REVELATION AND EXPERIENCE

Some seem to find it hard to believe that the whole Bible was inspired to make revelation of some thingsbecause many of the writers spoke of things that theyhad learned by personal experiences. Many of thethings the apostles wrote of they were eye-witnessesto and their testimony would stand up in any courtas expert witnesses (2 Pet. 3:15-20). Some may say,"I know some things today that Peter did not know,and can now speak more accurately than he did." Butthe credibility of a witness depends first upon theopportunity he had for observing the fact to which hetestifies. But the skeptic would reply, "I would believe Peter if he were alive today to be cross-examined." But where the testimony of an eyewitness is reduced to writing, and it could notbe refuted in his generation, it is fixed for all future time, and cannot be set aside unless new and conclusive evidence is adduced.

But one will ask, "How does inspiration work whenone testifies to what he personally saw? The events torecord and those to leave untold must be decided by someone. Just how much to tell of the events that are dealt with is a question of revelation. In addition, these eye-witnesses were human and would likely tellwhat they saw in a biased way unless guided in the revelation of it. Revelation was needed in addition to experience to uncover exactly what was to be revealed and what was to be concealed. Revelation was needed in addition to experience to keep thewriters to the bare facts and away from imaginationand prejudice, and to tell exactly what they saw andheard and not what they thought they saw and heard. Many witnesses today might tell conflictingaccounts of the same event because they might tell what they thought they saw in addition to what theyreally saw. God could not leave man unaided in revelation to tell of experiences that come to him because he would likely misinterpret what he thoughthe had learned of the mind of God.

The infallibility of the Bible does not rest upon what man learned by observation, but upon the revelation from God by verbal inspiration. The internal circumstances, the feelings, emotions, knowledge and training, had nothing to do with theinfallible message of the revelation that God madethrough them. The power of their message is in the revelation from God and not in their personal experiences .

When John wrote of the crucifixion of Christ he wrote of what he had seen, but the Holy Spiritguided him in what to reveal and what to withhold,and the words in which the revelation of his observation was expressed were given. Moses wrote of the creation and could not know of this by his ownknowledge, but only by the revelation of God. TheBible contains some things that no man could knowby his own knowledge and experience. It tells of things that man left alone would not tell. All of thisis a matter of revelation even in relating the experiences of the men who wrote. All revelation had itsorigin in the mind of God. One must have the mindof Christ to reveal them (I Cor. 2:10, 11), and it isonly by the Spirit that the mind of God is revealed.

Paul speaks plainly of this in Galatians 1. "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but bythe revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:11, 12). He affirms that the gospel he preached did not originatewith man, nor was man the instrument by which hereceived it. It came from Jesus Christ. He further says, "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them whichwere apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus" (Gal. 1:17). By notconferring with any of the apostles he shows thatthey did not give him the message he preached. He says that the things he preached came by the Spiritof God and he speaks them in the words of the Spiritrather than in the words of man's wisdom (I Cor. 2:13). We must regard the Bible as a work of God and not man.

Page 2_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There are many important things for people to doto please God. A look at a few should inspire us torespond to our duty.

1) MAN MUST HAVE FAITH:

It seems that so many have so little faith in Godand the word of God. The apostle to the Hebrewssaid, "But without faith it is impossible to pleasehim: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligentlyseek him" (Heb. 11:6).

2) FAITH MUST BE PUT TO WORK:

Man's faith is brought about by a hearing of theword of God (Rom. 10:17). This faith must be put towork in obedience. Faith that avails is the "faith which worketh by love" (Gal. 5:6). James says,"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, beingalone" (Jas. 2:17). It is an important matter that one's faith result in one repenting of sins, confessing faith in Christ and being baptized into Christ (Acts17:30; Matt. 10:32; Gal. 3:27).

3) FAITHFULNESS IS REQUIRED AFTER PRIMARY OBEDIENCE:

It seems too often that many relax in their obedience after being baptized. The duty of a Christian is summarized in these words: "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable,always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuchas ye know that your labour is not in vain in theLord" (1 Cor. 15:58).

a) So many are not faithful in assembling. We aretold: "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together . . ." (Heb. 10:25). Every time you forsakethe assembling with the church, you sin, unless you are hindered by God! Does God ever hinder you?Those of you who miss so many services, let me askyou, "How many assemblies would a person have tomiss before it becomes sinful?"

b) Many are not faithful in giving. God gave, Christ gave and we are taught to give also (Jno. 3:16; Phil 2:5-8; 1 Cor. 16:1 2). How faithful are you?

c) Are you faithful in studying the Word of God?We are told to study (2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Tim. 4:13). Areyou faithful when it comes to a study of the Word?4) SOBER AND RIGHTEOUS LIVING IS VITAL:Often times church folks get careless in the way they live. Paul told Titus, ". . that, denyingungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly,righteously and godly, in this present world" (Tit.2:12).

Page 3

ABOUT OUR AUGUST SPECIAL ISSUE For the last five years it has been our practice topresent a special issue of SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES on some topic which we felt wouldmeet an existing need among our readers. Our first special was called "An Unchanging Kingdom in aChanging World" and dealt with first principles.Next we prepared one called "The Family Under Fire" which was so much appreciated that we had tohave three printings. The following year we presenteda special called "Morals Under Fire." Then came "Bringing in the Sheaves" in an effort to stimulate more concern for the lost and to encourage personalevangelism. Last year we prepared a 32 page special edition entitled "The Church — Live Issues Old and New." We sold 17,000 of that in just a short time. "The War Against the Works of the Flesh" Havingobserved developing situations among brethren nearand far, and after consultation with several men whowrite regular columns in this paper, we have decidedto turn our attention this year to the struggle against the works of the flesh, some of which are listed byPaul in Galatians 5:19-21. Hence, the title "The WarAgainst the Works of the Flesh." These sins are obvious violations of the will of God and are of such serious nature that they will keep us out of heaven,unless we repent. "The flesh lusteth against the Spirit." Instead of fighting these works which willcause us to lose our souls, many have capitulated,seem to revel in one or more of them and have become open apologists for them. Others have decided thatsome of these sins are gross offenses while othersmentioned in the same passage are relegated to the ranks of simple misdemeanors. They view them as bad, but not really too bad. To the degree that Christians either minimize or embrace any of these works, they lose their distinction from the world andembark on a journey which will only terminate in thelake of fire. We have asked men who regularly write acolumn in this paper to deal with these sins, simplyfollowing the list in Galatians 5:19-21. The followingsubjects will be dealt with by the writers indicated:The Flesh Versus the Spirit — Connie W. AdamsFornication — H. E. PhillipsUncleanness — Julian R. Snell Lasciviousness — Dee Bowman Idolatry and Witchcraft — Thomas G. O'Neal Hatred and Variance — J. T. Smith Emulations — J. Wiley AdamsWrath — Weldon E. Warnock Strife, Seditions and Heresies — Eugene Britnell

Envyings — Ken Green

Drunkenness — T. Mark Lloyd

Revellings — Marshall E. Patton

And Such Like — Earl Kimbrough

Kept Out of Heaven — Rodney Miller These menare well known to the readers of this paper. We areconvinced that this material will help all of us toresist the Devil so that he will flee from us. Why notorder enough copies to supply every family whereyou worship with one? Why not see to it that yourchildren who live away from home, whether married or single, in the military or away in college,receive a copy to study? In spite of a recent, andsubstantial, increase in printing costs, we are goingto hold the line on this special at the same price asour special of last August. They will sell for $50 per 100, $30 per 50 and under that amount for 75 ceach. Orders are being accepted now and will be readyto mail the first of August. Order from SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES, P. O. Box 68,Brooks, KY 40109.

*********************

STUDY ON 1 CORINTHIANS 7:1-15With this issue we begin a four part study of 1Cor. 7:1-15 which we believe presents a freshapproach to a passage often pressed into servicewhenever marriage and divorce is discussed. The material has been well researched and we think will contribute something of value and importance to thisentire study of a vexing problem among Christians. We hope you will read it carefully and thoughtfully. *********************

NEW EDITOR FOR THE PRECEPTOR

Danny Brown is now the editor of THE PRECEPTOR, an excellent 32 page monthlymagazine published in Beaumont, Texas. For manyyears this paper was edited by Stanley Lovett. Weregret that declining health made it necessary for himto retire from this activity, which he performed sowell. For quite some time before becoming editor,Danny Brown had carried most of the responsibilityfor publishing the paper. THE PRECEPTOR has always been a good paper and has carried a wealth ofwell written material on a variety of Bible subjects.It is attractive in appearance and sound in content.The subscription rate is $6 a year and $5 a year inclubs of 5 or more. The mailing address is: The Preceptor Magazine, P.O. Box 187, Beaumont, Texas77704. Our best wishes go to Danny Brown in hiswork as editor of this good paper. He is an able preacher and writer, a man of maturity and integrityand we have every confidence that the influence ofthe paper will grow and be widely felt under hisdirection.

You are a proclaimer of God's power, the gospel,

yet you feel a distressing helplessness. The young

woman sitting across the desk from you is rigid with

resolve. Her jaw is set. "I have decided to leave him.

I will not take this any more. I refuse to stay." The

tearful eyes of her mother, sitting beside her, look to

you pleadingly. She expects you to say something to

change her daughter's mind.

