Published Monthly in Defense of the Ch~~rch Against All Errors and Innovations

“Thou hast given a banner to themthat fear thee, that it may be display-ed because of truth”-(Psalms 60:4)

“Lift ye up a banner upon the highmountain, exalt the voice unto them.”-(Isaiah 13:2)

NUMBER TWO FEBRUARY, ,1949 VOLUME ELEVEN

FALSE ARGUMENTS AND SCRIPTURE PERVERSIONS

R. L. WHPTESIDE

With the ideas some have, I do not see how they have any groundsfor urging aliens to repent. We have been told that aliens are not inCovenant with God-are not under his law, and ‘therefore the Lordtakes no notice of what they do. If this be true, ,they violate no law,and are therefore not ,sinners. Where then is there grounds for urg-ing them to repent? Repent of what? It was put this way in a ser-man I heard: “When a man becomes la Christilm he obligates him-self to do right.” And that ‘is saying ,that a man is under no obligationto do right till he becomes la Christian, If tan alien is under no obligationto do right, then he commits no sin in failing to do right-he commitsno sin no matter ‘what evil he does. He would be under no obligationeven ‘to beli,eve in ‘God or the Lord Jesus Christ, and would have no sinsto repent of. Can you think of a more vicious doctrine? ,It soundslike some of the phas,es of Russellism. nere is the way Scofield’s Biblestates the doctrine: “Acts is in two chief parts: In ‘the first section,1%9,43, Peter is th’e prominent personage, Jerusalem is the center,and the ministry to the Jews. Already in covenan’t relations with Je-hovah, they had sinned in rejecting LTesus as the Christ. The preaching,therefore, was directed to that point, and repentanmce. (i.e. a changeof mind) was demanded- - - - In ithe second division (10:1-128,31) Paulis promin,ent, a new center is established at ‘Antioch, sand the ministryis chiefly to Gentiles who, as ‘&Hangers from the covenants of promise’(Eph. 2:12), -had but to ‘believe on the Lord Jesus Christ’ ‘to Ibe saved.”These are strange statemeats, but consistent with the notion that ‘aliensare not responsible to God for what they do, It is plainly implied that,if the Jews had not been in covemant relations with God, they wouldnot have needed to repent of crucifying Jesus! And the Gentiles hadno sins to repent of, then they had none from which ‘to be saved. Be-sides, no Jew today was ever in covenant relations with God, ‘a hadbeen the Jews to whom Peter preached; for ithat covenant had Ween nailedto the cross. If Scofield wel;e correct, neitier Jew nor Gentile wouldnow need to repent. But Scofield’s Bible and God’s Bible do not agree,Jesus said that repentance should be preached ‘among all nations. And,when Peter explained his preaching to Qentilef, the brethren ,at Jer-usalem “held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles;also bath God granted repentance unto life.” And Paul told theAthenians that God now “commandeth men that they should all every-

2 THE BIBLE BANNER

where repent.” It is a pity that a man whoProfesses to be ‘a teacher of God’s word willignore plain statements of the Scriptures be-cause he cannot fit them into a fanciful theory.Of course, repentance in the passages mentionedincludes more than a mere change of mind.

AS to the condition of the Gentiles, there islittle difference between Scofield and PastorRussell. In a debate with a Russellite severalyears ago, one of the propositions I affirmed andhe denied was, that baptism was for the re-mission of sins to ‘Jew and Gentile alike, Hereadily .granted that baptism to Jews was forthe remission of sins, but denied that ‘any Gen-tile was ever baptized for the remission of sins.Even so. it is easy to see that both Scofield ,andthe ‘Russellite were more consistent on that pointthan brethren who contend that baptism is forthe remission of alien sins, and yet contendthat the alien, not being under any law to God,violated no law of God. But brethren who socontend are as wrong on this point as Scofieldand Russell. Paul speaks of “sinners of theGentiles.” (Gal. 2%). If the theory werecorrect, ‘we might well repeat Paul’s question,“Then how shall God judge the world?” TheJews had ibeen intrusted with the oracles of God,but had made such poor use of their blessings,that Paul makes this observation concerningthem and Gentiles: “What then? are we betterthan they? No, in no wise: for we before laidto the charge of both Jews and Gentiles, thatthey are all under sin.” (Rom. 3:1~9~). And tosee tbz degrading sins into which Gentiles hadfallen read Rom. 1:18-132. And the Jews wereno better-“all under sin.” Jesus came to savesinners, not to make sinners; the gospel is God’spower to save sinners, not to make sinners ofthose who hear it. (Think on these things.

How ,came Cornelius to need salvation? Onewri,ter said that Cornelius was “‘doubtlesslyserving the IGod of his fathers under patriarchy.”But patriarchy was not Ia religion, nor a formof worship, but a form of government. now-ever if the head of the family or clan worshipedJehovah, he was the priest and prophet for

the family or clan; but some of them, like La-ba.n, worshiped idols. Again : “The PatriarchalDispensation did not end at Sinai except to thedescendants of Abraham- - - - While the off-spring of Abraham was amenable to God underthe ltiw of Moses, Gentiles, to whom Moses’ lawwas never given, could serve him under thelaw that had been in effect since Eden waslost ,to Adlam land Eve.” ‘But many of the de-scendants of Abraham w,ere not included inthe covenant made at Sinai. The word dis-pensation occurs a few times in the New Test-ament, but never in the sense we attach to itwhen we speak of ,the three dispensations.

So far as we know Abel was ‘the first oneto offer a God-appointed sacrifice, and it doesnot appear that he was the head of a familyor clan. He was therefore not a patriarch,and it is certain that he did not pass on toCain or any other what God had revealed tohim. I do not think anyone will contend thatthe commlnds to Osin ‘and Abel were recordedfor the guidance of following generations. Itseems that the head of a family or clan, if heworshiped God, received r,evelations direct fromGod, just as did Abel. Joshua said to Israel,“Your fathers dwelt of old time beyond theriver, even Terah, the father of Abraham, andthe father of Nachor: and they served othergods.” (Joshua 24?42; see also verses 14, 15).The quotation is from the American StandardVersion. So Abraham came from iddl-worship-ing patriarchs. “Frathers” would include atleast his father and grandfather, and perhapsfarther back; and so he did not learn true wor-ship from them. God spoke to him as he didto others before his time. You will search invain for aany line of true worshipers from crea-tion to Abraham, and on down to Cornelius. AndI have seen no indication that any directions forpatriarchal government or worship was everwr:tten for their guidance. If it were bandeddown by word of mouth, it would be pervertedbeyond recognition in Ia few generations. ThatCornelius was ruler, prophet, and priest forhis family or clan is a mere guess, with no hint

T H E B I B L E B A N N E R

Entered as second class matter March 31. 1947. at the poet office at Lufkin.Texas, under the Act of March 3. ISiS. Published the 10th of each monthby the Roy E. Cogdill Publishing Company. Box 980. L&kin. Texas. at theoffice of The Banner Printing Company. 123 E. Dozier Street, Lufkin. Texas,Roy E. Cogdill. Publisher: Fey E. Wallace, Jr.. Editor: Cled E. WallaceCc-editor. Subscription rate $1.00 per year.

A S S O C I A T E E D I T O R S : R L. Whit&de. Dwton. Texas : J . Early Arceneaux. Lovelady. Texas ; C. R . Nichol. C l i f t o n ,Texas: W. Curtis Porter, Monet+. Arkansas :,O. C. Lambprt. 643 Magazine, Tupelo, Miss.: James W. Adams. Terrell. Texas.Ahy&yaTd_matter for publrcatum. subscnvtwvu and notaces of change of addresa to The Bible Banner, Post Office Boa 980.

* Published Monthly by the Roy E. Cogdill Publishing Company, Box 980, Luikin, TexasI

c

THE BIBLE BANNER 3

on which to base a guess.Cornelius may have learned about the true

God from the Jews. It seems that he-kept theJewish hour of prayer. Many Gentiles did learnabout God from the Jews. We do know thatCornelius knew much about the life, teaching,and miracles of Christ. Who knows but thatCornelius was the centurion present et thecruscifixion of Jesus ? Remember this: A manoannot make a ,guess without some basis forhis guess, and he cannot believe without evi-dence.

