Romans 14: Divorce, Adultery And Controversy

Transcription

1 This Month's Articles Romans 14: Divorce, Adultery and Controversy - Bill Robinson, Jr. Page 1 Editorial Potpourri - Editor - Page 2 Exalting Man Above The Truth - J. T. Smith - Page 6 Historical Development...Fellowship - J. T. Smith - Page 8 "Think 'Teach' Not 'Results' "- Mike Noble - Page 11 A Full Stomach and a Fur Coat - Paul R. Blake - Page 13 Relationships of Family and Friends-Tony Ripley - Page 14 Index for Volume VII & Volume VIII - Page 16 News About Brethren - Mike Hughes - Page 19 Men - A. Hugh Clark - Page 24 Romans 14: Divorce, Adultery And Controversy by Bill Robinson, Jr. (A reprint from TORCH MAGAZINE, February 1989) Iread recently a great statement reflecting the biblical view of the Christian's attitude toward truth and controversy: "The need to resist liberal thinking has not diminished in the slightest. On the other hand, an earnest commitment to literal obedience of the Scriptures often breeds controversy. It is our strength that we be exactly right. But that desire sentences us to a lifetime of study and debate. We must conduct controversy with as much civility and brotherly love as we can muster. (Ed Harrell, "Homer Hailey: False Teacher?" CHRISTIANITY MAGAZINE, November 1988, page 9). There is certainly a need to recognize both our commitment and its basis to obedience. For, we must do so precisely because the cause namely, truth - is greater than ourselves. If our commitment to truth be objective then it must needs be unconditional. We cannot presuppose grounds for accepting the truth or for making application to it; to do so makes truth relative and subjective. While there may be something rigid about this it is certainly broad enough to embrace truth where ever it may be found.

2 Truth will never be popular in a world of variegated errors. Truth draws definite lines between right and wrong (Matthew 12:30). It does not do away with the existence of error but it does serve as a light to help us see the snares and pitfalls of error. In this sense, truth is like a light house which does not do away with the rocky and treacherous contours of the coastline but illuminates it so that ships may avoid its dangers and safely reach the harbor. However, the fact that error exists does not mean we must sacrifice, surrender or much less hold the truth in abeyance for the sake of friendship. Such undermines our "commitment to literal obedience" and obscures the light of divine truth. We cannot confuse divinely revealed truth with historical judgments and/or scholarly opinions regardless of how profound a thinker the historian or the scholar. Furthermore, historical record settles very little, if any thing, in the area of divine revelation. It simply shows the importance and necessity of the word of God enabling us to "cleave to the Lord with a purpose of heart" "lest haply we drift away" (Acts ll:19ff; Hebrews 2:l-ff). Thus, I most reluctantly and regretfully am forced, as per his own words, to "resist the liberal thinking" of brother Harrell. A man for whom I have the utmost respect for his accomplishments and have tremendously enjoyed our associations together. It is deeply troublesome for me and if I could find someone to do this for me I would gladly step aside. But then, would I sit in cowardice daily until someday I must meet my Savior in judgment (II Timothy 1:7,8). To add further to my burden is the fact this doctrinal issue puts me at odds with another for whom I have the utmost respect, brother Homer Hailey. Of my generation, I do not know of any who has shared the confidence and communications of brother Hailey any more than I (which means nothing, except to point out the deep hurt and pain this causes me). We both have shared expenses in calling each other on the telephone but I the more because of my lack of experience on some problem and need for help on understanding some Bible passage. I have hand written correspondence from back through the years with brother Hailey that I will treasure for life. Yet, there is a cause which transcends our relationship and for which I am accountable (I Corinthians 4:2; II Corinthians 5:9-11). These are just the facts. This is no special pleading. To misconstrue and overreact to this article calling it a "personal attack" on either man would be a statement of gross prejudice and would place one in the position of knowing me better than the Lord, much less myself (I Corinthians 4:3,4). Furthermore, this article is truly motivated by love. First, it is my love for the truth which allows me to get beyond my own personal dislike of having my expose of the error, as well as what I believe on the matter, subjected to careful scrutiny and criticism by any and/or all. Secondly, it is precisely my love for these men which pushes me past the point of accepting a subjective standard of "comfortableness," as the basis of our relationship to openly confront them in their erroneous views which they have made public (I Timothy 5:20; Proverbs 27:5,6). In the aforementioned article, by brother Ed Harrell (which we noted in paragraph one of this article), it is clear that he would like to parallel the questions over the covering, the war and use of church building (weddings, etc.) with that of brother Hailey's position on divorce and remarriage. Brother Hailey believes that the alien sinner is not amenable to the law of Christ regarding marriage as per Matthew 5:32; 19:9, etc. Simply illustrated the position is as follows: a married man, who is a Christian and is put away for fornication and marries another is guilty of adultery. However, if the man were not a Christian and the exact same circumstances occurred he would not be guilty of adultery because, according to brother Hailey's position, the alien sinner is not amenable to Christ's law on marriage.

3 Those who differ on the War covering and weddings in the building questions have learned for the most part to co-exist under the guidelines of Romans 14. However, brother Harrell wants to include, alongside of these issues and under the guidelines of Romans 14, brother Hailey's position on divorce and remarriage which sanctions adultery. A position which he, brother Harrell, personally acknowledges as untenable and with which he is in disagreement. Furthermore, brother Hailey's position is even of such a nature that brother Harrell admits "I would regret that he might convert people to a view that I think is wrong" (Ibid. Page 9). I find it strange that Romans 14 would be applicable. I fail to see where an individual's "dietary scruples" (the subject under consideration in Romans 14 an obvious matter of individual conscience) one way or the other could possibly be regretted to the same extent that one's teaching which sanctions adultery should be regretted. Paul does not say it is because of "dietary scruples" that the "wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience" but He does say that with regard to both the alien and Christian living in fornication (Colossians 3:5-7). In fact, it is brother Harrell who correctly notes that a part of the criteria by which we are to determine the limits of fellowship is: "...the public effect of the teaching (I Corinthians 5:1)." It seems to me one of the reasons brother Harrell, as he says, "would regret" that brother Hailey "might convert people to a view" he thinks "is wrong" is precisely because of the "public effect" of such a doctrine. I will gladly apologize if I have misunderstood. However, even if I have misunderstood brother Harrell, I must agree with the conclusion. For, the obvious danger to the church in allowing any of its members to live in adultery, is found in the leavening effect it has on the "whole lump" (I Corinthians 5:6-7). Furthermore, and we are not attributing this to brother Harrell, Paul is not saying it is only necessary to limit fellowship with an impenitent fornicator, as in I Corinthians 5:1, when his sin becomes widely known (i. e. "public effect"). For in the next verse, it is precisely because they had not done anything about the situation, from the beginning that Paul rebukes the church for being puffed up "rather" than "mourn, that he that had done this deed might be taken away from among you" (I Corinthians 5:2). Paul is not singling out this infamous case of fornication and setting it up as the standard, by which all other acts of fornication must be examined before a congregation can withdraw fellowship from a guilty fornicator. In other words, Paul is not saying we are only to withdraw from those engaging in fornication if that fornication is of the same nature and "public effect" as the guilty man in I Corinthians 5. For he writes, "I wrote unto you in my epistle to have NO company with fornicators; not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world...for then must ye needs go out of the world: I wrote unto you NOT to keep company, if ANY man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat" (1 Corinthians 5:11- emphasis mine b.r.). In view of brother Harrell's repeated attempt to parallel the covering question with brother Hailey's position we ask; where is the parallel in the public effect between those who are either converted to a position of wearing a covering or of those who are converted to giving it up with the public effect of those who practice brother Hailey's teaching on divorce, remarriage and the alien sinner? Does the fact that for the most part brethren who differ on the covering question but who have learned to coexist with each other based on Romans 14 constitute a true parallel to the Corinthian church's co-existence with a fornicator (I Corinthians 5:1)? If the above parallel be true then how do we reconcile the exhortation in Romans 14:1, "But him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for decision of scruples" to that of I Corinthians 5:13, "put

4 away the wicked man from among yourselves." In one place Paul says "receive ye"in another he says "put away" the person. The explanation is obvious; namely, the issues involved in I Corinthians 5 are not parallel with the issues involved in Romans 14. Consider further the fact that Paul said in I Corinthians 5, "For I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit, have already as though I were present judged him that hath so wrought this thing..." (verse 3). Paul had judged the man in I Corinthians 5 to be worthy of being delivered over to Satan for his practice. On the other hand, in Romans 14 Paul said, "let us NOT therefore judge one another any more: but judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock in his brother's way, or an occasion of falling" (verse 13). Is Paul contradicting himself? Or is Paul on the one hand (i.e. Romans 14) forbidding judging one another in matters of individual conscience (i.e. covering, weddings and funerals in the building, the war question) but on the other hand (i.e. I Corinthians 5) encouraging us to make judgments based on the will of God about those who are practicing sin (i.e. adultery) in order to save the soul of the guilty and preserve the purity of the church (see verses 5-7)? Finally, let me say this as kindly and gently as I possibly can, no matter how sincere and conscientious we may be, we do no man a favor, much less are we a true friend, if we seek his defense in the presence of his obvious error. The wise man warns us, "...to have respect of persons in judgment is not good" (Proverbs 24:23; cf. also verses 24-25). We must also add that very seldom, if at all, is the rebuke and its initial sting to a guilty man ever considered to be right by either him or even those who "judge him to be one of the most godly and learned men." Nonetheless, we can and must hope for the best in the guilty man; namely, in time he will turn from his error correcting his teaching and/or practice (read: Proverbs 28:23 with emphasis on "afterward"). Yet, such a hope for the man can only come from the good courage of those with a "commitment to literal obedience of the Scriptures," who in spite of the controversy it breeds, openly oppose the false doctrine and the man who teaches it "because he stands condemned" (Galatians 2:11). "Better is open rebuke than love that is hidden" (Proverbs 27:5; cf. also verse 6; 28:23). 445 Columbia Avenue, Lexington. KY GT