The attractive young Christian says she

understands that she cannot remarry. She has no

intention of doing so. You futility attempt to impress

her with the danger of such a course. You tell her of

the many you have seen who expressed the same

determination, yet were shortly remarried, un

scripturally. She says her situation is different. She

will not rebel against the plain commands of God but

statements like, "I think this is unwise," are

meaningless. Efforts to change her mind with "points

of wisdom" are like trying to turn back the tide with

a broom.

They leave and the realities begin to dawn: a divine

institution shattered; two attractive young Christians

facing a life of celibacy; the chances of maintaining

faithfulness are virtually nil. You realize that, almost

certainly, this situation is headed for eternal tragedy

and you find no comfort in the fact that time does

prove you absolutely correct. What could you have

said? You were helpless.

Recall, brethren, that Paul tells us we are throughly furnished unto every good work; thatGod's revelation is sufficient for doctrine, reproof,correction and instruction in righteousness (II Tim.3:16, 17). Do you really believe that ? Do you believe we are furnished sufficiently to deal with marital problems?

One of the reasons brethren often feel helpless indealing with these problems is that theymisunderstand and thus fail to use one of the most effective tools furnished to us by God — I Cor.7:1-15. Ironically, it is often used to justify the verything it forcefully condemns. With a view to bringingGod's power to bear against this pervasive problem, Iask your serious consideration of this study.

I. ABSOLUTE COMMAND: DO NOT DEPART!

I Cor. 7:10 — "I give charge, yea not I, but theLord, that the wife depart not from her husband."

The apostle Paul tells us that the obligation described in verse 10 constitutes a "charge." This word is defined by Thayer to mean, "to command,order, charge," p. 479. This is the same word used inthe following verses.

I Tim. 6:13,14 — "I charge thee in the sight of God . . . that thou keep the commandment, without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Acts 16:23,24 - "And when they had laidmany stripes upon them, they cast them intoprison charging the jailor to keep them safely: who having received such a charge,cast them into the inner prison, and madetheir feet fast in the stocks."

The apostle Paul did not say that one should notdepart; nor did he say, "I would rather they did notdepart." Rather, he used as strong a word as possibleand attributed it to as high a source as possible.

Commentators recognize the absolute nature of thecommand.

Barnes Notes on the New Testament, I Cor., p.

14. "This injunction is not to be understood as advice merely, but solemn divine command, from which you are not at libertyto depart. Paul here professes to utter thelanguage of inspiration, and demands obedience. . .Let not the wife depart, etc., let her not, onany pretense, desert her husband . . . ."

Expositor's Greek Testament, Vol. II, p.

825. "The apostle's tone is changed (cf. 6ff.);he is laying down the law, and on supremeauthority. He cites Christ's words in distinction from his own, not as though hisword was insufficient, but inasmuch as this was a principle upon which the Lord had pronounced categorically."

Matthew Henry, Vol. 6, p. 538. " . . .He tells them that marriage, by Christ's command, is for life, and therefore those who are married must not think of separation. The wife must not depart from the husband (v. 10), nor the husband put awaythe wife, (v. 11). This I command, says theapostle; yet not I but the Lord . . .They must not separate for any cause other than what Christ allows."

The International Critical Commentary,

p. 139. "The meaning, is, 'I give order, no, not I, Christ gives it.' In classical Greek, parangello is used of the military word of command."

Lang's Commentary, Corinthians, p.

143. "I command ... .It implies a stringent order, an injunction to do something(comp. Luke 5:14; I Tim. 6:13). And this heexhibits as a command of the Lord Himself,i.e., of Christ, the head of the Church

Divorce, John Murray, p. 58. "The strength of the injunction, 'I give charge' (parangello) is peculiarly evident. The apostle is enunciating his apostolic authority; nothingless will measure up to the weight of the wordhe uses. The clause is immediately appended,'Not I but the Lord' but does not reduce the strength of his own command; Paul is not retracting his assertion of authority butrather reminding his readers that the chargehe is giving was already given by the LordHimself in the days of His flesh. This appealto the Lord is for the purpose of reinforcement and is direct allusion to the

Page 5

teaching of our Lord recorded in Matt. 5:31,32 . . . .The terms of the Pauline prohibition are quite absolute in effect, 'Let not the wife separate herself from her husband, and let not the husband leave hiswife.' "

Some have objected to considering "Depart not" anabsolute command on the basis of comparing thiscommand with a command like, "Obey your parents."We are told that there are circumstances that would justify disobeying such a command of God. Likewise,there are circumstances that justify disobeying the command, "Depart not."

If we understand what God has actually commanded, we will see that this law of God is not imposed conditionally. When we, then,distinguish God's law from man's law, we will seewhere this argument misses the mark.

God did not give an unqualified command to obey your parents. Rather, He actually commanded, "Obey your parents in the Lord" (Eph. 6:1). The qualifying phrase, "in the Lord," specifically excludesobligations to any parental command that is not "in the Lord." However, that which is actually commanded is absolutely obligatory.. The clearlydefined obligation (obey in the Lord) is subject to nocondition whatsoever.

Actually, our obligation to every command of man is defined by the idea involved in this specification (in the Lord). This is clear from Acts 4:19. Peter teachesthat man's law carries no obligation when it obviously conflicts with God's law. Those which are"in the Lord" carry unqualified obligation.

However, the issue in this study does not involve a command of man. This very point was emphasized byPaul when the command was given. "I give charge,yea not I, but the Lord, that the wife depart notfrom her husband." The law of God, most certainly,does not obligate conditionally.

II. PERMISSION GRANTED?

I Cor. 7:11 — "(but and if she depart, let herremain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband);"There are a number of significantly different translations of this passage as well as different interpretations of the translations. Basically there are five positions. Only one is permissive.

1. Active, Future, Permissive—"If she separates herself in the future, (this is permitted) but let herremain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband."
2. Active, Future, Non-Permissive: "If she separates herself in the future, (contrary to Christ's command), let her remain unmarried and seek to bereconciled to her husband."
3. Past Tense, Active, Non-Permissive— 'If she has already separated herself, let her remain unmarried,or be reconciled to her husband."
4. Passive, Future, Non-Permissive— 'If she is left sometime in the future, let her remain unmarried orbe reconciled to her husband."
5. Passive, Past Tense, Non-Permissive — "If she has already been left, let her remain unmarried or bereconciled to her husband."

In this article, we will consider the first possibility.Subsequent articles will deal with those remaining.

1. THE FIRST POSSIBILITY: ACTIVE, FUTURE,

PERMISSIVE

Since this position claims that permission is granted to act, it bears the burden of proof; the obligation to establish authority (Col. 3:17). In order to establish authority, one must show conclusivelythat permission is granted. The permissive aspect ofthis passage must be demonstrated to be, not just apossibility or even a probability. It must be established. There can be no doubt that permission isgranted.

Rom. 14:23 clearly teaches that if there is doubt

there is sin; if it cannot be done with complete

confidence it cannot be done at all.

If it can be shown that non-permissive positionsare possible, there is doubt. Authority would not beestablished. The practice would definitely be wrong.

Perhaps we can get a clearer perspective byconsidering a similar, familiar issue. An argumentis made in support of infant baptism from the baptism of Lydia's household. We understand that the burden of proof rests on the one whose practice isin question. They have the obligation to demonstrateauthority for their action. One must prove that infants were baptized to establish authority for infantbaptism.

All that is necessary to defeat this effort is to showthe possibility that infants were not baptized. At thatpoint authority cannot be established. Doubt is established. It is not necessary to prove alternate positions (that infants were not included in Lydia's household). They have the burden of proof.

A fair consideration of the non-permissive positionspresented in subsequent articles will demonstrate thatnon-permissive possibilities can be established. If so,that is all that is necessary to demonstrate that authority cannot be established for leaving. It would,therefore, be wrong.

Page 6

WE WERE RIGHT ALL THE TIME

During elections on the issue of legalized sale ofalcoholic beverages, those who oppose the sale and use of strong drink have argued that increased outlets and advertising of alcohol would increase the use and thus create more drunkards and drink-related problems. The liquor industry and drinkershave denied this, arguing that "if people are going todrink they'll get it."

An article in the Arkansas Gazette, March 18, 1979, is headed: "Alcohol Accessibility Leads to Risein Drinking, Related Problems." We quote from it:

Alcohol, the World Health Organization (WHO) reports, is more readily available throughout theworld than at any time in history. As a consequence,alcohol-related problems now rank among the world'smajor public health concerns.

"WHO has warned countries that alcohol-related problems are an obstacle to their socio-economic development and 'are likely to overwhelm their health resources.'

"The rise in drinking, said WHO, is not the resultof something innate in the individual but rather isrelated directly to the degree of exposure to drinking."

So this organization (WHO) now confirms what wehave said — that alcohol consumption is related to thedegree of exposure to drinking." Note the following statements concerning alcohol and its problems around the world:

"During World War II, deaths from cirrhosis among middle-aged French males was cut in half, andWHO attributes the drop to lack of availability of alcohol during the War. At Paris, where circumventing the rationing of alcohol was less possible, the decline of cirrhosis deaths jumped 80 per cent.

"Statistics show about 30 per cent of Chile's budget for medical and psychiatric services is spenton alcohol-related patient problems.

"In England and Wales, alcohol-related hospital admissions have increased 20-fold in the last 25 years.