Here is a strange statement from our writer:“We firmly believe that Cornelius was not asinner until the appearance of the angel withinstructions that brought him and the entireGentile world in cov’enant relations with Christ.Inspiration records, without correction, thestatement of the man that had been healed ofhis blindness by the Lord (John 9:131), ‘Howwe know that God heareth not sinners. God,then, will not hear a sinner, but he did hear andanswer the prayers of the Rom’an centurion,Therefore the man was not a sinner ut thztime his prayers werz ascending unto the throneof God.” The Jewish authorities said Jesus wasa sinner, but they knew he was not an alien-th’ey knew he was ;n the covenant. The manborn blind knew Jesus was not an alien; andto make his language apply to an alien :s in-excusable. Baul of ITarsus prayed before hebecame a ‘Christian-prayed ‘while he was stillan alien, and the Lord was pleased in thfat he didpr;y. At that time he was still an alien, butnot an alien sinner. An (alien who has sincerelyrepented is not then an alien ninner, lhoughhe may not yet have been pardoned. That wasthe condition of Saul during the three days andnights he fasted and prayed. Nor was Corneliussinning when he was praying for more light, Ifyou will notice the answer he got you will knowwhat hc was praying for. The ‘angel told Cor-nelius that his prayer was heard; “Send there-fore to Joppa, and call unto thee Simon, whois surnamed Peter,” “who shall speak untothee words, whereby $00~ shalt be saved, thouand all thy house,”

I do not think I ever read a more startlingnotion by any brother than that the visit ofthe angel to Corn‘elius made Cornelius a sinnerand brought the entire Gentile ‘world into COV-enant relations with Christ. He was righteoustill the angel spoke to him and that turnedhim into ‘a sinner! ‘How come? Did not Cor-nelius immediately sst about doing what theangel told him to do ? What sin did he commit?The visit of an angel turned a righteous maninto Q sinner, and also the ent:re Gentile worldbecame sinners! Another strange thing-arighteous man prayed and was heard, but theprayer was answered after he became a sinner.

Cornelius the righteous man prayed, but Cor-nelius the sinner received the answer. Andlust how did the angel’s visit 1t.o Cornelius bringthe “entir,e Gentile world in covenant relationswith Christ” ? What is the nature of that co%enant that the entire Gentile world its in? Iha.ve xzver heard of such tan idea,

At the risk of being criticized, I make onepersonal reference that may help some youngpreiachers. I have said both publicly and pri-vately, “I have been given credit for knowingmore about the Bible than I really know, <and Ithink the reason for it is, I do not know somany things that are not Jso.” Think on this.Jf you do a lot of guessing, and make a lot ofassertions for which you have no sure biasis,people will rightfully conclude that you are nota careful Bible student.

By ADAM CLARKE

A comprehensive commentary in six vol-umes. Gives detailed introduction to eachboo’k of the Bible. Very helpful if usedwith discrimination ,_...,......._.................................. $19.50

“ASK YOUR PREACHER”By W. CURTIS PORTER

Contains six sermons that are just Whatthe title implies-questions to the preach-ers who teach for doctrines the command-ments of fnen. Excellent to hand to yourreligious friends. Paper bound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Oc

Write for Quantity Prices

ORDER FROM

ROY E. COGDILL PUBLISHING CO.BOX 980 LUFKIN, TEXAS

4 T H E B I B L E B A N N E R

C H R I S T I A N F E L L O W S H I PTED W. MC ‘ELROY, Okmulgee, Oklahoma

The question of what and who to fellowshipis ‘a perplexing problem fraught with manydangers. In the solution to the problem thereare certain S~criptur%s which serve as guide-posts, and the danger lies in ignoring the Scrip-ture. If we follow the Scripture we will beunquestionably right, but if we extend ourfellowship ‘beyond Scriptural bounds we getinto the realm of darkness,

The word fellowship is from the Greek“koinonia” which Thayer defines: “fellowship,association, community, communion, joint par-ticipation, intercourse.” Webster defines fel-lowship : “state of being ,a fellow or associate;community of interest, activity, feeling; friend-liness, comradeship; any union or laesociation,esp. a company of equals or friends.” Thereis fellowship when people are united in workingto accomplish a certain purpose or reach a cer-tain goal. There is no fellowship between an-tagonistic parties. People mtay work togetherin fellowship in numberless activities. Politicalfellowship is when the members of a politicalparty are working together for the election ofthe candidates of the party. Civic fellowshipis when citizens of the community are workingtogether ‘to accomplish a definite goal for theircommunity. Criminal fellowship is when !a gangof outlaws iare working together to break thelaw ,and perpetuate a crime. So the nakedword fellowship does not indicate the goal to-ward which ‘the fellowship is directed nor thekind of fellowship that is meant.

Christian fellowship means the working to-gether of Christians to reach Christian goals.There can‘ be no Christian fellowship wherethere ‘are no Christians, there may be fellow-ship but it is not Christian fellowship, In theScripture the word Christian is used as a nounonly, and denotes la person who has believed onthe Lord, repented of sins, confessed faith inChrist, land been baptized for the remission ofsins. There can be no Christian fellowship,if the person has not obeyed the gospel to be-come a Christian. In common vernacular theword Christian is also used as ‘an adjective toshow specifically that ia,n item is part of thereligg:on ‘and teaching of Christ. If doctrineis in truth in harmony with what Christ taught,it is said to be Christian doctrine. If la teachingis untrue, out of harmony with what Jesustaught, it is said to be unchristian. The NewTestament is the standard and source of allthat can properly Ibe called Christian, If areligious notion is not found in the New ffesta-ment, or is contrary ‘to the New Testament, it isunchristian. So in the phrase “Christian fel-lowship,” the word Christian puts a limit on

the word fellowship, If you extend the fellow-ship beyond the limits of the word Christian,you just do not have Christian fellowship.

In genuine Christian fello’wship the first andparamount purpose is to have fellowship withGod an’d the Lord Jesus Christ. I John 1:3‘*That which we have ,seen and heard declarewle unto you also, that ye also may have fellow-ship with us: yea, #and our fellowship is with theFather, and with his Son ‘Jesus Christ.” Manyclaim fellowship with the Lord, but who inreality ar’e not in fellowship with him. I John1:6-i’ “If we say we have fellowship with himand walk in darkness, we lie, and do not thetruth: but if we walk in the light, as he is inthe light, we hlave fellowship one with another,and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth usfrom Cl1 sin.” This shows that Christian fel-lowship is not just a working arrangement andagreement among men-it i,s with God. Thispassage teaches that if we will seek and main-tain fellowship with God, that our fellowshipwith men will in a large measure atake care ofitself. Christ is the center of Christian fellow-ship, and all who tare united to him are therebyunited with each other. All who work in fel-lowship with his will are working in fellow-ship with each other.

Many have misplaced their fellowship; theyemphasize and seek fellowship with men, with-out regard to fellowship with Christ. (Fellow-ship built on human friendship, human doctrine,hurnlln practice is not Christian fellowship be-cause it leav’es Christ out. Notice that thereis forbidden fellowship. Eph. 5:!ll “And haveno fellowship with the unfruitful works of dark-ness, but rather reprove them,” 2 Cor. 6:14 ‘Benot unequally yoked with unbelievers: for whatfellowship have righteousness and iniquity? orwhat communion hath light with darkness?”Wha,t is the consequence of holding forbiddenfellowship with ‘darkness? I John ,1:6 “If wesay we hlave fellowship with him iand walk indarkness, we lie, and d’o not the truth.” Whenone forms a fellowship with a person, doctrine,or practice that is inimical to lChrist, such aone forfeits his fellowship with Christ. This,establishes the point, that some fellowship isnot Christban fellowship. There tare many thingsthat I do not want fellowship with, bec.ause suchfellowship would destroy my fellowship withChrist.

(1) I want no fellowship with denominational-ism. Jesus prayed, ‘“Neither for these onlydo I pray, but for them also that ibelieve on methrough th’eir word; that they may be one;even as thou, /Father, art in me, land I in thee,that they also may be One in us that the world

T H E B I B L E B A N N E R 5

may believe that thou did& send me.” (JohnlT:20-21). The division inh.erent in denomina-tional&m is contrary to the will and prayer ofChrist, ‘and if I form ta fellowship ‘with thatwhich is inimical to Christ I forfeit my fel-lowship with Christ, I do not regard denomlna-tionalists as Christians, because they have notobeyed the gospel; therefore I cannot haveChristiian fellowship with them. Some preachersdo fellowship denominational preach’ers and callon them to lead prayers ‘etc., but such fellow-ship i’s not Christ&n fellowship.

(‘2) I want no fello’wship with digressive in-strumental music. ‘Paul ,said, “Let the word ofChrist dwell in you richly; in all wisdom teachingand ‘admonishing one Ianother with psalms andhymns and spiritual songs, singing with gracein your hearts unto God” (Cal. 13:16), In orderto use the instrument ,and fellowship the di-gressives, one must stretch his fellowship be-yond the word of Christ. I certainly do notwant to break fellowship with Christ, just togain fellowship with ‘the digressives. In recentyears (some preachers ‘among us arranged andentered fellowship meetings with the digressives;in such meetings they walked in darkjness be-cause they certainly had no light from [Christ todirect them in ,that course. When the ,digres-sives give up their unchristian instrumentsand have fellowship with Christ, I will try tobe right there and have fellowship with themat the same time.

(3) I want no fellowship with premillennial-ism. Paul said, “Who delivered us out of thepower of darkness, and translated us into the

kingdom of the Son of his love” (‘0~1. 1%).Premillennialism denies the establishment andexistence of the kingdom and the fulness ofChrist Ias king. I certainly do not want tofellowship a Christ dethroning doctrine becauseit is not compatifbl,e with fellowship with theFather and with his Son Jesus Christ. Somebrethren have shed floods of crocodile tearsover the fact that every one did not get out themantle of fellowhip to Ithrow over the pre-millennialists. It is true that there is a fellow-ship built up around premillennialism, but itis not Christian fellowship land I want no partof it.

