Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 14
May 1, 1962
NUMBER 1, PAGE 3

Pertinent Paragraphs

N. W. Allphin

Some spell it "antis," others spell it "anties." Though the latter cannot quote Webster as authority, they still walk in scholarly company. Mark Twain once said, "I have a poor opinion of anyone who knows only one way to spell a word."

Doubtless the Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey circus is still the "Greatest Show on Earth." But perhaps the great (ostensibly religious) shows now being "featured" on TV and radio by the big sponsoring churches are running a pretty close second.

If some brethren don't like what the Bible says, or omits saying, on certain subjects, maybe they ought to bring out a new version that teaches what they want to believe. Yes, why not? The so-called Jehovah's witnesses and some others have done that; but it is risky.

Whatever else may be said about the "line of least resistance," It usually leads to a lower level. Be it a lure to exalt oneself on his secular scholarship, yielding to a popular majority, or stifling the conscience for a fatter pay-check, it is morally and spiritually degrading.

So brother Guy N. Woods has debated again! But not with Roy Cogdill. I think it doubtful if he does that again. After the Birmingham encounter, he probably re-read Jehovah's reproof and counsel given the afflicted man of Uz (Job 41:8) and wisely decided to appropriate to himself that advice.

It has been said of many things that they "can be taken at their face value." This is also true regarding many men, but there are possible exceptions. Occasionally some are found who must be taken at their "two-face" value — those who can blow hot and cold in almost the same breath, and on the same "issues."

I believe there are really no "neutrals." Our Lord said — Matt. 12:30 — "He that is not with me is against me...." And this is true in both political and religious realms. Is this a slap at "federal aid" to so-called neutral nations? Could be. It is also to chide self styled "middle-of-the-road" preachers? Hmmm.... What do you think?

Someone has opined that many corpulent Americans have acquired their "round figures" by eating too many "square meals." Maybe so. But perhaps when Khrushchev takes over he will obviate that physical handicap by changing our eating habits; he may prescribe and enforce a reducing diet that will keep us all lean — he has done it for other millions! Let's hope he gets no chance.

Brother, if you have said or written this: "What and how you (antis) do is all right; but our liberal's way is better." Do you realize what that adds up to, logically? It is just this: If "right" it has to be scriptural; hence, your "better way" becomes better than the scriptural way! That is presumption. Have you read and studied 1 Cor. 4:6, 2 John 9 and Psa. 19:13? These are not in the Book just to take up space.

From the way the good word "fellowship" is bandied around these days, one could get the idea that if a church decided to withdraw fellowship from a member, it would simply refuse to let him have any part in the "fellowship dinners" games or other social activities; for their fellowship is mostly stressed in many congregations today. Could that be "sowing to the flesh"? If it is, we know exactly what the reaping will be — corruption! "The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking," said Paul in Rom. 14:17.

What is worse for the cause of Christ — Christianity — the teacher who knows the facts of the gospel, but can't make up his mind what to preach, or the man across the way who doesn't know all the facts, yet has his mind made up? The likely answer generally would be "a tie" And I would suggest that both should "resign" — the one till his courage overtakes his knowledge; the other till his knowledge catches up to his zeal' We have both kinds in the pulpits today; and both militate against the progress of real Christianity.

There is nothing wrong, I think, in a preacher or writer using the familiar apothem, "Where the Bible speaks, we speak; and where the Bible is silent, we are silent." It is a fine maxim. What is wrong is for one to so assert, and proceed at once to violate or contradict it by using statements like, "the church which Christ built," or "the Lord built his church on," etc. There are no such statements in the Bible. Regarding the building of his church, there is no past tense, "built." He began to build on Pentecost, and, through gospel preaching, has so continued ever since.

— Tahoka, Texas