"In Honduras. 65 per cent of the rural population are affected by drinking problems, with peasants spending as much as a third of their earnings on booze.

"In Kuwait, road accidents tripled in the decade that ended in 1975, partly as the result of drunk drivers.

"In the United States, the medical, social and psychiatric cost of drinking is estimated at $43 billiona year."

The article closed with these statements: "WHO's

suggested counter measures include urging countries

to put health ahead of economic interests, to regulate

alcohol production, control imports and limit sales

outlets; to require attendance at rehabilitation

centers as a condition of continued employment of

drinkers; and random breathalyzer tests among

drivers, with the arrest of those found to be drunk.

'"It is an absurd paradox,' the report said, 'to use

alcohol revenue to build the roads on which it is not

safe to drive because of drunken drivers'."

Yes, we are inconsistent. While pronouncing

alcohol our number one drug problem, our nation

allows it to be made, advertised, taxed and sold. Pick

up any national magazine and you will probably find

10 or more pages of alcohol advertising. More than

half of all traffic fatalities are caused by drinking,

and any one of us could be the next victim!

Many people in responsible positions have become

victims of alcohol — Senator Wilbur Mills, Senator

Herman Talmadge, Mrs. Betty Ford and Billy

Carter — to name a few. Mr. Mills, who disgraced his

office, his state, and himself by his drink-related

activities, recently said that alcoholism was a greater

threat to America than communism!

In our permissive and drug-oriented society,

millions of teenagers are becoming addicted to

alcohol. From the beer commercials on television and

the liquor advertisements in the papers and

magazines, they are led to believe that this is the

way to "get all the gusto you can" out of life. How

vain and deceptive!

While we are speaking of advertising, one of the most offensive beer ads — at least to me — is the one which suggests that "week-ends were made for Michelob." In the first place, most people don't know what the week end is. Much of the time in the period to which they refer is the week-beginning, the beginning of a new week. Since God made the days of the week, He made the week ends,but He certainly did not make them to be used in drunkenness, revelling, and such like.

In our hedonistic society, we often wonder if someprofessed Christians understand why God made theweek ends. They were made for drinking, all right,but only those wholesome liquids essential for life inthe body and the fruit of the vine of the Lord's supper for spiritual strength (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 10:16).

When it comes to drinking, friend, "What will youhave?"

Page 7

GENTILES DURING THE AGE OF MOSES

QUESTION: I have heard it preached that Eph.

2:12 teaches that there was no hope for the Gentilesduring the age of Moses. Is this true? Please explainthe meaning of "no hope" in this verse.

ANSWER: The immediate context should be considered in a study of verse 12:

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time pastGentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcisionby that which is called the Circumcision in the fleshmade by hands; That at that time ye were withoutChrist, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,and strangers from the covenants of promise, havingno hope, and without God in the world — But now inChrist Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are madenigh by the blood of Christ" (Eph. 2:11-13).

The context shows that Paul is drawing a contrastbetween the former state of the Gentiles and the present state of those "in Christ Jesus." Obviously,the "time past" (v. 11) refers to the time when the Gentiles were "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise"

(v. 12), hence, the age of Moses. However, it shouldbe observed that the same state is true now of everyGentile out of Christ. But our question concerns their"having no hope." Why was this so? Did God haveor make provisions for the Gentiles during the age ofMoses? Was it God's fault or theirs that they were without hope?

Paul puts the blame on the Gentiles:

"This I say therefore, and testify in the Lordthat ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk,in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart — Who being past feeling have given themselves overunto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness withgreediness" (Eph. 2:17-19).

Paul says the same thing again in the Romanletter:

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.For the invisible things of him from the creation ofthe world are clearly seen, being understood by thethings that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse — Becausethat, when they knew God, they glorified him not asGod, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God intoan image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonourtheir own bodies between themselves — Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen" (Rom. 1:19-25).

These verses show that there was a time when the Gentiles, in general, "knew God," but failed in the presence of their opportunities. These verses show that they were "without excuse" for their idolatry and immorality. While "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23;5:12), both Gentiles and Jews compounded their guiltby failures when they could have known and donebetter (Rom. 1:21-23; 2:1). All of this clearly impliesthat both Jew and Gentile could have remained in a state of acceptability during the age of Moses, and,ultimately, have obtained the eternal remission ofsins — contingent upon the coming of the Christ andthe shedding of His blood. This means that God hadprovisions for both during the age of Moses (Cf. Rom. 2:11-16).

God has always made provisions for the salvation of the whole world throughout all ages. However, we should remember that the Old Testament does not propose a full history of God's dealings with the whole world. Primarily it is concerned with the lineage of Christ and God's special efforts in bringing to pass the scheme of redemption. This involves primarily the history of Israel. However, now and then this history touches that of the Gentiles and when it does we see evidence of God's concern for them as well as the Jews.

When Israel inherited Canaan, a twofold purposewas fulfilled, namely, 1) the punishment of wickedpeople who by their wickedness had forfeited theirright to further existence, 2) the fulfillment of God's promise to their fathers:

"Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee,saying, For my righteousness the LORD hath brought me in to possess this land — but for thewickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee. Not for they righteousness,or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go topossess their land — but for the wickedness of thesenations the LORD thy God doth drive them out frombefore thee, and that he may perform the word whichthe LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac,and Jacob. Understand therefore, that the LORD thyGod giveth thee not this good land to possess it forthy righteousness; for thou art a stiff-necked people"(Deut. 9:4-6).

This punishment of the Canaanites was of God andtherefore just. This means that they could and shouldhave kept themselves from such wickedness — idolatryand immorality (Cf. Num. 33:5-56). The design of theplagues in Egypt as well as Pharaoh's exaltation to power was that God might be manifested to Egyptand to all the world (Rom. 9:17). God sent Jonah topreach to Nineveh that they might be turned fromidolatry and immorality (Jonah 1:1, 2). Balaam was a prophet of God, not of Israel (Num. 22:1-6). However weak and regardless of his failure, the case of Balaamshows that God had prophets working among the

Gentiles. While we do not have a detailed and full history of such in the Bible, nevertheless, the evidence is there.

Both the Jews and the Gentiles, in general, failedin the face of the opportunities and provisions God made for them, hence, both were "without excuse" or"inexcusable" (Rom. 1:20; 2:1).

INTRODUCTION: In Guyana, over 900 members ofthe People's Temple committed either murder and/orsuicide. In spite of the terrible event there are manylessons that come rushing with overwhelming force right before our eyes. We are foolish people if we do notlearn from them. And we will have to bury our heads inthe sand to ignore them. They are:

I. THAT IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE WHAT YOU BELIEVE EVEN IF YOU ARE SINCERE!

A. No question that these people were sincere.They loved Jim Jones with all their heart,soul, and mind (Mt. 22:37). They would signover all their property, money, commit murder and suicide.

B. Saul had a "good conscience" (thus sincere)(Acts 23:1).

1. He was injurious, a blasphemer, consented to the death of Christians, chiefof sinners, yet needed conversion (I Tim.1:13-15; Acts 22:16).

II. THAT ONE CHURCH IS NOT AS GOOD AS ANOTHER!

A. We have heard this for years. A Baptistwhom I debated in December, 1977 said "one is as good as another"

B. Then Church of Satan as good as Lord's church. Same for People's Temple, Church of Scientology, Unification Church, Protestant-Catholic churches, etc.

C. Many treat religion as a substitute for salvation. But Jesus did not come to make men religious. Came to make them religiously right! (Mt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22, 23;4:4).

III. THAT ENDORSEMENT OF FAMOUS PEOPLE IS NO GUARANTEE OF TRUTH

A. Oh how we need this reminder! Jones had letters from Rosalyn Carter, Vice President Mondale, and others which he used as "credentials."

B. The Billy Graham Campaigns & Oral Roberts use famous people (Johnny Cash,Anita Bryant, etc.) as "credentials."

C. Brethren have used Pat Boone, Billy SolEstes, ball players. Or they may use well known college officials as "credentials" to gain approval (A.C. Pullias, M. Norvel Young). In such cases the Lord's church is

sooner or later made a laughingstock.

IV. THAT WE SHOULD BEWARE OF RELIGIOUS RACKETEERS A. Jones' church sold pens, prayer cloths, religious paraphernalia. B. One clear distinction between Lord's church and religious racketeers is that the Lord's church never solicits donations from the public and racketeers always do — or elsethey have something to "sell." C. Major denominations are guilty of this

1. Car washes, bake sales, bingo, coal mining, rental property, distilleries.
2. I Cor. 16:1, 2. There may be many reasonsfor setting aside the word of God, but there is no good reason.

D. Men are some of the worst deceivers 1. Following men, we can be led to believeand do anything. a. Jones weird and bizarre sexual activities, beatings, fake healings, murder, suicide. 2. The blind are still leading the blind. Thereare still wolves in sheeps clothing (Mt.15:14; 7:15). a. Some would address the pope as "Holy Father" and bow down and kisshis ring. b. Others would drive hundreds of miles hoping Oral Roberts would heal them. 3. There is no darkness like the spiritual darkness into which men are led when they abandon God's Word. The decayingand bloated bodies, their faces almostunrecognizable in the hot tropical sun, theterrible stench almost unbearable to those who came to remove the bodies,should be a solemn reminder to those who would follow men rather than God — who would look for some fleshly Utopia instead of the "city which hath foun- dations, whose builder and maker is God"(Heb. 11:10). V. THAT IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE

A. We live in a terrible time of ignorance. It isnot limited to the uneducated but is also in the upper echelons of society.