(4) I want no fellowship with defectionsfrom the church nor schemes which destroy thesimplicity of the ;ospel. Eph. ‘192~23 “And heput all things in subje&ion under his feet,and gave him to be head over all things tothe church, which is his body, the fulness of himthat filleth all in #all.” ‘The church is the fulnessof ‘Christ, and I want no fellowship with anydefection that corrupts the organization of thechurch or makes the church subservient to ahuman institution. Rom. l:d6 “For I am notashamed of the gospel: for it is the power ofGod unto salvation to every one that believeth;to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Iwant no fellowship with any missionary schemethat puts the emphasis on anything other thanthe gospel of Christ,

In conclusion remember to be tiareful withfellowship, and be sure it is centered in Christand his word. If ‘we extend fellowship beyondthe light of Christ into realms of darkness,we break fellowship with Chist.

A N E P I D E M I CARTHUR tW. WHITE, ‘Safford, Arizona

“And the Spirit of Jehovah began to movehim.” Judges ‘13325. There is a continual mov-ing ‘and shifting of views on points of obedienlce,but those actions are not directed by the Spiritof Jehovlah. There seems to be a “MovementMania” that has developed into 8n incurableepidemic. IWhen once one is affected with itno (amount of tender loving care or strongmedi’cine or rebuke seem to stay its onwardstridle. Unless the diseased organ is quicklyremoved roots and all, “Movement Mania” willsoon develop into “Promoters Phobia.” Thevictim has then reached ‘a place where he fearsto take the prescription prescribed by the GreatPhysician. He also holds fears for the peoplewho mare satisfied taking the undiluted medicineprescribed by the ‘Savior of mankind.

The first signs or symptoms of this “mania”sare a few “unsound” words. The victim is soonovercome by his statements, especially if hereceives #a little sympathy from another who

is (afflicted ‘with the 6ame silment, ‘Be it in thesame congregation or from “far away places,”there is perfect unity among ‘them. ‘He beginsto call for money to help support the “balbymonster” that he has dreamed into being. Asproof that his “dream” is scriptural he willrefer you to another ideia that is being “spon-sored” which is as #absurd as his. ‘Or he maygarble some statement of (a pioneer to claimhis support. It seems that (two wrongs areboth right if they have the right promoters!!

Encampments, rallies, lodges, rest homes,homecomings, money drives for schools, orphanhomes, endowments, etc. have oamped besidethe church ~treasury and each promoter is therejustifying his claim on the ground that othermovements have been accepted ,and thereforehis is a worthy enterprise.

The “Movement Mania” has struck in manydifferent communities, If i’t is cured in one

(Cont%nued on page 10)

6 T H E B I B L E B A N N E R

S O U N D S P E E C HWRIGHT RANDOLPII, San ~Bernaclino, Californ+a

The second chapter of Titus records Paul’sadmonition to Titus. In this admonition we notethat Paul is no little concerned about the wayand manner in which one speaks and acts to-ward the doctrine of Christ. It is agreed thatwords are lbut the expression of ideas; “As aman thinketh so is he.” The heart is the seatof one’s thoughts. Words are the channelthrough ‘which these thoughts are expressed.By what a man says we are able to know whathe thinks concerning anything; provided, ofcourse, he is an honest man. Sometimes whenone finds himself in a hard place doctrinallyhe will complain that he is misunderstood. Itstill remains ‘a fact though, that the only waywe have of knowing what one thinks is by whathe says. Surely we should be table to expressourselves and if our words do not #correctly rep-resent Iwhat we ‘think, we should not use suchwords. However, I am convinced ‘that it ‘is notalways a case of being misunderstood but ratherof being understood, correctly. He is a noblesoul whe is willing, when having conveyed awrong thought by what he says, to retract sucha statement and make the correct one ratherthan accuse ,a11 others of being void of under-standing.

I have before me an advertisement of“YOIJTH INSTITUTE ON THE BIBLE” inwhich there appears a ‘SPECIAL NGTE reading“Ministers and Sunday School Teachers are en-couraged to publicize this meeting in THEIRIJOCAL CHURCHES tand to encourage their highschool ‘age young people to attend and to partic-ipate in the speech events.-(emp. mine)

When speaking concerning tahe doctrine ofChrist, Paul ‘would encourage sound speech.He further says; “showing uncorruptness”. Cor-ruption is a nasty thing and when speaking ofthat which has to do with the doctrine of ChristPaul does not want one to use words that smackof corruption or rottenness; lbut to use theopposite, “sound speech”. The matter of owner-ship of the church is important laind with re-spect to the doctrine of Christ holds a place ofprime importance. We have labored, for thethese many years, to get people to recognizethat the church belongs to Christ. It is notours in any sense. And yet the writer of thisannouncement would have ‘the ministers and theSunday School teachers (sounds rather official)to publicize this meeting in THEIR localchurches, I am never alarmed when one ofthe denominational world uses such an expres-sion; we rather expect it of them. But frompreachers and <teachers, and no doubt the onewho wrote ,this was both, to use such an ex-pression is inexcusable. What are ‘they trying

to do? Help the sects to win the fight andconvince all that it is *‘your church”, “mychurch”, “our church” etc. ?

What is this “YOUTH INSTITUTE ON THEBIBLE” anyway? I have read extensively inthe Bible and never ran across such a thing tomy knowredge. Maybe it is there wrappedup in some of the simplicity of the Bible andI just didn’t show enough intelligence to rec-ognize it, It is to be, I think, a discussion ofthe Bible, IMost of the subjects announced seemto bc vitally connected with the Bible. Perhapsthere might be one exception “Bible BaseballGame”. I’m not so sure about this. Could bethat the reign of the Cleveland Indians as cham-pions of the baseball world is nearing an end:out of this might arise a new champion. I doknow that a good many congregations have be-come baseball conscious and have provided achurch team to compete with the denominations.Another example of acting in a strange waytoward the church and the doctrine of Christ.I know of at least one instance where certainmembers of a certain congregation could notremain for a night service because ‘they justhad to get ‘back ‘for the game in which THEIRteam ‘was playing; but with little chance ofwinning because the preacher wouldn’t be thereto play, I notice that in this “YOUTH INSTI-TUTE ON ‘THE BIBLE” there is to be an award-ing of prizes to winners in certain events. Itis possible that this would not constitute gam-bling but it is far from “sound speech” whenconnected with the doctrine of Christ. However,this seems to be a function of a college and notof the church. I ‘am most certain thlat the spon-sors of same would so contend and that it waswithin their right to stage a “YOUTH IN-STITUTE ON THE BIBLE” if they so desire.A college or any organization may have suchright IF in so exercising such right they do notinfringe on the doctrine of Christ or the church.Our criticism of such action is on the groundthat almost without #exception the church isinvolved. They say it is not a church affair nora function of the church BUT they ‘are alwayscon’cerned about the church coming to theirrescue in the matter of support. They wantpreachers to make strong ,announcements oftheir activities and encourage the youth to sup-port them. So it is with Tanda Lodge landsome other organizations. They tell us it isnot a part of ‘the church and they do not askthe church to take care of it; however, theydo not hesitate to send out written requeststo churches and members at large ‘asking forliberal contr3butions. Not only do the outsiders

(Continued on page 16)

.THE BIBLE BANNER 7

‘WY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER”CHARLES L. HERON, Arlington, Texas

The title of Ithis article is a quotation fromJesus ‘when He drove from the temple them thatbought and sold. On two occasions Jesus drovefrom the temple those who did not have properrespect for ‘the house of worship. (John 2and ‘M,att. ‘21) Although there is a great dealof likeness #between them they are not the sameoccasion. Once Jesus said: “You have made ita den of thieves.” The other: ‘Make not myFather’s house a house of merchandise.”

Since there is nothing in the New <Testamentjust to take up space, there is ‘a grand purposefor the #Holy Spirit’s preserving this for ourlearning. That purpose is that we may haveproper respect for things dedicated to the ser-vice and worship of ‘God. Although we allknow there is a world of difference (between the“meeting house” an,d the church of our Lord,there ‘are many examples ,given to teach us torespect the ‘$house of prayer.”

The position I am taking is not the one takenby all my preaching brethren, even some of myclose friends, but it is the position which I be-lieve to be safe and right, and irs, therefore, theposition I shall hold until some Scripture begiven Ito prove it wrong. I find a certain ‘amountof satisfaction in opposing anything I believeto be contrary to the truth of God.