5 VOLUME VIII NUMBER 12 DECEMBER 1997 EDITORIAL... J. T. Smith, Editor P. O. Box Tulsa, Oklahoma Editorial Potpourri WITH this issue of GOSPEL TRUTHS we bring to a close Volume 8. Since we bind two years in one volume, this also means that we will nave our fourth bound volume this year. It will include 1996 and If you would like to receive a copy, be sure and send in your request. They will be $25.00 postage paid. We want to thank all who have helped in this effort in the past two years. This includes all those who have contributed articles, those who have subscribed, and those who have encouraged others to subscribe. Our thanks to each of you. A special word of thanks to Brown for the work she does in contributing articles to the Woman's Page and for the work she does of keeping books for GT. The Humanity of Jesus It seems with each passing year new issues arises that must be dealt with. The past two years have been no different. In past years we have had to discuss the Deity of Jesus, marriage, divorce and remarriage, Romans 14 and fellowship and many other issues. These past two years we have had to spend a great deal of time discussing the humanity of Jesus. I take this opportunity to briefly present what I believe about the humanity of Jesus. Man has two natures. He is composed of spirit and flesh. From these he receives his two natures. Paul said in Romans 7:21-25 "I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God - through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." Also, Jesus said, "Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Mark 14:38). Jesus was no different. He had two natures. He was composed of spirit and flesh. However, the spirit in the body of Jesus was The Word - Divine. Even though I believe Jesus had two natures, I do not believe Jesus had two spirits or two minds or two souls. In Hebrews 2:14, Paul argues that "Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil." It seems to me that there is no question that the "same" that Jesus shares in is - "flesh and blood." The rest of the verse and verses provide the reason He must "share in flesh and blood." "And release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to

6 the seed of Abraham." Then, in verse 17 the writer draws his conclusion. "Therefore!" "... in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest." I understand the "in all things" to refer to "flesh and blood" in the preceding verses (context). His purpose in doing this - that He might "give aid to the seed of Abraham" by being able to die, offering Himself as a lamb without spot or blemish. What characteristics of man did The Word have to acquire that He did not already have when He came to earth? Are we not made in His image and after His likeness? Did we not therefore acquire every characteristic we have from Him? If so, then when He came to earth He already had every characteristic that humans possess plus the Divine. When God made man, He made him in His own image and after His own likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). That which was in the likeness of God was spirit. Then out of the dust of the earth He made a body in which man could tabernacle (Genesis 2:7; II Corinthians 5:1). Just so, God did for The Word. "Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: 'Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me' " (Hebrews 10:5). Now even though I accept the fact that Jesus has two natures derived from Spirit (that included all the qualities and characteristics of God and man)and flesh, I do not claim to understand how that was possible. "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory" (I Timothy 3:16). How could I understand or explain it when I cannot explain how a woman who had never known man (sexually) could conceive and bring fourth a child with God as the Father and the conception (miraculously) by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:34-35). God didn't explain it. Therefore I must, "... walk by faith, not by sight" (II Corinthians 5:7). Divorce and Remarriage Romans 14 and Fellowship I do not know how it is to be brought about, but unless there are changes made by some brethren in their teaching on these subjects, the end results will be division (which we already have to some degree) in our brotherhood. In November 1988, brother Ed Harrell wrote an article in CHRISTIANITY MAGAZINE that gave birth to all this. In the article he was defending brethren's right to have fellowship with brother Homer Hailey, (whom brother Harrell admitted teaches error on divorce and remarriage). In doing so, he opened up the issue of fellowshiping brethren who teach error on these subjects. In 1991 brethren Dudley Spears and Ed Harrell had an exchange in GOSPEL TRUTHS (Volume II, Number 1) on the subject of fellowship. In the editorial of that issue I stated: "In the November 1998 Issue of CHRISTIANITY MAGAZINE, of which Magazine brother Harrell Is one of the editors, he wrote a defense of brother Homer Hailey entitled "Homer Hailey False Teacher?' Following that article, and In connection with it, he began a series of fifteen articles In the February 1989 Issue of CHRISTIANITY MAGAZINE entitled "The Bounds of Christian Unity'. "During the Dallas Meeting in July 1990 brother Harrell approached me about having this exchange. He said that some brethren thought such an exchange would be beneficial, and asked if I would be willing to select someone to review the above mentioned articles and allow him the right to reply. I was happy to do so. Having known brother Dudley Ross 5pear5 for more than thirty years, and having the utmost confidence In his Integrity, his ability as a Bible student and his sense of fairness, I approached him about doing this work. He, after some persuasion, consented I also respect brother Harrell's Integrity and believe he will deal with the things said by Dudley with fairness and candor. In connection with this exchange there are some things I feel compelled to say. "We would certainly like to be able to reach all those who have read Ed's articles. But because of Christianity Magazine's editorial policy, brother Harrell, In a letter to me, stated that It would be impossible. I even offered

7 to share the expense of the printing and mailing In order to send GOSPEL TRUTHS to all on their mailing list, but to no avail. The editorial policy of CHRISTIANITY MAGAZINE IS such that there can be no personal exchanges in It, and seemingly there Is no desire for such on Ed's part, having refused the above offer (I do not know about the other editors) for their readers to hear both sides. As brother Harrell stated In the November 1988 Issue of CHRISTIANITY MAGAZINE, page 6, "It has been the settled judgment of the editors of CHRISTIANITY MAGAZINE that we should concentrate on teaching and exhortation, avoiding personal exchanges. "Also, I thought It Ironic that the things that caused brother Harrell to 'step from behind' their editorial policy was to make his defense of brother Hailey whom he admitted Is teaching error on the divorce and remarriage question. He said, "If brother Hailey should write a summary of his views on this subject, I would regret that he might convert people to a view that I think Is wrong (CM, November 1988, page 6)." In the above mentioned article, brother Harrell said, "Romans 14 covers error regarding divorce and remarriage." In an article in CM in April 1989 brother Harrell said, "Romans 14 covers error in matters of faith." In May 1989 in an article he said, "Romans 14 covers error in matters of considerable doctrinal and moral import." In the May 1990 issue of CM, he said, "Romans 14 tolerates contradictory teaching and practices on moral and doctrinal questions." (Also be sure and read the two articles in this issue of GT that we have reprinted from the February 1989 issue of TORCH MAGAZINE and one from the April 1991 issue of GOSPEL TRUTHS). The One Covenant Unbelievably so, some of our own brethren are taking the position that there was no law nailed to the cross. According to their position, Paul was only discussing "sin" being nailed to the cross in Colossians 2:14. Brother Wallace Little and I were to have a discussion on the subject. However, the last installment of the affirmative material I received from him, he was discussing happenings in the Philippines, divorce and remarriage, brethren who were opposing his teaching in the Philippines, etc., instead of simply discussing the subject. We agreed on the proposition, 'The Scriptures teach that God has had only one covenant." The Sponsoring Church Also, I was to have a discussion on the Sponsoring Church arrangement with Gary Workman to be published in his paper THE RESTORER, and in GOSPEL TRUTHS. My first affirmative was sent to him over a year ago with no reply. Perhaps it is unanswerable - eh Gary? Policy Restated Again It shall continue to be the policy of this paper to speak forth that which we believe is truth without fear or favor of any man. We shall address any and every subject that we believe will benefit those who are not Christians. Our desire is for them to know the truth. We shall also present articles that will be designed to edify those who are Christians, both young and old. And when that which we believe to be error is called to our attention, we will oppose it and those who teach it with every fiber of our being. It will continue to be the purpose of this paper and its contributors to fairly represent all issues that come to our attention. We will in no way knowingly tolerate any misquotation of any person or institution. Those who have a personal "ax to grind" will not knowingly be given space to grind it. Only issues that we believe will cause division among the people of God will be addressed.

8 The position as Editor of this journal continues to be greatly felt. I still believe that God's charge to Ezekiel is relevant today. God said to Ezekiel, "Now it came to pass at the end of seven days that the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 17 'Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me: 18 When I say to the wicked, "You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 Yet, if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul" (Ezekiel 3:16-19). If and when an article is printed that is believed to contain error, it will be published only with the reserved right to publish a review. The author of the original article will have the right to reply to the review with the person writing the original review having a rebuttal. The general rule will be that this will conclude the matter. However, special attention and permission may be deemed wise for further consideration on some subjects. This will be done at the discretion of the Editor. We will continue to do our best to follow Paul's instruction to Timothy in the pages of this journal. "I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all long suffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables" (II Timothy 4:1-4). A Word of Thanks A word of thanks to those who have been so diligent in helping to see that you receive your paper. Our thanks to Mike Hughes for assimilating the material for the news page. To Cave Country Printers in Horse Cave, Kentucky we say "thank you" for the very fine job you do in printing and mailing GOSPEL TRUTHS each month. All of us work to try to get GOSPEL TRUTHS to you by the first of each month. Sometimes we do not make it exactly on the 1 st, but it is always near that date. From Brown and me, we wish you all a happy holiday season and hope the coming year will be a great year for us all. GT

9 Gospel Truths - December Page 6 (270) Exalting Man Above Truth by J. T. Smith (A reprint from TORCH MAGAZINE, February 1989) IN the November 1988 issue of CHRISTIANITY MAGAZINE, brother Ed Harrell wrote a three page article defending brother Homer Hailey. It was a shock to my system to find an article in CHRISTIANITY MAGAZINE involved in controversy, which is against their policy of "accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative." Brother Harrell did not write the article to defend brother Hailey's position of the alien sinner not being amenable to Christ's teaching on divorce and remarriage (Matthew 19:9, et. al.). Fact of the matter is, brother Harrell denied believing this ungodly doctrine. He said regarding brother Hailey's position, "...I do not believe he is correct." However, when he cited what brother Hailey believes, he said, "Homer Hailey believes that those who are baptized into Christ may remain in their present marital state." I sure am glad that brother Harrell has not taken it upon himself to state what I believe on a subject. This does not state the issue nor brother Hailey's position! The truth is, brother Hailey does not believe that all those who are baptized may remain in their present marital state. For example, brother Hailey does not believe those who are living in polygamous marriages may remain in their present marital state when they are baptized. Also, he does not believe that homosexuals may remain in their present marital state when they are baptized. Brother Harrell did not really state the issue, much less deal with what brother Hailey teaches. Why did he write the article? "This, then, is my personal defense of Homer Hailey as a man who has earned the respect and esteem of the Christians of our time" (CHRISTIANITY MAGAZINE, page 6, paragraph 4). Ed Harrell did not say one word in his article about the character, knowledge or ability of brother Hailey with which I disagree. That is not the issue! The issue is not whether we love brother Hailey and respect him for all he has done that is right and good in the Kingdom. I was a student of his at Florida College back in the 60's and always had the greatest admiration for him. The issue is the doctrine taught on the alien sinner not being amenable to the law of Christ on divorce and remarriage by brother Hailey. Is it true or false? That is the issue! What brother Harrell has done, whether he recognizes it or not, is violate the following passages in exalting a man above Truth. "And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another" (I Corinthians 4:8). "Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality" (I Timothy 5:20-21). Can brother Harrell truthfully say that he has not violated these passages? Questions Regarding Doctrine My question to brother Harrell is this. Is it a sin to teach false doctrine? I believe it is. He exonerates brother Hailey even though Paul told Timothy, 'Those' who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear" (I Timothy 5:20). Paul also charges Timothy to "...observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality" (verse 21, see above). Is this what brother