1. Such men as Jim Jones (and John Gayce)can be given the blessings of the first ladyof our nation for their "Christian socialism" while ignoring the con sequences of their philosophy.
2. Our president dignified PLAYBOY MAGAZINE by granting an interview,endorsed the E.R.A. (which no one hasdenied would legalize homosexuality),Prov. 29:2; 14:34; Isa. 5:20).

B. While many of Jones' followers were the downtrodden, he also had "educated" followers

1. The man charged with the murder of Congressman Leo Ryan had been a Unitarian and met Jones while studying sociology at U. of Calif.

P«ge9

1. The doctor who mixed the poison was agraduate of the U. of Calif. He also hadnurses in his service.
2. Lawyers who worked for him.
3. Education without salvation is dam nation (Acts 17:30, 31; Hos. 4:6; Jn. 8:32).

VI. THAT PARENTS NEED TO EXAMINE THEMSELVES WHEN THEY CONDEMN SUCH ATROCITIES

A. Parents gave their own children poison atJonestown.

1. Imagine watching your own little onestake deadly cyanide & drink it down!Then watch as they writhe and cry inagony before their eyes roll back in death.It happened in scores of cases in theGuyana Massacre, and we cry "What will happen to such parents?"

B. Application: Parents who say they wouldnever do such things to their children will nevertheless poison them spiritually bywithholding decent literature while makingindecent material available. Others poisonthem by neglecting family devotions, notsupervising the TV, keeping liquor in thehome, materialism, etc.

1. It's only fair that we raise the question:"What will happen to such parents?"
2. The very complacent atmosphere in which some children are reared makes them ripe picking for the philosophiesof men.
3. Eph. 6:4. And how many children arepoisoned by parents who never take themto a Christ-honoring, Bible-believing, gospel-preaching church?

VII. THAT MONEY AND PLEASURE ARE NOT THE ANSWER TO LIFE'S PROBLEMS

A. Jones had large sums of money.

B. Congressman Ryan and others were treatedto rock music performances by the Jonestown band and entertainment during dinner. Pictures on TV showed cult followers dancing. Bizarre sexual activities.These are part of the pleasure in whichJones indulged (I Tim. 6:6-10; 2 Tim. 3:4;Isa. 55:11).

VIII. THAT SOCIALISM-COMMUNISM ARE NOT THE ANSWER TO MAN'S BASIC NEEDS

A. Regardless of how terrible a philosophy is,most have a little good in them. The goodoften blinds to the bad.

1. Jones preached the philosophy of equality, brotherhood, and socialism. Hehad adopted 8 children of different races.Was at one time head of IndianapolisCommission on Human Rights.
2. Sir Lionel Luckloo (Jones' attorney inGuyana since 1973) said Jones broughthard cash to Guyana as well as a committment to create a Marxist Leninist commune that would serve the local government's intentions.
3. What was thought would be a Utopia (a

"promised land ) turned out to be anything but that. Before the massacreJones was negotiating with the U.S.S.Rto take his deceived followers there where they would have encountered worse slavery.

a. "Die with respect. Die with a degree ofdignity. Lay down your life with dignity. Don't lay down with tears andagony. Stop this hysterics. This is notthe way for people who are socialisticcommunists to die. . . ," — Jim Jones,from NBC's Jonestown tape releasedto the Associated Press, 3/14/79.

1. Without God there is no reason to practicethe golden rule or do anything that is right.When an atheist does something goodand right, he does it in spite of his atheism and not because of it.
2. The reason some top figures in our country commended Jones is because they accept the socialist-communist philosophy.But will they ever see any connection inwhat happened at Jonestown and thephilosophy itself? Probably not.

IX. THAT THE DENOMINATIONS OF AMERICA HAVE CREATED THE VERY SOCIETY THAT MADE CONDITIONS FAVORABLE FOR THIS HOLOCAUST! A. Some have blamed the government for

elevating and not investigating Jim Jones.But the blame lies on the major denominations of our day.

1. They have created the atmosphere that does not allow open investigation,religious criticism, and debates.
2. In an excellent article by Harold Comer, heobserves: "This causes a great silence thatallows terrible abuses to grow and develop . . . At the early stages whenpeople should have been informed of theinconsistencies of a man who denied the virgin birth and Bible miracles (whileclaiming to perform miracles himself)most Americans would have said "Don't criticize him." When Jones threw the Bible down and would spit on it, claimingtoo many of his disciples were wanting tofollow it and not him, the quarantine onreligious criticism protected him with silence. The value in religious criticism is inexposing false teachers .... The value ofall religious criticism is emphasizedwhen the extremes of some cult that developed under the protection of "Don't criticize other religions" are shockingly acted out before us."

X. THAT PEOPLE CAN STILL BE INFLUENCED FOR GOOD OR BAD A. Theydid some good things and some bad things.

1. If the downtrodden can be influenced to give their very lives in Satan's service,then they can also be led to Christ.
2. If nurses, a doctor, and college trained

Page 10

people can be influenced to givethemselves wholeheartedly to such a cult,then they can also be influenced to become Christians.

B. There are people in all walks of life who maybe captured for Satan if we do not win themto Christ. "The harvest is plenteous..." 1.Jesus said, "If the salt hath lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted?" He was asking: "If the people of God have lost their influence, how are those in theworld to be influenced?"

CONCLUSION: Error enslaves, but only the truth can make men free.

HAGGAI — GOD'S PREACHER &GOD'S MESSAGEPart I

One of the great values of studying from theProphets is to observe God's preachers in action. Wemay observe how they preached, what they preached. The how of their preaching includes their methods,their tone and their manner of dealing with the people. The what of their preaching was the content:the messages and the lessons that God had giventhem the responsibility to communicate. These two factors (the how and the what) can be two of thegreatest blessings that any teacher or preacher ofGod's Truth today could have. We often face problems and set-backs as we seek to work withpeople. The preacher or teacher today must be motivated to motivate others in the work of the Lord. Yet, how is he going to do this great task? What ishe going to say? What message will best do the job?These questions are answered by Haggai, God's elder statesman.

As the book opens there is no introduction ofHaggai to the people. There is no lineage describing his genealogy, which leaves us with the impressionthat all of Israel knew who he was and this confirms he was an established prophet. Also, in 2:3 he speaksabout those that had seen the temple in her "formerglory." This also gives us the feeling that maybe hewas speaking of himself as one who had seen theSolomonic house destroyed in 586 by the Chaldeans.Now let us examine the preaching of Haggai. Ourstudy here will not be to deal with the prophesiesconcerning the Messiah, but to observe him asa spokesman for God.The content of Haggai's preaching: God's Message and God's Lessons.

First, we will observe the four-fold message of Haggai as outlined by Baxter. Number one, he was to AROUSE God's people to action, (1:1-15). The keypoint here is BUILD THE TEMPLE. On the returnfrom captivity God's people began the temple butthey had ceased to build, leaving the temple in ruinsfor some 16 years. They had turned their attention toeverything else in the building of their homes andneglected God's Home, the temple. So it often is withGod's people. They neglect the spiritual because oftheir love for the material. This is the greatest dangerto God's house, both THEN and NOW. Haggai hadto AROUSE them from their materialistic indifference to do God's will. This is the test of everypreacher, every eldership, every Bible class teacherand every member. But notice that God told Haggaito get the people to do the work. Brethren hire thepreacher to do the work. Preachers often times dothe work simply because it is easier than gettingsomeone else to do it. What if Haggai had tried tobuild God's House himself? He could not have done it all, and even if he could have, the people would havebeen lost because they were still guilty of neglect.The function of God's preacher is to MOVE others towork. It is not a question of "our preacher can do thework of ten men", but can the preacher move "TENmen to DO THE WORK"!

The second message of Haggai was a Message ofSupport. (2:1-9). The key is found in Verse 4, "I amwith you." They were discouraged concerning theirsecond temple, so the Lord gives them four statements of support. (1) V.5 Jehovah's covenant or promise still stands (2) V.5 Jehovah's spirit is still with them. (3) V. 6-9 the glory of the Second will begreater than the First. (4) V.6-9 He will give peace.Many preach in difficult and hard places and theyneed to feel by faith God's support of their preaching.Some preach in places where it is a joy to labor, butthey must face hardships, grief and set-backs time and again. Yet, God is WITH YOU if you will preachHis Gospel. God was with these people if they would build. Yes, it was not going to be what the SolomonicHouse was, but HE WOULD BE WITH THEM. This lets us, as teachers, know that too much negative preaching destroys hope! After he moved them to begin work, even though their fruit wassmall and lacking in glory, he followed with supportfrom God.