A LOOK AT THE TEMPLE ANDTABERNACLE

(and applications made)

When God led the people into the wilderness,away from the iIdolatry of Egypt He orderedthem to build Him a house. In Exodus 25:8 Hecalled his house 8 sanctuary-a holy, dedicatedplace. This fact alone suggests that it was tobe used for a special purpose-the worship ofGod. In Lev. 17:4-6 God spake of #this sanctuaryas ‘a “place of sacrifice ond worship.” In Lev.8:,10 Moses Itiakes the oil of dedication anddedicated not only Ithe tabernacle, but the fur-nishings as well. Why did he ‘so do ? Did thisceremony change the building so far as onecould see? No! ‘Why, ‘then, ‘the ceremony ?God desired Ithat all get the significance of thissanctified, dedicated place of the Lord. Allwill recall ,that all ,that was done in, and con-cerning the ,tabernacle must be faccording to thecommand of the Lord. In Lev. ,lO, when Nadaband Abihu would use “strange bre,” contraryto the command of tire ILord, they paid for theirfolly with their lives. The same is true of Uzzah,in his touching the Ark. 9 Sam. 6:5-6. We haveso long iapplied these things ,to denominationalerror that most of us think the ‘Holy Spiritplaced these on record for that purpose, only.Concerning the former error God said: “I will

be sanctified in ‘them that come nigh me candbefore all the people I will be glorified.”

Sure! there is condemnation in these fordenominational error, but the people with whomGod ‘was then dealing were not in denominational‘error. Let’s not overlook the lesson there forours’elves.

When we come ‘to study the temple the firstthing that impresses us is that it surpassed thetabernacle ,almost beyond our conception. InI Chron. ‘17:‘11-12 it was made known that Sol-omon was to ‘build <the Temple. God called ita “house of God ” ‘and He was speaking of thetemple. In I Cl&n. 28:lO it ,too, was called asanctulary. When this temple was finished itwas dedicated to the worship of God. Solomon,in his prayer of dedication, spake of it severaltimes Ias “The Lord’s house,” “a place of prayerand sacrifice, worship.” In 2 Chron. ‘I:16 Godaccepts this temple as “His house.” and “hal-lowed it.” In Esek. 43:2 we learn the templewas “sanctified” Exek. 42:13-14 i t vies %a-cred.” “but,” says someone, the meeting houseis not sanctified! Could you prove that? I haveheard of their being “dedicated” even by men.But if we should agree that the meeting houseis not sanctified, don’t forget the things thatmade ,the temple sacred, sanctified. Have youever :%sked yourself why they were ? ,When Godappeared to Moses in the burning bush Hetold Moses Ithat the ground around there washoly. How oame Ithat part of a sheep-pastureholy ? It had not been before. Why was itthen ? Why wils it not ,thereafter? You cansee the why, It was, then, dediloabd to theservice of God. The presence of God, the Gloryof God was ‘there.

lABUSE AND MISUSE OF DEDICATEDTHI’NGS

While Israel was wandering in the wildernessthey were to keep holy ‘the Sabbath which Godhad “hallowed.” That day was no differentfrom any other day except that God had com-m,anded that it be kept “holy.” God hallowedit, God ‘also made it clear ithat failure to respectthe sacredness of that day was punishable bydeath. In Num. 115:132-36 there is a sad accountof a poor fellow who reasoned that it was nodifferent from any other day, in any sense.He died for polluting the Sabbath of the Lord.

We learn from Ezek. 44:5-9 that to bring theuncircumcised into the ,temple was to polluteit. In Acts 21:28-29 Paul was charged, by apmjudiced mob, of committing such a sin. Hewas not guilty; lbut this account informs U S

that, even though their religious convictionswere shallow, they knew it was for them to

8 T H E B I B L E B A N N E R

show respect for the house of God.When Nebuchadneztiar invaded Jerusalem (2

Kings 124 & m) he ‘took from the temple thevessels which were used in the services and car-ried them away into Babylon where they wereplaced in the palace. About fifty years laterBelshazztir is reigning instead of Nebuchadnez-zar, While! entert,aining a thousand of his lordsand ladies (so ‘they were called) he ssent forthose vessels and commanded they be used in thedrunkenness and revelry. Isn’it there something‘significant to Ittie fact that at that momentappeared the hand writing on the wall ? Sup-pose I Iask why this sudden condemnation? Wasit because they were ‘drinking? ‘Was it, purely,because they had ,no regard for right? Was itbecause ‘they did not respect the LoFd? No,these were not the reasons. They welle a peoplewho had ever ‘been given [to such sins. If youdesire the real answer ‘to Ithe question listen toDaniel v/hen he is giving the King the me’aningof the hand writing. “- - - - And ‘thou, his son,0 Belshazzar hast not humbled thine heart,though thou knewest all bthi,s; But hast liftedup #thyself against th’e Lord of heaven; andthey have brought the vessels of His house be-fore thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives,and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them- -”Is there ‘any guessing about the matter? I amstating that it. is ia dangerous thing to use forsome earthly purpose the things that have beendedicated to the service of the lord.

Yes, I agree, these things were sacred. Andagain I ask why ‘were they sacred? The templeand tabernacle ,and ‘their furnishings were sa-cred for some ,two or three reasons, Because ofthe presence of the Lord. Beclause of the lawof the Lord. Beclause of lthe blood or, the sac-rifices. I learn from watt. ;18:20 that “Wheretwo or Uhree are gamered together- - -” theLord is there in the midst of them. We can’tsee (Him. Neither could Moses see Him inthe bush, but He was thkre, and even the groundabout was, ‘therefore, holy. In Acts lo:33 Cor-nelius said: “- - - we are la11 here present be-fore God- - - ” I know there is a ‘sense in whichwe ar.e (always present before (God, but whenwe come to the house of the Lord, when \Necome to worship etc. we are. present with theLord in an unusual way. In the ‘Hebrew letterthe Apostle, or writher goes into detail to makeus see how much more were the things of thenew covenant than anything under the old: TheMediator, the ‘bw, the &!crifice, the Promises,the Prfesthood, etc. In the Tabernacle therewent ‘the blood of bulls and goats “which couldnot ‘take away sin,” while in the meeting housewe have Ithe emblems of the blood of ;the Lordwhich ban, in no manner, be compared to theiblood of bulls ,and goats, so far as it,s atonementis concerned.

MEETING HOUSE NOT A SOCIAL NOR REC-REATIONAL CENTER

(and should not be used as such)

The tim,e ‘has come when one can go into somemeeting houses and find anything from a modernkitchen to a morgue. Anything one desires todo he can find the means in some of our modernmeeting houses. T&e exerdise, play ping-pong,read magazines, listen ‘to ‘the radio, or even theorgan, piano (for special occasions, however)cook ‘and eat a meal, Itake a nap, play pool, orwell, what do you want to do? If we don’t haveit ‘we’ll put it in,

I know, by observation, if by no other means,that these things have no place in Ia house ofworship, I list a few reasons why I say thesethings should never be in the place of worship,First, they divide brethren. Yes, there are agreat many who still insist on doing things asthey should be done-according to the Scrip-tures. They will not endorse the above. Whenth’ey stand for the truth ias they should a di-vision is likely to follow. I was on aa lecture,not a thousand miles from Arlington, ‘and lessthan Ia hundred years ago, and while b,eing shownthrough their new building wherein are many ofthe things mentioned above, I asked my guide,and brother, “Well, just ‘what ,do you really ‘thinkabout all this ?” He dropped his eyes to thefloor land ‘answered: “Perhaps it is all very well,but I do know we have lost some of the bestmembers this congregation ever had just be-clause of these very things,” I could get no moreout of him. That was ‘enough. If Ia ‘thing werepkrfectly alright in itself, yet is ‘a matter ofexpediency, it becomes sinful when its intro-duction causes ‘a division among brethren. Apreacher friend, sand a good fellow, I know, toldme some time ‘ago that he could not get ‘alongwith the eldership where he was preaching,They ‘were, as he put it, “good men,” but theydid not like it when he conducted Ia Halloweenparty in the church building. Division is sinfuland when ‘things, not involving doctrinal truth,caube divisions, (then the things are sinful.

Second, perhaps this should heave been first,but I am not trying to list these in order oftheir importance, ‘these things rob Ithe servicesof Ithe church of its spirituality. It is littlewonder thlat so many fail to be impressed withthe spiritual significance of the worship services.When a congregation tries to compete witheverything from a cafe to tan undertaking es-tablishment it is bound to have its #effect on all,both young and old. Paul rebuked the Cor-inth’ilans for their misuse of the Lord’s ‘Suppes-some became drunk, land others ‘showed dis-respect by bringing their ordinary meals ‘to theplace of worship. In this rebuke Paul askeda question. ‘Will you hear it? “What? haveye not houses to eat and drink in? or despise ye

T H E B I B L E B A N N E R 9

the church of God, ‘and shame ‘them that havenot ? What? shall I praise you in this ? Ipraise you not.” (‘I ‘Car. 11:22) True, I knowthey were not discerning the ‘Lord’s body andblood. But what of ‘the question: “Have younot houses in which ‘to eat Iand drink ?” All ofus who have pointed out the reasonable infer-ence, what about Ithe reasonable inference here?I have no better sense than to think the apostleis inferring ‘that such is not to be done in theplace of worship, - eating an ordinary meal,

Third, these things lower the activities ofthe congregation ‘to a sectarian level. I knowone should not shrink from doing o thing justbecause ‘the sects are doing it. I slso knowthere is no reason ,FOR doing La thing just be-cause they are. As for the ‘things I’m men-Itioning, some would not be the least out ofpl’aoe in any secbarilan church in ‘the country.It should be impossible for ‘the world ‘to see anylikeness between the church of our Lord ‘andSectarianism.