10 Harrell has done? Certainly not! Why not? Because, according to brother Harrell, since there are many issues about which brethren disagree, if individuals or congregations are going to decide not to fellowship brother Hailey because of his position on this issue, they must adopt this same disposition toward all others with whom they disagree. Listed below are a number of the issues that brother Harrell mentioned over which brethren disagree. Brother Harrell cites the recent discussion in SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES between brethren H. E. Phillips and Marshall Patton. Brother Harrell agrees with brother Patton's position while I agree with the position brother Phillips defended. Every issue that arises among brethren must be studied, discussed and studied some more. Among brethren, this is a relatively new question, by comparison, to what brother Hailey is teaching. Ed said in his article, "If Phillips is correct, Patton is condoning sinful relationships." Yes, if brother Phillip's position is correct brother Patton is certainly condoning sinful relations. However, I also hasten to say that brother Patton's position is far more nebulous, more difficult to understand, and with far less people involved in it than brother Hailey's. Brother Hailey's position includes every person who is not a Christian. On the other hand, brother Patton is still willing to study and openly discuss his position where brother Hailey has refused. Fellowship Brother Harrell lists a number of things (those who serve in the military, those who believe a woman must wear a covering, those who believe it is unscriptural to conduct marriage ceremonies in church buildings) that are certainly pertinent to his questions raised about fellowship. However, I believe it will be a simple matter for us to see the difference. Let's take them one at a time. 1. First of all, let's consider the person who serves in the military. Is this not a personal decision that each person must make in view of what he believes about Romans 13 and other passages? What is said in the Scriptures about the person who serves in the military? In contrast, what is said about the person who has divorced and remarried? Jesus and Paul said that person is now living in adultery (Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2-3). Also, we do not have to guess about the matter of fellowship on the subject of divorce and remarriage for those who are committing adultery. "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator,... not even to eat with such a person" (I Corinthians 5:11). Yet brother Harrell says he disagrees with brother Hailey, therefore he believes people who were divorced and remarried before obeying the gospel are living in adultery. Should individuals and/ or congregations withdraw from the one taught, yet fellowship (by inviting him to preach in a meeting) the one who taught them? Brother Harrell thinks so. 2. Secondly, what about those who believe that a woman must wear a covering? This too is a personal decision which only involves the person who believes she is responsible to God to wear a covering according to I Corinthians 11. There are those, of course, who say that all women are going to Hell who do not wear an artificial covering. They are making their consciences a guide for everyone else on this individual matter. In contrast, what is said of the person who has divorced and remarried? Jesus and Paul said that person is now living in adultery (Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2-3). Also, we do not have to guess about the matter of fellowship on the subject of divorce and remarriage for those who are committing adultery. "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator,... not even to eat with such a person" (I Corinthians 5:11). Yet brother Harrell says he disagrees with brother Hailey, therefore he believes people who were divorced and remarried before obeying the gospel are living in adultery. Should individuals and/or congregations withdraw from the one taught, yet fellowship (by inviting

11 him to preach in a meeting) the one who taught them? Brother Harrell thinks so. 3. Thirdly there is the person like brother Harrell who believes it is unscriptural to have a wedding ceremony in a church building. Since, according to my judgment, this is an issue that must be decided by general authority (like the Bible class issue, preacher's house, etc.) every local congregation must decide whether or not it is going to use its building for such a practice. In contrast, what is said of the person who has divorced and remarried? Jesus and Paul said that person is now living in adultery (Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2-3). Also, we do not have to guess about the matter of fellowship on the subject of divorce and remarriage for those who are committing adultery. "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator,... not even to eat with such a person" (I Corinthians 5:11). Yet brother Harrell says he disagrees with brother Hailey, therefore he believes people who were divorced and remarried before obeying the gospel are living in adultery. Should individuals and/or congregations withdraw from the one taught, yet fellowship (by inviting him to preach in a meeting) the one who taught them? Brother Harrell thinks so. Brother Harrell thinks brother Hailey has been abused because he has been referred to as a false teacher, even though Ed says he "does not believe brother Hailey is correct. " If he is not correct, then that means he is incorrect. I am sure that brother Harrell would say the same things about two brethren referred to by Paul. "But shun profane and vain babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some" (II Timothy 2:16-18). Call them whatever you will (false teachers, teachers of error, incorrect, or as Paul did, "having strayed from the truth"), they were overthrowing the faith of some by their teaching. Will those whose faith were overthrown by Hymenaeus and Philetus be saved or lost? Would Ed have encouraged brethren to use Hymenaeus and Philetus for lecture programs and gospel meetings? But again, will those who accept the teaching of brother Hailey be saved or lost? That is the issue! Brother Hailey points out in the article he sent to be printed in CHRISTIANITY MAGAZINE (and I understand brother Hailey sent it to a number of other magazines and asked that it be printed, but not to TORCH) that the much publicized meeting in Belen, New Mexico was to have been a private meeting. In other words, brother Hailey is trying to prove that he is still keeping his teaching to himself unless asked about it. I see at least three problems with what he says. First of all, would he preach his position on this subject if asked to do so in a gospel meeting? He did in Anaheim, California in , along with about 300 other people, was there. Secondly, he presented his position when he was not asked to do so on February 25, 1988 in El Cajon, California in a morning service while preaching on the forgiveness of sins from Colossians 2. He said: "When God says 'I.'Jill remember them no more, I'll blot them out, 'I can't understand our brethren who want to bring up certain things that a person did back yonder before he obeyed the gospel and now then they want to charge that against him now. I just recently heard of a church In California that withdrew from a couple who had been married, divorced and remarried back yonder three years before they obeyed the gospel. They obeyed the gospel and they lived In the church for 25 years. The elders of this congregation (If I understand It correctly and I think I do, I heard from a first hand witness to It) then decided that they either had to separate or be withdrawn from. Did the Bible authorized that? I want you to think about that. Does God authorize elders to do the withdrawing? Or is not that a congregational thing (I Corinthians 5)? Think about that. The elders decided that. Mow they are withdrawing from these people after 25 years In the Lord. But God says, "In blot out their sins, I'll remember them no more.' II Corinthians 5:17, 'wherefore If any man Is In Christ he is a new creature' a new creation, 'old things are passed away; behold they are made new. ' As far as I'm concerned, I'm going to leave that matter with God. God said, 'I'll blot them out.' God said, 'I'll forgive them.' Well

12 you can go ahead and make your argument - a fellow can make all the arguments he wants to on that. But when God said, 'I'll blot It out, I'll remember it no more, you're a new creation In Christ, now take up here and go on unto perfection,' that's what I'm going to preach. That's what I 'm going to practice. How If you want to make a law God didn't make, that's your responsibility, not mine. That may be different from what you teach, from what you believe. That's all right. You have a right to your deduction of what a passage teaches. I've made mine. When God said 'I'll blot it out, I'll remember It no more, repent and be baptized for the remission of sins' I believe he remitted them, I believe he blotted them out. He said 'I'll remember them no more,' and I think He won't. Take up here and go on as a new creature In Christ and grow thereby unto salvation. That makes sense to me, the other doesn't. If the other makes more sense to you, that's your responsibility. I move on from there. I didn't intend to say much about that - anything about It really, I just had a letter In which I read about this thing that happened I think we need to re-check and re-evaluate our concept of some of these things that God has said and talked about." Thus he admits that he brought it up without being asked to do so. Thirdly, how could a gospel preacher refuse to shout from the housetop what he believes to be the truth on the position held by brother Hailey. If he is correct in his belief, think of all the people who are in just that very condition (having been divorced and remarried before they heard the gospel of Christ) who are desirous of obeying the gospel but believe that they must separate in order to do so. If I believed what brother Hailey believes, there is nothing on earth nor in hades that could keep me from trying to convince these poor souls that they have a scriptural right to salvation regardless of the consequences it would have for me among brethren. I have never been able to understand brother Hailey's lack of courage in so doing. Though I am 100% opposed to what brethren Hailey, James D. Bales and many others teach on this subject, at least brother Bales is willing to openly try to defend what he believes to be the truth. One of our readers, in a letter to me, summed it up perhaps as well as any one could have said it: "I have been particularly Interested In the recent articles on divorce and remarriage and brother Hailey's position In reading some of the other papers and what some are say-ing, It seems many will be faithful to 'the old soldier' and not to the Captain of their salvation" P. O. Box Tulsa. OK GT

13 The Historical Development of the Recent Fellowship Question as It Relates to the Divorce and Remarriage Issue Fellowship The Man But Not His Doctrine Is That Possible? By J. T. Smith (A reprint from the April 1991 GOSPEL TRUTHS) GOD has always placed on those who teach His Word a responsibility to give warning. Ezekiel 3:17-19 "Son of man, I have made thee a watch-man unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. 18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul." Paul recognized this same responsibility according to Acts 18:5-6; Acts 20:26. "And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. 6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles" (Acts 18:5-6). Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men" (Acts 20:26). I feel this responsibility very keenly. As you will see from this article, since 1976 I have not ceased to warn night and day with tears. I trust that you will read the following article with these things in mind. On Tuesday afternoon February 5,1991 there was a discussion between brethren Ed Harrell and Mike Willis at the Florida College lectures. Should we have fellowship with a person (namely Homer Hailey) who teaches that which we consider error on these subjects. Harrell said, "yes," Willis said, "no." Both men (Harrell and Willis) stated unequivocally that they believed the doctrine taught by brother Hailey was false doctrine. Near the close of the discussion brother Clinton Hamilton, moderator for the discussion, made the following statement: "He (brother Hailey, jts) has no notion that I fellowship him on his teaching And when he did not make It a matter of Issue, he and I could talk about It disagree about It I believe that his ultimate aim is to please God But he Is wrong on this point He knows I believe he's wrong Mow then, I begged him not to publish his book I urged him not to He has now made It an issue The tragedy of the whole thing, and I've Just got to say this, that a number of young men who thought they were doing the brotherhood a service did one of the greatest disservices they have ever done by pushing him to write his book And had they not attacked him Individually and Just attacked the doctrine, we never would have had to contend with an Issue that's before us today And I think It Is one of the great Ironies and tragedies of all time He never would have written that book If he felt he didn't have to In order to protect his own Integrity of why he believed what he did And that doesn't mean that I endorse what he taught And he knows I don't But I think that we learn a lesson In this There Is a way to deal with error in calling people's attention to the Word of God But whenever we make men the focal point of that Issue, we may get beside the point of condemning error and help the Devil in some of his doctrine I Just had to say that" (Clinton Hamilton - Florida College lectures - February 5, 1991) I would certainly defend the right of anyone to say what he conscientiously thought he just had

