EMERGENCE OF THE CROSSROADS SYSTEM

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to write ofthe CROSSROADS CHURCH in Gainesville, Florida itseemed good to me also, having some understanding ofthese things from about the beginning, to write myconviction of the matter. Over the past few years bothfriend and foe have compiled letters, articles for maga-zines, news papers, bulletins, religious publications, and have written books to attack and/or defend thephilosophy and practice of the Crossroads church ofChrist. I have been impressed with the fact that manyliberal, institutional churches, which have many thingsin common with Crossroads, will vigorously attack thatchurch over and over with repeated charges that are designed to ridicule and condemn. These churches willdo many of the same things in principle and then denythat they are guilty. So does Crossroads! An example:Crossroads solicits and obtains funds from sources other than their first day contributions and spendsthese funds upon unauthorized church activity. So do hundreds of liberal institutional churches!

I have no sympathy for the baneful doctrine of Cross-roads, I understand that any effort to do something outside and beyond the accepted norm will usuallybring an avalanche of criticism. I also believe that any-one who does something the Lord requires us to do will invite the wildest charges of radicalism. I do not believethe error of the Crossroads church lies in the amount of criticism she has received, nor those from whom it is received, I am concerned about WHY Crossroads isbeing criticized and WHAT she is now doing that sheshould not do. In short, I am concerned about the AU-THORITY OF Christ and the OBEDIENCE (or lack ofobedience) on the part of the Crossroads church. Thatwill be what these articles are about.

I do not seek sensationalism nor fame of any kind fora Crossroads attack. I do not care about an approval orendorsement from anyone through any medium onwhat I conceive to be a dangerous movement in theCrossroads church of Christ. And I am not the least concerned whether Crossroads expels me and my mem-ory from Alachua County or not. I have only one goal inmind as I write: to seek the truth about what has hap-pened and what is now happening at Crossroads andlike influences all over the nation on the one hand, and what God's word teaches on the other hand.

I will not try to assign a motive to the words anddeeds of those of whom something is said or implied inthese articles. I may judge the fruit of the tree (Mat-thew 7:16-20); I certainly can know something of aman's motives from his words and actions if I observe them long enough.

The Beginning of Fourteenth Street Church

The Crossroads religious movement is unique inthe last half of the twentieth century in that it hasattracted unfavorable attention from all quarters ofthe nation, among religious people and non-religious. The Cross-roads church of Christ in Gainesville,Florida has been the object of media attack from allsides: the news papers and magazines, television,radio, pulpits across the land, and religious journals andmagazines from the extreme liberal to the most conservative. To a great measure Crossroads churchhas relished in this advertisement, claiming that it wasa sure sign that they were doing right because the world was against them and Jesus has said, "the world hates you."

I have some personal knowledge of the beginning ofwhat is now Crossroads church of Christ. In October,1948 two lots were purchased by East University Ave-nue church of Christ in Gainesville, Florida. At that time it was the only congregation in the city. These lotswere purchased in order to build a new and larger build-ing when East University Avenue church was finan-cially and numerically strong enough. A year later adwelling house was purchased on the corner of what isnow NW 2nd Avenue and NW 14th Street, a shortdistance from the lots and across the street. A group atEast University Avenue insisted upon starting a con-gregation at the recently acquired property, but theelders and some others thought they should wait. Thecontroversy was rather sharp, and the very zealousgroup separated from the others to begin the new work.

A building fund had been started and the entireamount of this fund together with the two lots and thedwelling house were given to the group who began thenew congregation. Thus began the 14th Street churchof Christ in Gainesville. This information is contained in a statement made by the elders to the congregation onJuly 19, 1950. More than half of the members of EastUniversity Avenue went with the new group, includingtwo of the elders. That left three elders at East Univer-sity Avenue, and there were no elders appointed at 14thStreet church while I was in Gainesville.

Harry W. Pickup, Sr. was in Gainesville during the summer months of 1950 and he preached for East Uni-versity Avenue church. Beginning in September of 1950Clinton Hamilton drove from Tampa to Gainesville every week and preached for East University Avenueuntil June, 1951. The second Sunday in June, 1951 Rex

P. Kyker of Abilene Christian College moved to Gaines-ville and began with East University Avenue church,and continued until July 19, 1953, when he returned toAbilene Christian College.

It was at this point that I entered the picture. I beganwork with the East University Avenue church August9, 1953, which was about three years after 14th Streetchurch began. C. L. Overturf, Sr. was preaching withthe 14th Street church when I moved to Gainesville and he stayed for about a year after I moved there. BrotherOverturf and I had a good relationship while he was inGainesville, and as far as I know 14th Street church wasglad to have him working with them.

I became acquainted with Rogers Bartley andRichard Whitehead soon after moving to Gainesville inAugust, 1953. These two men are now the elders ofCrossroads church. I knew Richard Whitehead's goodmother who lived in Largo, Florida when I was innearby Clearwater from 1945 to 1953. I also know Johnand Jack Whitehead, brothers of Richard. John White-head is now director of the Tape Ministry at Crossroads.

Forrest McCann and Parker Henderson worked with the 14th Street church during the last years I was inGainesville and before "Crossroads" came into being. Idid not have a close personal contact with 14th Streetchurch from the time I moved to Tampa from Gaines-ville. Occasionally I returned to that city for a funeral orto visit some friends, and I did return for two or threemeetings.

Charles H. "Chuck" Lucas moved from Central church of Christ in Miami, Florida to 14th Street church

(Continued on Page 4)

THE WISDOM OF GOD

Nothing appears more foolish to the unbeliever thanthe preaching of the cross of Christ. To him it is anexercise in futility calculated only to satisfy the super-stitious whims of the weak, elderly and uneducated. Hesees no power whatever in the relating of the death andsuffering of a descendant of Abraham centuries ago. Itdoes not fit the vaunted views of the scholarly. Nothingabout it flatters the vanity of those who appear to knoweverything except a right relationship with the Al-mighty.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge"and "wisdom" (Prov. 1:7; Psa. 111:10). The greatesttrained thinkers are woefully uneducated when theyleave God out of their calculations. Without acknowl-edging Him they cannot explain their origin, mission ordestiny. Strike God from the picture and there is left nosane basis for moral conduct.

The Greeks of Paul's day were the self-admitted en-lightened ones of all time. Both Athens and Corinthwere centers where the wisest of the wise congregatedand strutted their brilliance before the dazzled eyes andears of the intellectually deprived. When Paul wrote tothe Corinthian church he got to the heart of this prob-lem when he said "For the preaching of the cross is tothem that perish foolishness; but unto us which aresaved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18). He even wentso far as to say "For after that in the wisdom of God theworld by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by thefoolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (v.21).

In the Greek philosophers, God allowed the humanmind to reach as far as it could, unaided by revelation, intrying to unravel the origin, meaning and destiny of life.And they really did grapple with these issues. Yet, inthe final analysis, they came up empty. Some of themrecognized there had to be a power higher and greaterthan man. But without divine revelation they under-stood neither his nature nor his will. At one point theyconceived the gods to be up on Mount Olympus, so far removed from man as to be uncaring as to his fate. Bythe time of Plato's Republic, they had brought the god's down among men where they acted capriciously and became more wicked than men. Such extremes of thought produced an increasing number of cynics andskeptics. The human intellect was bankrupt withoutknowledge of the true God and revelation from his mind. Paul argued that such a development was accord-ing to the wisdom of God, himself. It showed the futilityof human wisdom unaided by divine revelation and setthe stage for the entrance of the gospel into the verycitadels of intellectual strength.

The true God was not so remote from the human predicament as to ignore the plight of mankind. Whilehe is just, he is also gracious and merciful. "For God soloved the world that he gave his only begotten Son..."(Jno. 3:16). Yet, when his Son left heaven to dwellamong men, he (unlike the gods of Greek mythology) manifested all the attributes of deity and resisted everyhuman temptation. In his virgin birth he satisfied whatwas missing in the wisdom of the ancients. He wasdivinely conceived but was born to an earthly mother. He was at once both God and man. This admirablysuited him to become mediator between God and man (1Tim. 2:5).