Fourth, this is all unfair to your youth. Itis a good thing ‘some of us have “our youngpeople.” Any ‘time one ‘desires ‘to bring some-thing unscriptural into the affairs of the church,we hear: “We must do something for our youngfolk.” I say #this young folk problem, which isnot really a problem, at least of the church, asa church, is la11 unfair to ‘the young people.Some have talked about this so long ‘they havemade ‘the youth in the congregations over theland think they ARE a problem to the church.The greatest problem of the young folk of ourday, if there is ‘any problem, ‘is the parents. Iget tired of ,this askting rthe leadership of thechurch: ‘What is the church doing for mychildren?” What are you doing? If it is truethat the church is not doing anything, it is stillup Iwith ‘a good mlany parents lin the church.Don’t misunderstand, I ‘think it is a fine thingfor ‘Christi’an parents, to get together, as Christ-ian pare&s, and provide Ithings of a wholesomenature for the young folk, I think we shouldbring, ‘and keep them Itogether. I think weshould be willing ‘to spead ourselves, ,and ourmeans toward that end. As Christian parentswe should do ‘this. But let us not try to shiftour God-given responsilbihties, ‘as parents, tothe leadership of ‘the #church. The church is nota social institution. When one becomes a par-ent, he just then becomes responsible for hischild, socilally, as well as ‘every other way, Ifcaring for lthe young, socially, were ‘a problem ofthe church, then, Ithat man who is not a memberof the church, but who has a house full of ohild-ren, would have no such responsibility at all.What tare you doing for your children? Fatherhas his work, his golf, his club, his fishing, hisloclge. Mother has about ithe same crowdedprogram. Her housework, (which must not

include caring for children) her dircle, bridge,tea, shopping< and too, she must spend a day orso a month in some meeting learning how tobring up her children, ‘while some other moth-ers ‘are Nat home, or some other suitable placedoing just ‘that, while her own are itucked awsyin (the picture show or roaming the streets,If we are really too (busy to care for our children,live with them, play with them, take an interestin their interest etc. then, ‘we ‘are (too busy tohave children. If ,the best we can provide for ourchildren, socifally is the ‘auto ride, the road house,dance floor, bathing pool, #and the picture thea-tre; there Is no need to try ‘to dress up the meet-ing house and attract them, ‘and at the sametime maintain in them a respect for the houseof the Lord.

I have ‘a world of confidence in our youngfolk, I think they tare the finest yet. They areld’oing well ‘considering the examples set be-fore some of them. The dishonest, and profanefathers, (the cocktail-sipping, dancing, cursing,smoking mothers have no right to expect any-thing better of their children. But the youngfolk are no problem to ‘the church, they havebeen made sthe “gdat” when something is beingdone Ithat is not in keeping with the Word ofGod. Our youth will have just Ias much ‘interestin worship services ‘today ss they ever did ifwe will keep the meeting places “places ofprayer.”

PROMOTERS IN TEE FIELD

Yes, this, like every other sin has its pro-moters, I think, however, most are engagedin ‘i;t quite unconsciously. First, there Iare theover-enthusiastic teachers land preachers, Thosewith more seal Ithan knowledge. If ‘we can takeover lthe responsibility of Ithe children that willplease the busy parents, ‘and we shall be in de-mand. We get concerned labout our youngfolk and insist that #this or that be done in orderto “save them.” We persuade ‘the elders, andhere it is. In (the many years I have beenpreaching I have met more unreasonable preoch-ers, in matters of ithis sort, than elders lsnddeacons. I #once preached for a church wherethere was la very fine young lady who taughtone of the clrasses. IShe got so much concernedwith the young folk (that, without the permission,or ithe knowledge, of the leadership, she tookthe class, all dressed up es spooks and goblins,to ,the meeting house and conducted a Halloweenparty. Yes, ‘the intentions of such enthusiasticworkers may tall be very good, but they must becontrolled by those who have knowledge alongwith {the zeal.

Others who ‘are promoting this sin are thethoughtless parents, As already mentionedwe have led them to believe that ,the responsi-bility of oaring for their children is Ito be givento the le’adership wf the church, Their firs’t,

10 THE BIBLE BANNER

and perhaps last, thought is that something isbeing ‘done for children, with little, or no con-sideration for whether that thing is in keepingwith the wishes of the Lord. .

Finally, often this is promoted ‘by ithe leader-ship. Not that ‘they desire to do anything thatis not proper, but they, doubtless, h’ave notgiven such matters ‘the proper amount ofthought. They htave not discovered ‘that suchis not in keeping with the purpose for whichthe meeting house was erected. They desire tohave peace an,d are willing !to pay the priceof cheapening (the services, and the place itselfin order #to htave Ithat peace.

If Christian parents desire ‘to contribute oftheir funds to provide ‘things of a social, rec-reational ntature for youth, ,ana even to build ahouse in which such is Ito Ibe done, ,that will bewell land good. Such a move might well havethe endorsement of all. But when the leadershipof ‘the congregation raises a sum of moneyto build a “house of worship,” land then usestwenty-five percent of that money in providingthese social land recreational things, iit is nothingless than obtaining money under false pretense.

The buyers and sellers of Jesus’ day werenot engaged in ‘an illegitimlate business but theywere doing business in the name of religion,and in ,the “house of prayer.” There is no realevidence that ‘they were .dishonest, as somehave ventured. Jesus did say: “- - - you hwemade it ‘a den of thieves- - -,” but some scholars,including Adam Clarke, suggest that they werethieves in that they were not serving SOUkd in,the tempIe ,819 they pretended to be, and the verynature of ,their business in the temple robbedit of its ~d@nity. There can be no question thatJesus was speaking of the temple when heused the term “~house” in the passages men-tioned. “You have made it- - - ” Their b u s -

iness there did not pollute the “family” of GOa,

but, rather, ‘His temple.If we would have all to respect the “house of

the Lord,” whether the family of the temple,let’s keep ,the place of worship a “house ofprayer.”

A N E P I D E M I C(Continued from page 5)

place it breaks out in ianother. Its luever-dyingspirit bas produced many promoters withgreat ? ?imaginations-from local “building com-mittees” to that of evangelizing a nation.

All of these moves ,snd drives are foreignto #the New Testament “pattern of soundwords.” The first century Christians “wenteverywhere preaching the word,” and wholecities would turn out to hear them. I wonder

if they had some skilled promoter conductingthose “rallies” ? ?

Watch the fellow who is trying to promoteanything besides New ITestament Christianity.He is like a ‘6Pocket Ben” trying to correctthe regulator.

The regulator of Christianity is correct. TheChristian is correct ‘and i’s “redeeming thetime” when he “sets his affections on thingsabove” and “runs with patience the race thatis set before him”. Christ hbas mapped thecourse and set lthe pace. It is unwise ,to enterinto any other regardless of how much hasbeen spent in promoting it and how strongthe “sponsorship.”

“Now or Never” and “We must strike now”are the often repeated statements of m~anyrabble-rowing promoters. In his h1sst.e andfear, Smaul “forced” himself to offer a burntoffering (I Sam. 1’3:12). Saul thought, sincethe people had scattered and the enemies wereall around him with Samuel already late, “ItsNow or Never.” It would have been betterfor Saul if it had been “Never.” Often themodern “promoter” forces himself to promoteschemes ‘that the Lord has not commanded.“The :Lord is not slack concerning his prom-ise- - - ” 2 Pet. ‘3:9. Remember, Samuel camejust as soon as ffiaul had finished his offering.We must (accept God’s plan instead of sub-mitting another plan for others Ito accept.

The Certif,ied Gospelby Fey E. Wallace, Jr.