14 to say. I was surprised, however, that brother Hamilton would make such a statement. I disagree with almost everything my brother and former teacher at Florida Christian College said in the above statement. I was also surprised and appalled that a number of brethren "amened" and actually applauded the statement. Now there are two things that I feel compelled to do in connection with the above statement. First, let's discuss the question of fellowship and those who teach what I (and the three above mentioned brethren) believe to be error on the divorce and remarriage issues. Secondly, I want to examine the scathing denunciation of those who have opposed brother Hailey's teaching. First of all brother Hamilton makes the point that "He (brother Hailey, jts) has no notion that I fellowship him on his teaching." Does that mean that I can continue to have fellowship with anyone who is a Christian, even though he may teach that which is clearly false doctrine on a particular subject? If his "ultimate aim is to please God" as long as I don't "fellowship him on his teaching" of that particular subject, may I continue my fellowship with him? But dear reader, wouldn't that include an institutional brother whose "ultimate aim is to please God" as long as I don't "fellowship him on his teaching" of that particular subject? The institutional brethren are trying to convince me that it would. In fact, that's what they are urging that we do. Would it also include those who are teaching the doctrine of Premillennialism? Just how far can we go with that position? Is it possible to fellowship the part of a man that teaches truth and disfellowship the part of the same man that teaches error? There is no doubt that brother Hamilton believes and practices what he teaches. I say this in view of the fact that the congregation where brother Hamilton preaches had brother Hailey in March 1990 for a gospel meeting. Also there is no question that brother Harrell practices what he preaches on the subject of fellowship. He and some of his colleagues appear on lectures and preach in gospel meetings on the West Coast year after year. Many of these appearances take place in congregations where brethren are teaching and practicing that which is taught by brother Hailey. Also many of these congregations believe and practice the doctrine that the put away fornicator can remarry without sin. So there is no question that these men practice what they teach. While we are on the subject of practicing what one believes, I am certainly bewildered at brother Hailey's practice. One of the great mysteries is brother Hailey's 40 year silence. On next to the last page in his book (page 74) he says what he is teaching is God's Word and those who teach otherwise are teaching a doctrine "solely of man." The implication is that those who teach the opposite of what he teaches have closed the door to the grace of God thus causing millions to be lost. Question: How could a gospel preacher believe that he has the truth and others are teaching a doctrine solely of men, thus "closing the door" to God's grace and allowing millions to be lost, and keep quiet about it for 40 years? Love For Man "Colors" Judgment Though this issue of fellowship and the divorce and remarriage question is a new one to a lot of brethren, some of us have encountered it for years. I am afraid that a number of brethren have allowed their love for brother Hailey to "color" their judgment. For example, had I been the man teaching this doctrine at various times publicly, and supposedly been attacked for teaching it, and teaching it to anyone who asked me a question about my position privately (as brother Hailey admitted doing) would Florida College have set up this special session and would brethren Harrell and Hamilton have had a part in it in defending their right to continue fellowship with me?

15 Now to brother Hamilton's statement "He (brother Hailey, jts) has no notion that I fellowship him on his teaching." In order to fully understand the problem of fellowship and brother Hailey's teaching, let's first look into a little background that led up to the above session at Florida College. In 1973 I was asked to preach in a gospel meeting at Studebaker Road in Long Beach, California. I was asked by the elders to preach on the divorce and remarriage question. Brother Glen Lovelady was in the audience and had planned to challenge me to a debate on the subject when the service was concluded. However, he became ill during the invitation song and had to leave. In 1975 when I moved to Long Beach, I learned of the above circumstance. After being there less than a year, brethren approached me about having a discussion with Glen who was teaching that the put away fornicator could remarry without sin. After talking it over with the elders at Studebaker Road, it was decided by them that we should have such a debate - that Glen and "his crowd" had been allowed "free reign" to teach their unscriptural doctrine long enough without anyone accepting their challenge to debate them. The discussion was arranged for March 22, 23, 25, with the first two nights conducted in the Studebaker Road building. We thought we were making progress having exposed error and having shown Glen to be a false teacher. In July of 1976 brother Hailey came to Anaheim, California to preach in a gospel meeting. It was my understanding that the elders at West Anaheim who were in disagreement with the position that I held on marriage, divorce and remarriage, asked brother Hailey to preach on the subject. After brother Hailey preached his lesson, Glen came to me and wanted to know if I agreed with it. I told him I did not. His question was, if I could fellowship brother Hailey who was teaching error on the divorce and remarriage question, why couldn't I fellowship him? Thus the fellowship issue arose. It was a fair and very sobering question. Others were asked the same question by Glen. As a result, much of the work that we had done in exposing error on the divorce and remarriage question and the right to fellowship those who were teaching error on the subject was undone by brother Hailey's lesson. There really wasn't much to the fellowship issue at that time. When I made public in the church bulletin (see copy of the front page of the bulletin below) the fact that

16

17 Homer Hailey had taught a lesson on marriage, divorce and remarriage at the West Anaheim congregation (in which he taught the same false doctrine he is teaching now), many brethren have quit having fellowship with me. The question of fellowship at that time was a simple one. Though brethren said what I was teaching was the truth and believed what brother Hailey taught was false doctrine, I was marked as the one who would have the audacity to publicly accuse Homer Hailey of teaching false doctrine (thought they agreed privately that he was). Thus in that case the criteria for fellowship was/is - fellowship the man but not his doctrine and don't fellowship those who openly oppose the man who is teaching the false doctrine. (Shades of Reuel Lemmons. Preach the man but not the plan: The Christ but not the doctrine of Christ). My question now is the same as it was then. If one teaches what brother Hailey is teaching is he abiding in the doctrine of Christ? The answer of the majority of brethren would be no! My next question is, if they are correct, how do you harmonize having fellowship with a man who is not abiding in the doctrine of Christ in view of what John said in II John 9-11? "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds." Does anyone think that I am telling brother Hamilton anything new? I certainly do not. I know that with his great exegetical ability he could, probably without any notes, give you contextual and word by word explanation of what John said. My question to these brethren is, since the passage is so plain why won't you practice it? The only reasonable explanation that I have been able to come up with is, their love for a man has "colored" their judgment. Yet it appears to me that the above passage is the answer to the subtitle of this article "Fellowship The Man But Not The Doctrine." Now to our second point. The reason for the scathing denunciations of those who have opposed brother Hailey's teaching. Brother Hamilton said, "The tragedy of the whole thing, and I've just got to say this, that a number of young men who thought they were doing the brotherhood a service did it one of the greatest disservices they have ever done by pushing him to write his book. And had they not attacked him individually and just attacked the doctrine, we never would have had to contend with an issue that's before us today. And I think it is one of the great ironies and tragedies of all time. He never would have written that book if he felt he didn't have to in order to protect his own integrity of why he believed what he did." More Historical Background Even though brother Hailey continued to teach privately any one who asked him his position on the divorce and remarriage issue, it was not until February 25, 1988, while in a gospel meeting in El Cajon, California that brother Hailey, though not requested to do so, again presented his position to the brethren there. Then a little later that year at Belen, New Mexico, he was called upon to present his views, which he did. The reason he was called upon to do so in Belen, he had earlier, while there to assist in a gospel meeting, privately taught a couple that even though they had been divorced and remarried, according to his understanding of the divorce and remarriage question, their marriage was all right. Brother Harry Osborne who later came for a gospel meeting preached the truth on the subject. The couple became very upset repeating what brother Hailey had taught them. For this reason brother Hailey was asked to return and present his views. Both video and audio tapes were made of Hailey's lesson. Believing that what brother Hailey taught was error, a number of the brethren asked brother Ron Halbrook to come to Belen and present the truth in reply to what brother Hailey had said.

18 His speech was also taped. The church in Belen divided. In the course of brother Hailey's comments, he said that he hadn't said much about his views on this subject through the years but obviously he was going to have to say more. In 1988 in both the June and August issues I wrote articles in TORCH MAGAZINE dealing with this problem. In the September 1988 issue of SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES, brother Connie W. Adams had an article on the same subject entitled, "And Wash Away Thy Wives." After this, brother Hailey wrote an open letter which he sent to the publishers of many of the magazines. The letter was published in the January 1989 issue of Searching THE SCRIPTURES. It was also printed in CHRISTIANITY MAGAZINE, GUARDIAN OF TRUTH and others, in which brother Hailey verified the position that had been attributed to him. I did not print it for the simple reason brother Hailey did not send it to me. Someone may ask, "What is the point of all these historical facts?" The point is, all of these things took place before brother Hamilton's young men (Harry Osborne, Ron Halbrook, Lee Stewart and Tim Stevens) wrote an article in the GUARDIAN OF TRUTH concerning the Belen, New Mexico situation. These were the young men brother Hamilton had in mind. Even though all of the above occurrences involving brother Hailey's teaching on the subject had already taken place, these young men are chastised by brother Hamilton "as doing the brotherhood... one of the greatest disservices they have ever done by pushing him to write his book." I, for one, was dismayed by brother Hamilton's pronouncement and those who applauded it. Instead of chastisement there should have been praise for these young men. (I would also include in my praise others young and old. Bill Robinson, Jr., who spent countless hours "digesting" brother Hailey's book, wrote a number of articles reviewing it for GOSPEL TRUTHS, 1991; and whose article on Romans 141 have reprinted in this issue of GOSPEL TRUTHS, jts). To all these men I say God bless you may your tribe increase. For, according to the Scriptures, it is every gospel preacher's obligation to "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all long suffering and teaching" (II Timothy 4:2). Is that their God-given duty unless it is Homer Hailey or Jim Cope or H. E. Phillips or Clinton Hamilton or brother whoever else might happen to be your favorite "aged warrior?" I say God bless them because they have the courage to do what God said. All of us who have loved brother Hailey have agonized over what we feel is our duty to God and His Word and in anticipation of how brethren would treat us. We have been torn between love for man and duty to God. Thank God for those who fulfilled their duty to God and were willing to face the consequences. According to brother Hamilton these young men "pushed brother Hailey into writing his book." Brother Hailey never struck me as the kind of person you could "push" into anything. After all, he is only in his late 80s. Is seems that he is old enough to make up his own mind about what he wants to do. Besides, it appears to me that the thing that got brother Hamilton so upset, the printing of the book, is irrelevant. Brother Hailey had already confirmed his teaching to the brotherhood in 1976 in West Anaheim, California and in the above mentioned letter that was printed. Brother Hamilton tells us: "There Is a way to deal with error In calling people's attention to the Word of God. But whenever we make men the focal point of that Issue, we may get beside the point of condemning error and help the Devil In some of his doctrine." But how is one able to do this when a brother is teaching false doctrine and dividing churches? The New Testament certainly will not uphold brother Hamilton's statement. "And their message will