In his death he satisfied all the needs of both God and man for sacrifice. Until that time, even divinely re-quired sacrifice could only foreshadow what was to beoffered by Christ and served but to underline the insuf-ficiency of such sacrifices to take away sin. When Jesusdied on the cross, he ended there the need for all bloodsacrifice. But he also satisfied the laws demand. Sin is the severing of spiritual life from God. In order tobridge the chasm between God and man, God requiredthat physical life be given to expiate for the spiritual life forfeited. Since the life of a thing was in its blood, thenGod ordained bloody offerings. But Jesus was sinless.He was the true lamb without spot and blemish whichthe flocks of offered victims up until then could onlytypify. He was wounded for our transgressions. Oursins were laid upon him. No wonder John said oncewhen Jesus approached, "Behold the lamb of God thattaketh away the sin of the world" (Jno. 1:29). While thecross depicts human vice at its lowest ebb, paradoxi-cally it was here that mercy and justice embraced eachother. Christ lifted up on the cross presented vividly thedesperation to which sin leads men. But that event alsowas the proffered hand of the Almighty giving the besthe had to offer to tell us of his great love for us, evenwhen we were sinners.

In spite of all the scorn the unenlightened intelligent-sia heaps upon that awful scene centuries ago, it re-mains that the simple telling of it with all it truly meanshas evoked from the human family its finest response.It has made men ashamed of sin. It has evoked wonder at the depth of such love. It has produced soul searching and prompted resolution to change for the better. It hasreplaced the bitter in life with the sweet. It hasprompted the great deeds of love which welled up fromthe admonition to "do good unto all men, especially tothem who are of the household of faith" (Gal. 6:10). Ithas produced and refined the spirit of the martyr whoreasons that "to live is Christ and to die is gain." It hastamed and gentled the tongues of the coarse and pro-fane. It has brought out the noblest sentiments andresponses of which the human spirit is capable. It hasgiven the Christian a reason for living and a hope indying.

Our best attempts at eloquence are puny when placedbeside the sweeping statement of the Holy Spirit asPaul penned these words:

"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seekafter wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, untothe Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeksfoolishness; But unto them which are called, bothJews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and thewisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God isstronger than men. For ye see your calling, breth-ren, how that not many wise men after the flesh,not many mighty, not many noble, are called: ButGod hath chosen the foolish things of the world toconfound the wise; and God hath chosen the weakthings of the world to confound the things whichare mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea,and things which are not, to bring to noughtthings that are: That no flesh should glory in hispresence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who ofGod is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness,and sanctification, and redemption: That, accord-ing as it is written, He that glorieth, let him gloryin the Lord" (1 Cor. 1:22-31).

My brethren, this is the message that turned theRoman Empire upside down. It is the message thatsaves the lost. The gospel of Christ, with all that prop-erly includes, is what it took to save my soul. It is whatmy children had to hear, believe and act upon. It is whatmy grandchildren will have to learn if they obey the Lord. If this is not central to our preaching, then all hadbetter beware lest we be found preaching "another gos-pel, which is not another" but a perversion of whatinspired men taught. The wisdom of God is known bywhat God said. It is only when we preach his word thatwe instruct men in divine wisdom. May the preaching ofthe cross never become foolishness to us.

(Continued from Page 2)

of Christ in Gainesville, Florida in the fall of 1967 toserve as "campus minister" at the University of Flor-ida. According to An Open Letter to the Brotherhood, which appeared in Firm Foundation, November 17,1981, he said he was 28 years of age when he moved toGainesville.

Lucas directed the Daytona Advance during springbreak in 1969-1970. This was in the second year aftermoving to serve the 14th Street church in Gainesville.If they wanted a fireball to put them into orbit, he wasthe man. Glowing reports of his work had popped upeverywhere. An example is found in April 7, 1969 issueof Christian Chronicle, the first paragraph of an articleentitled "Living in Acts 2'"

"Instead of Peter the fisherman, there was

a UCLA speech professor named Prentice

Medor, he served as master of ceremonies.

Rather than speak in tongues, the discipleswho astonished the crowds used their talents as singers (Pat Boone and Ray Walker), sax-aphone player (a David Lipscomb College Bi-ble major named Ken Wyatt), and composers-performers (The Blue Sky Invest-ment, a singing group from Abilene, Texas).The scene was Daytona, 1969, instead of Je-rusalem 33 A.D. But as Chuck Lucas, a surestandin for Timothy, said—"Man, we are liv-ing in Acts 2."

A movement began in 1967 after Chuck Lucas movedto Gainesville. By 1978 14th Street church had grownto one thousand members and a new building was con-structed for the growing and changing system. It wascalled "the Crossroads Philosophy," "Crossroads Movement" and "Crossroads Ministry." 14th Streetchurch changed its name to CROSSROADS CHURCHOF CHRIST. It emerged a self made denomination. It isnamed for its philosophy, not the Lord. "Crossroads"and such names like it do not identify the location of themeeting place, or the city, or the state, but an idea.Every term used to identify the church in the NewTestament, more than to indicate a people belonging tothe Lord, always indicated location, such as: Jerusalem,Corinth, Ephesus, churches of Galatia, Laodicea, Phi-lippi, Antioch, etc. But the term "Crossroads" refers tophilosophy, a decision to be made, a time of choice.When I first heard the word used of the church formerlyknown as 14th Street, I thought they had located thebuilding at cross streets generally known as "cross-roads," but I soon learned I was wrong. The word hadreference to a verse in Jeremiah 6:16 which is whollyunrelated to the church. "Thus says the Lord: Stand atthe CROSSROADS and look; ask for the ancient paths,where is the good way; then walk in it, and find rest foryour souls." This is taken from the masterhead of theCROSSROAD bulletin.

The religious section of the St. Petersburg TimesNewspaper is called "Crossroads." There is a Baptist Church in north St. Petersburg with a big sign on thebuilding: "CROSSROADS BAPTIST CHURCH." Since these do not refer to cross streets, there must besome psychological, philosophical or theological princi-ple in common with these and the Gainesville "CROSS-ROADS Church of Christ.

(More to Come)

"POPE SAYS RELICS ARE ST. PETER'S"

When the apostle Paul wrote of the apostasy from thetruth which would turn people from the faith, he saidthey would be deceived by "signs and lying wonders" (2Thess. 2:9). The majority of the "lying wonders" havebeen within the Catholic Church. Under the above head-ing, an article was printed in the newspapers severalyears ago, datelined Vatican City, by the AssociatedPress. The article follows:

"Pope Paul VI announced Wednesday that the Vati-can has conclusively determined that remains foundunder St. Peter's Basilica are those of the apostle re-vered by the Roman Catholic Church as its first Pope.

" 'The relics of St. Peter have been identified in a convincing manner,' the 70-year-old pontiff told hisweekly general audience.

"The tomb of St. Peter was located in 1950 under the Altar of Confession of the basilica. Pope Plus XII an-nounced then that bones had been found in it but that it was not proven they were St. Peter's. Some archaeolo-gists claimed they belonged to an old woman.

"Later, in a nearby niche, fragments of a skull andother parts of bones weighing about 4 pounds werediscovered. Italian archaeologist Margarita Guarducciclaimed in a recent book that the bones belonged to St.Peter, who reputedly was a man of a large frame. Butuntil Wednesday, the Vatican had remained silent.

" 'Very patient and accurate investigations weremade... with results which we believe positive...' Pope Paul said.

"The Pope said he felt it his duty at the present stageof the scientific and archaeological investigations tomake the 'happy announcement."

Of all the "signs and lying wonders" ever to come out of Rome (and sometime we will give you a list of all thethings they claim to possess of this nature), this surelytakes first prize. What an appropriate place for them tofind Peter's bones!

Assuming that they found some bones under St.Peter's Basilica, how on earth can they prove whose they were? They avoided revealing the method bywhich this identification was so "convincing." Do you suppose they will claim that they have Peter's dental records? We would not be surprised if they did.

We recognize that scientists can examine and deter-mine approximately when the person lived, whetherman or woman, etc., but to identify 1900-year-old bones

personally, —well, that's another matter entirely. Au-thorities found the bones of a person here in Arkansasrecently, and have not been able to identify them, evenwith modern methods and a relatively short time sincedeath. Maybe they should send all bones to Rome for identification from now on. The FBI can't begin to match the record of the RCC.

Suppose they did find the bones and could prove be-yond doubt that they were Peter's, what would thatprove? Only that they found Peter's bones! That would not prove that he was the first pope. The CatholicChurch can come as near proving that those are Peter'sbones as they can that he was ever in Rome, or bishop ofRome, or a pope.

If the Catholic Church thought as much of Christ as itdoes Mary and Peter, it would be closer to the truth.Christ is the only head of the church. It was built by and upon him (Matt. 16:18; I Cor. 3:11) and that happenedlong before the world ever heard of a pope or theCatholic Church.

It is pathetic that millions of Catholics now believethat they have Peter's bones, and that without anyproof whatsoever. They will believe anything the popessay, even though they have contradicted and reversedthemselves many times.

