely wrong, unless you are threatenedwith physical harm. That's where I draw the line." Actually they have spoken the truth. They draw theline; not God. When brethren presume to state conditions that justify deserting a spouse, (if they gobeyond the one condition that Christ specified) theyare speaking where God has not spoken. They canwith as much authority add conditions to God's lawagainst adultery or stealing. Can you imagine a gospel preacher saying, "You should not commit adultery or steal unless you have to"?Experience teaches that if marriage partners getmad enough they can come up with pretty goodstories, whether true or not. (Many need to be reminded that the Bible requires that accusations be"established;" Deut. 19:15; Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1,2.) Real circumstances can be presented in a way tomake them appear much worse than they actuallyare. If leaving is justified on the basis of how bad thesituation is, a slander campaign is encouraged. If it iseffective enough, the deserting partner will maintainan honorable place in the church. With the blessingsof brethren, a divine union is severed. Reputations,along with usefulness, are lost. Christ and His brideare dishonored. This is disgusting and tragic, yetmost mature Christians can relate several similar stories with real names, places, and tears. Consider thefollowing true example.

An attractive, respectable Christian married at age

15 and found herself the mother of three at age 19.

She began to complain to sympathetic sisters about

the terrible treatment she was receiving from her

husband. The charges were varied, ranging from

being inconsiderate to striking her. He affirmed his

love for his wife and denied the charges, all to no

avail. They were "established" by such unscriptural

phrases as "Where there's smoke, there's fire," or

"It's common knowledge," etc.

Finally she "had to leave" while assuring everyone

that she had no intention of remarrying. She did,

however, need the "protection of a legal divorce."

Two weeks after the divorce was final, she married

the next-door neighbor. The bewildered eyes of the

congregation were finally opened. They began to

understand the real source of all that slander. It had

little to do with her husband. It had to do with a

good looking neighbor.

When the force of church discipline was brought to

bear on her, she did repent. She left her unscriptural

relationship and publicly confessed her sin.

This situation could have been much worse, but

just imagine the terrible heartache that could have

been avoided if pressure had been brought to bear by

the church at the point of departure from her

husband. Instead, she was comforted and

encouraged. Throughout the brotherhood hundreds of

similar examples have occurred. Most have ended

more tragically.

The pragmatic approach will provide no positiveanswers. Practical problems can be presented in avery emotional setting from both the permissive and the non-permissive positions. This is not the way tosettle the problems. The only valid approach is"What do the scriptures teach? Can you establish authority for your action?"

Divine Moral Principle

God's laws regarding marriage set forth a divinemoral standard. They do not come under the heading of "positive law" (arbitrary, dispensational,ceremonial). They are inherent and eternal.

Just as the law against stealing is an eternal moral principle, so, the moral principle opposing divorceand remarriage is "from the beginning" (Matt. 19:8). Likewise, God has always hated "putting away" (Mai. 2:16).

John Murray makes the point this way:

"The terms of the Pauline prohibition arequite absolute in effect. 'Let not the wife separate herself from her husband, and let notthe husband leave his wife.' The prohibition rests upon the same principle as that upon which our Lord's own teaching rests — manand wife are one flesh, and what God hasjointed together, let not man put asunder

__ "Divorce, p.58

The word "joined" chosen by the Holy Spirit to describe this union is from the word for glue(Proskoilao). Thayer defines the verb form to mean ". . . glue together, cement, fasten together. . . . " (p. 353). The word used in this passage includes the prefix (Pros). W. E. Vine says this is a

Page 6

"strengthened form" of the word. The prefix makes

the idea more "intensive," p. 276. In other words,

God has joined husband and wife together with a

strengthened, intensified form of glue; super glue, if

you please. They are so perfectly and completely

joined together that they become "one flesh" (v. 5).

This is the basis for Jesus' argument that God

intends for them to stay together. It is an inherent,

eternal principle that underlies the charge.

While this super union is accomplished by God,

man is not relieved from responsibility. The word

that describes God's action in "joining" is the same

word used to describe that which we are to do in

"cleaving" (v. 5). Therefore, deserting the marriage

partner is seen to be completely opposite to God's

eternal divine principles. "Departing" and "cleaving"

are opposites!

Looking again to First Corinthians chapter seven,

we see the statement, "A wife is bound for so long

time as her husband liveth" (v. 39). The word

"bound" is defined by Thayer to mean, "to bind, to

fasten with chains, to throw into chains ... to be

bound to one ... ofa wife, Rom. 7:2 ... of a

husband, 1 Cor. 7:27. . . ." (p. 131).

Terms like "joined," "cleave," "one flesh,"

"bound," illustrate the divine eternal principle

inherent in the marriage relationship. They form the

basis for God's laws concerning marriage. Difficult

situations do not invalidate these laws any more than

they invalidate laws against stealing. Heartbreaking

situations can be described but respect for the

wisdom of God and the absence of our own "wise

conceits" demand obedience.

The idea that one may charge mistreatment (whether established or not) and thus be consideredjustified in deserting a marriage partner, makes a mockery of the idea of a marriage "bond." Under thisconcept, they are not divinely "joined" with super glue. Their union is more like kindergarten paste. They are not bound, except perhaps with paperchains. They are allowed to depart anytime they getmad enough to slander their marriage partner. How many times has this happened with the support and condolences of the church? May God have mercy.

Conclusion Christians who part from their marriage partnerhave broken their solemn vow, "till death do us part." They have violated one of the simplest, plainest commands in the Bible, "depart not." This obligation is described by as strong a word as possible ("charge") and attributed to as high a source as possible (Christ, the head of the church). Permission for leaving cannot be established. If permission is not absolutely established, beyond a doubt, then departing is sinful, without a doubt (Rom. 14:23). Paul says defrauding is wrong, exceptby consent for a season. Jesus says everyone who puts away is guilty, with one exception.I call on gospel preachers, elders, and teachers to restore the idea of a marriage "bond," showing respect for what God has "joined together." Opposeunscriptural departing as we would oppose un

scriptural divorce and remarriage or adultery or stealing.May God help those who have departed to repent

and, while remaining unmarried seek to be reconciled. Don Patton 4600 Brainerd Rd. Chattanooga, TN 37411

Page 7

SUNDAY MORNING IN MORTON

The morning sun shines in a special way in West

Texas. There is a glow about a Spring morning on

the South Plains I have not seen anywhere else. I

think it's because of the dust. You could endure a

dust storm one day and some of the dust particles

seemed to get caught suspended in the Spring

atmosphere, making the morning glow almost

iridescent.

Sunday morning was always special at our house when I was growing up. I can remember how the field larks would sing as they darted back and forth in the Sunday morning sunshine. And how good thecovers felt, and how we could smell the newly brokenground from the farms all the way into our town. Wehad hardwood floors, polished many times with sockfeet, and they had a kind of inviting glow aboutthem, especially after the air became filled with thesweet aroma of country fried ham from the kitchen.

We wore the best we had on Sunday. I can still remember the smell of "Shineola" and real shavingsoap as we got ready to go to the church building.And I can almost feel how a starched collar felt on a new sunburn. I used to complain a lot about having to wear wool pants that "scratched," but I lost all ofmy sense of rebellion when Phillis Eaking or TwilaDeen Daniel told me I looked "nice" (boys neverliked "pretty") between class and church. And there's a graphic picture in my mind of how it felt to "comeback" to Mom and Dad after having chased LonnieCooper's black dog (the one with the ear that crookedover) back to his house as we walked to church onSunday morning.