19 spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some" (II Timothy 2:17-18). But that is exactly what brother Hailey and those who teach error on divorce and remarriage, are doing. Their doctrine will overthrow people's faith on these subjects. Did Paul make a mistake by calling attention to these men instead of just calling attention to the Word of God? Again, John said, "I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us" (III John 9). Did John make the same mistake as Paul? God has made plain His teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage. There is to be one man for one woman for life. God has made only two exceptions. If one who is innocent puts away his wife for fornication (Matthew 19:9) or if she dies (Romans 7:3-4). All other remarriages are unlawful and all who are involved in them are committing adultery (Matthew 19:9; Mark 6:10-11; Luke 16:18, et. al.). Also, God does not leave us in doubt as to what is to be done with one who is involved in an unlawful marriage (I Corinthians 5). Must we deliver unto Satan the one who practices the doctrine but fellowship the person who taught it to that one? I may not be able to determine to my own satisfaction some other issues that are not as clear. However, we should have no trouble understanding God's teaching on this one. None of those involved in the discussion at Florida College did. P. O. Box Tulsa. OK GT

20 "Think 'Teach,' Not 'Results." by Mike Noble FOR as the rain comes down and the snow from heaven, and do not return there, but water the earth, and make it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater, So shall My word be that goes from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it. " Almighty God proclaimed these words through Isaiah the prophet some 2700 years ago, but they are just as true today as they were yesterday and as they will be tomorrow and throughout eternity. God's Word WILL "accomplish what He pleases"... It prospers in the thing for which He sends it. Would to God that we all could fathom the ramifications of such a statement. Do we realize just how powerful God's Word is? It called this earth and everything in it into existence ("Then God said... 'let there be '...and there was... " Genesis l:3f). The psalmist declared that "by the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth"(psalms 33:6). God's word is ALL-powerful, and when He speaks, "it shall prosper in the thing for which He sent it. Do you, dear reader, have faith and trust in God's all-powerful word? I fear that the confidence men and women once had in the Bible has been challenged and on all too many fronts severely diminished. Has it in you? God's Word is still YET powerful. The New Testament proclaims the gospel to be "the power of God to salvation "(Romans 1:16). "For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword... " (Hebrews 4:12). Amidst an infidel world, do YOU still believe that? Do YOU yet trust in the words of the Bible that "it shall prosper in the things for which " God "sent it "? If you can say "yes" to such, then please read on. "Think Swing, Not Results" There is a saying among those of us who are constantly trying to master the game of golf: "Think Swing, Not Results." The statement simply is a means of advice to concentrate on that which will truly help our game. It will not help us "hackers" to merely dwell on where we would like our ball to end up; rather, we must focus all our faculties on the means to the end, i.e., the swing! (If one gives it any serious thought at all, he will readily admit that this advice is applicable in many realms of life too often we get so wrapped up in our dreams, that we fail to "get in there" and do what is necessary to bring them to fruition). I have considered that perhaps this is an all-too-prevalent problem in the religious world (in general) today, and possibly among some of us brethren. I will be plain. Could it be that all too often many of us get caught up into being OVERLY concerned about what will be the results of our teaching and preaching? I believe so. God would say to you and I today, "Think 'preach the word', not the results" "Don't worry about the results you worry about delivering the message - I'll take care of the rest." May I suggest to you that we run into problems when we do not do that when we do not trust in God's promise that it "will prosper" in the thing for which He sent it? Erring Brethren Even though God has left us instructions commanding us to confront our erring brethren with their error (please read Matthew 18:15), some seem to want to doubt the effect God's word might

21 have. Some begin to become "judges with evil thoughts." Sentiments such as "What if he gets mad?!" or "Ah, he'll never change" can be heard. WHAT ARE THEY DOING? Simply, worrying to such an extent about the results of the proclamation of God's truth that they begin to doubt and distrust God's word! Or, it could be that when they do decide to approach their brother, they fret to such a degree over the prospective reaction to God's word that they soft-peddle the truth. Friends that wasn't the approach that Nathan took with David ("You are the man!" II Samuel 12:7). That's not what Paul did in the city of Ephesus. As he taught "privately", he "kept back nothing that was helpful... "; he had "not shunned to declare to them the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:20,27). Would we do that? Would we trust God's word, that it will prosper in the thing for which he sent it? We need to be encouraged: 'Think 'teach,' not result". The Public Proclamation of Truth Teachers and preachers have to be careful in this regard. There is the tendency to want to please the listeners. Perhaps there are some in a congregation who wish to engage in some forbidden practice (dancing, social drinking, unlawful marriages, what-have-you). The desire is there to not be displeasing to people, and to "hold back" on those subjects, or to not speak about them at all, "lest we offend." If we are not careful, another "moderate" preacher is born into the world who majors in scratching the religious itches of his listeners (see II Timothy 4:1-4), trying to please everybody. May God help us to see that ONE CANNOT PLEASE EVERYBODY - IN EVERYTHING - ALL THE TIME! Jesus didn't (Matthew 15:1-13); but then, that was not His concern. What makes a preacher think HE can?! Even if one could, that shouldn't matter - that's not his concern. His only concern is (or should be), "Am I pleasing to God?" "For if I still pleased men, I would not be a servant of Christ " (Galatians 1:10). Pardon the simplistic thinking of all this, but it just seems that all-too-many are worrying all-toomuch about PHYSICAL, viewable results; so much that evangelism has become a "numbers" game to them. They have lost their faith in God's word to "accomplish what [HE] pleases!" They desperately need to go back to "thinking 'preaching,' not results." What if Noah had thought the way some of us do?! What if he had lamented in exasperation, "Why no one's obeying! No one's paying attention to the truth! Perhaps I just need to change my preaching!" NO, dear reader. That wouldn't have done at all. And neither will it do today for "gospel"(?) preachers. Fellow evangelists: "Get in there" with your Bible! Only the truth will make people free (John 8:32). "Let the chips fall where they may", as it were. No, we are not advocating a mean-spirited disposition; but SPEAK THE TRUTH, and let God worry about the RESULTS! Corrective Church Discipline This "teaching the truth" and "leaving the results to God" could be applied to so many situations. Some seem to worry so much about what effect the withdrawing of ourselves (which is a form of teaching see I Corinthians 5:5; I Timothy 1:20) will have on the hardened sinner, that they refuse to go through with and practice what the Bible says on the matter. Even though the Bible relates to us the reasons and purposes behind such action, yet many are still heard saying, "Maybe it'll work...but...maybe it won't!" "What if he never comes back?" "What if it drives him farther away?" WHAT ARE WE DOING, when we say such things? We're "thinking results" rather than "thinking 'teach'." Shame on us if and when we do. Converting the Lost

22 The whole gamut of problems can be run through when we dwell on the "results" in our efforts to convert the lost. It can cause us to stop "swinging", or (just as terrible) to "swing" improperly. It can be a problem, first of all, when a local church dwells on PAST "results". They have grown; they have the "numbers" far exceeding their expectations; they see that they are large in comparison to many surrounding congregations; alas, they STOP TRYING to reach the lost. What has happened? Well, in this instance they are dwelling on the past results. "We've got it made" is the disposition shared by many. This attitude reminds me quite a bit of another golfing problem striking a tremendous tee shot to within a few feet of the hole, and then (due to glorying in that "great shot") losing concentration and taking 4 or 5 putts to knock it in! Dear Christian: We cannot grow complacent and lethargical because of what has been done in the past. It matters not (as far as the future is concerned) whether you have helped convert 1 fellow in 10 years, or 1,000 in a month you MUST PROGRESS in your teaching of the word. The Lord told one church, "I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead." He perhaps would tell some today, as He did the church at Sardis, "Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die, for I have not found your works perfect before God" (Revelation 3:1-2). Excessive worrying about "results" (not trusting in God's word to accomplish the thing for which He has sent it) has caused some to COMPROMISE and HIDE the truth when teaching others. The attitude, "since they would never obey the truth as it is, therefore I'll just 'bend' it a little," is seen. Once again, let it be acknowledged that God never expected that His word would convert everybody (Matthew 7:13-14). Jesus didn't convert everybody (John 6:66). Paul didn't. We won't. Let us stop worrying. If we are not careful, this type of thinking can cause us to completely shy away from the teaching of SELECT groups of the populace. "After all," we prejudiciously surmise, "they would never give up their life, activities, unlawful marriages, etc... therefore, what's the use in trying to convert them?!" WHAT DISTRUST we show at times in the power of God's word to salvation! Please read I Corinthians 6:9-11. Some of the brethren at Corinth were converted out of thievery, adulterous relationships, homosexuality, and other sinful activities. Who are we to think such converting can't be done today?! What we need to do is stop "whittling on God's end of the stick" and realize that all we can do is "plant"or "water", and THAT'S ALL! If we would just do that, we'd be a success! A tremendous success!! But we must leave it to God to "add the increase" (I Corinthians 3:6-7). God will take care of His part. Thinking about nothing but results has caused some to USE ANY MEANS imaginable in their efforts to "convert" the lost. They "think big," but think nothing about their lack of authority. "Shall we do evil that good may come," Paul would say, "as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say? " (Romans 3:8). Simply put, the end does NOT justify the means. In this country alone there are 100's of churches using unauthorized means of evangelizing the lost, and why?? Because they do not trust God's word to accomplish the thing for which He sent it! The frame of mind which is summarized in the statement, "Those old Bible ways won't work in today's time," is the product of an mentality which focuses too much attention on RESULTS. Let's allow God to handle that part! May we ever be encouraged to 'Think 'teach,' Not 'Result'"! Our beginning text ("It shall accomplish what I please...")begs us to trust God and leave the outcome to Him; because - after all (and as the previous two verses state), '"My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' says the Lord. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your