• * * * * * * * * * •

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF CATHOLIC PRESSURE

A brief news item in the newspapers a few weeks ago read as follows:

"Jimmy Swaggart, an ordained Assembly of Godminister who began his television ministry 10 yearsago, confirmed in Baton Rouge that two Atlanta televi-sion stations have decided to drop his popular showafter the Roman Catholic archdiocese complained that he made anti-Catholic statements on the air."

We do not agree with much of what Swaggart doesand teaches, but we defend his right as a free Americanto teach what he believes — any time and any place.When he loses his religious freedom, ours may be next!

If we have been informed correctly, the "anti-Catholic" statements by Swaggart were his teachingthat all Christians are priests and can pray to Godthrough Jesus Christ. That is certainly "anti-Catholic"for they pray through Mary and many so-called saints.Swaggart was right, for there is "one mediator betweenGod and men, the man Jesus Christ" (I Tim. 2:5).

One disgusting thing about this is that the Catholicswould oppose a man saying what he believed while pay-ing for the time, when they get millions of dollars in freetime and space in the news media each week.

When the Catholic Church speaks of religious free-dom, it means only the right of Catholics to do andteach what they please! They will silence all otherswhenever and wherever they have the power and influ-ence to do so. History proves that.

PARENTHOOD A SACRED TRUST

In our last installment we pointed out from a Biblicalviewpoint that parental responsibility is two-fold (1) toGod because he commands parents and (2) duties tochildren because children are the objects of parentalcare. We further showed that parental duties are to one's own, not the child or children of others. We alsopointed out that God did not authorize a local church tobecome involved in a recreational activities program asa substitute for parents not performing their God-assigned duties as parents.

The Old Testament presents the idea of children being"gifts" from God. This occurs twice in connection withthe life of Jacob—once in regard to all of his own chil-dren and again with reference to Joseph's sons.

Having determined to return to his father's house after many years with his uncle Laban, along with hiswives, their handmaids, his children, servants, and live-stock, Jacob came into the presence of his long-estranged brother Esau who, upon seeing the womenand children, asked, "Who are those with thee?" Jacobreplied, "The children which God hath graciously giventhy servant." (Gen. 33:5). Many years later whenJoseph, with his two sons, appeared before his aged andabout-blind father, Jacob asked, "Who are these?Joseph replied to his father, "They are my sons, whomGod hath given me in this place" (Gen 48:8, 9). Thereader will observe that the reply which Jacob gaveEsau and the reply Joseph gave Jacob were identical asrelated to the source of their sons. Both father and son said God had given them their children. We only repeatrevealed truth, then when we affirm that the ancientpatriarchs looked upon their children as "gifts"—giftsfrom God! And I ask why should any parents considertheir children with less than that esteem which Jacob and Joseph bestowed upon theirs?

In this connection I submit that all of us look with a favor upon a material gift as something to be honoredmore than if we purchased it with our own money. It isnot the great price paid for the gift which counts sohighly with us as it is the sentiment of good will by thegiver behind the giving of that gift. How carefully werespect and handle the gift itself, usually placing it in aplace to be often seen and as a reminder of the kindfeeling of the donor toward us! We treasure such re-membrances, looking upon and handling them withcare. A gift may be a silent expression but it always carries a meaningful message of appreciation, of love, ofgood will. How shall any thoughtful parents look upontheir children as less than a great blessing from the Lord?

How expressive of such sentiment is Psalm 127:3-5:

"Lo, children are a heritage of the Lord: and the

fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in

the hand of a mighty man, so are children of the

youth.

Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them:

They shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak

with the enemies in the gate."

Children are to be welcomed joyfully and affection-ately, not regarded as burdens grievous to be borne orencumbrances to happiness and prosperity. Someonehas observed, "It is a most unenviable home, if home itcan be called, where a child is unwelcome. They are asacred trust and solemn responsibility not to be weaklyfondled or foolishly spoilt; but to be wisely, kindly, and strictly disciplined to obedience and duty." Another unknown wrote: "Parents must not trifle with their children, like idiots playing with sharp tools; but as the bowman straightens and polishes his arrow, gives it asolid point and wings it with proper feathers, they musteducate their sons and daughters in the name, and withthe help of the 'rewarder of them that diligently seekHim.' The arrows that are not prepared and directedwhen in the hand, may, when they are gone abroad intothe world, and all parental training is too late, provearrows in the heart."

Beloved, how can any two Christians expect to meettheir parental responsibilities without seeing their chil-dren as the Lord's special entrustment to them? If aparent cares not enough for their "gifts from God" tocare for and nurture them while they are impressionableand moldable, why should that same parent be disap-pointed in his old age when these same children care notfor them but neglect, avoid, and look upon their parentsas burdensome and hindrances to their would-be free-dom? Shall we not reap what we sow in this field of lifeas in all others?

"DEBATE THY CAUSE"

Religious debating in the nineteenth century becamewhat one historian calls a "serious American indoor sport". Many at the time certainly practiced thismethod of defending and spreading their beliefs. But nopeople used it more effectively that the restorers of NewTestament Christianity. Most of the outstandingpreachers among "the disciples of Christ" before 1900engaged in debating. The questions discussed cover awide range of differences between them and the variousreligions popular in pioneer society, not excluding ris-ing cults and "free-thinkers".

The restorers became so skilled in using the Scrip-tures to establish basic Bible truth that by the end ofthe century few opponents of ability and influence werewilling to debate them. This, together with a growingliberalism among the Restoration leaders themselvesand a lessening of denominational zeal among others,led to a general disinterest in debating in the early yearsof the present century. Polemic warfare largely becamea thing of the past, with some noteable exceptions.

However, the more conservative brethren in thechurches of Christ continued the practice wherever will-ing antagonists could be found. Debating had becomeso engrained in them that no "sound" preacher wouldrefuse to debate his cause, nor speak out against debat-ing. Some very able brethren debated so often that theycame to be known as "debaters", or "debating breth-ren". But the more liberal brethren tended to regarddebating as foreign to "Christ-like behavior". No doubttheir acceptance of unscriptural innovations contrib-uted to their loss of interest. Conservative brethren may have been about right in concluding that those whodid not believe in debating did so for the same reasonthat "the old muley cow doesn't believe in hooking".

The prominent "debaters" in the Restoration move-ment differed widely in their ideas and methods of de-bating. Alexander Campbell thought that only the mosttalented brethren should represent the truth in debate,and that only the ablest men of the opposition should bemet. He also seemed to believe that once an issue had been thrashed out in debate by the best men on bothsides, there was little need to continue debating thatissue. His was an idealistic concept that fit very wellinto the post-millennial drama he espoused, but time and circumstances proved it impractical. Nevertheless,Campbell set a standard of excellence in debating thatprobably remains unsurpassed.

Tolbert Fanning, like Campbell, felt that only thehighest order of conduct should characterize opponentsin discussing differences. With this in mind, he agreedon one occasion to debate a Methodist preacher namedChapman at Lebanon, Tennessee; but the man turnedout to be less than honorable. Fanning made his open-ing speech in his customary dignified manner. Hispoints were assertive rather than argumentative, andhe expressed them in clear and forceful language, con-firming each with appropriate Scripture.

When Chapman arose to speak, he began with a bom-bastic quotation from Alexander Seikirk:I am monarch of all I survey. My rightthere is none to dispute,From the center, all round to the sea, Iam lord of the fowl and the brute.

He bore down on the last word with oratorical force,pointing significantly to Fanning, lest any dimwit misshis haughty application. The uncultured portion of theaudience roared with laughter. As T. B. Larimore tellsit, "Brother Fanning, without uttering a word or seem-ing to recognize even the existence of his discourteousadversary, quietly, but quickly, picked up his hat and his book and went home" (Franklin College and Its Influence, p. 414.)

While the nobility of Campbell and Fanning is admi-rable, the approach of C. R. Nichol was far more practi-cal. Asked if he would debate a man whom he knew to be "ungentlemanly in deportment and unchaste in lan-guage", Nichol replied:

Yes if the church he proposed to represent en-dorsed him, for it is not the man I am proposing tomeet, but the doctrine he has espoused and of which he is an exponent; and bearing the endorse-ment of his brethren, if such he has where thedebate is had, he becomes their representative, and his conduct reflects on them, not on me. (Gos-pel Advocate, February 22, 1934.)