The third message of Haggai was a Message to Conform (2:10-19). The key point is found in Verse19, "From this day I WILL BLESS YOU." As thepeople listened to Haggai and his message, they wereready to start raking in the blessings from the day they first started to build. This seems to be saying"O.K., we started to work, now Lord start the blessings coming our way." Of course, how fortunatewe are that we don't see this attitude today. "O.K., we've made a personal work visit, or we have put onead in the newspaper, or we've handed out 200 meeting invitations. Now, Lord, send those sinners down theaisle." Yes, it is something to be thankful for that wedon't have that attitude, isn't it? These peopleseemed to think that as soon as they laid the firstbrick in their return to work that God would be obligated to reward their pious efforts. This portionof Haggai's address is saying "Yes, God will supportyour efforts, but your work is not going to earn your

Page 11

rewards nor is God obligated to bless them." How

many of us begin to doubt God or His Gospel simply

because we have made a few calls and have not seen

outward success? Haggai explains that if someone

who is ceremonially unclean touches an article, then

the article also becomes defiled (2:11-14). So it was

with them. They were defiled, they were unclean in

their failure and sin, and if they did labor, it was still

by Grace that God would accept both them and the

work of their hands, the temple. Thus when He

blessed them, in the day of completion, it would not

be because they were so conscientious, such hard

workers and so faithful in their activity, but because

by HIS Grace He accepted the effort of their hands.

Brethren, what a beautiful lesson for all of us who

labor! When we strive as best we can we have not

earned one thing. Not one soul is baptized into Christ

solely on the greatness of the ability of the personal

worker. No sermon moves the heart of the listener

solely because of the greatness of the speaker. The

reason we are pleased when God so decides to bestow

blessings on our labor is that it comes by HIS

GRACE and Favor!

The fourth message of Haggai is a message of ASSURANCE, 2:20-23. The key to this message isfound in V. 23 "IN THAT DAY I will make THEE." This message directed to Zerubbabel, a Shadow of Christ who is to come, is that all of your work willhave eternal significance. A small insignificant temple? Yes, but IN THAT DAY your work will bevalued because of its eternal significance. When thephysical nation ceases I will set up a righteous Kingto rule with all authority. Man can set records onlyto see them broken by others more able and dedicated than they. Man can build only to see time tear down.Man can give only to see others take. But it is God'smessage of Assurance that His cause is eternal, itwill last and endure, and so will the efforts of thosewho labor in it.

Four great messages by a grand old preacher —

"Go thou and do likewise."

In the next issue we will examine again the content of Haggai's message by observing the lessons andmoral truths of what God directed.

SERMON CRITICISMS

I seldom publish personal correspondence, but I'mpersuaded that there are attitudes expressed by thesister whose comments appear below that are characteristic of a good many brethren across theland. I have not received such criticism often myself,but many preaching brethren with whom I've talked have mentioned being recipients of such.

Therefore, because I believe there's a need, I'm making this personal letter public property. Since itis not my desire to embarrass or hurt my correspondent in any way, I have removed all personal references.

Dear Sister ________ :

When I receive a letter of "constructive criticism" I try very diligently to profit from it.It's not easy I fear, to always accept criticismas one should. Pride is a sin that easily besetsus. But I make a real effort to honestly evaluatethe criticism and conclude whether it is justifiable.

I have read your letter several times. You say, "I'm not writing this just to tell youoff . . .I have great respect for you . . .I believe you are as sincere as anyone can be." I appreciate these words, as well as the kind things you said regarding my delivery,personality, knowledge, etc. In return, I do notquestion your sincerity for a moment.

You say, however, "But you lack wisdom.You should get on your knees and beg for wisdom." This is true in many respects, I'm sure. But I'm persuaded that in regard to thepoints you proceed to mention, you, not I, lackwisdom. You point out that you have beenwanting to say these things for years, and I "just happen to be the one to give (you) thecourage to start." I hope I can be the one togive the good sense to stop, before you go anyfurther with this kind of criticism.

Let's look at the points you made in yourletter. First, you said, "Paul told Timothy topreach the word and I believe he meant the NewTestament." You then criticize my Sundaymorning Bible study lesson. You say, "It wasgood. It was Bible. But why did you pick thestory about Nabal and Abigail? What did welearn about salvation from the lesson?"

Why do you believe that Paul meant only theNew Testament when he told Timothy to preachthe word? Did he not say also that "All

Page 12

scripture is given by the inspiration of

God . . .and is profitable . . .that the man of

God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto

all good works" (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)? Had he

not just mentioned that Timothy had known the

holy scriptures from a child (verse 15)? What

scriptures were available when Timothy was a

child? Obviously, this verse speaks of the Old

Testament. "All scripture" of verse 16 would

include the New Testament. And when Paul

goes on a few verses later (4:2) to say "preach

the word," he is speaking of both Old

Testament and New Testament.

Why did I pick the story about Nabal and

Abigail? Because it's good; it's scripture; it's

profitable. I'm surprised that one who has been

a Christian for many years would ask, "What

did we learn about salvation from the lesson?"

New Testament applications were made. Is

controlling one's temper necessary to salvation?

Is being the right kind of wife necessary? Do we

need to grow in our ability to deal effectively in

our relationships with others? Is such necessary

in teaching them the way of salvation?

Apparently, you would answer "No!" to these

questions.

You did not mention the Sunday morning

sermon, though I assume it did not benefit you,

for it was based upon Psalm 119:165, from the

Old Testament. Never mind that it reveals unto

us that a love for God's law will keep us from

being offended (falling away).

On Sunday evening, I preached on things thatI as a Christian who am also a father of four children, would have my children remember about home. The only comment you made on this sermon was critical of one of the events I shared with the audience by way of illustration.You go on to ask, "What is wrong with preaching about the old, old story which nevergrows old . . . .the story of Paul and Silas, ofPhillip and the Eunuch, of Cornelius, and the conversion of Saul, of Peter and the first gospelsermon, and all the wonderful good news in theNew Testament?"

There's nothing wrong with preaching these truths, and I do so. But what's wrong with preaching the old, old story about the home asGod would have it?

You say, "Monday night I was not there, so Ido not know what your lesson was about. Someone said it was good." You would have probably enjoyed that lesson, for I preached on baptism, apostasy, and a number of religious errors regarding such subjects, in consideration of our Lord's question: "Have yenot read even this scripture?" I did relate some personal experiences, however, in illustration ofsome of the points. You would have disliked this, for you said of such, "I went to hear the gospel preached and I wasn't the slightest bit interested in the things that had happened to you in other places." I have a great deal oftrouble trying to reconcile that attitude with themany personal references that are made in the scriptures.

"Tuesday night," you go on to say, "was about plenty and want, health and sickness, happiness and sorrow, contentment and turmoil,all of which I could not make any connection to the New Testament." That lesson was based on the promise of God in Deut. 33:25 and I Cor.10:13, that He will provide strength, regardlessof what the days may bring. It's just verydifficult for me to believe that one who has been a Christian for forty years or longer, cannotmake any connection between that sermon andthe New Testament!

Then you write, "Wednesday night you talkedabout adultery, fornication, sex, homosexuals,and V.D. and told the story about your friend that was an alcoholic. I believe I have alreadysaid what I think about that kind of sermon. It would have been a great speech to present to ahigh school group or a group of college studentsin an auditorium. But I can't remember hearing you say "hear, believe, repent, confess, and be baptized.' "

That lesson was an exposition of I Peter 4:3,

4. Yet you think it has no place in a gospelmeeting. I disagree with you completely! I makeevery effort to present such lessons in a mannerthat cannot be judged vulgar. I see a dangerhere. But that such should be preached, I haveno doubt. You say, "Give the youngergeneration the kind of sermons we heard in the30's, 40's, and 50's." May I suggest that ifthese matters had been dealt with more in the 30's, 40's, and 50's, our problems might not beas grave as they are today.

As for not remembering me tell the audiencewhat to do to be saved, I feel that your memorymust be failing, for I point these things out in every sermon.

You say that Thursday night was "the bestthat I had heard up until this time. You talked about God's righteousness which was good, andyou brought in a lot of good scriptures from theNew Testament."

Thank you, but I'm rather surprised you appreciated that sermon since my Old Testament text was Prov. 14:34. But you go onto say, "I heard you say only one thing that aBaptist preacher would not have said, which was 'repent and be baptized for the remission ofsins.' "

I've heard this criticism of many finesermons: "He didn't say anything that a Baptistpreacher wouldn't say!" Now, since Baptistpreachers preach a whole lot that is true, doesn't it stand to reason that a gospel preacher islikely to preach a sermon on occasion that aBaptist preacher could preach? Is this really afair evaluation?

Friday night, I finally came across. The subject was "Seven Wonders of Heaven" and you commented: "I must say that I was edified by it. I really wanted to ask if you would consider staying another week and preach thekind of sermons you did Friday night."

My beloved sister, if I had stayed anotherweek, let me assure you that I would have continued to preach the whole counsel of God.Some of the lessons, you would have liked, forthey would fallen into that narrow category which you consider the gospel. Most of the lessons, I'm sure, you would have found fault with.

There is one other criticism that I will comment upon. You wrote: "And as for the jokes, I must say I can't remember anywhere inthe Bible where Christ ever told a joke." Well, I've been criticized for that before. But I see a good bit of humor in many things that Jesussaid. I hardly believe that He intended us totake Him literally when He spoke of those whostrain out gnats and swallow camels, or who try to pick motes out the eyes of others while beams are protruding from their own eyes.

Yes, you have made me sorry with your letter. But not because of any valid, scripturalpoint that you offered. I disagree with you one-hundred per cent. Please give my response asmuch consideration as you expected me to giveyour letter.

INDIA REPORT — Ray F. Dively

On December 23, 1978 Bill Beasley and I left for a

preaching trip to India. This was Bill's first and my

sixth trip there.