23 ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.'" (Isaiah 55:8-9). 568 Hawthorne Avenue. Shelbyville. KY GT

24 A Full Stomach & A Fur Coat by Paul R. Blake THE following story is often told: (A hunter raised his rifle and took careful aim at a large bear. When about to pull the trigger, the bear spoke in a soft, soothing rumble, "Is it not better to talk than to shoot? What is it that you want? Let us negotiate the matter." Lowering his rifle, the hunter replied, "I want a fur coat." "Good," said the bear, "that is certainly negotiable. I only want a full stomach, so let us work out a compromise." So, they sat down together to negotiate, and after a time the bear walked away alone. The negotiation had been successful; the bear had a full stomach, and the hunter had a fur coat. The hunter was inside the bear! Satan wants us to negotiate with him. Yet, there are some things that are not negotiable. We cannot compromise the church with the world. We cannot compromise our morals with the world. Christ and the church He died for deserve our very best efforts and our utmost loyalty.) We often try to negotiate with Satan when on vacation. After the negotiations are complete, we get to attend one service of the Lord on Sunday morning, and Satan gets to keep us home on Wednesday and Sunday nights. We have worked out a deal whereby both sides are satisfied; only, we got eaten by the bear. The Devil will negotiate a compromise with us while on a trip; he will allow us to go to all of the services of the church but only if it is a digressive church that we attend. We get to go to services, and he devours our souls in the process of sinful compromise. "And have NO fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Ephesians 5:11). We try to negotiate with Satan over moral attire (God's dress code). Now both we and Satan know that God has demanded modesty and chastity in the way we clothe ourselves; however, Satan is willing to negotiate a deal with us. He will let us wear modest clothing to worship and to work, if we will wear immodest clothing before the neighbors and during recreation. Endless are the compromises we make with the old Devil over how short is too short, how sheer is too sheer, how tight is too tight, how much skin is too much skin. And who do we bring in to counsel and arbitrate? God? Christians who dress modestly? No! We consult the fashions to determine what a Christian should wear. We choose the weakest and most shamefully dressed member of the church to determine how far we should go in exposing flesh to the eyes of others. Gulp!!! Satan just devoured another negotiating Christian. What Christian duty or trait has not been negotiated with Satan over the years? We have compromised our way into allowing our children to go mixed bathing. We have negotiated our way into missing services for any excuse. We have dealt our way out of attending Bible classes. We have compromised ourselves into telling little white lies. We have negotiated our way out of properly giving of our means and practicing discipline. We have compromised our way into materialism and a fear of being different from the world. AND EVERYONE WHO HAS COMPROMISED THESE THINGS WITH SATAN HAS NEGOTIATED AN ETERNAL HOME IN HELL FOR HIMSELF!!! "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour" (I Peter 5:8). Why do we try to negotiate with the Devil? Because we want what we are not supposed to have. God has outlined His will for us in the word; we read and know what He wants of us. However, other desires are at war within us. On one side is our spiritual being that wants to do what is right, and on

25 the other side is our carnal being that wants to do differently. The spiritual being is motivated by knowledge of godliness and truth. The carnal being is motivated by awareness of base desires and passions. The spiritual being wants his children to go to heaven; the carnal being wants his children to fit in with other kids so they aren't embarrassed for being good. The spiritual being wants to learn more about the word of God, but the carnal being wants to sleep late on Sunday morning. The spiritual being wants to give of his means sacrificially; the carnal being wants to obligate his money for material things, and he has little left over to give. They fight back and forth within us creating a need for someone to help us find a solution. So who do we go to for the solution? Do we ask God and His word what to do and then accept His answer? Or do we ask how far we can go in compromise with the world without it actually being a sin? Gentle Reader, it bothers me that the worldly minded think I'm strange because I don't act like they do, that I don't tolerate sin and weakness in my life, and that I "waste" so much of my life on religion. But that's the carnal being who is bothered; the spiritual being rejoices in Christ that I have an opportunity to suffer for Him. It bothers me that other children think my kids are weird because they don't wear shorts, go mixed bathing, watch PG and R-rated movies, or miss services for sports and band. But that's the carnal being who is bothered; the spiritual being rejoices that the children are being raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and has a greater hope of them remaining faithful to Christ when they leave home. The next time a moral or spiritual conflict arises in your life, side with your spiritual being and do what you know God wants you to do. Do not side with the carnal being and try to negotiate a deal with Satan...YOU WILL LOSE EVERY TIME. Say with Joshua, "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!" Don't ask with Baalam, "how close can I get to the world without actually sinning." Your eternal soul is too valuable to risk in negotiating with a "roaring lion" who will eat you every time Brookwood Road. Youngstown. OH GT

26 Teen Talk by Tony Ripley Testing Your Awareness About Relationships Of Family & Friends Our lives are saturated by relationships. Every day we are affected by these associations and it is vital that we have a proper understanding of how to react in each facet of life. Family- The closest relationship that a young person has is their family. It is a relationship which embraces unity, love, respect, and dependency. Quite frankly, it just feels good to be home! Although you may not always appreciate the "rules of the house", you still find comfort where your family is. There are many young people today who are alone and never experience the joy of the stable family relation. Some of your friends who you associate with at school have no home life and depend solely upon themselves for everything. However, if you will investigate closely you will find that they are miserable. They would give anything to have what you many times may take for granted. Take time to notice the blessings of your life. When you have parents that love and care for you, there is no greater feeling when you are a teenager. You know that they will always be there for you and that you are able to seek their counsel at any time. Furthermore, you may not realize the close bond you are creating between brothers and sisters. Its hard when you are fighting with each other, but a union is being molded nonetheless. The day will come when you will defend them instead of argue with them. As a child I would sit on my youngest sister and torment her (although she retaliated by locking me in a suitcase!). I would invade my older sisters room and meddle in her stuff. She was fit to be tied! They in turn fairly "paid me back". Aside from all of this, I love them fervently and would defend their honor at any given time. They are my friends, my comrades, my family. I wouldn't trade that for anything in the world. You too have similar experiences in your life. Take time to tell your parents that you love them. Better yet, show them that you love them by obeying the Lord. The apostle Paul revealed God's will for you in this way. "Children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother, which is the first commandment with promise: that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth " (Ephesians 6:1-3). By working with your family members, your life becomes more enjoyable. Be good to them and they will be good to you. Learn to overlook the little inconveniences and dwell on the important matters of your life. Hold your family relationship as you would a great treasure. Then you will come to know the true value of your family. Friends (Male & Female)- It has been said that you can count your genuine friends on one hand. There is a lot of truth to this statement. You have many associations that are friends. However, true friends are hard to come by. You learn at an early age that you are not compatible with just every person. Some have different tastes and preferences than you enjoy. Therefore, you may have a friend today who you will not associate with in a few months from now because of your differences. It is a good practice to be selective when choosing friends. Some companions can lead you into very compromising positions that you will later regret. Find someone that is fixed in their principles

27 and who seeks your good. Look for virtues of morality and spiritual development. You will find that when spiritual things are foremost in your mind, spiritual people are the ones that you will attract. Lets face it, if you live your whole life enjoying the association of your friends and miss entering the portals of heaven, what kind of friends do you have? The apostle Paul revealed this fact in the Corinthian letter and Solomon also attested to it in the Proverbs. "Do not be deceived: Evil company corrupts good habits" (I Corinthians 15:33). "He who walks with wise men will be wise, But the companion of fools will be destroyed" (Proverbs 13:20) The prodigal son had friends, but they stayed just long enough to see his decline and then left him. The outcome of his life was total loneliness. In the day of judgment you will stand alone before the Lord. Your friends will not be able to advise you and your life's decisions will be finally weighed. Choose to draw people into your life that are not afraid to talk about Jesus and the Bible. Choose friends that will steer you away from wrong and help you to do that which is right before your Creator. The relationship of a friend is one that must be nurtured. There's a poem that states, "I went out to find a friend and no friend was there; I went out to be a friend and friends were everywhere." The Bible shares with us a relationship between two young men that stands in history as one of the greatest associations ever known to man. The two young men were David and Jonathan. Their friendship was the epitome of a right relationship between two comrades. After David killed the Gathian giant, Goliath, things began to heat up between David and king Saul. The women came out from Israel and began to sing and dance, praising David for his accomplishments, they hailed young David over their king, and Saul was very angry. He feared that David would next try to take his kingdom away, so he determined to take his life. David's life would never be the same from this moment on. He lived a life "on the run." Can you imagine how you would feel if a great king set out to destroy your life? Saul had a son named Jonathan. He and David were inseparable friends and Jonathan loved David as his own soul. "..the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (I Samuel 18:1) Their love for each other as friends was so intense that they made a covenant between them. Jonathan would befriend David even in the vilest opposition of his father. He put his own life on the line to save his friend. The intensity of their relationship can be seen by reading I Samuel 20. [Please Take Time To Read This Chapter] The relationship of Jonathan and David was not a passing friendship. It was one that would stand the test of time. But it was because of their desire to look toward each other's best welfare. They nurtured their association with each other. They lived with a mutual trust and respect that has been superseded by no other relationship. After Saul and Jonathan fell in battle, a nurse took Jonathan's five year old son (Mephibosheth), and fled with him. The child fell and became lame in both feet from his injuries (II Samuel 4:4). Later, after David took over the throne, he sought to honor his beloved, departed friend. "Now David said, Is there still anyone who is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan's sake?" (II Samuel 9:1) David made sure that Jonathan's son ate at the kings table. David loved his friend and expressed