Nichol went on to say: Debates properly conducted are productive ofmuch good. I know of hundreds who have beenconvinced of the truth in debates I have engaged in, when possibly they would never been led fromthe false teaching of denominationalism but forthe debate; but I will never knowingly engage in adebate where the opposition does not have a fol-lowing, nor will I engage in a debate where there isfaithful congregation of Christians over their pro-test. (Ibid.) Clark Braden of Illinois, who preached the gospel formore than fifty years before 1915, held about 130 de-bates with all sorts of opponents, eighteen of whomwere Mormons. His 1884 debate with the Mormon in Ohio "virtually exterminated Mormonism in that state", according to one historian. During the lasttwenty years of his life "every prominent champion of infidelity" backed out of debating with Braden. He hadlittle respect for his brethren who belittle debating, andonce said, "When you get so very good and so very

refined and cultured that you are unwilling to debate,you will know more than God Almighty, you are betterthan Jesus Christ, and you are purer than the HolySpirit". (The Disciples of Christ in Ohio, p. 72.)

Within a month after Joe S. Warlick met F. L. Du-Pont, then the leading Texas debater for the Baptists,the Baptist church at Bedford where the debate washeld moved "lock, stock, and barrel" to a neighboringtown. More than fifty people obeyed the gospel after adebate at Lockney, Texas, and one Baptist moderator,pastor of the endorsing church, quit preaching and moved to New Mexico to farm, as did the Baptist mod-erator in Warlick's debate with J. M. Brandy.

Few would seriously deny that debating as a method of teaching has fallen on hard times. Well-meaningbrethren have contributed to this by "mounting thepolemic platform" without sufficient preparation andknowledge to successfully carry the issue. Others havefailed to conduct themselves in a manner becoming ofChristian soldiers on service. And some debates have been carried out in a circus atmosphere, or more like aspiritual wrestling match, leading one good brother toexpress the view that on such an occasion, "They oughtto sell tickets".

No doubt the days of great debates are gone forever,but there is no reason to abandon the practice. Jesus,the apostles, and other first-century preachers debated their cause successfully. They did so because: (1) theircause was right; (2) they were prepared to meet theopposition; and (3) they conducted themselves as godlymen. Debates still do good and accomplish what preach-ing and writing cannot accomplish. It will be a sad dayin the history of the Lord's people if we become "so verygood and so very refined and cultured" that honorabledebating is no longer held in honor. But that day verywell may come.

Half a century ago, Cled E. Wallace said, "Brethrenwho think debating never did any good missed some-thing by being born too late". But one does not need tobe an octogenarian to know that debates have, and still do, accomplish good. Aside from what history and expe-rience tell us about debating, the word of God alsotestifies in its favor. Could it be that those who see no good in debating have missed something because theyhave quit reading their Bible too soon?

"Damnable Heresies" Second Peter 2:1-3

CULTISM ... Could it arise in the church?

It is a REAL DANGER: "Exploding like atomicbombs the CULTS have mushroomed on the American religious horizon." ". . . continue to attract admirerswith increasing success." ". . . millions of Americansinvolved..."

Definition:CULTISM—ITS DEFINITION:

"An organized heresy: a religious group not in themainstream; a fanatical group that demands blind faithand unquestioning obedience; groups which concen-trate on one belief or custom out of proportion to every-thing else; usually crystallized around a charismaticpersonality."

Seven Danger Signs of a Cult:

1. "FOLLOW ONE HUMAN LEADER."
2. "DILUTE THE BIBLE."
3. "DESERT YOUR FAMILY."
4. "FORGET THE CHURCH."
5. "BELIEVE NEW REVELATIONS."
6. "Park" YOUR MIND.
7. "KEEP OUR SECRET."

Watch Out... If ...

any religious teacher or organization ASKS YOU TO…

1. Add to or subtract from the Scriptures.
2. Accept the word of any man as final.
3. Accept "new" truth in addition to what is in the Bible.
4. Believe that "God leads us" CONTRARY to our MINDS.
5. Believe that God's truth is "secret," and "for a fewclever people to find and hoard!

CULTISM Its Characteristics:

1. Usually: A "LEADER" who is thought to possess"unique powers," special abilities, etc.
2. Strict, arbitrary rules and regulations.
3. Slavery of the mind.
4. A powerful "father figure" or modern Messiah.
5. An attempt to use scripture to bolster the move-ment, which ends in perversion of Bible texts.
6. Total CONTROL and cohesion by human leaders.
7. NO independence of thought and study.
8. One must give to the "leader(s)" an account of every secret or private detail of his/her individual

life.

1. Must withdraw from normal involvements: espe-cially one's family, and sometimes one's job.
2. Thorough regimentation: no private life of your own.
3. The cult leaders do all the "thinking" for the members who are to "believe only what they aretold."
4. In order to discourage leaving the cult, some"systematically maintain conditions designed toweaken resistance" and "induce a state of physi-cal and mental EXHAUSTION."
5. To BIND members tighter in the cult, its leaderscreate the image of an "evil outgroup" that issupposedly trying to destroy them:
6. IF you reject the cult, "God will punish you . .."or your friends or relatives . . . with illness . . .disease... tragedy ... death... etc.

CULTISM Its Causes:

1. Changes in social and value systems in Americahave brought about a "ROOTLESS SOCIETY."
2. The decline of strong family units.
3. Churches have failed to meet the SPIRITUAL needs of people.
4. "Religion" has been looked on as a "leisure time"activity.
5. Modern day churches lack "solid convictions."
6. Children are raised WITHOUT instilling withinthem aims, goals, and purpose in life.
7. Secular skepticism leaves the field wide-open toQUACKS, religious RACKETEERS, and rascals.

CULTISM Its Method of Recruiting:

1. All methods of recruiting are based on DECEP-TION, (not all cults use the same type methods.)
2. The victims are mainly the young (college age and20s.)
3. TIMING is important—those suffering broken romancescrisis in familyfailures at school those unsuccessful in dealing with problems in life

Step No. 1 "Love Bombing"

(Hugged by members, fed, everything is pleasurable;endless initiation discussions and constant attention;called "heavenly deception.")

Step No. 2 Victim is Bombed With

"Guilt, Little Sleep, and Isolation."

(NOT allowed to ask probing questions, or to investi-gate open-mindedly, or to argue with the "authority" orMessiah figure.)

Step No. 3 The "Brainwashing" Stage

(Techniques of persuasion by means of tight informa-tion control. "Believe" and "do as you are pro-grammed." Accept blindly the word of your superiors.)

Step No. 4 The Development of a "New Personality" (Made to feel a tremendous GUILT about their PAST... Undergo "re-birth" of their fellow cult members ...

"new name..." "new family..." Compelled to sever allother attachments.) (Some of these are a horrible COR-RUPTION of Christianity.)

Step No. 5 The Final Stage often includesclassic Mental and Neurotic Symptoms:

SchizophreniaSuicide (for some)Loss of ego boundaries (person identity)INABILITY to distinguish between REALITY and

FANTASY. Described as: Zombie—like ProgrammedGlass-eyed stareFixed facial smile Robot-like responses

Why are people drawn to falsereligions, including the cults?

"Some shall depart .... giving heed to seducingspirits, and doctrines of demons ..." (1 Timothy 4:1).

1. Love of Darkness: A person determined to live an immoral life, or even aself-centered one, will flee from the truth of the gospel

which shows his life for what it is: AN OFFENSE TO GOD (John 3:19-21).

2. Spiritual Immaturity:

Spiritual babes are most "VULNERABLE." A time of great danger! "Childhood diseases" are common spir-itually as well as physically.

The KEY to spiritual GROWTH is a STUDY of God's Word (2 Peter 3:18).

3. Spiritual Subversion:

"Perversions" of the genuine gospel (Galatians 1:6-9). See also Gal. 4:17; 5:1.

WEAK and SPINELESS, they allow themselves tobe "knocked around," and EXPLOITED (2 Corinthi-ans 11:19, 20).

The Colossians had to be warned of those "who would SPOIL YOU..." (Col. 2:8).

4. Intellectual Pride:

Their minds are CORRUPTED from the SIMPLIC-ITY that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3, 4).

Intellectual pride and arrogance has led many to feelthat Christianity is "not sophisticated enough" or "toosimple" for their perceptive intellects!

See I Corinthians 1:19-21.

The Contrast between "Cultism" and N.T. Christianity:

1. The church of Christ has ONE HEAD, the TRUEMESSIAH, not an impostor (I Cor. 3:11; Eph.1:22,23).
2. Jesus urges us to count the cost of following Him.NO DECEPTION is utilized (Luke 14:27-30).
3. NO COERCION is used in attempts to convertlost souls. (POWER is in the GOSPEL— Romans 1:16).