Bible classes were special. We had a little card witha picture on front, a short lesson on the back. Butthe most important thing on that card was the memory verse. How the class would laugh as you went through almost mortal torture trying toremember the next word! And I was always amazedat how Jay always knew his verse when I never sawhim practice at home. After class was fun! We chasedthe girls, wrestled our buddies and dreaded the sightof one of the parents coming to call us in to services.Some of the time we would bring a friend to church.He would be the "star of the show" between class and church. Later, he would ask about why we didn't have a piano or why we had the Lord's Supper whenit was six weeks yet til Easter. And do you knowwhat? We knew! Yes sir, we could tell him why!

The services weren't fancy, but there was a certaindignity about them that gave you a nice feeling aboutbeing there. We'd begin with prayer. Brother Abey would lead. Then my Dad (everyone called him "Lefty") would lead songs. He was good. Real good.And how we would sing! Nobody but my Dad and Alvin Ray and a couple of ladies (my Mom included)knew anything about music, but we made the raftersring!

Some of the time we didn't have a "regular" preacher. A man from Littlefield named Mitchell would come some and once in a while Billy Blackstone's gran-daddy would come. The old man was nearly blind now, but he could preach! He could paint a picture of hell that would scare the life out ofyou. Sometimes, somebody would come forward to bebaptized. When it was all over we'd all gather aroundand, if it was like Nell Brown or somebody younger,we'd all want to know how it felt to be baptized.

The Lord's Supper was always special somehow.The table was always covered with a heavily starchedcloth. The removal and folding of the cloth wasalmost a ceremony in itself. I remember that R. C. Strickland could do it best. And I have a vivid recollection of how the glass cups sounded when being replaced in the trays. I also fondly rememberhow a kid who came with Carl Ray tried to put hismoney in the bread plate when it was passed. We allabout died!

There have been times in my life when I wanderedaway, but I always came back somehow. I think Sunday morning in Morton had something to do withthat. I am thankful to God for my parents, my brothers, and Sunday mornings in Morton!

THE WAY TO SPIRITUAL SATISFACTION

Introduction:

1. Young man came to me about 24 hours after hisbaptism: "I don't feel saved . . . "
2. The cold ..formality of much religious activitycoupled with a dullness and lack of joy in their liveshas led many to seek evidence from feelings, emotionalism and non-rational behavior.

A. Pat Boone described his life as a Christian as one that had its high points. But he says"There were too many vacant spots in mylife, too many unanswered questions, too little joy. I had no real power, my Christianlife was too much effort, and the high pointstoo few and far between." For Pat real joycame only after he was baptized in the HolySpirit and spoke in tongues: "How can I possibly describe the joy of that hour?" (From Testimony magazine, quoted in The Gospel Guardian, June 25, 1970.)

I. THE REJOICING OF THE SEVENTY. Luke 10:1-20 (esp. vv. 17-20).

A. The seventy had two special reasons forrejoicing.

1. The personal, physical presence of Jesus. They could walk and talk withhim face to face.
2. They had miraculous power.

B. Some conclude that we can not have real joytoday in the absence of Jesus and/or the absence of miraculous power.

1. The Lord's answer demolishes the logic (?) of those who argue this way.

C. The Lord's answer: "Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject toyou, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven."

D. NOTE CAREFULLY: We do not KNOW we are saved because we REJOICE — have joy, an emotional feeling. Rather, we REJOICE because we know we are saved. There is a place for happiness, joy, reverence, etc. in both private and joint worship.But spirituality should not be imposed; itshould be the outcome of knowledge.

II. HOW MAY ONE KNOW HE IS SAVED? HOW MAY ONE KNOW THAT HIS NAME IS WRITTEN IN THE LAMB'S BOOK OF LIFE? Romans 8:16-17 gives the answer: THESPIRIT BEARETH WITNESS WITH OUR SPIRIT. A. The Spirit's witness or testimony is borne inthe Bible (Eph. 6:17, et. al.).

1. Our feelings, emotions, and impulsesmust be brought in submission to theWord of God which is the standard by which we shall be judged. (Jno. 12:48;Rom. 2:16).

2. The feelings of different individuals contradict one another and often the feelings and impulses within an individual may be contradictory.

B. The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit. Itdoes not say "to our spirit."

1. "My spirit must agree with the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and whenit does, then the Spirit's testimonyagrees with mine. But I must bring thewitness of my spirit into harmony withthe Spirit's witness; instead of trying tomake the Spirit agree with my arbitrarydecisions." — James D. Bales, The Holy Spirit and the Christian, pp. 57-58.(This book is recommended for reading.)

C. The Spirit witnesses what is essential tobecoming and remaining a child of God.When our spirits testify that we have donewhat God requires — then the two witnesses agree and we can know we are children of God. The same applies to worship. When God in His word tells uswhat constitutes acceptable worship and we testify that we have done this, then thetwo witnesses agree that the worship is pleasing to God.

1. The Spirit says:Acts 2: Believers told to repent and bebaptized for remission of sins. Those who obey know they have remission ofsins. Remember the man who didn't feel like he had been saved. A failure to believe that God has forgiven us is a failure to trust Him.

THE (HOLY) SPIRIT SAYS:

Believe, Repent, Be Baptized forRemission of Sins -Acts 2:38

MY SPIRIT SAYS:* I have believed, repented and been baptized. Therefore, I know that Ihave remission of sins.

THE TWO WITNESSES AGREE

*My spirit is capable of testifying to what I have done.

I Cor. 2:11.

D. When a person knows he has obeyed theteaching of God there is reason for rejoicing.Note the man of Ethiopia (Acts 8:26-40). Seealso Phil. 4:3-4.

III. SPIRITUALITY IS TO BE MEASURED IN TERMS OF THE OUTCOME IN LIFE AND NOT BY FEELINGS, EMOTIONALISM AND NON-RATIONAL BEHAVIOR.

A. The FRUIT of the Spirit. Gal. 5:22-23.

B. B. The Christian is to be filled with the Spirit.Eph. 5:18-21.

1. Note the contrast: Be not drunk with wine — which results in riot or dissipation. Rather, be filled (present tense — be continually filled) with the Spirit. Christians drink of one spirit (I Cor. 12:13). The result of being filledwith the Spirit will be:

a. Speaking to one another in psalms,hymns, and spiritual songs, etc. b. Giving thanks to God. c. Subjecting yourself to one another in the fear of Christ.

2. Additional examples of the outcome ofthe Spirit-filled life can be seen in theremaining portion of Ephesians. Beingfilled with the Spirit is not an occasional"high" that one reaches.

a. Wives will be subject to their husbands; Husbands will love their wives (5:22-33). b. Children will obey their parents;Fathers will bring up their childrenproperly (6:1-4). c. Slaves will be obedient to their masters; Masters will treat their slaves properly (6:5-9). d. Christians will be strong in the Lordand will stand firm against the Devil(6:10-17). THIS IS TRUE SPIRITUALITY! Evidenced in life!

IV. THE WAY TO SPIRITUAL SATISFACTION IS ONE OF GREAT SIMPLICITY.

A. Talk to God each day — Prayer

1. Pray without ceasing. (I Thess. 5: .7-18).
2. In everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. (Phil. 4:6).