28 his affection through Mephibosheth as long as he lived. You also can have friends which you are closely associated with. Be selective, and most important, be a friend! You'll find that by watering, nurturing, and caring for the plant of friendship, it will someday become a great tree to rest upon. It will offer shade in the blistering heat and homes for the birds of music. And in the day that it is cut down, its stump will provide a seat for the weary to rest. The Opposite Gender Teenagers also find relationships with the opposite gender. This is an association that can by far prove to be the most enjoyable. However, you must learn how to make a distinction between infatuation and love. Many times infatuation is mistaken for true love. In most cases it is propagated by the attention you receive from another. When a young lady renders special attention to a young man, he may lose all peripheral vision and tend to be lead into a more tunnel-like focus. Young girls turn to "melted butter" when an upper-classman gives attention their way. This may not be a concrete rule, but it is fairly typical. The most important principle in any relationship is that you must never lose your focus on the Lord. Too often young people lose sight of their spiritual values and sell them cheap for temporary pleasures of the flesh. Although you understand that fornication is sinful and will separate you from God, it is also vital that you abstain from petting. Many sinful acts are practiced in the relationship of teenage boys and girls that are just as sinful as fornication itself. Young Christian boys and girls must learn that sexual activity is to be enjoyed in the marriage union only (Hebrews 13:4), not in the living room or automobile. You must control your affections for one another. Plan ahead by not putting yourself in a place where you would be tempted to do wrong. Even though you have a right to care for each other, you do not have the right to enter into illicit activities with each other. Learn to keep your hands to yourself. Many teenagers are parents today because they lost sight of their morals and allowed themselves to be placed in compromising situations. By involving yourself in sexual activities before marriage, you show a lack of respect for one another. You can not love a person whom you have no respect for. It is God s plan that young men and womwn enter into the marriage union undefiled. Don t soil your robe wuth ssinful, illicit activities. Present yourself pure and you will enjoy another facet of sound relationships... Relfrespect Jenny Lind, Fort Smithy, AR GT

29 Gospel Truths - December Page 16 (280) Abernathy, Dennis The Goal of the Teacher of God's Word VII 271 Adams, James W. The Way VIII 96 Baker, James H. Reincarnation VII 233 Rise Up You Men VIII 81 Baker, J. T. (Tom) Baker The Person of Christ VIII 9 Barnett, Maurice Epitaphs VIII 208 Blake, Paul R. Preaching to the Saved... And Boring the Lost VII 129 Working During Worship:Abraham's Faith vs VII 277 "Know How You Ought To Answer Every Man" VIII I60 Party Spirit VIII 205 As A Breach Ready to Fall VIII 231 A Full Stomach and a Fur Coat VIII 277 Bonner, David Bonner's Obligation According To Asher VII 186 Try The Spirits VIII 42 Burgess, Roy "What Must I Do To Be Saved VII 24 Byers, Harold Elders In The Church VII 9 Terms That Relate To Elders VII 39 Elders Rule VII 78 Elders Functioning VII 112 Bishops - Their Qualifications VII 160 Bishops - Their Qualifications (Part 2) VII 177 Bishops - Their Qualifications (Part 3) VII 206 Eulogy to Grover Stevens VIII 89 Calvert, Tim A Matter of Deception VII 149 Cavender, Bill A Hardheaded Preacher VIII 257 Clark, A. Hugh Men VIII 288 Cogdell, Roy E. Obligations To The Truth VII 168 Collins, David The Foreknowledge of God VIII 234 Cooper, Jim The Home and Family The Husband's Responsibility To His Wife (2) VII 201 Familiarities in Courtship VII 228 Marriage The Greatest Human Contract VIII 56 Twelve Commandments for Husbands VIII 217 Cox, Robbie It's Too Late to Teach Them How to Swim VII 235 Daly, Ron The Study of Biblical Words The Characterization of Jesus... #4 VII 13 Avoiding Sexual Immorality VII 38 "I Am That I Am" VII 62 Hebrews Chapter One: The Son's Superiority VII 105 INDEX FOR VOLUMES VII & VIII (Authors) Volume Page Eis in Acts 2:38 VII 152 Studies in the Text of The New Testament #1 VIII 97 Studies in the Text of The New Testament #2 VIII 153 Unauthorized Practices in NT Worship VIII 169 Dunigan, James The Biblical Shepherd: Caring for Special Needs VII 233 At Home Study VII 256 Earnest, Steve Who's Lookin'? VII 6 Edwards, S. L. "Be Ye Steadfast" VIII 120 Elam's Notes Asking for A King VIII 66 Asking For A King # 2 VIII 107 Eubanks, Gary P. Does The Lot Reveal God's Will? VII III Fly, Earl The Sin of Adultery VII 48 Foutz, Roy L. "Be Thou Faithful Unto Death" VIII 264 Frank, Kyle D. Call To Duty VII 183 Frost, Gene When Jesus Died VII 25 The Frost-Welch Debate Has Been Trans... VII 42 That "Apology" Again VII 199 A Confession That Should End The "Deity..." VIII 16 A Review of Hollow Apology VIII 135 Frost, Jerry E. Ekklesia Church VII 49 Convictions VII 90 Inevitable Division and Possible Unity VII 137 Is Education God? VII 187 Unity In Perversity? VII 197 The Political Seduction of the Faith VII 221 Herod, Hailey, Harrell and John VII 250 The "Elect" of Romans 9 VII 270 Marriage, Baptism, and Law VIII 25 "It Is Not Lawful for Thee to Have Her" VIII 58 Was Herod's Sin Adultery? VIII 83 Six Pages of Irritation and Insult VIII 100 The Incarnation: Apollinaris and the Catholics VIII 125 Which Comes First - Regeneration or Faith VIII I62 The Covering of I Corinthians 11 VIII 198 The Simple Truth About Unity VIII 241 George, Eric Bible Study Resources on the Internet VIII 161 Gatlin, Dan The Promise Keepers VIII 14 The Cultic Practices of the Promise Keepers VIII 39 Goforth, Wayne Why I Left The Institutional Position VII 251

30 Greer, Keith Perilous Times VII 114 Grider, Barry Protecting The Truth From The Enemy VII 226 Haile, Tim Fiscus' Ignorance VII 103 Spiritual Invertebrates and "Optional" VII 134 Reflections Hailey's Commentary VII 150 "Even God Couldn't Do That" VII 274 The Antichrist Heresy VIII 32 Did Jesus Acquire Human Attributes VIII 201 Harkrider, Robert Can I Be A Christian Outside The Church' VII 72 Harshbarger, Randy Sowing The Seed of the Kingdom "The Struggles of Live" VII 79 Hayden, W. W. Following The Right Book VIII 192 Henry, Matthew Solomon Urges To Enforce This Caution VIII 258 Hillis, Roger Remember Your Creator In The Days Of Thy Youth Worldliness VII 73 The 3 Rs of Youth VI 17 Abortion VII 153 Honesty and Integrity VII 266 Hillis, Roger Why Are We Divided' VIII 102 The Need For Bible Authority VIII 137 The Silence of the Scriptures VIII 209 The Church and the Individual VIII 228 The Work of the Local Church VIII 253 Hinds, Ronnie A Drink VII 106 Holt, Jack L. Two Errors About the Person of Christ VII 239 Prelude To J.T.'s Questions VIII 3 Recycled Views of the Person of Christ VIII 8 My Answers to J.T.'s Questions VIII 49 Questions for J.T. VIII 52 My Defence of the Person of Our Lord VIII 53 Hughes, Mike News About Brethren VII. 18, 66, 91, 115, 139, 163, 187,211, 257, 280 VIII 19 67, 90, 115, 139, 163, 187, 210, 235, 283 Johnson, Arnold D. "Every Plant Which My Heavenly VII 157 Jones, Jean Woman's Page Twilight Years in the Home VIII 79 King, Sr., Daniel H. "And Be Thou A Blessing" VII 86 The Messiah and Bethlehem VII 136 "He That Doeth Righteousness Is Righteous" VII 155 The Hebrew Bible In Christian Thinking VII 181 Purity VII 226 I Will Bring Thee Down VII 267 Those Who Oppose Themselves VIII II "I Am Against Thee" VIII 121 Gospel Truths December Page 17 (281) The Best Way of All VIII 184 The Weighter Matters VIII 227 "Who Am I That You Have Brought Me.." VIII 248 King, Dwight Letters of Introduction VII 17 "Religious Heartburn" VII 208 Is Church Participation Essential?" VIII 41 Little, Wallace H. God's Real Religion Is VII 184 Two Basic Errors VIII I10 Lovelace, Bob W. Romans Meets The Challenge VII 33 Romans Meets The Challenge VII 54 Lovelady, Glen W. The Mongoose is Loose Again VIII 82 Lusby, James B. Do We Possess Bible Love VII 192 Martin, Don When Was The Last Time You Checked Your VII 96 Martin, Gene Steadfastness VII 216 Martin, Luther W. Earthen Vessels, Safes, and Safety Deposit Boxes VII 159 In One Generation VII 272 Mayberry, Mark Improving Our Worship VII 130 Moore, Billy W. About Preachers VII 286 McClure, Tommy Glendol Loophole Logic VII 278 McDonald, Jim Elders, Evangelists and Mutual Edification VIII 104 Elders, Evangelists and Mutual Edification # 2 VIII 15 I McKibbin, Danny "Specist" VI 186 Needham, James P. Current Events & Biblical Truth The Pope, Catholics and Evolution VIII 67 Needham, James P. The Holy Spirit - His Nature & Work #10 VII 10 Has Brother Lovelace Met the Challenge or VII 34 Is The Direct Indwelling Position Just A VII 81 The Holy Spirit - His Nature & Work #12 VII 97 A Solution To The Name Problem VIII 12 Grover Stevens, A Man of God " VIII 86 Grover Stevens, A Man of God " VIII 13' No Name Church VIII 158 Nobel, Mike "Think 'Teach," Not 'Results'" VIII 275 Nichol, C. R. Jesus Christ and Modernism VIII 144 Peters, Dan Even God Asked for the Book, Chapter, VII 139 Phillips, H. E. What Does the Scripture Say? Jesus, A Man of Prayer VII 57