1. In Christianity there is no concentrating on a cer-tain AGE group or on the WEAK and VULNER-ABLE. (The gospel is for ALL—Mark 16:15).
2. NO attempt is made to cause a person to develop simply a "GUILT COMPLEX."(Man has sinned... God so loves us... Christ diedfor our sins . . . abundant pardon and peace—forthe obedient!) Romans 3:23; John 3:16; I Cor. 15:3;Eph. 2:1-6.
3. Genuine Christianity does NOT make people PE-CULIAR in "dress," "lack of manners in publicplaces," or general OBNOXIOUSNESS. The New Testament does not teach us to be bi-zarre, or grotesque.
4. Nor does Jesus teach us to WITHDRAW from society (John 17:15; I Cor. 5:10; Matthew 5:14-16).
5. Nor does the Bible demand that one ABANDON his "job" or family! (Unless it involves one INSIN.) I Timothy 5:8; Mark 7:10-13.

BEWARE! Be on Guard:

CHRISTIANS MUST BE CONTINUALLY VIGI

LANT (Acts 20:28-31; I John 4:1).1) BEWARE of groups who work in ISOLATION,not within the framework of the con-gregation under the oversight of theelders.

2) BEWAREof those who talk about everybodyelse being "dead" or "cold" or "un-spiritual" EXCEPT their initiated group. (Their group is the only onereally carrying out God's com-mands!)

3) BEWARE of those who seek to UNDERMINE the Eldership, and set up "leaders"and organizations not authorized by the Scriptures.

4) BEWAREof people who come with sectarian(non-Biblical) terminology, doctrines,and methods.

5) BEWARE of those who dictate that one who spends time with parents, friends, lei-sure, etc., is "neglecting the truth, etc."

6) BEWARE of indoctrination through psychologi-cal pressure, harassment, and intimi-dation.

CULTISM is a blight on our society ...

and it can infiltrate the church of Christ: Let no congregation, eldership, parent, or youth think the problem is non-existent!"BE SOBER, BE VIGILANT, your adversary thedevil, AS A ROARING LION, walketh about, seekingwhom he may DEVOUR" (I Peter 5:8).

"Godliness" is frequently defined as God-like-ness.Similarly, worldliness is defined as being like the world.While these expressions certainly describe the godly orworldly individual, they are not really accurate as defi-nitions.

Vine says godliness "denotes that piety which, char-acterized by a Godward attitude, does that which iswell-pleasing to Him" (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 502). A Godward attitude. TheEnglish suffix "ward" means "that moves, tends, faces, or is directed towards" (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 8th edition). Hence we are talking about adisposition inclined toward God. Or conversely, a disposition inclined toward the world.

Of course, there is a type of conduct that is appropri-ate to godliness. "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and dis-creetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls orcostly garments; but rather by means of good works, asbefits women making a claim to godliness" (1 Tim. 2:9,10). A certain type of clothing "befits godliness." Godli-ness will result in our behaving and being "God-like,"just as worldliness will surely result in our misbehavinglike the world. But the point is these things are morethan conduct or actions—they are dispositions of heart.One might even have a God-like quality (e.g. be charita-ble) without being at all Godward in attitude.

David described himself as a godly man in Ps. 86:2.Besides righteous conduct, three things in his life dem-onstrated that Godward disposition: (1) Confidence in God. When the boast of the mighty Goliath melted thehearts of the defenders of Israel, godly David said, "TheLord who delivered me from the paw of the lion andfrom the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from thehand of this Philistine" (1 Sam. 17:37). David rejectedconventional weapons and won the battle of faith. (2) Concern for the things of God (2 Sam. 7:1,2). It both-ered David that he lived in a splendid house while theark of God dwelt in tent curtains. He was concerned that the things of God be given the proper regard. (3)Capitulation to God's will. David had a lot of familytrouble as the result of and in punishment for his sinwith Bathsheba. When his son Absalom rebelled and forced him to flee Jerusalem, some Levites brought theark to stay with David. But he told them, "Return theark of God to the city. If I find favor in the sight of theLord, then He will bring me back again, and show me

both it and His habitation. But if He should say thus, "Ihave no delight in you,' behold, here I am, let Him do tome as seems good to Him" (2 Sam. 15:25,26). What anexcellent exemplification of the Godward disposition!

Worldliness is the opposite of godliness. We are using the term "world" in the sense of men's alienation from and opposition to God, the world as "the sum of allinfluences emanating from men and things around us,which draw us away from God" (Findlay). Satan is atthe helm (1 Jn. 5:19). Worldliness, like godliness, is notmere conduct, but a disposition of heart; a leaning to-ward the world. Most of our preaching on worldlinessdeals with its symptoms. That is needed. But we mustbe careful not to treat the symptoms and leave thedisease.

Worldliness is demonstrated in the same areas in which David exhibited godliness: putting our trust inthe things of the world to provide happiness, answers toour problems, etc,; being concerned about the things ofthe world; capitulating to the will of the world. Why doyou want that, wear that, drink that, say that, watchthat, do that, etc.? Is it because you are directed towardthe world or toward God?

The Bible gives us several reasons for rejecting world-liness. Loving and serving the world, and loving and serving the Lord, are mutually exclusive. No man canserve two masters (1 Jn. 2:15; Mt. 6:24). The world andits lusts are passing away (1 Jn. 2:17).

The challenge to the Christian is to be in the world butnot of the world (Jn. 17:14-16); to maintain, and evenadd to, the Godward disposition (2 Pet. 1:6).

GOOD AND BAD COGNOMENS

According to the dictionary a nickname may be given a person in fun, affection or derision. I suspect mostpeople have enough acumen to know the difference. Irecall, as a lad students in school were given namesbased on their appearance, habits, size and even theirintelligence. One lad small in stature was known as"runt" Sorrels. Then, there was that boy who lived eastof town known for his excessive height, he was called"slats" Kramer. The obese boy down the street wasknown as "fatso." One boy in school had a long nose and won the name "moose." This nickname business finds its way into professional football because we hear of"whiteshoes" Johnson, "bum" Phillips "too tall" Jonesand "crazy legs" Hurst! Oh yes, I was about to forget Iwas known in some quarters as "chief" (and a few namesI won't mention at this time). This was due to my Indianancestry. However, like Will Rogers, I did not resentthis cognomen in that I have always been happy withmy American Indian heritage.

When I became a member of the church of the Lord I found that this cognomen business had infiltrated thisdivine institution. About thirty years ago when thedivision exploded like an atom bomb, it left shock wavesdown to the present. One of the ways the division wasexpressed was by the giving of appellations on bothsides. One group was known as "liberals" and the otheras "conservations." These two names were not consid-ered ignominious but rather descriptive of the two posi-tions espoused. Liberal brethren felt the name "con-servative" did not carry the stigma they sought toimpose so they came up with the cognomen "anti." Theydid an excellent job in "brain washing" their people and stigmatizing this name. You have heard the old cliche "Ihad rather be dead than red." Well, the liberals said, "Ihad rather be anarchic then anti." One man went far enough to say he had rather join the Baptist churchthan worship with the brethren who opposed his inno-vations.

Well, it seems that time and tide change almost every-thing. Sometime the very things we use to stigmatizeone person boomerangs and we get hung as high asHaman. I was reading an article the other day by myfriend Roy Deaver titled, "Who split the log?" In thisarticle Roy was crying crocodile tears because someonehad branded him as an "anti." By the way, this name isnot so bad because obviously a fine man in the Bible wascalled by this nickname. In Rev. 2:13 the Lord said, "I know thy works and where thou dwellest even whereSatan's seat is; and thou holdest fast my name, even inthose days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth." Theword "Antipas" means "anti all" or "against all." Manycommentators feel this nickname was given Antipasbecause he was AGAINST all their innovations. There-fore they called him "ANTI" in derision because he opposed those things which were wrong. The Lord saidthis "anti all" man was a faithful man and I would think this approbation from God is the greatest. In this ar-ticle published in a paper called Biblical Notes, Augustissue, Roy says, "I say this because liberals try to makeit appear we are antis." So there you have it. He hasbeen labeled with the same appellation he gave to usthirty years ago. He bemoans the fact that anyonewould dare call him an anti. Well, his chickens havecome home to roost and he is suffering the same stigmahe sought to place on us. Actually, what has happenedis that the liberals we knew some twenty five years agohave divided into two groups and are locked in a bitterconflict. Every week scores of articles cross my desk inwhich the "conservative" liberals are calling the "classi-cal" liberals all kinds of names. You see, kind friend the"classical" liberals believe the church can from its trea-sury build gymnasiums, hospitals and even contributeto colleges etc. However, some of the more "conserva-tive" or as Roy mentioned the "anti" liberals opposethese encroachments. This is why the two groups areengaged in this forensic fray. You can rest assured thatthis will lead to another cleavage within the confines ofthe church. When Roy wrote his article on "Who splitthe Log?" I got the impression he was pleading inno-cent to the charge. He made it quite clear that othershad "split" the log but he was still in the "rocking chair"where he had always been. He was not nebulous whenhe charged all who opposed his sponsoring church withlog splitting. From reading his article one would get theidea that one could find a sponsoring church on almostevery page of the Bible. However, upon investigationone will find it on only one page and that is the BLANKpage. Kind friend, if you will read 2 Cor. 11:8 and Phil4:15, 16 you will find that churches in Bible times sentdirectly to their evangelists and not through a sponsor-ing church arrangement. Not one dime was ever sentfrom one church to another for EVANGELISM. Think it over before you decide who really split the log.