The 24th being a Lord's Day, we stopped over in

England to worship with brethren there. In the

morning we worshipped at Kentish Town, London

and in the evening, I spoke for the church at Tun

bridge Wells. We stayed over night with the Sewell

Halls and left early Monday morning for India.

For several years I have been corresponding with a

denominational preacher in the state of Tamil Nadu,

the southern most part of India. He invited me to

come to preach in his area. Previously, he had come

to see me in Hyderabad during my fifth trip there.

He said he believed in immersion, each congregation

self ruling and some other Bible truths. So, we

decided to spend the first part of our trip there,

which we did. When we arrived, he did not want us

to preach on immersion and many other subjects,

although he believed them, because the members did

not believe them. We did preach the truth and pray

that he and our other translator, who was the

president of their denomination, did translate

correctly If so, the seed was sown in the state of

Tamil Nadu. We pray that some good will come of

our preaching there.

Then we went to the state of Andre Pradesh in the

Hyderabad area. We worked with the churches which

were established in the last three years. We had two

translators, N.A. Lazarus and Vinaya Kumar.

Lazarus went with me to visit the churches and

Kumar went with Bill.

I visited several villages where the church was established in our previous trips, 1972-1976. I talkedwith brethren Jayasurya and Sadanandam concerning our earlier work. Also, N.A. Lazarus my translator. These brethren are working. They are holding training classes for the brethren and teachingthe lost. They are not waiting for Americans to come.They invited me to worship with them and to comefor a week of training classes they were going tohold. I am sorry that I was not able to attend either.They had just previously held a weeks training class at another village. These brethren are honest and trustworthy.

As we found false and dishonest brethren in India, the Philippines and other countries, it is no reason togive up in taking the gospel into all the world(Mk16:15).

We need mature and sound men in the faith to goto India and other countries. We need those who will go and those who will send (Rom 10:14,15). We must not get discouraged in doing the Lord's will (Gal 6:9). I will always be grateful for the fellowship thebrethren have given me in preaching the gospel inIndia. Without the fellowship of the brethren and the grace of God, our work in India would have been impossible. As the apostle Paul stated, "Not that I seek for the gift; but I seek for the fruit that increaseth to your account. "I am thankful to God andthe brethren that I am able to have a part in theLord's work in India.

AN APPEAL FOR CHILE Philip R. Morgan

This letter is an appeal for support for Raul Rubio.Where can you find a preacher who was trained 14years ago and has been faithful in building a churchwithout support in a country where there are so fewChristians? He is Roberto Perez's son-in-law and the father of two teens. I taught him during 1965.

Last month our son Mark started the first sound group in Valparaiso, Chile's 2nd largest city, withmore lost souls than many states in our country. Heand Rubio plan to work together. Mark is providing aplace to live in the house where he lives and thechurch meets. And with no responses to my appeallast summer for the Rubios' my family is giving them $200.00 monthly until churches support themregularly. They need a minimum of $300.00; any partwould be appreciated. Contact me for more details (address: Philip R. Morgan, 2108 N. 7th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona, 85007).

A FEW COMMENTS

From the above, we might well conclude that "It's rough all over". And, in some respects, indeed it is. But God never promised us Christianity would be easy — only that it would be possible. It helps us maintain our balance to learn of situations like these, and hopefully, makes us realize how very fortunate we are, materiality and politically to be able to worship God and spread the gospel without hindrances such as these, and others in different foreign nations, some of them far worse than these.Yes, we are fortunate indeed — but do we appreciate that fact, and take advantage of it to serve God better? For example, how many preachers in the US would be willing to work, as bro. Rubio, for 14years without support in an area as stony as where heis? And if we won't, but have the means to help, why won't we help him, as others? Many churches are committed to the limit of their budgets, and sometimes over. But how about individuals? Might we not "squeeze" out of our personal expenses a small sum, say $5.00 or $10.00 monthly, to send toa man like that? If we can, why are we not doing it? Of all our material blessings, how many of them can we take with us when we depart this life?Like one man said, the only way to take them with usis to send them on ahead, in the form of helping others in need, or support in preaching the gospel. Any helpers handy? Investors? Brethren, as disconcerting (and disgraceful?) as it is when we carelessly spend more and more, unnecessarily, on ourselves and fail to .consider needs and opportunities elsewhere, there is a situation worse than that. Imagine if you can (and surely some of you not only "can", you "do") a church havingmultiplied thousands of dollars stashed away in somebank, collecting 6%(or whatever is the current rate) interest. Now, I am NOT talking about funds earmarked for some Scriptural use, nor do I refer to funds held in reserve against a reasonable assumption of future expenses which could not be metfrom the regular Lord's Day contribution. This is only prudent. If we had reason to anticipate theneed of a new roof on the meeting house, and knewalso that without that repair, worship in the building would be difficult, or impossible, it would be simply the exercise of good stewardship to put the money away as we are able to do so, for this purpose. If such saving precludes the need of a loan, and paying interest on that, all the more to the good. Like I said, I am NOT talking about this kind of a situation.

What I do have in mind are churches (among conservative brethren, yet) which have these bank accounts and have no intention of spending the money for ANYTHING, in God's service or man's. The refusal does not turn on whether an expenditureis Scriptural; no expenditure is contemplated or anticipated. Now, we all know, or ought to, that Godinsists that we use the money laid by in store in amanner which is proper in His eyes. That is, the purpose must be a Scriptural one, and the handling ofit must be such that good stewardship is exercised. Weignore these principles to our eternal peril. But having satisfied ourselves that these are taken careof, WE NEED TO SPEND THAT MONEY! No hungry saints are fed, no destitute Christians are provided clothing, shelter and medicine, no souls aregiven opportunity to hear the gospel of Christ by money sitting in a bank account. It ought to come as no surprise to any of us, that the one who draws real interest here is Satan. And while he draws it, he is probably enjoying a great laugh atus, over our "conservativeness".

There are always churches and individuals whosesense of duty as Christians is so honed that they willanswer a valid appeal, if it is within their capability.Many times, they will sacrifice to do this,congregationally and individually. God surely knowseach of these, and commends them, and their works will follow them. But I can certify there are more whorefuse, for "reasons" even they themselves must doubt, and God Who knows all things, will not accept. See Eccl 12:14 on this.

I read something Leslie Diestelkamp wrote on this same subject, some time back. I cannot recall it verbatim, but the gist of it was that when we havethe ability and the need exists which has been determined to be valid, and we do not fulfill it, there is every chance we are simply being covetous. He concluded, and I concur: we must spend it Scripturally, and insure good stewardship; but brethren, WE MUST SPEND IT!

Why did God bless us with the material and financial blessings we have in this nation today? Thatwe might spend all but an insignificant portion of iton ourselves? As a people who often claim (boast?)we speak, think and act by the Bible, we are, as apeople, way down the list of those who commit ourpurses to the God we claim to believe in. A survey Iread stated the church of Christ was about 36th or 40th down the list of religious groups in the US, with

Page 15

an average contribution of 4%. I won't say, "for shame!" But if that does not represent what God saidin 1 Cor 16:1,2, in ". . .laying by in store as GODHATH PROSPERED YOU, . . . .", be assured: Godsurely will say it. And, we will suffer the consequences (see 2 Thess 1:7-9). Brethren, think on thesethings.

One of the greatest problems standing in the way

of religious unity is the failure of people to properly

divide the word of truth. There is a proper division of

scripture as can be seen in Paul's letter to Timothy,

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a

workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly

dividing the word of truth" (11 Tim. 2:15).

The Bible speaks of "present truth" and "past truth" or old and new truth. Peter, in his second epistle, strove to establish the persecuted Christiansof his day in the "present truth" (11 Pet. 1:12). The expression "present truth" implies there is a "pasttruth". This conclusion is confirmed from a statement found in the book of Hebrews, "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). The things spoken in times past were truth, but they are"past truths". The reason being, Jehovah, does not speak through prophets or angels today, but through his Son. The things spoken by Moses and the prophets of old are no longer in force, but were "blotted out" when Christ died on the cross (Col.2:14). "He took away the first (testament) that hemight establish the second (testament) by the whichwill we are sanctified . . ." (Heb. 10:9, 10). Christ hath made us able "ministers of the new Testament" (11 Cor. 3:6). This New Testament is a "better covenant" established upon "better promises" (Heb.8:6), has a "better hope" (Heb. 7:19), and it is through this will we are sanctified or made righteous(Heb. 10:10). Until we learn to properly divide theword of truth we cannot come to a knowledge of thetruth or the unity of the faith for which our Lordprayed.

Jesus who had all authority, said, "No man can serve two masters . . ." (Mt. 6:24). The same is trueas it relates to wills or testaments. No man can be under two laws at the same time. This is confirmed by the words of Paul to the Romans. "Know ye notbrethren, (for I speak to them who know the law)How that the law hath dominion over a man as longas he liveth. For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as heliveth. But if the husband be dead she is loosed from the law of her husband" (Rom 7:1-2).

The Jews were "wedded to the law of Moses" justas a woman is bound to her husband and this bond was for life. For the Jews to be released from the law of Moses the law had to be removed or put to death."But if the husband be dead she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that yeshould be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that ye should bring forth fruit unto God"(Rom. 7:3, 4).

Jesus dying on the cross "blotted out" the law of Moses, (cf Gal. 2:14). He "took away the first that hemight establish the second" will or testament (Heb. 10:9, 10). This being done the Jews were deliveredfrom that law which brought death that they mightserve under the New Testament, which brought life and hope.