B. Listen to God each day — Bible study and meditation.

1. The Bereans received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily. (Acts 17:11).
2. Let the word of Christ dwell in yourichly. (Col. 3:16).
3. The blessed and prosperous man delights in the law of the Lord and in it he meditates day and night. (Ps. 1:1-2).

Conclusion: The spiritual weakness in any life can usually be traced to a general lack of personal devotionto prayer and Bible study. Here we have a "secret" formula explaining the way to spiritual maturity, strength and satisfaction as old as man. Talk and listen to God each day.

THE ORDER OF THE LORD'S SUPPER

QUESTION: In our Bible class . . . a matter was raised concerning the order of the Lord's Supper. If Paul preached till midnight (Acts 20:7) and the disciplesbroke bread on the first day of the week, we necessarilyinfer that they must have broken bread before Paul's preaching. Since there is no passage that would "loose"this example should we follow this order in our worshiptoday, that is, have the Lord's Supper before the preaching?

ANSWER: Recognizing the binding power of approved examples is worthy of commendation, especially in a time when such is denied by some. However, while recognizing approved examples as a means of establishing authority, one must be careful notto bind more than God intended. This demands a careful study of the rules of hermeneutics — principles by which the meaning of Scripture is determined. Time and spacepreclude a full study of such just here.

Among these rules is what is frequently called "the lawof materiality." The utility of this rule in secular mattersis often demonstrated in the courts of our land. In determining an issue, the judge must often determine whatis relevant or irrelevant, material or immaterial. Accordingto this rule, unless otherwise specified, nothing in anexample should be made binding except that to which spiritual significance may be attached. If this rule is notfollowed, then consistency would demand that the Lord'sSupper be observed at night on the third floor of somebuilding in a room with lights, and that the preaching following the Lord's Supper continue till midnight, etc. Obviously, the day specified in the example under study is significant — surely no proof isneeded here. However, neither the physicalcircumstances under which they assembled, the hour ofthe day specified, the number of assemblies on this day,nor the order or sequence of things done in worship have any spiritual significance. The law of materiality excludes such as binding exclusively.

Another rule of hermeneutics is called "the law of harmony." When and wherever variation occurs in a particular practice, that variation shows the practice to begeneric — not specific. That means the practice in oneinstance cannot be made binding to the exclusion of thesame practice which varies in another instance. Harmony,consistency, no variation in all references must prevail, ifsuch is to be bound exclusively.

Concerning the order or sequence of items of worship, I find variation in the Scriptures.Sometimes only one item of worship was engaged in.Some items of worship are specific in relation to day(Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1, 2); others are not. In the reference of Acts 20:7 preaching followed the Lord'sSupper (the opinions of some, based upon verseeleven, to the contrary notwithstanding — Thiscommon meal should not be confused with the Lord's Supper). In Acts 2:42 the reference to worship variesthe order so that the Lord's Supper follows the "doctrine" or teaching and preaching. Thus, both therule of materiality and of harmony preclude ourbinding any particular order or sequence for items ofworship.

NOETIC AND VERBAL INSPIRATION

QUESTION: I have recently heard the expressions

"noetic inspiration" and "verbal inspiration" used.

Will you explain the difference and present the Bible

view? — C.L.

ANSWER: There are different and conflicting

views of the inspiration of the Bible. Without

attempting to discuss these at length, I shall

comment on the two mentioned above and show that

the Bible view is that of verbal inspiration.

While some hold that the Bible was written by menwho were inspired only in the sense that one may beinspired to write a poem, song, etc., there are otherswho admit that supernatural power was involved, butthat it was limited. According to this view suchpower revealed the thoughts but not the words to themen who wrote. The words used by the writers wereselected according to their own judgment, wisdom,and knowledge. This is the noetic view. In the final analysis, that written depends upon man's intellectual powers.

The Bible teaches that both the thoughts and the very words used by these writers must be attributed to the Holy Spirit — He bears responsibility for every word. This is verbal inspiration. Such does not (as some have supposed)rob the word of the personality of the writer. If the Holy Spirit could move a man to write anything, Hecould move him to write consistent with his own personality. Consider the following:

"And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, andin much trembling. And my speech and my preachingwas not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but indemonstration of the Spirit and of power: That yourfaith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but inthe power of God" (1 Cor. 2:3-5). Here Paul affirmsthat the words which he used in his preaching werevoid of man's wisdom; that they demonstrated thepower of the Holy Spirit — not man's power. Therewas a reason, namely, "That your faith should notstand in the wisdom of men, but in the power ofGod." If the Holy Spirit revealed only the thoughts to these men and they in turn selected words, according to their own wisdom, our faith, in the final analysis, would stand in their wisdom — It would depend upon their knowledge and wisdom in selecting the right words. Paul affirms that it was otherwise. Furthermore, the following verses in the context affords further proof of verbal inspiration, especiallyverse thirteen: "which things (thoughts — mp) also we

speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth,

but which the Spirit teacheth: combining spiritual

things (thoughts — mp) with spiritual words" (ASV).

Peter declared the universal nature of the gospel onPentecost (Acts 2:39), yet it took the miraculous experience at Joppa (Acts 10:9-28, 34, 35) to bring him to a full understanding of that declaration. Howcould any man select the right words when he did noteven understand the full import of what he was saying? The only answer is that he was verbally inspired.

Again, Peter wrote: "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit ofChrist which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and theglory that should follow" (1 Pet. 1:10, 11). Thus, the prophets who "testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow" turned rightaround and searched diligently trying to figure outthe full meaning of their own prophecies. How could such men select the proper words when they did notunderstand fully what they were writing about? The only answer is "no prophecy of the scripture is of anyprivate interpretation. For the prophecy came not inold time by will of man: but holy men of God spakeas they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet. 1:20,21). This demands verbal inspiration! Verbal inspiration is the view the Bible affirms in its ownbehalf.

THE REST OF THE STORY

A goodly portion of this month's column is givenover to the pen of Dick Blackford. I believe that hisletter to news analyst, Paul Harvey, is worthy of wide circulation.

Hello Paul Harvey, This Is An American,

On three occasions I have heard you in person and

was in the chorus that sang for you at Florida College

when you spoke there several years ago. I listen to

your program and purchase many of the products you

advertise. Having established myself as a faithful

fan, allow me to kindly disagree with your recent

endorsement of the E.R.A. in your syndicated

column, May 24, 1979. Paul Harvey needs to hear

"the rest of the story."

You scoffed at opponents who feared the "mergingof toilets." The truth is, no leading proponents havedenied that sexually mixed rest rooms would result.In fact, an exception in the E.R.A. to the right ofprivacy was defeated in the Senate on March 22,1972. Proponents had a chance to make an exceptionfor public accommodations but passed it by. As ahusband and father, I feel a responsibility to opposethe forcing of mixed rest rooms on my wife and threechildren (1 Tim. 2:9; Mt. 5:28).

Regarding homosexual marriages, where were youduring the Houston meeting of the International Women's Year, 1977? Lesbians appeared in droves tosupport the E.R.A. You cannot name a leading supporter who has denied that such would becomelegal. On the contrary, many constitutionalauthorities have admitted that it would do so, evengiving homosexuals the right to adopt children (SeeYale Law Journal January, 1973). Such children would be reared to believe that homosexuality isnormal. Does no one have an obligation to "defendthe fatherless" (Is a. 1:17)? Homosexuals have becomevery evangelistic. They cannot reproduce so theyhave to recruit. And whom do they want to recruit?Our children!