Throughout the centuries Calvinism has proved itselfto be one of the most influential of religious philoso-phies. Stoutly defended by John Calvin, the 16th cen-tury reformer, the system received its most organizedand concise statement in 1646 with the Westminster Confession, the traditional creed of the Reformed andPresbyterian churches. Today, Calvinistic principles inmodified form can be found in numerous denomina-tional creeds and lie behind much of modern man's reli-gious thinking.

Calvinism did not originate with John Calvin. By histime the basic philosophy had been in existence forcenturies. The doctrine of election, for example, is atleast as old as Augustine of the 4th century. MartinLuther, Hulerreich Zwingli, and other of Calvin's refor-mation contemporaries upheld the basic system asstrongly as did Calvin himself. But John Calvin's spe-cial contribution was that of synthesizing and systema-tizing these prevalent religious beliefs of the day. In hiswork Institutes of the Christian Religion, first pub-lished in 1536, he molded these beliefs into an apolo-getic form that was appealing and very persuasive.Ever since, these doctrines have been Calvin's name-sake and he has been regarded as their chief defender.

The modifications which Calvinism has undergonethrough the years will not be dealt with here. This studywill focus upon traditional Calvinism and its foundationprinciple divine sovereignty. It is Calvinism's miscon-ceptions regarding sovereignty that have precipitated its peculiar errors, particularly the doctrine of uncondi-tional particular election and the denial of human freewill.

Mention Calvinism to most people and they will im-mediately think of the five tenets signified by the acro-nym "Tulip."

1. Total depravity, due to the fall of Adam all men have inherited a thoroughly sinful nature.
2. Unconditional election, God in eternity selectedparticular individuals whom He would uncondi-tionally save, leaving the rest to be condemned fortheir sin.
3. Limited atonement, the benefit of Christ's sacrifi-cial death is offered only to the elect.
4. Irresistible grace, the Holy Spirit regenerates the elect so that their hearts are opened to accept thegospel.
5. Perseverance of the saints, once saved an

elect individual can never be lost. But these "Five Pillars of Calvinism," as they are com

monly called, do not form the real basis of the system.Even unconditional election, the crux of the other four,is not Calvinism's foundation principle. Election is noteven discussed in the Institutes until well into the sec-ond half of the work, and then only as a corollary de-rived from what had already been asserted about thenature of God. Calvinism is a theology, not simply a compilation of religious doctrines. It is the Calvinisticview of God which spawns its various doctrines. Specifi-cally, the basic principle upon which the entire Tulipsuperstructure is built is the Calvinistic conception ofthe sovereignty of God.

"The Reformed Theology." explains James Orr, "comprehensively considered, affirms the entire depen-dence of all things in nature and grace, in their being, ordering, and capacity for good, on God" ("Calvinism,"Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p. 148). Thesewords describe what Calvinism means by divine sover-eignty, and they need to be taken in an absolute sense ifone is to understand Calvinism. God is the creator and ruler of the universe. He is the omnipotent sovereign,and as such, He is the absolute cause and controller ofall things. In eternity God foreordained what shouldoccur in time, and by His infinite providence historyunfolds precisely as He has decreed. Thus, with Calvin-ism sovereignty necessitates divine determinism. The theology can conceive of no other way for an infinite, omnipotent sovereign to rule. As Calvin says, it would be irreverent to believe in a "(divine) government whichconsists in giving an impulse and general movement tothe machine of the globe and each of its parts, but doesnot specifically direct the action" (Institutes, 1:16:4).

To illustrate the point further, when Calvinismspeaks of God's foreknowledge, it does not refer simplyto His cognizance of historical events prior to theircoming to pass. Rather, God foreknows what will occur because He foreordained that it occur. Natural events as well are under the complete control of God's omnipo-tent hand. Each drop of rain that falls does so in accord-ance with His command. The length of a man's life is determined and set by God. The traditional Calvinist would not view Jesus' statement about the very hairs ofa man's head being numbered (Matthew 10:30) as anaffirmation of divine omniscience, but as an affirmation of divine decree.

Chance, therefore, has no place in Calvinistic theol-ogy. Fortuitous occurrences would contradict sover-eign control. Calvin says,

If one falls among robbers or ravenous beasts; if a

sudden gust of wind at sea causes shipwreck; if

one is struck down by the fall of a house or a tree; if

another when wandering through desert paths

meets with deliverance; or after being tossed by

the waves arrives in port, and makes some hair

breadth escape from death—all these occurrences,

prosperous as well as adverse, carnal sense will

attribute to fortune. But whoso has learned from

the mouth of Christ that all the hairs of his head

are numbered . . . will look farther for the cause,

and hold that all events whatsoever are governed by the secret counsel of God.

(Institutes, 1:16:2)

According to Calvinistic theology God's rule neces-sarily extends beyond those things that happen to aman, even to the very actions of a man. God does notgovern beings possessing the power of independentchoice as to whether they will or will not submit to the divine will. Such human prerogative would negate sov-ereignty as Calvinism conceives of it. Men have nochoice but to do what God directs. It is not that they arecompelled by brute force, but rather that God deter-mines irresistibly what men will do. "Men do nothingsave at the secret instigation of God, and do not discussor deliberate on anything but what he has previouslydecreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secretdirection" (Institutes, 1:18:1). Calvinism's understand-ing of divine sovereignty denies human freewill.

Is even man's sinfulness attributable to God? Calvin-ism repeatedly answers, "No." God is holy and cannotbe the author of sin. In this regard Calvinism doesspeak in a sense of human volition whereby all men,viewed corporately in Adam, freely chose to violateGod's law and thus brought themselves under bondageto a sinful nature. The Westminister Confession is veryexplicit about this point, stating, "God... did... freelyand unchangeably ordain whatever come to pass: yet soas thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is vio-lence offered to the will of the creatures" (III:1). Justhow a God who determines all that occurs can still not violate this "free will" of man in the matter of sin,Calvinism does not explain (though appeal is usuallymade to the unfathomable wisdom of God, Romans11:33). Yet, in the final analysis, Calvinistic theologycannot allow any facet of God's rule to be abrogated,even in regard to the occurrence of sin. When pressed onthis point Calvinism must speak even of the fall of manas occurring ultimately by the divine decree. "I admit,"says Calvin, "that by the will of God all the sons ofAdam fell into that state of wretchedness in which theyare now involved" (Institutes, III:23:4). Nor can Calvin-ism say that God merely permitted the fall to occur, fordeterministic sovereignty disallows mere permission.Calvin concedes the logical conclusion and remarks, " Ifthis frigid fiction is received (that God only allowed manto fall—M.P.), where will be the omnipotence of God, bywhich, according to his secret counsel on which every-thing depends, he rules over all?... The decree, I admit,is dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that Godforeknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew because he had so ordained by hisdecree" (Institutes, III:23:7). Here is Calvinism's con-cept of sovereignty—the absolute, all-encompassingcontrol of all things—taken to its logical end.

The Calvinistic system, however, concerns itself pri-marily with the matter of man's salvation from sin and reconciliation to God. But Calvinism's perception of thesalvation process is rooted in its doctrine of sover-eignty. Calvinism reasons in this way: since all men arenot saved, it must be that God does not desire thesalvation of all. For God could not be truly sovereign if what He desired to occur failed to come about. It is here that the doctrine of unconditional election is intro-duced. Calvin calls it

the eternal decree of God by which he determinedwith himself whatever he wished to happen withregard to every man. All are not created on equalterms, but some are preordained to eternal life,others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, aseach has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to lifeor to death.

(Institutes, III:21:5)

This election unto salvation is necessarily uncondi-tional, and the salvation process is monergistic. That is,God alone effects redemption apart from any coopera-tion of the human will. Man's cooperation would implyself-determination, and Calvinistic theology cannot al-low man to possess this. God is the one who directshuman agency. The man whom God graciously desiresto save, He saves; and He does so absolutely and irresis-tibly. This is Calvinism's understanding of the salva-tion process, a view derived from the Calvinistic percep-tion of sovereignty.