ORAL SERMONS IN THE INIMITABLE

STYLE OF FOY E. WALLACE, JR.,

TRANSCRIBED A ND PRINTED INEASILY READ TYPE AND BOUND IN

BEAUTIFUL BLUE CLOTH BINDING

$ 3 . 0 0

Some of the Subjects ---

The #Certified Gospel, nestoring the An- *cient (Osder, God’s Law of Conversion, $Broken ICisterns, The Music Question, $The Boll Movement, and many others,

=:

Order from =:

Roy E. Cogdill Publishing Co. =:gBox 980 _:_ Lufkin, Texas

$

THE BIBLE BANNER 11

THE CHURCH AND WORLDLINESS--NO. 2ROY El. -DILL

(Continued from January issue)

The third principle is this: Does it have aweakening influence on others, and will it be-come a stumblinbg block to them? A lot ofpeople say Ito me, “I do not care what othersthink about what I do.” If you care what isright, and you are u Christian, then you do carew,hat they think, because you care what theaffect of what ‘you do is upon another. Paultaught that if a man can eat meat that hasbeen sacrificed unto idols, and it did not violatehis conscience, then ‘it ‘was not wrong for himto eat it. He could eat it with a good conscience,nothing wrong involved in it. Yet if when heate that meat he caused another brother tostumble and violate his conscience, by so doingit would be wrong for him to do it. Let meread the passage. The word of God 5s plain onit if we can simply get it before us. In I Cor.10, I read from the 03rd verse. The ApostlePaul said, “All things are lawful; but not ‘allthings are expedient. All things are lawful,but not all things edify. Let no man seek hisown, but each his neighbor’s good. Whatever issold in the shambles, eat, asking no questionfor conscience sake; for the earth is the Lord’sand ,the fulness thereof. If one of them thatbelieve not lbiddeth you to a feast, and ye aredisposed to go; whatsoever is set before you,eat, asking no question for conscience sake:conscience, I say, not thine own, but the other’s;for why is my liberty judged by another con-science ? If I partake with thankfulness, whyam I evil spoken of for that for which I givei$anks ? Whether therefore ye eat, or drink,or w?hatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.Give no occasion of stumbling, either to Jewsor to Greeks, or to the church of God: even asI also please all men in all things, not seekingmine own profit, but the profit of the many, thatthey may be saved.” ‘(I Car. 11023-33)

Paul said, “I am not talking about my ownconscience, but the conscience of the other. D O

not lead the other man to offend his own con-science.” Now turn with me back to I Cor. 8,this time verse 7: “Howbeit there is not in allmen that knowledge: but some, being used Untiln#w to the idol, eat las of a thing sacrificed untoan idol; and their conscience Ibeing weak is de-filed. IBut food will not condemn us unto God:if we eat not, are we the worse; nor, if we eat,are we the better.” It is a matter of indifference.You do not have to do it. You are not any betterif you do it, or any worse if you do not doit. It is a matter of utter indif ference.You are at liberty to eat it if it doesn’tviolate your conscience, but do not let this

liiberty of yours become a stumblingblockto them that are weak. “For ‘if any man see theewhich hath knowledge sit Iat meat in the idol’stemple, shall not the conscience of him that iawith thee be emlboldened to eat those thingswhich are offered to idols ?” ,He will see youeating, and he will say, “There is a man thatknows. IMaybe I am wrong when I think that itis wrong to eat meat, and I will just go aheadand eat it (because my ‘brother is eating it.” Youembolden and encourage him to violate his ownconscience by your example. That is what he istalking about. “Through thy knowledge shallthe weak brother perish for whom Christ died.”When you sin so against the brethren, andwould weaken their conscience, you sin againstChrist. “Wherefore,” (here is the way a Chris-tian feels about a thing like that) “If meatoauses my brother to offend, I will eat no moremeat while the world standeth, lest I make mybrother to offend,” Now that pas’sage is oftenmisapplied. It doesn’t mean what a lot of peopletry to make it mean. A lot of people try tomake that passage mean this: We will just useBrother Moody for an example. We’ll say thatBrother W. ‘S. Moody thinks it is wrong to chewgum. Some people do. I knew a preacher onetime that did. :We will say that he does. I thinkit is all right. It would Ibe wrong for BrotherMoody to chew it. He thinks it ‘is wrong. Thatis the only reason why it would be wrong. Thereis no other principle involved in it, but it wouldbe wrong for him beoause he would violate hisconscience if he did it. It would be all right forme, because it would not violate mine. But if Ichewed gum before &other Moody, setting anexample, and he looked at me and #said: “Nowthere is Brother Cogdill. He is chewing gum. Ithink it is wrong to chew gum, but I do notknow. I guess if he does I can, and he ought toknow.” So with a question in his heart ,he goesright ahead land chews ,gum. I have lead him toviolate his consscience, haven’t I? I have leadhim to do the thing that he is not persuaded isright. I have lead him to violate his conscience.The Bible teaches that is a sin. ‘Who is thecause of it? I am. ‘By my example. That is whatPaul is talking about here. I cannot afford tolead another brother into sin. But here is theway a lot of people want to apply that thing.They say, “Now Brother Moody thinks it iswrong to chew gum. If you chew gum he willbecome offended at you. He will take offense atyour chewing gum, therefore you cannot chewgum because Brother Moody thinks it is wrongfor you to chew gum, and he will become of-

12 T H E B I B L E B A N N E R

fended if you do.” That is not what the passageteaches. It Idoes not say to “offend”. It says“cause my brother to offend.” To offend what?To offend his own conscience by doing the thing,by following the example I have set. That is‘whlat the passage is teaching. Otherwise, itwould make a God out of every crank on earth,wouldn’t it? If you just had to quit doing thingsbecause somebody thought you ought not do it,and that is what the passage teaches, then itmakes a God out of every crank in the country,and you would hfave to go (around trying toplease people wherever you went, You ju#stcould not live a Christian life on that basis.

But you cannot afford by your example tolead another to offend his own conscience. SoI cannot by exercising my liberty in the chew-ing of gum, I cannot afford to encourage Bro-ther Moody to do it in violmation of his conscience.Now I might be #able to teach him, and showhim that it is not wrong, that there issn’t anyprinciple involved in it, and help him to becomestrong where he is weak in that respect, so thathe might engage in it. That might be different,That <would (be a different proposition. But aslong as his conscience is weakened, as long as neviolrates his conscience in doing it, if I lead himby my example to go ahead and do the thing,thinking that it lis wrong, violating his ownconscience when he does it, I have led him intosin, That is what the Bible teaches about it.I am telling you what Paul said about it, andit ‘applies to anything, I don’t care what theexample iis, whether it applies to chewing gum,or anything else. It does not make any dif-ference. Let me give you for sake of clarity onthat point, and forgetting about the personalthing involved, a little personal experience thatwill demonstrate that. I went one time in thetown of Greenville, Texas, where I lived, to seea picture show. IIt was a good one I thought.It was the old story by Wallace, Ben Hur. Ienjoyed it. I did not wee anything in the worldin it that I thought was vile, ugly, suggestive,or hurtful in any way. If there was anythingwrong about it I was unable to discern it, I amsure that there are a good many pbctures of thatcaliber that have been made back through theyears. I am sure of another thing. I ,am sureof the fact that a whole lot of them are notconducive to anything that is worthwhile. Iam sure of that too. I have seen some wherethe moving picture industry would, for the sake,purely and only, of injecting an advertisementinto the middle of it for the liquor industry, puta drinking scene ,in it when there ‘was no aausefor it, no excuse under heaven, Surrounding itwith everything sophisticated, and everythingelite, and everything conducive an#d encouraging,and just make a liquor drinking scene out of it.The moving picture industry has become one ofthe greatest advertisements for liquor drinking

that there is on the face of the earth, and therecannot be any question about thlat. They willinject a scene lik,e that into an otherwi#se in-nocent and harmless picture without the leastexcuse under heaven for doing it. There is an-other thing while I lam talking on that point.The moving picture industry owned by the Jewshas become the greatest medium of Catholicpropaganda in this country, and that cannot bedenied, If you do not think so you just takestock of some of the Catholic pictures that havebeen made that teach Catholic traditions anddoctrines, and give them prominence, and glorifythem and clothe them with respect’ability. Ifyou do not think so you just keep your eyesopen the next time you go to see one. And thenewsreel: if any opportunity is afforded to giveany kind of religion any sort of notice and creditat all, it will be Catholicism, If they put aProtestant scene ,in it will be for the purposeof ridicule. It is never on ‘any other basis.“Going My Way,” was the name of one, wasn’tit? ‘Was that the Bing Crosby picture? I didnot see it. I heard about it. I know about it.Bing Crosby himself was educated for a Catholicpriest, the whole family Catholics. He playeda part that became him, and one that he sin-cerely believed in, No wonder that he couldact in it sincerely, and it was a high handedpiece of ‘CathoMc propaganda. About two yearsago when I was coming iback from Kentu,cky, Imissed a train connection in New Orleans onthe way to Houston. I was there for severalhours, and as I went through the city, ‘walkingaround between trains, I noticed a picture,“The Song of Bernadette,” I had heard a littlebit about it. A certain star was in it, I believeher name was Jennifer Jones. I decided thatI would go in and see the picture. I went inand sat down. I stayed as long ‘as I could standit, and it soon became so revolting to me becauseof the downright Catholic propaganda that Icould not &and it any longer. I had to get upand walk out. That is just one of the examples,It is entirely obvious to anyone who stops tothink about it. The ‘Catholics have control overit, and they are using it in every possible wayfor their own glorification, for their own good,and have at every chance ‘where the occasionwas present, discredited every other kind ofreligion. IBut there is another thing that themotion picture inldustry is responsilble for, theaverage picture is so based upon sensuality, andso full of things that are Isensual that it couldnot possibly be conducive to anything righteousand good upon the part of anybody, either youngor old, Somebody may say, “Well, I got a goodmoral out of it,” Well, you might fish a goodbiscuit out of a slopbucket, but that would bea poor place to go for one. If you want moral.3I would not advise that sort of a place to findthem. Moving pictures within themselves are

T H E B I B L E B A N N E R 13

not wrong. It is the wrong that is made outof them, They should be educational and theyshould be helpful, and they should certainly beinnocent recreation ,and entertainment, Some-times I have se,en pictures that I thought were,and w,ere as wholesome as any book that youcould read, or any paper that you could read. Ofcourse, what can be said for the motion pictureindustry ,along that line can ‘be said for the dailynewspaper. A lot of them are so full of filthand rubbish and things of that kind that youcan’t get any good out of it, and you would bea lot better off if you did not fill your mindwith things of this kind. There is a lot of theliterature that is found on the average magazinerack and the drug store rack that is too filthyand rotten for Iany person who respects him-self and the truth to allow it even to come intohis home, We all know that is so.