We need to rightly divide the word of truth and torecognize the New Testament as the perfect, infalliblestandard of authority in religion. Only then can wehave unity, peace and understanding.

ADVICE TO OWNERS OF NON-RELIGIOUS DOGS

Dogs were a vexing problem to rural churches in

pioneer times. Every household had a few and they

were usually free to roam the countryside at will.

Many of them went to church as often as their

owners, if not more often. That wouldn't have been so

bad if the dogs had had any religion, but they didn't;

nor did they have any respect for the worshippers who

did have.

The dogs would congregate in the meetinghouse yard

where the least agitation roused them to a crescendo of

growling, barking, and howling; or the slightest

provocation set them off in a free-for-all, or worse. The

commotion, though mostly ignored by the indulgent

churchgoers, sometimes reached the point where it

challenged the preacher for the church's attention, and

someone had to be appointed to call the dogs to order.

One pioneer preacher, Jacob Creath, Jr., who evidently had had his share of sermons interrupted bycanine racket, breached prevailing opinion when he observed in print that, "No well-bred persons will carrytheir dogs to church with them." But he risked his popularity, and maybe his life, when he ventured a simple solution to the problem. "There are two waysto prevent them from following you," he said. Shut themup or kill them, and then they will not follow you."(Memoir of Jacob Creath, Jr., pp. 186-187.)

It isn't reported whether Creath's advice was implemented to any noticeable degree, but if churchmembers then were as fond of their hounds as those today are of their poodles, some of them no doubt would have preferred shooting Creath.

Such is the lot of one who tries intelligently tocounsel people about their problems.

Page 16

Webster defines syndrome as a set of symptoms

which occur together and characterize an ailment."

We've heard much about this term lately, and special

publicity has been given to a thing called the "China

Syndrome" in the aftermath of a nuclear emergency

which has been in the news lately. Even before this

most recent publicity, I thought the term was being

overworked, so before it is completely worn out, I

would like to use it at least once.

Of course, Tom Sawyer didn't know that he might

give rise to something that would be labeled a

syndrome, but he surely displayed "a set of

symptoms which occur together and characterize

an ailment." At least this becomes evident when

compared with poor old simple-minded Huck Finn.

Tom never had Huck any more confused than the

time they were trying to free Jim from the cabin

where he was being held captive.

Huck wanted to slide the chain off the bedpost,take Jim out the door and be done with it. But, Tomwould have none of this crude, simple behavior — it hadto be done in "style", and given some "class." First,they had to steal what they needed, saw through thebedpost, conceal the evidence, dig a tunnel, and generally garnish the project in other ways to give itthe "class" which Tom thought the situation deserved. Tom had to do some fast talking to convince Huck it was better to do it this way, thanit was to use Huck's "straight-out-the-door" method.

Now, doesn't this remind us of some of the political gymnastics engaged in by some governmentagencies? Many Huck Finn-type farmers along theOhio River could foresee problems which would becreated by some of the navigational dams being built, but evidently the "slide rule boys" (as theycharitably called the engineers), could not see them.While such things concern every taxpayer, this isnot the purpose of this particular article — I merelyuse it as another example of the Tom Sawyer Syndrome.

In religious circles, I am much more concernedabout these "symptoms" which indicate an "ailment"of some kind. The Bible is crystal clear when givingus instruction which have to do with acceptable workand worship in the Lord's church. The simple, direct method of worship benefits every worshipper, andglorifies God through Jesus Christ. Jesus contrastedthis new system of worship with what the Jews andSamaritans practiced (Jno. 4:20-24). The worship ofthe early church was characterized by beautiful simplicity, but we think it has to be dressed up andgiven some "class" so that it will be more appealingto the eyes and ears of men.

When the early church engaged in benevolence orthe preaching of the gospel, a simple, direct method was employed which at once accomplished the task, and glorified God (Acts 11:28-30; 2 Cor. 9:13; Phil.4:14-16). It is no wonder that Paul was concerned(even fearful) that brethren would not be content with"the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Cor. 11:3). Paulwas afraid that the corrupters of this simplicitywould employ "any means" to accomplish theirdevious mission, so I think I have the right to useevery lawful means in order to awaken my brethrento the folly of their actions. Maybe if I liken theirfoolishness to that which was often displayed by thefictitious Tom Sawyer, I can get their attention. Atleast, it hasn't done any good in some instances totell them what the Lord or the apostle Paul said, somaybe they can relate to Tom and Huck.

One thing I know: if some of my brethren had beenwith Tom and Huck that time, Tom would have hada lot of support.

THE POOR SAINT AND THE PREACHER

I recall, with pleasure, my association with LutherBlackmon. Luther and I lived in south Texas during the early sixties. I found him to be a stalwart defender of the faith and a pleasant colleague in thegospel. We exchanged pulpits on one occasion andmade a few trips together. In the middle of the week,my telephone rang and it was Luther. Foy E.Wallace Jr. was in town and he wanted to attend one of the morning services. In a few minutes, he droveup and we arrived at the meeting house. As I recall,the service had begun and I would estimate thecrowd at about thirty, made up largely of women. Aswe walked in, Foy was already in the pulpit andthose keen eyes brought us into full focus. I can't recall, to save my life, what his subject was, but itreally doesn't matter; he, no doubt, altered it whenwe came into view. I do know this much, his lessonhad nothing to do with the issues of the day but hemade room for them. It just goes to prove it reallydoesn't matter what a preacher's subject may be, hewill get around to talking on what he pleases.

He was about half way through his lesson when heexclaimed, "There are some young preachers amongus who think it is wrong for one church to send toanother church for the purpose of preaching the.gospel." He went on to say, "I will show you beforethis lesson is over that it is scriptural for this type of work to be done." I am sure this was said for the benefit of Luther and me. However, I took out mypencil and pad and was ready to take down the scripture, because this is one I didn't want to miss. I knew if any man in the brotherhood could find a

Page 17

passage defending the sponsoring church

arrangement, Foy E. Wallace was the man! As a

matter of fact, I must admit that he was the first

preacher to make me see the fallacy in the orphan

homes and the sponsoring church. I learned it from

his writing and preaching. Later, he said in his

writings that I had misunderstood him and that he

never opposed the orphan homes or the sponsoring

church. However, I have another opinion about the

matter.

When Foy told us he would give us scripture for hisbeliefs, he did not give it at that time but waited toward the close of his lesson. I was on needles and pins thinking he might forget his promise. Finally, itcame. He said, "Now I have promised to give yousome scripture for one church sending to anotherchurch to preach the gospel and here it is: In the Bible no one can deny that one church sent to another church to take care of poor saints." He wenton to say, "A preacher is nothing more than a poorsaint, therefore one church may send to another topay a preacher." When he made the statement, hesmiled a little and so did I. Thinking he was joking, Iwhispered to Luther, "He is joking isn't he?" Luther replied, "No, Ward he thinks he has made a point." Iwas stunned to think a man with the depth of Foy E.Wallace would demonstrate such polemical weakness.After the service we shook hands with brother Wallace and went on our way. On our way home Icontinued to insist that the statement was a joke.Luther replied that he knew Foy E. Wallace, andsuch was not a joke! This little incident taught me a lesson I will not forget. When a man as strong asSampson tries to defend false doctrine he is reducedto nothing. I had heard Foy Wallace rip an opponentto shreds with the truth. His attack against error wasdevastating. He could take the argument of an opponent and make it as weak as water. Now themaster himself, like a helpless child, makes an argument so ridiculous it sounds like a joke! I can

understand why some of the old time debaters would

say, "Brethren the weakness is not in the man but in

his doctrine."

While the above argument is absurd let us give it

some attention. In the first place churches did send

to other churches to help poor saints. This is

mentioned in 1 Cor. 16:1-2, and other places in the

New Testament. These people were sometimes called

needy or indigent saints. However, it must be

remembered that in the field of evangelism, or the

supporting of preachers in the proclamation of the

gospel, funds were always sent directly to the

evangelist (Phil 4:15-16; 2 Cor. 11:8). Some might

ask, "Isn't it possible a preacher could become a poor

saint?" Yes indeed! And I might add, it is also

possible for a needy saint to become a preacher.

However, this does not change God's plan and pattern. If a preacher becomes a "poor saint" he would be cared for just like any other "poor saint". On the other hand, if a "poor saint" becomes an evangelist he would be supported as the Bible directs.Brother Wallace is correct in saying churches sent toother churches in supporting poor saints. What heneeds to find is a passage that says churches sent toother churches when supporting an evangelist! This isthe "lost text" of the Bible as far as liberal brethren are concerned. One might as well argue that if apreacher becomes a poor saint, churches could send funds for benevolence to him instead of the church, since he was once a preacher! Or, if a poor saintbecomes a preacher we could send evangelistic moneyto the church since the man was once a poor saint.Well, this could go on and on when one does notfollow Bible teaching.

Friend, I hope and pray the day will soon comewhen men will return to the ancient landmarks of God's word. That strong men will not become weakin trying to defend false doctrine.