(To be Continued)

The "Raccolta" is a book containing prayers and pi-ous exercises to which the various popes have attachedindulgences. The word is an Italian word, and simplymeans "a collection". It was first published at Rome inthe year 1807. It is forbidden to publish a translation of the entire Raccolta without the approval of theRoman congregation. All the indulgences contained inthe Raccolta are applicable to the souls in Purgatory.(According to Roman Catholic doctrine... NOT accord-ing to Holy Scripture.)

From the Raccolta—"What, then, is an Indulgence? An Indulgence is the remission by the Church, (RomanCatholic. LWM.) on specified conditions, of the whole or a part of the debt of satisfaction remaining due to sin.The Church has power to absolve from guilt; she hasalso power to remit the punishment." (Page ix.)

From the foregoing, it can be readily determined thatthe Roman church claims the authority to remit boththe punishment and guilt of sin. This is a bare assertion that has no basis in Holy Scripture. In fact, the wholesystem of "indulgences" is completely foreign to the Bible.

The sale of indulgences was an abusive practice that prevailed in Catholicism that contributed to MartinLuther's break with the Papal Church. As a result of the efforts of the European Reformers, subsequent popesforbade the further sale of indulgences.

Specifics On Indulgences

It is amazing how particular and technical the Roman Church becomes in laying down rules to be followed bythe faithful, if they are to acquire the benefits of theseindulgenced prayers. Let us look now at some specificregulations:

"One Communion satisfies for all the Indulgences ofthe day." (May 29, 1841.)

"Indulgenced prayers may be said in any language,provided that the version in the vernacular is a faithfulrendition of the original.. ." (Dec. 20, 1884.)

"Unless specially required, indulgenced prayers neednot be said kneeling." (Sept. 18,1862.)

"Devotions which admit of being said alternately,such as the Angelus or Rosary, may be said by severalpersons together." (Feb. 29, 1820).

"Blessed objects can only be used by the person forwhom they were originally blessed, or if blessed for distribution, can be passed on by that person to others;but they can go no further. They cannot be given away,or lent with the intention of transferring the indul-gences attached to them. If they be so dealt with, theindulgences are lost, and the objects return of their original unblessed condition..." (Feb. 6,1657; Jan. 10,1839; July 16,1887; July 10,1896.)

From the foregoing quotations, we can easily see thatto faithfully practice the Roman Catholic religion, it isfar more complex and complicated, than just being a New Testament Christian.

"Prayers For The Dead"!

In the sixty-six books of the non-Roman-Catholic-Bible, there is not even so much as a "hint" of such apractice as "praying in behalf of those who are dead".There is a reference to such an idea in a legendary book,one of the apocryphal books, that the Roman CatholicCouncil of Trent decreed should be accepted as canoni-cal. (1546 A.D.—1564 A.D.)

Allow me to briefly relate the story: About 165 B.C., amilitary leader named Judas Machabeus, was leading a revolt of the Jews against the King of Syria. Judas M.was a very successful warrior and military tactician.Being the son of a Jewish priest, this Judas was reason-ably faithful to his Jewish religion. In one of his skir-mishes, a number of Jewish warriors were slain. So thestory goes, Judas M. decided to return the bodies of theslain soldiers to their families. And in checking the corpses, he found that each of the slain had an amulet ofthe idols of Jamnia, under their tunics. Judas thereforeconcluded that the reason for the deaths of these sol-diers was that they had sinned in wearing these charmsor talismen under their garments .... these "charms" would probably protect them from harm... (Much like aRoman Catholic's use of a St. Christopher Medal.LWM.) Anyway, to get back to our story, Judas took up a collection, amounting to several thousand "drachmasof silver" to be offered in sacrifice "for the sins of the dead". In 2nd Maccabees 12:44, (For if he had not hoped

Page 15

that they1 that were slain should rise again, it wouldhave seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.)Then, in verse 46: "It is therefore a holy and wholesomethought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosedfrom sins,"

The foregoing constitutes the entire "scriptural" ba-sis for Catholics to pray for the departed dead.

It is this false practice that has contributed to theabuse of indulgences, the idea of purgatory out of whichindulgences release the suffering soul, the idea of theinfestation by evil spirits in material things, along withthe Catholic Church's supposed ability to engage in exorcisms __ the driving out of evil spirits from thosepersons or things which have housed the "demon".

Conclusion

"And when you are praying, do not use meaninglessrepetition, as the Gentiles do, for they suppose thatthey will be heard for their many words" (Matt. 6:7).

"For there is one God, and one mediator also betweenGod and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).

A GIFT THAT LASTS Have you considered a gift subscription to:

(1) Some member of the church you want toencourage and strengthen? (2) A son or daughter in the armed forces? (3) A son or daughter away from home in acollege or university? (4) A married son or daughter?

SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES contains 288 pages a year with material from writers who are true to God's book and who have been tested in life. The Newsletter Reports brings word fromnear and far concerning the work of the gospel.The church ads are used often by brethren whotravel and provide a contact in places where youmay have a loved one. Think about it —then write us.

P.O. Box 69, Brooks, KY 40109$7 Per Year For All New Subscriptions.

Send all News Items to: Wilson Adams, 6334 Auburn Ave., Riverdale, MD 20737

FROM THE FIELD

JAMES BAKER, 759 NE 128th St., Apt. 4, N. Miami, FL 33161. I am interested in moving to the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area. I am seeking information concerning Christians who may live in town and if there are any faithful churches within the city. Anyone who could fillme in on the situation in that area should drop me a line. I would appreciate it.

HOYT H. HOUCHEN, 1838 S. Fairplay St., Aurora, CO 80012. Thisyear I have preached in the following meetings: Augusta, Georgia(Feb. 1-7); Longmont, Colorado (Feb. 18-19); Honolulu, Hawaii (Feb.23-27); Grand Junction, Colorado (April 3-8); Westside, Fort Worth,Texas (April 17-22); Pine Mountain Valley, Georgia (June 26-July 1);Camden, Arkansas (Aug. 14-19); Beatrice, Nebraska (Sept. 4-9); Rich-ardson, Texas (Sept. 18-23); Highland Blvd., San Antonio, Texas (Oct.9-14); and Brea, California (Oct. 30-Nov. 4). Our work here at BostonStreet in Aurora is most encouraging. On October 13th I began my16th year of work with the congregation. Sunday morning attendancehas been close to the 200 mark and over, contributions are good andenthusiasm prevails. .Larry, our son, recently did the preaching in agospel meeting here (Oct. 2-7). Some time ago, the church in Montbello(northeast Denver) disbanded and nearly all the members merged with us here at Boston Street. They are an asset to our work. In addition tomy work as an evangelist, Joe C. Moody and I serve as elders in thecongregation. When visiting in our area, we shall be happy for you to worship with us.

JIMMY TUTEN, 7911 Country Dr., Mobile, AL 36609. Our fourthyear with the Tilllman's Comer church has been a good one. We havelost some but we have gained some, too. Our average contribution has increased and more involvement has been witnessed overall. There have been several baptisms, the gaining of some from liberal churches,and the restoration of several who have been delinquent. In addition to our Spring meeting with John Welch, we had an outstanding Summer meeting with Mike Willis who dealt with the current "Grace-Unity"issue. Brother Willis did an excellent job. Our Fall meeting with LeoRogol was cancelled due to an auto accident that Leo was involved inprior to our meeting date. In his place two speakers came over for oneSunday each (Owen Calvert and Jerry Henderson). In 1984 we have Ron Halbrook and O.C. Birdwell scheduled. Come by Mobile and visitwith us. We are one-quarter mile from I-10, west of Mobile at Tillman'sCorner (5700 Old Pascagoula Rd.) Phone (205) 633-6769 for instruc-tions.

SOUTH AMERICA WORK

FERNANDO VENEGAS, Casilla No. 122 C.C., 5500 Mendoza, Ar-gentina, South America. During September 9-11 we had a gospelmeeting here at Mendoza with brother Efrain Perez from Chile. He presented many good lessons and several visitors came. One was baptized as a result of the meeting. Later in September I made a trip toBuenos Aires (the largest city in Argentina, population 11,700,000) which i9 over 600 miles from my home. There are five faithful churchesthere and I had the privilege to preach in the area for 14 days. There was one baptism at the Jose C. Paz congregation where Carlos Capellipreaches. Four of the churches in Buenos Aires are relatively new and small. However, each of them is working to grow spiritually and numerically. Also I received an invitation to preach in the neighboringcountry of Chile during October. First, I was in Olmue (Oct. 17-19) where brother Perez preaches. Also, I preached in Quillota on the 20thand Quilpue on the 21st-23rd. It was a pleasure to be in Chile again.The work here at home in Mendoza continues well. I am teaching two new families at this time. Pray for us and our work.