Everything in the world that becomes an ad-vantage to the devil in allowing him to get intoour hearts and minds is wrong. I went to seethis picture at Greenville, thinking that I hadnot done anything wrong, or that I was notviolating any principle, and if I did, I don’t knowwhat it was, But you know there ‘was a womanin the congregation who came to me after that,and I am telling you the story purely for thepurpose of getting the reaction that came fromit. She said, ‘“You know my circumstances,Brother Cogdill. I am a widow, and I sew fora living. I have a boy about eleven year’s old.In the first place, I do not have the money tolet my boy go to the picture show as often ashe would like to go. In the second place, Ido not think that it would be good for him tosee a lot of pictures that he wants to see, andgo as often as he wants to go. I have tried tocurb and direct and discourage him to some ex-tent along that line, and restrain him from itfor his own good. He has argued with me all thetime that I am too strict ‘albout the matter, andthat I am old fogey and old fashioned aboutit, and rather narrow minded, But the other dayhe was down in town and he saw you go to thepicture show. He came home and said to me,‘Mother, I’ve told you all the time that you werenarrow minded about that thing; that you arejust old fashioned and narrow minded about it,and that there wasn’t anything wrong about it,and now I know that you are. I saw BrotherCogdill go, and he would not have gone if there:is anything wrong about it!’ ”

Now he didn’t stop to think about the kind ofpicture that I went to see, He didn’t stop toweigh anything connected with it. He wasjustifying himself in wanting to go three orfour times a ‘week to see just any kind of apicture that came along, no matter what kindit was, how suggestive, how vulgar, or h o wevil it might be. It was all right for him to go

see them because I went to see the one, Now Iw.11 just grant you thlat in s,eeing the one pictureI did not do anything wrong whatsoever, yet ifmy going to see that one picture led somebodyto see one that would be {bad for him, my ex-ample was heading in the ‘wrong direction, wasn’tit? Could you deny that? Would you do it?If by my example I was perfectly innocent inthe thing I did, and the attending c:rcumstanceswere of such Ia nature that it contributed tosomeone else doing wrong, then I am doingwrong in the example I set That is what Paulis talking about in this passage. I cannot affordby my example and through my influence,even in the exercise of something that I mightbe at Iiberty to do, I cannot afford to destroysomebody else; for when I do, however innocentlyit may have been done, I am responsible for theharm that is wrought. I have to guard my in-fluence and that is true of every Christian.

The next principle is: Is it destructive to yourbody ? Now a lot of people come to me and say,“Presacher, I want to know do you think it is‘wrong to do this, or wrong to do that?” Some-times they ask me about the use of tobacco. Isit wrong to use tobacco? IOr wrong to dip snuff?Or wrong to smoke cigarettes? Is it wrong todo such? Well, I think this principle mighthelp us to determine something along that line.What is it? Is it harmful to your body? Didyou know that when you do a thing that is harm-ful to your body that you have sinned in thesight of God? iTh(at is what the Bible teaches.Thee Bible teaches that if you are a Christianyour body belongs to the Lord. Paul said, “Yeare a temple of the living God; therefore, glorifyGod in your bodies.” Your body belongs untoGod as well as your soul. You have not theright to engage in anything, I clare not whatthe practice is, if it is harmful to you. Of course,what harms one person may not harm another.That is readily accepted. I cannot eat cu-cumbers, I just cannot digest them. I foundthat out. I just oannot eat them Ibecause theytare harmful to me, poisonous to my body, andit is wrong for me to do it, Well, I need toeliminate those practices that I know are harm-ful to me, and within the realm of good Christianjudgment exercise myself to the very best ofmy ability in such a ‘way as to insure the con-tinued strength of my body that I might beable to serve God with it, and do all the goodthat I can while I live in the world.

The passage on that principle is I Cor. 6:19’20.‘Qr know ye not that your body is a temple ofthe Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye havefrom God? and ye are not your own; for ye arebought with a price: glorify God therefore inyour body,” Then again: ‘Whether thereforeye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all tothe glory of God.” (I Cor:lO:X) And it is

14 T H E B I B L E B A N N E R

wrong for a man to sit down at the table andgorge himself with food enough to be harmfulto him, eat something that he knows is harmfulto him, or engage in any other practice that hekno’ws is d,estructive to his physical strength.You sin when you do it. If you are doing some-thing tiat is harmful to your body, then youjust remember that God condemns the man thatknowingly practices a thing of that kind, andit is sinful in God’s sight.

Principle number five: Does it conflict withyour duty as a Christian? People sometimesask me, “Is it wrong to be a member of this,or wrong to belong to that ?” I might answerthat question by simply asking you this question:will it conflict with you duty as a Christian?You do not hlave any right to put yourself underany circumstance, you do not have the right toform any kind of an allian’ce, you do not havethe right to get yourself into any sort of a pos-ition wh,ere anybody can interfere with your dutyto God, because your duty to God comes first.“But seek ye first his kingdom, and his right-cousness; and la11 these things shall be addedunto you.” (IMatt, 6:133) Then again: “No soldieron service entangleth himself in the affairs ofthis life; that he may please him who enrolledhim as a soldier.” Sometimes people say to meabout fraternal organizations, “Do you thinkthat a Christian can belong to a fraternal organi-zati,on ?” A particular one, or any of them,it doesn’t matter. Of course, there are someobjectionable f.eatures in some of them thatyou might not f:nd in others. I’ll tell you this:I do not see how a man who is a Christilan, whobelieves with all of his heart in the Lord JesusChrist, who wears the nlame of Christ and istrying to honor the na.me of Christ can be amember of a fraternal organization in whichprayers are offered that cannot be offered inthe name of Christ. I cannot reconcile that,land I don’t believe any other Christian can.Aside from those special considerations: Any-thing wrong with a fraternal order? Question:Does it interfere with your duty as a Christian?When the time comes that you have to choosebetwe,en the fraternity and Christ, the fraternityand the church, your duty to the Lord or yourduty to the other, what kind of a choice wouldyou make? What ,would be your attitude laboutit? Wou1.d you put the fraternity above thechurch ? If you do, it is wrong. There isn’tany doubt about it. A principle would be vio-lated. II Tim. 2:4, “No soldier on service en-tangl,eth himself in the affairs of this life; thathe may plellse him who enrolled him as a sol-dier.” When a soldier is in the United StatesArmy he just has to Ibring his other businessto a close. Paul refers that very point andapplies that principle to the church of theliving God. Who needs to be anything but a

Christilan ? There is all of the good in Christ-ianity that you can find in anything on earth,and there is none of the bad in it that you canfind in all of the rest of ‘them. ‘Why be anythingbut just a Christian? Christ is an all-sufficientSavior, the church an all-sufficient institution,the word of God an all-sufficient revelation.Christianity ought to be enough, if we make outof it what God ‘intends for it to be.

Another prin’ciple: Does it create an inordinatefleshly appetite? Does it do that? You knowthe Bible teache’s that Christians ought to ex-ercise self-control. “Set. your mind on the thingsthat are above, not on the things that are uponthe earth. For ye died, and your life is hidwith Christ in God - - - Put to death thereforeyour members which are upon the earth: forni-oation, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, andcovetousness which is idolatry; for which thingssake cometh the wrath of God upon the sonsof disobedience.” A Christian is to be governedby the will of Christ, subject to the authority ofChrist, and not to live on a fleshly basis, satisfy-ing the appetites of the flesh. Titus 2:‘11-13,“For th.e grace of God hath appeared, bringingsalvation to all men, instructing us, to the in-tent that, denying ungodliness and worldlylusts, we should live soberly and righteously andgodly in the present world; looking for theblessed hope and appearing of the glory of thegreat God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” Didyou notice Dh!at’ “denying ungodliness andworldly lusts ?” Self-control is one of theoardinal requirements of Christianity. I cannotafford to lose the control of myself. I cannotaffond to lose the control of my body. I cannotafford to cultivate any kind of an appetite thatwill get the control land mastery of me, neithercan you. Sometimes people ask, “1s it wrongto do this thing over here?” Well, that mightbe determined by this very principle. The prin-ciple is: will it cultivate an inordinate, fleshlyappetite. For instance, if a man takes a shotof morphine, or some other kind of dope, forsome purpose, he likes the effect of it, and hersldily agrees to another, and another, and an-other, and another. The first thing you knowhe has become a dope fiend, so addicted to itthat he has lost control of himself. Morphine isnot the only thing that will do it. Liquor willdo it. I have seen strong men, otherwise, cry1ik.e babies because they could not quit the liquorhabit. I have had them cry land tell me, “Bro-ther Cogdill, I woulld like to be a Christian, Iwould like to be saved. I would like to be in thechurch, but I cannot quit drinking liquor.” Ithad eaten away their will until mlanhood wasgone, and the lalbility to do the thing that theyr.eally wanted to do was gone. They actuallydidn’t have the power of self-will Iand self-con-trol to the point that they could do that which

T H E B I B L E B A N N E R 15

they deep down in their hearts wanted to do.I would be asbamed to admit, to have to admit,that I had a habit that I couldn’t break. I donot care whether it is drinking coffee for break-fast or smoking a cigar after dinner. It wouldnot make any difference. You think about aman who professes to ‘be a Christian and tolive a Christian lif.e, and he in the possessionof himself and his faculties and able to controlhimself and direct his life, think about a man1:ke that to be weasley and measley enough tohave to admit that “I just can’t quit it.” Thetobacco habit, the coffee habit, any other kindof a habit. “I just can’t quit it. It controls me.It is the master I just can’t quit it,” I’d belike the old man: I’d quit it every once in awhile, anyway, just to be sure thlat I could, iffor no other reason. The thing that gets thatkind of control over you is a mighty dangerousthing. You ought to beware of it. I don’t carewhat it is.