President Carter appointed Jean O' Leary, an admitted lesbian to the National Commission for the Observance of International Women's Year. In her position paper, "Lesbians And The Schools," shewrote that schools should offer sex education courses,"to encourage students to explore alternative lifestyles including lesbianism." She calls for schoolsto set up special studies ' 'to foster pride in adolescent homosexuals." Such is already being done in San Francisco, where young people are being taught thedoctrine of "once gay, always gay." If every person

became a homosexual, what would happen to the

humanrace? Queerism is a running sore on the face of

our society. On your program we have heard you

defend the rights of homosexuals. We are concerned

about the uncertain sounds that are creeping into

some of your broadcasts. Your native state,

Oklahoma, is still O.K., but what about Paul

Harvey? Has he been reading too much bumper sticker

theology? When homosexual marriages are legal,

what will become of Paul Harvey's "Tournament of

Roses?"

Prostitutes believe the E.R.A. will legalize their

occupations and have formed an organization to

promote ratification (COYOTE — Cast Off Your Old

Tired Ethics). Pro-abortionists also believe the

E.R.A. will finalize abortion on demand. When one looks at the language of the amendment he cannotargue otherwise,, with a straight face. The E.R.A. isa "package deal." The proponents are following thephilosophy of "get all you can, and can all you get."

We live in a time of what C.S. Lewis called

"chronological snobbery". This generation is so much

smarter than the ones before us. Since the IWY in

Houston we have learned that it is not farfetched at

all to expect the worst possible interpretation to be

placed on the E.R.A. The precedent has been set in

recent times by those who interpret the law and who

support the E.R.A. We have seen what happened to

the first amendment (Freedom of speech: obscenities,

pornography; Freedom of Religion: Church of Satan,

People's Temple, etc.). These were not what the

founders of this nation had in mind. While battles are

being fought on this issue and that, when the dust is

cleared it will show what the real issue is: a clash of

philosophies — Belief in God VS. Secular Humanism!

The cry often is heard, "You can't legislatemorality!" It is time we started asking "Why not?"It was done before but some folks fell out with the Legislator, God. He said "Righteousness exalteth anation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Prov.14:34). "Blessed is the nation whose God is Jehovah .. ." (Ps. 33:12). We have laws against murder, theft,rape, lying under oath, and failure to practice theGolden Rule regarding property rights. By what lawof reason can we NOT legislate morality but we CANlegislate immorality? Legalizing homosexuality, prostitution, abortion, etc. is simply permissive legislation in the area of morality. Please Paul Harvey, get hold of yourself and don't let what ishappening, happen!

Now, I must confess that my American citizenship is not the only one I hold. That may sound likedivided allegiance. Further, I must confess that moreand more, it is. For I mainly am a citizen of the "citywhich hath foundations, whose builder and maker isGod (Heb. 11:9). If you would like to know moreabout this heavenly kingdom, please write.

And now you know the REST of the story . . .

------------ o -------------------ADD IT TO THE APOCRYPHA

According to an AP article in the Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer, Sun. Aug. 19, 1979, a group ofblack ministers from across the country aims to add a new book to the Bible — a letter by the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The letter was written by King while he was incarcerated in the Birmingham jail in 1963. He responded, therein, to a group of white Alabamaclergymen who criticized him as an outside agitatorand termed his actions as "unwise and untimely."

The proposal to add the book as another epistle inthe New Testament was approved this month byabout 40 black ministers, theologians, and lay peopleat the third annual conference of the Black TheologyProject 1963 held in Cleveland.

Spokesman, Muhammad Kenyatta said, "Peoplegenerally do not realize that the process of decidingwhat is or is not Holy Scripture has been an ongoingone. The last major change was in the 16th centurywhen Protestant churches dropped from the Old Testament the books and portions of books that Protestants now call the Apocrypha ..."

I can certainly understand the appreciation thatmost black people have for Martin Luther King as acivil rights leader. While not endorsing all hismethods, I'm thankful for the progress that hastaken place in the area of civil rights for those of theblack race.

But when it comes to Martin Luther King as areligious leader, and even a medium of modern dayrevelation, that's a horse of a different color! (Nooffense intended, please!) King was a dyed in thewool modernist. He rejected the doctrine of the virginbirth and many other cardinal tenets of the New Testament.

It's not difficult, however, to understand how thisgroup would vote to add King's letter to God's complete revelation (John 16:13; Jude 3) when weconsider the totally inaccurate statement concerningthe Apocrypha.

The fact is, the canon of the Old Testament wasdetermined long before the 16th century, and the Apocryphal books were not included. The PalestinianJews never accepted these books as part of the Hebrew canon. Though Jesus and the apostles quotedfrom the Septuagint translation which did containthese additions, they never quoted or referred to oneof these books. Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate, the official Catholic text, emphaticallyrejected these books as part of the Bible. It wasn't until the Council of Trent in the 16th century thatthese books were declared canonical, even in the Catholic Church.

So, far from these books being dropped in the 16thcentury, It was not until then that they were addedby the Catholics. Unlike the true scriptures, thesebooks do not even claim inspiration, and neither didMartin Luther King. We suggest that this groupvote again' on adding King's epistle to the Apocrypha. They fall into the same category so faras the matter of inspiration goes.

HAGGAI—GOD'S PREACHER:The Method — Part II

I. Having in our last study noticed that Haggaibegan with the leaders of Israel to move the peopleinto activity, we will look again at his success in preaching. Remember that in some 23 days the people were actively complying with God's will whereas before they had been inactive for 16 years.This, brethren, is some preacher! Therefore it is important to us to observe not only what he says buthow he says it as well.

II. Following his address to the leaders we find that he has the proper use of authority in his preaching.

Haggai began at the top but when he went to thesemen, Zerubbabel and Joshua, he didn't do it with "I think so's" but with "thus SAITH THE WORD OF JEHOVAH OF HOSTS." As a matter of fact, heused this expression some 26 times in these two briefchapters. Many regard his work as one of the mostpotent uses of DIVINE AUTHORITY in Holy Writ.He started in the right place, but this would havemade little difference if it was a house in Baal's honor that he urged to be built. When he spoke he did sowith the word of Jehovah. The greatest power thatwe can possess is the word of the Lord. Yet, for us tospeak that way today we must study.

This directs us squarely into the face of our teaching and our preparation for that teaching.Haggai spoke (wrote by inspiration) but we must doso by effort, not inspiration. A phrase often used is"by perspiration, not inspiration!" No teacher is anybetter than his material. No sermon is any betterthan the effort used to prepare it! When we that teach and preach cover the same old worn-out outlines from outline books, we are no longer preaching the word of the Lord; we are rather teaching from the tradition of Church of Christ preachers' creed books. Then we wonder why thelesson has little power. Might it be simply that wehave not put in the time, effort and study to develop or expand our knowledge of God's truth in which weare thrilled, excited and zealous to proclaim. The power is in God's book. This is where the teacherneeds to return hour after hour, day after day. Thenwhen he speaks it will be TRUTH FROM GOD. Common sense will validate our thought if we will consider which meal we had rather eat: left-overs warmed up 10 minutes before supper, or a meal which a dedicated person had worked all day to prepare andwas composed of the finest cuts of meat and of thefreshest of vegetables? The answer is obvious! Studyof God's word will motivate us to obey Him as nothing else will.