CARLOS CAPELLI, Casilla No. 83, 1665 Jose C. Paz, Buenos Aires,Argentina. Recently in the Boulogne congregation three persons werebaptized into Christ. They all had been Catholic. At this time there are four other persons studying the Bible in Boulogne who show an inter-est in the gospel. Boulogue is 40 kilometers from Jose C. Paz where we live. I have traveled there to preach for the past two years. Since thattime, 12 have been baptized. The work here at Jose C. Paz continueswell. A recent meeting with Fernando Venegas did us much good withone baptized. Our Spanish radio program "LA BIBLE NOS HABLA"(The Bible Speaks To Us) continues well. It is a five minute program onMonday through Friday at 1 p.m. This radio station is heard for 100miles which represents millions of potential listeners. Continue toremember us.

PREACHERS NEEDED

PASO, CALIFORNIA—The church of Christ meeting in Paso Roblesis looking for a sound gospel preacher. The church is presently meeting in the Parks and Recreation building but has purchased property inTempleton, California (four miles south) for a future building site.Outside support would be needed. Please contact Jack Howell at (805) 233-0173 or John Kennedy at 466-8633.

MARYVILLE, TENNESSEE—The church in Maryville, located in the heart of the Smoky Mountains is in need of a full-time preacher beginning the first of the year. The church consists of about35-40 members who are to provide about a third of the financial support needed. Referrals to other churches interested in helping support a man working here are available. If interested please writethe church at 717 Cates St., Maryville, TN 37801. Or contact GeneBobbitt at (615) 982-8536 or R. L. May at 856-3192.

PREACHER NEEDS SUPPORT

MICHAEL DIVIS, 2412 E. 11th St., Sioux City, IO 51105. I amfixing to move to begin work with the LeHeights church of Christ inGrand Island, Nebraska. This congregation was formed only fouryears ago and is not yet a self-supporting work. They can provide $400a month towards support. If any congregation or individual can helpplease contact me at the above address or phone (712) 255-2391.

HELP NEEDED IN BROOKLYN NEW YORK

SAMUEL L. TURRENTINE, 68 Martin Ave., Hempstead, NY11550—The lease on the premises in which the Prospect Heightschurch in Brooklyn meets will expire and we have been asked to vacatethe premises by December 31,1983. The church here is yet small withabout 20 souls. We have some funds of our own but they fall far short of what is needed to supply a meeting place of our own. We believe thiswork needs to be continued. Many have visited with us in the past and can attest to our need. We would be glad to hear from any individualswho might be interested in helping. (Editor's note: Sam Turrentine is a personal friend of the editor and a faithful preacher of the gospel. He isworking where much needs to be done and where few are even willing to try.)

NEW PAPER ON CATHOLICISM

CATHOLICISM EXAMINED is an 8-page bulletin-size monthlypublication edited by GREG LITMER. Greg Litmer spent 12 years inthe parochial school systems in Cincinnati, Ohio. In high school, he was a member of the Gregorians, a seminary-preparation program.After graduation, the inconsistencies he witnessed between doctrine,dogma, and practice in the Roman Catholic Church, when compared with the Bible, caused him to leave the church of his childhood. He was baptized in 1975 by Wayne Chappel. He has since worked with churches in Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana. Concern for lack of materials suitable to hand Catholics has prompted him to publish this paper.Single subscriptions are $3.50. Bundles will be mailed to one addressat $5 for 25, $8.50 for 50 and $15 for 100. Address: CATHOLICISM EXAMINED, P.O. Box 237, Bowling Green, KY 42102)237.

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH

BAPTISMS			317
RESTORATIONS			104
(Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)

REVIEW OF THE MOODY— FIELDS DEBATE

JERRY PARKS, 1400 Hobart Dr., Louisville, KY 40216.

Honorable debates are not a thing of the past. As a matter of fact,

there seems to be renewed interest in debating, even among atheists.

Such interest was demonstrated by the overflowing crowds that

filled the auditorium of the Louisville First Unitarian Church on the

evenings of November 14th and 15th. Atheists, denominational peo

ple, as well as members of the church gathered to hear Tom Moody,

preacher from the South End church of Christ and Emmett Field, of

the Louisville Free Thought Society discuss the issue "Is The Bible

The Word Of God?"

The much publicized debate came about as a result of several "let

ters to the editor" written by Fields and appearing in the Louisville

Times. The letters not only chided President Reagan for declaring this

the "Year of the Bible", but also asserted that it was foolish to believe

the Bible to be inspired. Moody responded to Fields' letters and chal

lenged him to a public discussion on the issue. The challenge was

finally accepted and the issue was simply stated: "Is the Bible the

inspired Word of God?" Moody affirmed and Fields denied.

Moody began the discussion by identifying the issue as well asshowing what the issue was not. He then proceeded to zero in on oneform of evidence to support his affirmation. That evidence was "ful-filled prophecy." He called attention to several clear examples, such as Ezekiel 26 and 28 regarding Tyre and Sidon, as well as propheciesregarding Babylon in Isaiah 13 and the Jews in Jeremiah 5 and 30.

Fields, in every speech, simply read from a prepared text and neverdeviated from that method of presentation. Thus, the affirmativearguments made by Moody were totally ignored and remained unan-swered throughout the debate. It was also interesting to note that inseveral speeches Fields finished early and could have addressed thearguments being made. He chose, however, to speak out from his tableon several occasions; and rising from his seat checking his books onanother occasion, as if he was getting ready to reply to Moody'sarguments. But when Fields would return to the podium for his nextspeech, he continued to ignore the arguments presented by Moody.

Fields presented reference after reference concerning what heviewed to be immoral stories and Bible contradictions. He called attention to Judges 11:29-40 and asserted that Jephthah offered hisdaughter as a human sacrifice, and that Jephthah did so with God'sapproval. He contrasted passages such as Jeremiah 4:10 and 15:18 with Numbers 23:19 and Hebrews 6:18 as he tried to show that God lies, yet reminding the audience that the Bible says that God cannotlie. Moody pointed out that passages such as Jeremiah 4:10 involveidioms of the Hebrew language. Moody then called attention to Bul-linger's book on figures of speech and explained that such passagessimply mean that God permitted people to be deceived.

Throughout the debate, Fields continued his assault on the Bibleand those who would believe it. He referred to the Bible as blasphemy,a myth and a lie. He said that those who produced it were primitivepriests claiming to speak for God.

During Fields' presentation the first night, he stated and inferredthat Christians were superstitious, afraid to think, afraid to investi-gate, closed minded, unreasonable, dangerous, insane, dishonest, ig-norant, and on and on he went. Moody presented a chart the secondnight listing 21 of these unkind statements and asking Fields if thiswas a sample of "Free Thought"?

Moody dealt with the arguments with excellent stage presence aswell as being aided by the use of approximately 50 overhead charts.He quoted from archaeologists such as Nelson Gluek and WilliamAlbright. He also quoted such textual scholars as Gleason Archer,Frederic Kenyon and Bruce Metzger. Anticipating that Fields wouldassert that Christianity was a form of organized insanity, Moody hada chart prepared listing a number of psychiatrists such as KarlMenninger and Alan Stone and others who had written to Moodystating that such a charge was not so. Fields was challenged to pro-duce some evidence to support his assertion. He failed to do so.

Fields made many bold assertions but gave absolutely no proof. He stated that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Bible is a myth. Hestated that honest historians reject the historicity of Jesus. He as-serted that the Bible is responsible for wars, hate, persecution andmisery; but he offered no proof.

Page 17

The general presentation given by Fields portrayed God as being a veryimmoral God. Moody answered this objection with a series of chartsshowing that Fields had no basis for knowing what is moral or immoral,because he has no standard to measure morality by.

Moody's final question to Fields simply asked if Fields would bewilling to have another discussion on "The Existence of God?" Fieldsdeclined, even though he had just finished saying "I deny that avengeful God exists." Earlier he had stated that religious leaders were constantly monopolizing the media. It would appear that one whobelieved that to be the case, would be anxious to take advantage ofanother opportunity to deny that God exists.

PREACHER IN URGENT NEED

THOMAS G. O'NEAL, P.O. Box 723, Bessemer, AL 35021—Gospelpreacher David Fraser of Savannah, Georgia is in a critical condition in the hospital as a result of brain surgery for a malignant tumor with no hope forrecovery. What insurance there is, is in litigation. Medical bills have beenheavy. The Fifth Avenue church here in Bessemer where I preach raisedover $1,100 last Sunday to send to them. Think-ing that other brethren andchurches would want to do the same I am making this information available and know they will respond to his need. His wife is having toattend to all business, so make checks payable to: Judy Fraser, 933 BlackWeiner Rd., Savannah, GA 31406.