31 Gospel Truths - December Page 18 (282) Making Excuses VII 83 No Other Gospel VII 110 Motives For Preaching VII 132 They Know Not Why The Came Together VII 154 Why Be Baptized? VII 180 Building Up The Church VII 228 When You Plainly Oppose Error VII 254 False Prophets Came Also Among Them VII 26 I The Effect of Defending False Teachers... VIII 145 Evangelistic Oversight VIII 172 What Is Hades? VIII 193 Can A Woman Serve As An Elder of Deacon? VIII 225 Preaching The Gospel of Christ VIII 252 Porter, W. Curtis The Proper Subjects of Baptism VIII 72 Ripley, Tony "A Certain Poor Widow" VII 279 Ripley, Tony - Teen Talk The Dilemma of Today's Teenagers VIII 63 Making Your Own Decisions VIII 85 Modesty VIII 107 The Influence of Our Friends VIII 155 Testing Your Awareness About M, D, & R VIII 183 New Books, New Clothes, and A New Attitude VIII 207 Come Young People, Arm Yourself! VIII 230 Learning By Experience VIII 250 Relationships of Family and Friends VIII 278 Rogers, Heath The Deity of Christ and Our Faith VII 37 Robertson, Earl E. Using God's Sword - The Word The Role of Women In The Church VII I The Role of Women in The Church #2 VII 3 1 Rupturing The Body VII 58 The Nature, Qualifications, and Work of Jesus VIII 127 Another Worker Departs (Bill McCuistion) VIII 138 Evangelistic Oversight VIII 174 Robinson, Jr., Bill Local Autonomy & Church Cooperation VII 145 The Power of Love VII 205 The Party Spirit VIII I Adultery and Forgiveness VIII 64 Since You Asked VIII 148 The Extremes of Self-Righteousness VIII 185 Romans 14: Divorce, Adultery and Controversy VIII 265 Savely, Harold F. Call The Right Number VIII 48 Schell, Tracy Dead Faith VIII 62 Scott, Walter The Sinlessness of Jesus VIII 168 Shear, James God's Answer to Pertinent Questions VII 55 Liberal Fog and "The Real World" VII 126 Cutting Through Liberal Fog VII 247 Strong in Faith, Weak in the Faith VIII 75 Shouse, Roger The Church and the Individual Christian VIII 181 Skinner, Conway "Peace, Peace; Where There Is No Peace" VII 120 Smith, Geneva Brown Woman's Page ME VII 61 The Greatest VIII 84 A Worthy Woman VII 109 Clouds VII 176 Dreams and Dreamers VII 210 Shh! VII 223 Anger VIII 3 1 The Sacredness of Marriage VIII 150 The Sacredness of Marriage - Part 2 VIII I82 The Sacredness of Marriage - Part 3 VIII 204 The Sacredness of Marriage - Conclusion VIII 222 Reverence VIII 247 Smith, J. T. Editorial Who Determines Ethics? VII 2 Continual Cleansing VII 26 Sinless Perfection (Or Does Man Have To Sin?) VII 50 Who Was Jesus? VII 74 The Godhood of Jesus VII 98 The Temptation of Jesus VII 122 Worry VII 146 Matters of Indifference and Romans 14 VII 170 The Conscience VII 194 Things That Must Be Believed VII 218 The One Container Question VII 240 Editorial PotpourrI VII 266 Jack Holt's "Jesus' Body Contained Two..." VIII 2 God's Covenants VIII 26 Philippine Trip VIII 50 "My Church" - Its Meaning VIII 76 The New Testament Church VIII 98 The New Testament Church - Part 2 VIII 122 A Baptist Tract VIII 146 Institutionalism - Why I Changed VIII 170 Reviewing A Baptist Tract # 2 VIII 194 How We Learn From The Bible VIII 218 Reviewing A Baptist Tract # 3 VIII 242 Editorial PotpourrI VIII 266 Smith, J. T. How Can We Have Unity? VII 80 Some Questions for Jack L Holt VII 244 Letter to Wallace Little VIII 114 Church Support of Orphan Homes VIII 179 A Good Friend and Faithful Servant Has Died VIII 210 Exalting Man Above Truth VIII 270 Historical Development... Fellowship... VIII 272 Smith, Shelby C. The Evil of Compromise VIII 24 Spears, Dudley How To Become A Christian VII 7 The Christian Church VII 40 Observations on Fellowship... VII 64 The Lord Gave His Church His Name VII 87 Are You Going to the Prom? VII 107 Balance In Sound Preaching VII 121 The Bible Does Not Mean What It Says VII 161 The Importance and Dignity of Preaching... VII I69 Not Baptized To Be Saved...? VII 224 The Smith-Wade Debate VII 246 The Ascension of Jesus Christ, Part I VII 275 The Ascension of Jesus Christ, Part II VIII 29 How to Become a Christian VIII 77 Reviewing Dr. Zodhiates VIII 156 Congregational Cooperation VIII 176 Fraternities and Morality VIII 245 Spears, Ross, Ph. D. Scientific Theories and the Bible It Most Certainly Probably Maybe Sorta... VII 193

32 Gospel Truths - December Page 19 (28-4) Causes and Effects or The Chicken and the Egg VII 220 Spence, Jr., Charles N. The Christian's Hope VII 156 Come Out Of The Closet VIII 36 Stevens, Grover Was Peter The First Pope #5 VII IS Was Peter The First Pope #6 VII 85 Was Peter The First Pope #7 VII 113 Was Peter Pope? (Conclusion) VII 128 "No Voice Answer Within" VII 174 Sutton II, Cloyce The Picture VII 217 Thomas, Kenneth E. Strong Preaching Has Always Been A Problem VII 77 Wrong Is Wrong VII 202 Getting To Know God VII 268 Do You Love and Want the Truth? VIII 34 The Kind of Preaching With Which Christ..." VIII 59 Billy Graham, A Really Good Man VIII 223 Greatness Involves Service VIII 254 Tucker, Dennis Baskin Robbins Preaching VII 135 Are We Teachable? VII 209 That He Might Test Israel VII 230 In Whose Image VIII 3 7 Turner, Robert F. Town-fool Worship VII 144 Wallace, Cled Men and Movements VII 260 Wallace Jr., Foy E. The Great Commission VIII 238 Ward, Jim - God's Pattern - The Way For Today Elders Have No Authority VII 12 When Simon Says Nothing VII 63 Waters, Robert Teamwork In The Game Of Life VII 158 Weaver, Walton - Bible Difficulties & Hard Sayings! How Does God "Create Evil?" VII 14 Casting Pearl Before Swine VII 89 Williams, Paul K. "No Such Custom" VII 5 Whiteside, Robertson L. Creating A Demand VIII 216 The New Volume 4 of GOSPEL TRUTHS (which will include the above indexed articles) will be ready sometime afte the first of the year. Get your order in now. ($ postage paid).

33 H. E. Phillips, P. O Box 1631, Lutz, FL On April of this year, twins (a boy, Tyler and a girl, Taylor) were born to Kristen and Scott Flatt who live in Lutz, Florida. The babies were delivered by Caesarian procedure and were born healthy. However, Kristen developed a fever and a higher than normal white blood count. The doctors thought it might be caused by an infection that she had developed due to the birth of her twins. After a few days and a few tests there was no change in her blood counts. A hematologist was called in and he made more tests of her blood and discovered a possible bone marrow disorder. She was in the hospital for 17 days and then finally sent home. After a week at home she returned to the hospital for a bone marrow aspiration and biopsy. The results came back that she had Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia. Kristen is the daughter of Wayne and Allison Kuykendall of Athens, Alabama and granddaughter of Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hendrix of Huntsville, Alabama. Her husband, Scott, is the son of Jerry and Elaine Flatt. His grandparents ar H.E. and Polly Phillips and V. L. Flatt all of Tampa, Florida. Kristen and Scott are a faithful young couple and loved by all who know them. They both have a positiv attitude about their future. They put their faith in God to bless them through the hard days and months ahead. W urgently need and ask for the prayers of faithful Christians, publicly and privately. Please pray for her often. After many months of tests and trips to H. Lee Moffitt in Tampa, M. D Anderson in Houston,Texas, and Fre Hutchinson in Seattle,Washington, it was decided that Kristen will receive a bone marrow transplant in Seattle. All o the doctors have told her that a bone marrow transplant is the only way she will survive this disease. Tests we performed on her sisters to be possible donors. Her younger sister, Katie, was a 5 out of 6 match. They searche for a perfect match in the bone marrow bank but did not find one. Katie will be the donor for the transplant T doctors give Kristen an 80 percent chance of success. Kristen and Scott, the babies, and their immediate families will fly out to Seattle on the day before Thanksgiving They will rent an apartment, look for furnishings, and try to get settled. After the Thanksgiving holiday their familie will return to their homes, except for Elaine and Allison. They must stay to help with the babies and Kristen whe she comes home from the hospital. It is very important to Kristen that her babies be there with her during h transplant The tests begin at the hospital on December 2nd. The transplant will take place on the 22nd of Decembe after two weeks of intense treatment She will then be in the hospital for about six weeks. These days will be critica Scott and Kristen have been told that they will be in Seattle at least 5 months and maybe longer. The docto and hospital expenses are covered by their insurance. This procedure is about $250,000. to $300,000. It is conservatively estimated that with living expenses, some medical tests expenses and travel expenses will be at least $30,000 to $45,000. This expense is not covered by insurance. Over $3,000 have already been paid for some o these expenses. This is a tremendous amount for a young couple like Scott and Kristen, even with help from the families. If you can and will help with some of these expenses, we would be extremely grateful. An account has bee opened at the Sun Trust Bank in Land O'Lakes, Florida in the name of Kristen Flatt Please send what you can Kristen Flatt P.O. Box 1586 Lutz, Florida They will be most grateful to you. But most of all we ask yo sincere prayers to God for Kristen. All gifts received will go toward Kristen's expenses.

34 Men One of the world's greatest needs is men! Men who are bigger than trifles; men with breadth of intellect and depth of character; men who will not stoop to cheat o be unfair; men who will not stand imperiously on their rights, but who in magnanimity of soul cast away personal advantage for the good of many; men who will not lie and defame, and steal to increase their own personal fame or fortune; men who would rather stand for the right in the end than to have their own way; men wh love the truth and are willing to die for it rather than to compromise with falsehood men who act upon principle in all their dealings with their fellowman rather than personal feelings either of bias or prejudice; men with clean hearts and pure motives; men who feel neither envy nor jealousy when one of superior endowments and greater ability surpasses what they have been able to achieve; men who are big enough to be satisfied with the place in the world for which they were created and fitted b the Divine Creator who made every man for a definite place in His infinite universe of time and space and sense. By A. Hugh Clark Taken from Northern Kentucky LIGHT