III. Haggai had a specific Goal or Objective in mind. His one desire was to rebuild the temple. As agospel preacher, teacher, or leader, what is your goal?Not some general, fuzzy, nebulous goal, much likethat found in reading your horoscope that is sogeneral that no matter what happens you can say "that's it." Haggai had ONE goal in mind. Nowconsider with me your Sunday morning Bible Class.What is your goal for that class? What do you wantthem to do that they can't do now? What changeswill occur in their lives as a result of that class? Really, what goal have you set by which you will beable to measure the end; result to see if you have succeeded? When Haggai finished preaching he knew if he hadbeen a success or a failure by looking at the temple. Why? Because that was his goal; that was his objective. Now, how can you know if last Wednesdaynight's Bible class was a success or failure? There first has to be an objective and then some evaluationto see if it was reached. When you finish the book ofRomans, how will you know if you did a good jobteaching this most important epistle? You won't untilyou have stated in your mind and before your classwhat objectives you want them to complete. Thencheck and evaluate to see if they were realized or not.

Only then will you be able to do what Haggai did,see the temple.

IV. Haggai Realized the Value of Small Things. Even when the temple was constructed it certainly wasn't what Israel thought it ought to be. It did nothave the glory of Solomon's temple, nor its gold andsilver. It was a small imitation of what the older men had seen. But Haggai knew its TRUE value and thatit was really worth the work of motivating the peopleto build it. Too many do not want to work for thesmaller, more insignificant job, because unless it isthe biggest, shiniest, the loudest and the most successful, they don't want any part of the effort. Zechariah 4:10, when speaking about the temple,asked: "who has despised the day of small things."The answer: some of Israel had despised the day ofsmall things, but Haggai knew that even if the temple was not what it used to be, it was worthevery bit of his zeal, enthusiasm and effort to seethat it was completed.Brethren, too often if we can't baptize the world,we won't baptize anybody! If we are not able to teachthe whole world, we won't bother to cross the yard toteach our neighbor. But Haggai was able to motivatethe people to work even when the end result wasgoing to be less in their eyes than what theyexpected. Why? Because he supported, confirmed andassured them their effort was important before God.Notice the ratio of 3 to 1 of encouragement over thecondemnation found in the arousal section, too muchpreaching with too much negation. Yes, Haggai condemned, but after that it was 3-part positive encouragement for the long haul. Too many havebeen brow-beaten until they have decided that there is no hope because great things have not been

accomplished. Sometimes we want too much andworkers are not praised for the small strides in the right direction toward what they have begun.

These are some of the obvious reasons for development that Haggai employed. Ought we not give the more earnest heed?

In a previous article under the above title, it waspointed out that the atheist, while rejecting theismbecause it is essentially a faith, adopts an hypothesisconcerning the origin of the universe and life on earththat must also be regarded as a faith. He also holdsup to ridicule, difficulties inherent in theism, whileoverlooking the fact that the philosophy he espousesis fraught with much greater difficulties. It is to some of these difficulties that I now direct the reader's attention.

Difficulties Of Agnosticism

The agnostic, as pointed out earlier, accepts ashaving existence only such things as are discernibleby the physical senses of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching. Since God, being a Spirit,(John 4:24) cannot be discerned by the physicalsenses, the agnostic says that he does not know thatGod exists, therefore cannot accept as a fact hisexistence. He does not go as far as to say that heknows that there is no God. He just says that hedoes not know that God is.

Apart from the difficulties that he encounters whenhe tries to explain, or account for the universewithout God, the agnostic involves himself in a glaring inconsistency. For there are many things thathe does accept without question that are no more discernible to the physical senses than God is.

Take, for example, the fact of life. Or consider thefact of the mind of man. Even the most radical agnostic must admit that both exist. Yet neither canbe perceived by the physical senses. They cannot beseen even under the most powerful microscope, nor can they be touched, tasted, or smelled. They cannotbe weighed, even on the most sensitive scales. Thus, on the basis that the agnostic refuses to accept theexistence of God, he must, to be consistent, rejectthe existence of both mind and life.

Of course the agnostic will be quick to point outthat there is an abundance of evidence that life and mind do exist. He can point to the skill with whichthe artist uses his brush in painting a masterpiece,and the dexterity with which the surgeon uses hisinstruments in performing surgery as evidence ofmind, or intelligence.

It is on the basis of equally convincing evidencethat the theist believes that God is. Accepting thattime-honored axiom of science that every effect is theresult of an adequate cause, the theist is led to the irresistible conclusion that life comes from a life-giving source. And the fact that man has a mindwith a capacity for learning that is almost unlimited,calls for a source that is possessed of mind. The factthat we find in the universe a high degree of design,with amazing law and order, calls for a designer and law-giver of supreme intelligence. But when we combine all the above attributes, logic forces us toconclude the existence of a personal being since it isimpossible to conceive of intelligence without personality. The Bible reveals God as that personality. And with that explanation we are satisfied until unbelief can offer us a better one.

So in his refusal to accept the fact of the existenceof God because he cannot be perceived by the physical senses, the agnostic presents a strange paradox. He will concede that the various accomplishments of man call for intelligence onhis part, while refusing to concede the existence of anintelligent being as the creator of man. He is thusneither honest nor consistent.

Difficulties Of Atheism

The atheist, who denies the existence of God, and his role of creator of the universe, affirmsthat the universe is the product of unintelligent forces. (Bales-Teller Debate. Page 5). His theoryis that all is the result of chance. It is difficult to understand how anyone who claims to be a rational thinker can believe anything so irrationalas the idea that the universe with all its harmonyand order is the result of unintelligent forces acting on dead matter. In any other realm the atheist will scornfully reject as incredible the concept of mere chance as the cause of even themost simple things. An often-told story illustratesthat fact.

An astronomer who was a devout believer in God,one time built a small model of our solar system. Itwas a cleverly constructed piece of handiwork, with amodel of the sun at its center and orbited by modelsof the nine planets with their satellites. The model ofthe earth rotated on an axis after the manner of the earth on which we live.

One day a friend who was an atheist visited theastronomer, and was shown this model. The atheist was much impressed, and very profuse in his exclamations of praise and admiration for such aremarkable piece of handiwork. Then came the inevitable question, Who made it? The astronomer, knowing the infidelity of his friend, and wanting toshow him the irrationality of his unbelief, replied witha seemingly nonchalant air that nobody had made it,that it had just happened. "Nonsense" replied the atheist. "You can't tell me that something as marvelous as that just happened! Some one made it."

Here was a man who professed to be a rationalthinker. He considered it an insult to his intelligencefor anyone to try to convince him that anything aswonderful as a model of the universe "justhappened". Yet that same man would look out into theuniverse, made up of not just one, but hundreds ofsolar systems, all operating with strict mathematicalprecision, and without as much as a blush he will tell us that nobody made it; it just happened. Yet such a one will sneer at what he calls the blind faith of the Christian.

No Room For Chance

In pursuing further the difficulties of the theory of

unintelligent forces as the cause that produced the

universe with its order, I shall point out next that it is

the simplest of logic to conclude that wherever

design is present in a combination of factors or

components, the possibility of mere chance is ruled

out. We know that intelligence was necessary to

produce such a combination.

As one example, we know that in the field of

mathematics, and as the basis of our whole

mathematical system, we have ten numerals. Strictly

speaking, it is nine numerals with the zero added for

convenience. Every equation in mathematics is the

result of intelligent combination of various numerals.