The next principle: Will it bring you underweakening association and influence? Here’sthe passage. I Thess. 5:‘21-22, “Prove all things;hold fast that which is good; abstain from everyform of evil.” Again in I Cor. ‘15:33, “Evil com-panionships corrupt good morals.” IFhe principle :“Evil companionships corrupt good morals.”You know Ia man cannot just constantly asso-ciate with evil without being affected by it. Idon’t care how revolting cursing is to you, youcan listen to it until it gets to where it soundsall right, Sin is a process of education. Right-eousness is a process of education, and you caneducate yourself to sin, or you can educate your-self to do right. Certainly you can! You needto be car,eful about the influences that arebeing brought to bear upon your heart and life,careful that you .are not suibmitting yourselfconstantly to influences aan)d associations thatwill destroy you and bring you into captivityto sin. “Evil companionships corrupt good mor-pals.” I feel sorry for the man who tries to livethe Christian life with the predominant influenceof his life coming from the devil, and the devil’scrowd. ,He just has a mighty hard time, Infact, he just cannot make a success of it, Whatyou need in order to live a Christian life is t.ohave your friendships, and to have your asso-ciations and your ties with those who are inthe Lord, respect the truth, respect the church,tbdt bare trying to do right, and will help youto try to do the thing that is right, rather thanforming your ties and connections with thosewho do not respect the Lord, and care nothingabout his church, or about heav.en or your soul.

The final principle in this lesson: Does it bringupon you an unequal yoke and place you at adisadvantage in serving the Lord ? We go backto II Cor. 6:14, ‘Be not unequally yoked withunbelievers.” To what does that apply? It

applies to anything, business, mjarriage, or so-cial affairs. It applies to any kind of a relation-ship that you can form, that places you underobliglation to somebody else who doesn’t oareanything about the Lord, and doesn’t care any-thing about the church so that they can interferewith your duties as a Christian. People sayto me onoe in awhile, “Is it wrong to marryoutside of the church? Is it wrong for a Christ-ian to marry a person who isn’t a Christian?”There is one answer to that question that I canbe positive about. That answer is this: When-ever a person, if he is a Christian, tries to serveone Lord, marries a person who isn’t a Chrlst-ian, and allows that person who isn’t a Christ-ian, to interfere wi his duty to Christ, that iswrong. That is v&n g, and you oan’t go toheaven and permit that. You can just be positiveabout it. A person who is a Christian unitedwith one who isn’t a ‘Christian that permitsthat relationship to interfere with his duty tothe Lord cannot be pleasing in the sight of Godin doing wrong, It is an unequal yoke, NO W

if you can keep it upon such a basis where thatisn’t true it would be another problem. Therewould be some other que’stion about it, butthat is the major consideration, an,d about that Ican be positive. When you allow your companionto interfere with your duty to God in any respectyou are displeasing God. Christianity requiresthat you put the Lord first,

What can I do, and whqat can’t I do ? Numberone: Does it destroy your identity as a Christianby causing you to Ibe regarded as of the world?If it does it is wrong. Number two: Is thepractice questionable in your own mind andtherefore an offense to your own conscience?If so it is ‘wrong. Number three: Does it havea woakening influence on others and will it be-come a stumbling block to them? If it leadsanother into sin then it is wrong, About thatyou can be positive. Number four: Is it des-tructive to your body? If it is then it is wrong.Number five: Does it conflict with your dutyas a Christian? If so then it is wrong. Six :Does it cultivate an inordinate fleshly appetite?If so then it is wrong. Seven: Does it bringyou under weak.ening association and influence ?If it does then it is wrong. Number eight:Does it bring upon you an unequal yoke andplace you at a disadvantage in serving the Lord?If so then you better stay out of that kind ofa relationship. Now there you have some of theprinciples of the word of God, not all of them,but as many as we will have time to discusssnd perhaps more than we should have talkedabout. It gives you an idea of what the Bibleteaches, and how the Bible deals with thisproblem, If you will get these principles downand make your own personal application ofthem you will not have to be running around

16 T H E B I B L E B A N N E R

to some preacher ,asking him what h,e th’nks vail ; who want the church to stand for theabout something, God has given you the way truth as it is in Christ Jesus unmixed withof finding out for yourself whether it is right denominiational error; either in speech or action.or whether it is wrong. Let it be so.

But will you remember with me that the firstthing that Christianity demands of you is thatyou separate yourself from the world. The gos-pel is a call, it is an invitIation to lalve the worldbehind, and to corn,,, and enlist in the army ofthe Lord Jesus Christ, to separate yourself fromsin, its love, its practice, and its guilt, landthrough obedience to the gospel to be one of theoalled out body of the Lord, the church of theliving IGod, honor him by the life that you liveand by the service that you render, and to behonored by him when he comes again to receivethose unto himself who ha loved his appearing,Will you become a Christian? Will ‘you giveyourself to ‘God? Will you come out of theworld and be separate, be a member of th,e oalledout Ibody, the church of the Lord, obey the truth?May God help you to come while tonight we in-vite and urge that you do so. Let us stand andsing the song of invitation!

“ A N N O U N C E M E N T ”We are pleased to announce to the brother-

hood that we are now ready to release our firstalbum of Church of Christ quartet records,;Ihere are eight songs on records that ‘are madeof materials as good Ias money can buy, andthey may be used by anyone for radio workor in any manner to aid the cause. There willbe more albums to follow, by some of the bestquartets and singers in the Church, howeverwe offer at this time the following songs ina belautiful album with a Church of Christpicture on it, Every one sung ‘by members ofthe Church.

1. IF ‘WE NEVER MEET AGAIN THIS SIDEOF HEAVEN

la. ;wHAT A FRIEND WE HAVE IN JESUS2. ON THE JERICHO ROAD12a.. ‘PURER IN HEART 0 GOD3. I’LL BE LIST’NING3a, WBO AT MY DOlOR IS STANDING4. I COULD ~E’AN~G MY HEAD IN SHAME4a. PRECIOUS MEMORIES

S O U N D S P E E C H(Continued from page 6)

get the idea that it is part of the church butworse the members of the churches in part getth.e same idea. Such implications are not inharmony with Paul’s ,admonition to use soundspeech and action,

Further: What about the actions of a gospelpreacher when he engages in all kinds of unionactivities staged by the denominations ? Allow-ing (perhaps I should say desiring) himself tobe advertised as featured spelaker in sunriseeiaster services and other denominational unionactivities. Is it again tru,e that God’s peoplein part ‘are desirous of being like the nationsabout them ? Brethren, it is difficult enoughat best to sell the world on the idea that westand on New Testament principles and con-tend for th.e authority of ‘Christ without themaid of preachers in the churches acting in sucha way as to support the cause of the denomina-tions. We need, once again to, ‘Seek for the oldpaths, and walk therein”. It is no disgraceto be accused of being antiquated when suchaccusations come Ibecause of our stand for NewTestament principles. We should rather gloryin that we are a “peculiar people” land are knownas people who stand for the ancient gospel“once d.elivered to the saints”, Such activities(as are herein described are neither good norneoessary. The church has grown and prosperedfor centuries without them. Congregations nowtare able to grow and do the bidding of the Lordwithout them. We still have many people whoare willing to let the old Jerusalem Truth pre-

PRICE: $5.06 Per Album

ORDER FROM

GOSPEL RECORDS2017 Roys Ave. Elkhart, Indian&

“THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH”

By Roy E. Cogdillis the title of a 139-page book containinga series of 52 Bible -

Tlls NEWTESTAMEh!T o u t l i n e s on the

church. This book isbeing widely used inBible classes 88 ayear ’ s c ourse o fstudy. It has foundfavor wherever i thas gone. There Lnothing in print as

complete and exhaustive on this theme. Awealth of material outlined in simple formwhich requires a study of the Bible in itsuse. Paper bound 91.25 Cloth bound $1.75

ORDER FROM

ROY E. COGDILL PUBLISHING CO.BOX 989--LUFKIN, TEXAS