PAUL BROCK, Box 6272, Ridge Manor, Florida — It has beenseveral years since I have sent a report of any kind. I have beenwith the church at Trilacoochee, 6 miles north of Dade City,Florida, since July, 1975. Our building is located at the intersection of U.S. 301 and U.S. 98. This is one of the finest congregations anywhere. Our growth has not been phenomenal,but it has been steady and encouraging. Since coining here three fine elders have been appointed and a new class room addition hasjust been completed. There have been a goodly number of baptisms and some restorations. Four have been baptized the past two weeks. In addition to a number of faithful brethren preaching in meetings here, I have also preached in two series and will preach in another week-end series May 4-6. We continueto help support a number of preachers in other places. I will bewith the Ray's Road church, Stone Mountain (Atlanta area)

June 4-7, where Sparky Owen preaches.ARTHUR W. ADAMS, 2797 Russell St., Portage, Indiana 46368

— For the past year the Portage church has been involved in a preacher training program. I found the program to be very rewarding. In addition to personal rewards, the program helped ayoung man to get started in preaching. It also served to pull the congregation closer as we all pitched in to encourage and helphim. JEFF COREY, our first man, has recently moved to New Cumberland, West Virginia to begin work with the church there.Jeff is a hard worker with much ability and an outstandingcharacter. He should be a strength to the brotherhood. John Presley, a student from Florida College, began working in the program in May. We look forward to good things from him, too.If any congregation is able to begin this type of program I wouldcertainly encourage them to do so.

NEW CONGREGATION IN FISHKILL, NEW YORK

We are happy to inform you that a new congregation wasformed in New York state on March 11, 1979 which will endeavor to do all things in accordance with God's will. We are presentlyhaving a study on authority to give us a good, solid foundation onwhich to build. The congregation is located in the small town ofFishkill, half-way between Albany and New York City. We are small in number and meeting in a private home at present. Wethank those who have already encouraged us and request theprayers of all that our faith will be strong, our knowledge will increase and that we may live in such a way as to spread God's

Page 18

word in this area. We extend a cordial welcome to all who pass this way to contact and/or worship with us. The name of the congregation is the Southern Dutchess church of Christ. We meet on Sundays at 9 A.M. and 6 P.M. and on Wednesdays at 7:30

P.M. Questions or correspondence may be addressed to: N. Brit, Apt. H3, 347 South Rd., Greenbriar Apts., Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 (Phone 914-471-2450) or W. Adams 45 Fairfax Rd., Fishkill, NY 12524 (Phone 914-897-5765).RUSSELL PANNELL, Fremont, Ohio — As of February, 1979, I finished my first year of work at Fremont, Ohio, after several years with the church at Port Clinton, Ohio. We have had 9 baptisms the first year here. Many are helping with the work here, both men and women. We have several new prospects. Pray for us that we may stand for truth and grow numerically and spiritually. We are helped much by STS. Thanks for a good paper. We just baptized a young man who was formerly a Baptist. Many had a part in his conversion. JULIAN R. SNELL, 4724 E. Manslick Rd., Louisville, KY 40219

— I was recently in an encouraging meeting with the one-year-old congregation in Trenton, Tennessee. It is made up of 8 families with a total attendance of about 40. In this number there are 6 heads of families and each of these is possessed of a competency to do most any part of the local work. They have built a modest but beautiful meeting place which will seat in excess of 100. Pews have been installed and all the necessary facilities for worship and a study program have been provided. DON McCASLIN is the local preacher as well as a school teacher in Lexington, Term. He is regarded most highly and his work continues to prove effective. They have a radio program which is generating considerable interest. One was restored during the meeting. Attendance was good with visitors at every service. With few exceptions, most of the members are young marrieds with school age children and it was a joy to see all of these present at all services. In my judgment, the future looks bright for them.

TO MARYLAND JIMMY TUTEN, JR., 8169 Greenridge Rd., Charleston Heights, SC 29405 — My work in and out of Charleston has been rather hectic from January through April. Our home studies have brought in only one new family (converted from the Baptist Church) and another has recently moved in from Columbia, SC. We have had several restorations. We are maintaining a heavy load of work on a local level which is greatly increasing our strength spiritually. I presented a weeks' lectureship on "Personal Evangelism" the first of February. Victor Sellers of Bradley, Illinois was with us for a special series on "The Home" and did his job well. Before that we had Bob Dodson of Ft. Walton Beach, FL with us in a five-night series on "Glorifying God's Greatness." Both men did much to edify us and we commend them to others for similar work. June will find us engaging in a "door to door" work effort with a group led by James Yopp of Gainesville, FL.

From a personal standpoint, I preached in Newport, NC in a meeting in January. Among others, it was good being associated with Bill and Elva Wallace again. The brethren at Newport are doing well and Thornton Pringle is doing outstanding work with these brethren. Also in January I attended the Florida College lectures and spoke on Wednesday at Eureka Springs where John Clark preaches and where my son, Terrell, attends while a student at South Florida University. In February I preached in Athens, Georgia. They are looking for someone to work with them. Contact Fred Thompson at 404-546-8688. March found me in Ft. Walton Beach, FL in a meeting. This is an excellent work under two fine elders and with Bob Dodson doing outstanding work as preacher. The last of March I was with the Southwest church in Seattle, Washington. Again, I found a zealous group of Christians under a most capable eldership. Jim Nelson does his work well as preacher for this church. This meeting was a highlight in my meeting work this first half of the year. Interest and enthusiasm was at a peak and the closing day (Sunday) found new records set in attendance and contribution. There is an unusual spirit about these brethren in the" Northwest and it was such a pleasure being with them. I took part on the "Call-In" radio program during the week and was pleased with the response. A number of preachers (some whom I have known before, others new to me except by name) came to each service and about 18 met for a luncheon one day. I was greatly impressed with what I saw in the Seattle area. In July (9-15) I am to be with the Port Clinton, Ohio church and at Benton, Illinois Oct. 8-14 for meetings.

Because of the urgency of the situation in the Washington,

D.C. area, and the feeling that I was not accomplishing my goals in Charleston, I have decided to move to Riverdale, Maryland in June. The Wildercroft church, while being made up of a large number of conservative brethren, has been known as a "liberal" church. Now the brethren want to turn things around for a complete return to the Bible. No longer do they want to lend support, even in a moral way, to the unauthorized functions taking place among the Washington, D.C. churches. No longer do they want preachers who do not respect the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures. I have been asked to work with them and help them. By the grace of God we will get these brethren in spirit and action back to the pattern of the New Testament. Even though this decision has resulted in the loss of several families and possibly some more,control of the building and preacher's house is maintained. The only question of concern is that if others leave over current liberal trends temporary outside support might be necessary. If that time arrives, I am confident that brethren will respond. We will be mailing a bulletin and if you wish to be placed on the mailing list beginning about July, write and let us know. Beginning in June. I can be reached at Wildercroft Church of Christ, 6330 Auburn Avenue, Riverdale, Maryland 20840. Since this will be the nearest church to downtown D.C, you will want to visit with us. Pray that our efforts in Riverdale will succeed.

PREACHERS NEEDED DEL AND, FLORIDA — The church which meets at 823 N. Woodland Blvd. in Deland is in need of a full time preacher who would be available by mid-summer of this year. Attendance averages 80 and we can offer full support. We would like a preacher between the ages of 30 and 50 with a family at home. Interested individuals should write the church at P.O. Box 1966, DeLand FL 32720, or call Bob Baston (904) 736-7175.LAWTON, OKLAHOMA — The Brockland church of Christ, 6205 Birch, Lawton, OK 73501, is in need of a gospel preacher. This is a small congregation with attendance of 35-50 in a city of 90,000. We need a man who can handle a difficult work. We can supply about $600 per month and more may be obtained in the vicinity. Those interested may write to the address above.WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA - The church here is seeking a preacher to work with them effective August 1, 1979, as I will be relocating with the Eastland congregation in Indianapolis, Indiana. The church here has 43 members, with average attendance in the 50's. Construction of more suitable building is in the making. The church would be able to support a man about $300-$350 a month with the remaining amount to be secured from faithful brethren elsewhere. However, there are several churches that would probably continue their support to the next man who comes. Anyone interested may contact Robert E. Hope (919-7622013), or Carson Hagen (919-686-0234).

ASKS FORGIVENESS EDUARBO R. RAMIRO, P.O. Box 1313 Pagadian City 7824. Republic of Philippines — May I ask your favor to please publish in SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES that I deeply realized that I misappropriated part of the benevolent funds sent by the brethren in the U.S.A. during the last earthquake and tidal wave in Mindanao, Philippines, 1976. I have sinned. I asked God, the church at Kawit and the brethren who helped to forgive me Please pray for me. (Editor's note: Since we carried an appeal for help to the brethren in the stricken areas after the 1976 earthquake and tidal wave which caused much damage in Mindanao, and gave the name of brother Eduardo R. Ramiro as one worthy to disperse aid sent from American brethren, we felt this letter should be published here. An audit of the records and testimony received from a number in that area revealed that there had been misappropriation of funds. We carried an article by Wallace H. Little which showed this to be the case and exposed brother Ramiro. His action in the matter has done great harm in undermining the confidence of some brethren in the work in the Philippines. We are glad to receive this letter from brother Ramiro and earnestly hope that he will, as far as possible make restitution. It is always a source of rejoicing to see efforts made to correct wrongs. It is also a serious error to assume that because a few act dishonestly that all

workers in a given country are equally dishonest.) IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH BAPTISMS RESTORATIONS (Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)

381 145