Only a disordered imagination would conceive of a

group of numerals arranging themselves by mere

chance into a correct answer to a mathematical

problem.

As another example we point out that in the

literary field we have as the basis of our language

the twenty six letters of the alphabet. Every word

in our language, from the single syllable to the

multisyllable, is the result of an intelligent

combination of these letters. These words, formed by

letters, are then combined into sentences,

paragraphs, and chapters to form a book. Books are

then gathered to form libraries. So the great libraries

of the world are the result of various combinations of

letters of the alphabet. The point is, however, that it

took intelligence to combine them. Only sheer fantasy

could ever conceive of a situation where letters

unaided by guiding intelligence arranged themselves

into even one correctly spelled word, to say nothing

of a book composed of thousands of words.

All this illustrates the point that where there is anorderly combination of components or factors itrequired the intelligence of a personal being toproduce such combination.

In the application of the above principal we notethat water is a combination of two chemical elements. Known to the chemist as H2O, it is a combination oftwo parts of hydrogen and one part oxygen. Thestrange thing is that hydrogen is a highlyinflammable substance, while oxygen is necessary toproduce combustion. Can anyone believe mere chanceworked here? It is well known that accidents with chemicals often result in explosions that destroy lifeand property. Let the atheist explain, if he can, howchance gave us a safe and useful product from achance combination of two chemicals that are so potentially dangerous.

The air that we breathe is, we are told, a combination of seventy nine parts of nitrogen,and twenty one parts of oxygen. This combinationmeets the needs of all living creatures exceptingmarine life. So well adapted is this combination that a substantial decrease in the oxygen content could resultin suffocation. That is why planes flying at high altitudes have their passenger compartmentspressurized, — to compensate for the lower supply ofoxygen at that height. On the other hand, a major increase of the oxygen content of the air would result in a speeding

up of the processes of the body to the point where itcould burn itself out. It would be like sending two hundred and twenty volts of electricity through alight bulb that was designed for one hundred and tenvolts. True, the light would burn more brightly for atime, but would soon burn out. Shall we believe thatthis combination of nitrogen and oxygen that constitutes the air that we breathe is the result of mere chance?

A Summary

In rejecting the concept of an omnipotent,omniscient God as the creator of the universe, theatheist accepts in its place the following unprovedhypothesis:

1. That unintelligent forces produced the universe,and are now responsible for the harmony and orderwitnessed in the movements of the heavenly bodies.
2. That mere chance first produced matter, andfrom that dead matter subsequently produced variousforms of life.
3. That mere chance produced the combination ofpotentially dangerous elements in various commodities that we use with comparative safety.
4. That unintelligent forces produced man with ahigh degree of intelligence that has enabled him toaccomplish the many wonders that have marked our progress.
5. That mere chance forces acting on non-moralmatter produced a being with moral concepts, andacting on non-religious matter produced a being withreligious aspirations such as are possessed by man.

In an article to follow, I shall discuss some of thedifficulties encountered by those who attempt toaccount for things as they now are in terms of materialistic evolution.

THE TREASURY OF THE LORD

Incredible arguments come from intelligent menwhen they have espoused false doctrine. In a formerstudy in Searching the Scriptures, I pointed out theweakness of men like Foy E. Wallace Jr. in his so-called "Preacher and poor saint" argument.Remember, I do not charge these men with weakness,either in body or mind. To the contrary, I respectthem for their astuteness both as preachers and polemicists.

Our study this month is similar to the Wallace assertion. This one comes from my friend, RoyDeaver. It seems that Roy can come up with thesequibbles about as fast as I can answer them. Both inthe Freed-Hardeman lectures and our debate, heasserted that since money is sent from one church to

another in the field of benevolence, that a preacher is

inconsistent in taking money from that church

because all the money comes from the same treasury.

In our debate, he argued that since money for

benevolence is sent from one treasury to another, and

that the receiving church has the responsibility to

preach the gospel; when it fulfills that responsibility,

it becomes a sponsoring church! If this sounds a little

confusing, remember it is his argument, not mine.

Personally, I think the argument is absurd, butobviously he feels it is a sound argument, so we mustgive it some attention. Remember friend, it doesn'tmatter what one thinks of an argument if it leadsmen astray, it must be considered. It is true as far asI know, that all churches have but one treasury. Ihave never heard of a church having a treasury forevangelism and another for benevolence. If a churchhas indigent saints, the Bible makes it clear that other churches may send to that church. However, ifthe receiving church uses that money for anythingother than benevolence, it becomes dishonest! Furthermore, the giving church has been deceived. Itwould also put the receiving church in a sinful condition, because they sent out a distress signal for assistance in benevolence but cheated by using themoney for something else! There can be no doubtthat money sent from one church to another is "Earmarked" for benevolence only. Brother Deaver argues that if an evangelist receives money from thatchurch (receiving church) for preaching the gospel hehas put his approval on the sponsoring church concept. Not so, brother Deaver assumes the point tobe proven. It is not true that everything paid out of atreasury comes through a sponsoring church. Frankly, I have never heard of a church doing whatbrother Deaver claims but if one offered me money,out of funds sent for benevolence, I would refuse! Thereason being, it would make both me and the givingchurch dishonest. Just because a church has one treasury for both benevolence and evangelism meansabsolutely nothing.

To illustrate, I recall several years ago a preachersent me money to purchase books. Since the books were not available, at the time, I deposited the money in my bank account! Did I have the right totake that money and buy myself a suit of clothes?Would it have been honest to have purchased myself some books? According to brother Deaver's argument, I could have done as I desired since, afterall, the money was in one treasury! One doesn't have to be astute to see the fallacy in such reasoning. The money .sent to me by my friend was "Earmarked"for books only. I understood this and so did he. Anyother currency, I might have had in my accountcould be used as I might choose. The same is true ofthe church. Since both brother Wallace and Deaver believe money was sent from one church to another inthe fields of benevolence, it follows as the nightfollows the day that the money must be used for that purpose only. If the church has other money forevangelism, it does not negate the fact that the Biblepattern is to be followed.

While I lived in Ft. Smith, Arkansas, a call cameto the elders of the Park Hill church for help. It

Page 16

seems that a tornado had hit a certain place in Arkansas and they needed help in caring for theirindigent saints. The brethren responded and sent assistance. It was understood by both the brethren inFt. Smith and the receiving church that this moneywas to be used for BENEVOLENCE ONLY. It is true the money went into the treasury of the receiving church but that did not give them the right to use the funds for EVANGELISM! Brother Deaver's argument is that if money is used out ofthat general treasury, presto, you have a sponsoringchurch! Who could believe it? The truth of the matter is, I have never heard of this being done in the firstplace. It is not likely that a church poor enough toask for assistance will have much money for evangelism!

Gentle friend, one can see that this entire argumentis based on deception. There has to be deception onthe part of the giving church, receiving church, andsometimes even the preacher. In any case, someonewill lose his soul. It vexes me to have to answer such foolishness. However, there are many young preachers and others who feel that such argumentation is valid. One would have to be naive,indeed, not to see the fallacy in such reasoning.Remember these arguments do not demonstrate a weakness in the man but rather in his doctrine.

CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD

Faith is more than a recognition that God is; it is

more than merely realizing Jesus as the saviour of

the world from sin. The faith of the Bible is a

working faith, "Not by works of our own

righteousness"; (Titus 3:5 also Eph. 2:9) but by

works of His righteousness, "which God hath before

ordained that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10).

Thus the faith of John 3:16 is an obedient faith; a

faith that prompts one to obey God or "Call on the

name of the Lord".

"Calling on the name of the Lord" is an expression

used in the scriptures which, like faith denotes

obedience. The Apostle Peter recalls the prophecy of

Joel in his sermon on the day of pentecost, "And it

shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the

name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21). Thus

Joel and Peter both affirm that one is brought from

an unsaved, to a saved condition by calling on the

name of the Lord. "For whosoever shall call on the

name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13).

Again we conclude that one is brought from an

unsaved condition, into a covenant relationship with

God by calling on the name of the Lord. Paul

continues with, "How then shall they call on him

in whom they have not believed? and how shall they

believe in him whom they have not heard? and how

shall they hear without a preacher" (Romans 10:14)?

Here Paul is setting forth the order in which one is

to call on the name of the Lord. Before one can call

on the name of the Lord certain things must precede

his calling. Let's back up and note the essentials to

one's calling on the name of the Lord. (1) The

preacher must come, (2) One must hear the truth, (3)

One must believe the truth, and (4) His belief in the

truth must prompt him to obey the gospel by calling

on the name of the Lord. This corresponds to Acts

8:12, Acts 18:8 (also see Mark 16:15-16).

Calling on the name of the Lord from this contextis not prayer. Romans 10:13 is stating what the alien sinner must do to be reconciled to God. Alien sinners have not the privilege of prayer; "Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be aworshipper of God, and doeth his will, him heheareth" (John 9:31). There are a number of passagesthat teach this truth in the Old Testament (Prov.

15:29: cf. Ps. 34:15, 66:18, Prov. 28:9, Isa. 1:15,etc.). Also in the New Testament (1 John 3:22, 5:1415, 1 Peter 3:12). Thus the conclusion is that calling on the name of the Lord is not prayer. Neither is it amere recognition of Jesus as the Christ, or verballysaying aloud, "Lord", "Lord". "Not everyone thatsayeth Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom ofheaven; But he that doeth the will of my Fatherwhich is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21).

If salvation comes through prayer and calling onthe name of the Lord means praying for salvation,then why wasn't Saul (The Apostle Paul) saved by his prayers. Consider: "And he was three dayswithout sight, and neither did eat nor drink" (Acts9:9). Verse eleven says, "behold, he prayeth". Saulhad prayed for three days with fasting. What bettercandidate could there have been for salvation by

Page 17

prayer than Saul, However, according to Luke's account recorded in Acts 22:16 Ananias came unto him and told him what he needed to do, "And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and washaway thy sins, CALLING ON THE NAME OF THELORD." The phrase "calling on the name of the Lordis descriptive of the action of baptism. By beingbaptized and washing away his sins he was in effectcalling on God to give what only God could give i.e.remission of sins and transferal from an unsaved, to saved condition. Jesus said, "Go ye into all the world, preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark16:15-16). By completing obedience to the commands ofthe gospel one is "Calling on the name of the Lord".Have you called on the name of the Lord?

Please Renew Promptly!

HORIZONS — A NEW PUBLICATION JEFFERY KINGRY has sent us the prospectus for a new publication called Horizons. It is to appear ten times a year at anannual subscription price of $6.00. The prospectus contains 20 pages. It is especially well done from an artistic standpoint, bearing evidence of brother Kingry's talents in that direction. He is a perceptive writer with an independent spirit. He plans foreach issue to be somewhat like the "specials" some of the papershave occasionally. Brother Kingry will provide some of the material with the rest furnished by others. He shies away fromthe word "editor" and prefers to refer to himself as a "compiler."We wish him well with this new venture. The address is: 641 Elma St., Akron, Ohio 44310.

SPOKEN WORD PURCHASES TEACHER'S VOICE THOMAS G. O'NEAL, 1729 5th Ave., Bessemer, Alabama 35020

— The Spoken Word announces that we have purchased thecomplete inventory and marketing rights of The Teacher's Voice of Louisville, Kentucky. This is the inventory of tapes formerlybelonging to H. E. Phillips of Tampa, Florida and advertised byhim in Searching The Scriptures several years ago while he was itseditor. This inventory includes all past Florida College Lecturesand material of class room lectures by brother Homer Hailey. Fora copy of the Spoken Word catalog, write the home office, The Spoken Word, P.O. Box 127, Greenville, Indiana 47124. The Spoken Word has a reputation of putting orders back in the mailto the customer within 48 hours of receiving it. Orders received bythe Teacher's Voice before this purchase will be their responsibility; the Spoken Word will be responsible only for orders received by them.OLEN HOLDERBY, Fresno, California — Last spring a notice was carried of the beginning of a new congregation in Fresno meeting at 2010 N. Sierra Vista. Perhaps brethren would like toknow of our progress. Though we have not accomplished all thatwe had hoped, we do rejoice in a measure of success. At our regular business meeting July 1, the brethren decided that the congregation was now able to furnish all of my support, suchdecision becoming effective August 1, 1979. We have had 35 additions since our beginning, with 12 of these being baptisms.We continue to try and improve our teaching program. PeterWilson will hold us a meeting in December of this year with James R. Cope holding our spring meeting in 1980.

NEW CONGREGATION GERALD GOODSON, Merritt Island, Florida — A number of Christians have seen the need for a congregation on North MerrittIsland where there is a large part of the population of this islandwith current building trends in this direction. To meet the spiritual needs of those already there, and those who will move tothis area, beginning August 5, 1979, a number of families will bemeeting at Courtenay Square and will be formally known as theNorth Courtenay Church of Christ. We earnestly solicit your prayers for success to the glory of the Lord.VESTAL CHAFFIN, 877 E. Archwood Ave., Akron, Ohio 44306

— On August 26, I will have completed five years and four monthswork with the Southeast church here in Akron. I plan at that time to move to work with the Perrine congregation in Miami, Florida.

As of this writing (July 30), my successor in the work here has

not been chosen. Any faithful gospel preacher interested in the

work here should write the church, 853 E. Archwood Ave., Akron,

Ohio 44306. Or he may call Willey Woodroof at 216-733-5696; or

Robert Bills at 216-724-8041; or Gerald Daily at 216-628-9870.

I recently closed a meeting with the Southside church in

Mansfield, Ohio. Two were baptized and one restored. I am still in

need of about $200 per month outside support in the work I will be

doing with the Perrine church in Miami. Any church that would

like to have fellowship with me in that work, would be appreciated.

My new address will be: 19601 S.W. 99th Court, Miami, Florida

33157.

ON THE ROAD LECTURESHIPS

RONNY MILLINER, Middlebourne, West Virginia — One of the

reporters for CBS News has a regular feature in which he travels "On

the Road" telling of interesting stories of people in this country.

While his being "on the road" is intentional, many of us find

ourselves in this same position a lot of the time. Many people spend

one to two hours a day in just traveling back and forth to work. At

this time of year many are "on the road" enjoying vacations or

visits to relatives. Some of us have even found ourselves waiting

in gas lines a great deal of the time so we can get back "on the

road."

We just recently returned from a visit to our parents. The tripcould be somewhat boring as we have travelled it a number oftimes. But while going down I learned things about spiritual matters I have not considered before, for I had taken along mycassette recorder and found myself enjoying a spiritual feast. Weas Christians have the responsibility to "grow in the grace andknowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 3:18). Inmany places the church is hindered because of the spiritual immaturity of its members (cf. Heb, 5:12-14). We have also been told to be "making the most of your time, because the daysare evil" (Eph. 5:16). The excuse often given by some Christiansfor not studying the Bible more is that they don't have time. Maybe it is because we have not taken the time.

There is a means by which we can "plug in" to hear and meditate upon many good lessons presented by some of the greatBible students of our day, and even before our day. We can turntime which is otherwise spent in doing routine things to our spiritual edification. We could be studying lessons on the HolySpirit by the late Franklin T. Puckett, or hear Connie W. Adamsexpound on the book of Titus. We could hear the truth defendedby Roy Cogdill, Eugene Britnell, or A. C. Grider in some of theirdebates. Or we could just listen to someone read the New Testament. It depends on the effort we want to put forth.

A group of brethren who offer the service of providing such tapes and lessons run The Spoken Word, P.O. Box 127, Greenville, Indiana 47124. Why not write them for a copy of their catalog and make the most of your time?LARRY R. DEVORE, 1839 Burbank Rd., Wooster, Ohio 44691 —We have had one baptized and two confessions of sin since mylast report. Our attendance is running about 65 on Lord's Day morning.JAMES C. JONES, Rt. 1, Chicopee Rd., Gorham, Maine — The Lord's church in the Portland, Maine Metro area has been Page 18

meeting in its building at 248 Pine Pt. Rd., Scarborough, since last December. Attendance is in the high 20's, contribution averaging $125 per week, Brother Ralph Smart of Bangor, Mainedid an outstanding job of preaching the Word in our gospel meeting, August 6-12. Approximately 300 personal invitations tonon-Christians were given. Brother Smart is a working preacherand considerable visiting was done during the meeting with us. Visitors were present from the community. We believe much good was done. On August 15th, I completed 9 years with thechurch here, and Lord willing, plan to stay here and work withthe church many more. Note our ad in Searching the Scripturesand visit with us when you are in New England. BILL PIERCE,Thomasville, Georgia. The last of August we left Hillsboro, Ohioand began work with the Moultrie Rd., church in Thomasville, Georgia. This congregation was started last September, 1978 when a group of brethren took their stand for truth against liberalpractices and teachings of the Clay St. congregation in that city. F. W. Bassett and his family were instrumental in starting this new congregation. They are now in a new building, with average attendance around 30 and contributions averaging $300each week. I will be supported mainly by the North Blvd. congregation in Tampa, Florida. We look forward to working with these brethren. Thomasville is just off I-75 on SR 319. Whenpassing this way, come worship with us. We meet at 10 and 6 onSundays and Wed. at 7:30. We leave a good congregation in Hillsboro which has been our home for more than 10 years. Theyare looking for a sound preacher and anyone would be fortunate tolocate with them. VERNON JUDY, 890 Bondsville Rd., Downington, PA 19335 —The church in Sussex, New Jersey has asked me to come and wokwith them. However I will need to raise $1400 support before I can make that move. Any help in that direction will be appreciated.TOM OGLESBY, 415 Mooresville Pike, Columbia, TN 38401 — This past June, I preached in one of the most enjoyable meetingsI've ever experienced in the little town of Belfast, Virginia. The church there has weathered many storms, but I detected a senseof dedication and a rare love for the Lord. Dover Stacey is adedicated and determined servant of the Lord and has done a good work in this area of Virginia. Unfortunately for the area andfor the church, the Staceys will be moving this summer, leaving David Back in Richlands as the only full time faithful preacher inthe area. And David Back is inadequately supported. Anycongregation able and willing to fill a burning need can contacthim at P.O. Box 515, Richlands, VA 24641. I can heartily recommend both the man and the work.

Now, a note on the work at Mooresville Pike. Our diligent elders have planned a fall meeting dealing with the subject ofInstitutional. Many Christians, especially the young, have little orno conception of these issues that have divided the church in the last 25 years. Our goal will be to reaffirm the sufficiency of thechurch and the authority of the Scriptures. The dates are October7-12 each evening at 7:30. Jimmy Thomas will preach on Sundayand I will speak Monday through Friday evenings. The subjectsare in order: The History of Liberalism, The Attitudes of Liberalism, The Orphan Home Controversy, The Herald of Truth:Abuses and Principle; Fellowship and Institutionalism; Schoolsand the Church; A Plea and a Plan for Unity.

LUPE M. ALVAREZ, JR., 3227 Weisenberger Dr., Dallas, Texas75212 — Back in the summer we had a fine gospel meeting with.Emiliano Trevino from Reynosa, Tamp., Mexico preaching. Wehad good attendance and a number of visitors. I was in a meetingin Lansing, Michigan recently, accompanied by Abelardo Montanez and Joaguin Blengio. In a way brother Montanez is responsible for the work there. Brother Almanza and his familyhave been working for the Lord up there.

PREACHERS NEEDED MIDWAY, BELL, FLORIDA — The church at Midway, a rural congregation about 30 miles west of Gainesville, Florida, desires a full-time preacher. For more information contact David Mikell, Rt.1, Box 250, Bell, FL 32619, phone 904-463-2036. BLACKSTONE,VIRGINIA — The church meeting on Hwy. 46 is in need of a sound preacher, preferably someone interested in doingpersonal work. Full support can be arranged. We are located ina small town with 5 other small towns within a 30 mile radius. This is the only church we know of in this area standing for the truth.The potential is truly great. Average attendance is about 25. Please write to: Church of Christ, P.O. Box 551, Blackstone, VA 23824 or call Lemuel Wright at 804-561-4245. BELFAST, VIRGINIA — The church here needs a preacher. We are locatedbetween Richlands and Rosedale, VA. The church is small and can provide $100 per week in support with the rest having to beraised elsewhere. Those interested may call 703-964-9336 or 703963-9431. ROUNDHILL, KENTUCKY — We are in need of a full-time preacher and prefer an experienced man, one retired and onSocial Security. The church has a nice 3 bedroom house for a preacher and a nice brick meeting house. Our attendance is about

50. There is good harmony among the members. We are wanting someone to work with us, not for us! For more information, call or write: H. H. Clark (502-843-3731 or 842-4829), 1027 31-W ByPass, Bowling Green, KY 42101.JESUP, GEORGIA — The church needs a preacher. Those interested may write to: Jesup Church of Christ, 1055 E. Plum St.,Jesup, GA 31545.SEMINOLE, TEXAS — JACK GILLILAND, P.O. Box 83, Tuckerman, Arkansas — After almost six years of workingwith the N.W. Avenue B church in Seminole, Texas, I have moved to Tuckerman, Arkansas. If anyone is interested in the work atSeminole, they may contact the elders at P.O. Box 526, Seminole,Texas 79360. I would appreciate being placed on the mailing listof any who mail out their bulletin. Note my new address above atTuckerman, Arkansas. DANVILLE, INDIANA — We need a minister of the gospel to work with the Danville church to replace Stan Caldwell who hasmoved to Pulaski, Tennessee after 4 years service. Send resume toStanley Bumgardner, 1 Woodridge Dr., Plainfield, Indiana 46168,or call 317-272-3067 after 6:00 P.M.

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH

BAPTISMS 436

RESTORATIONS 105(Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)