"Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee, that it may be displayed because of truth." — (Psalm 60:4)
"Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain, exalt the voice unto them." — (Isaiah 13:2)
Devoted To The Defense Of The Church Against All Errors And Innovations
Vol.VIII No.I Pg.20-30
June 1945

Old Errors And New Heresies

W. Curtis Porter

I. Concerning Names

Editor Ben M. Bogard, in Orthodox Baptist Searchlight, Dec. 27, 1944, delivers himself of some foolishness concerning names. He writes under the heading, "Campbellite Name Foolishness," and endeavors to set aside what the Bible says and build up his Baptist theology. He is very much concerned about the Baptist name; he wants to find some way to give it divine sanction; so he makes a desperate effort in his article to find divine authority for it. At the same time he wishes to set aside the name "Christian" and nullify the designation, "the Church of Christ." In his effort to do all of this he reaches the heights of folly, and I wish to call attention to some of his foolish blunders. So let us take a look at some of his foolishness.

The Name Christian

He endeavors to reply to the argument, as shown in Acts 11:26; Acts 26:23 and 1 Pet. 4:16, that the name Christian was not given by the enemies of Jesus but by divine authority. Concerning this he says:

"Granting everything that this statement claims (but I do not grant it to be true) it would prove that the 'Christian Church' is right in calling their church, THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. It would also prove that the Gospel Advocate sort of Campbellites are wrong in calling their church The Church of Christ'."

If Bogard's conclusion in this were true, it would still give him no consolation for the name Baptist Church, unless he could be consoled by the fact that some other churches are not in the Bible any more than is the Baptist Church. He is welcome to whatever consolation this may give him in his contention for an unscriptural institution. But his conclusion about this is not true, for why would this prove that the Christian Church (of which the Bible says nothing) is right and that we are wrong in using the term, "The Church of Christ," which the Bible does indorse? In so many words the Bible refers to "the churches of Christ." Rom. 16:1.6. But nowhere does it say one word about either "the Baptist Church" or "the Christian Church," nor of the plural "Baptist Churches" or "Christian Churches." The name Christian was never given as the name of the church which Jesus established. It was given as an individual name. Individuals were called Christians; the church was never called the Christian Church: but individuals were never called Baptists nor the church the Baptist Church. So Bogard's "sort of Religionists" are not even mentioned, either individually or collectively, in all the book of God. Bogard knew, of course, that we do not claim the name Christian as a church name but as an individual name, but he had to have something to make an argument out of, and so he used it. That he did know this to be true is shown by his next statement which follows:

"If it is contended that the word Christian' should apply to individuals and not to the church as a whole, then our Church of Christ' people have nothing on any of us because that is exactly what all of us do, call ourselves Christians. Baptists tenaciously claim to be Christians,' each individual is a Christian, that is an imitator of Christ. Why quote Acts 11:26 where it says, The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch' if that applies to individuals only and not to the church as a body, while they are trying to prove that the church should be called The Church of Christ'?"

I have never known of any one quoting Acts 11:26 to try to prove that the church should be called "the Church of Christ." I am sure that Bogard has never known of it either. That passage is never used for that purpose. If we want to prove the church should be called "the church of Christ," we use Rom. 16:16, which says: "The churches of Christ salute you." But when we want to prove the name for the individual followers of Jesus we use Acts 11:26 and similar passages. Bogard's claim that this is used to prove the name of the church is just another one of his foolish blunders which he makes for effect. He hopes to impress his brethren with an unanswerable argument. But why did he not deal with Rom. 16:16? And I am wondering what passage the Baptists will quote to prove that "the disciples were called Baptists" somewhere as individuals and what passage speaks of "the Baptist Church." I wish Bogard, or some other Baptist preacher, would give it to us. They would if they could. There is nothing that would give them as much satisfaction as would the two passages—"The disciples were called Baptists in Jerusalem" and "The Baptist churches salute you." Every Baptist preacher in the land would give the last shirt off his back for either of these passages. But they are just not in the book. And so they will have to go along without them. But what comfort they would bring to Bogard and his people if they could be found!

But "the Church of Christ people" do "have something" on the rest of religious people, Baptists and others, for we not only claim to be Christians, we claim to be "Christians only." We put' no denominational handles to it.

Yes, Bogard and his people claim to be Christians but they claim to be Baptists first-Baptist Christians. They must have that denominational handle. And so with a great host of other denominations. Yes, we "have something" on them there. We wear no unauthorized name, and they do. The

disciples were called Christians in the days of the apostles. We claim to be the same. But the disciples were never called "Baptist Christians." It would be just as easy for Bogard to find where the disciples were called Baptists as to find where they were called "Baptist Christians." He is at sea in either case. I am sorry for him, but facts are facts, and there is no way around them. A little later in his article he quotes from Isaiah: "In that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach." (Isa.s4:1.) Concerning this prophecy Bogard says:

"All Bible scholars agree that woman' is used as a figure of the church, a good woman of a good church and a bad woman of a bad church. Here are seven women not really joined to the man, but wanting to wear his name. The Holy Spirit evidently had the Campbellite church in mind when he inspired this prophecy."

Prophecies often have a two-fold application. This prophecy points out the scarcity of men as a result of war, but if it also has a more remote spiritual application, it refers to denominationalism, including the Baptist Church. In this case "women" would represent churches. "Seven" being a complete number would represent all of them. They want to "eat their own bread and wear their own apparel" —they will feast upon their own doctrines and follow their own ways—but when they get in a tight they will say: "Let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach." That is exactly what Bogard and his brethren do. They will call themselves Baptists, feed on Baptist doctrines, clothe themselves with Baptist practice, but when they get cornered about the whole affair they will say as Bogard does: "Baptists tenaciously claim to be CHRISTIANS'." Oh, yes, "Let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach." You never hear much about that claim when things are going well, but if it looks like they may lose favor with the people because they are following devised plans, then they will send up the howl: "We claim to be Christians." At all other times they are satisfied to be known as Baptists. Why, then, claim so tenaciously to be Christians when they get cornered? "To take away their reproach," just as the prophet said. Bogard is evidently mistaken about what church the Holy Spirit had in mind when he inspired that prophecy.

No Christian For Ten Years

Concerning the giving of the name Christian at Antioch in Acts 11:26 Bogard further says:

"It was ten years after Pentecost when the disciples were first called Christians. Then it follows that of even individual disciples were called Christians at Pentecost nor for 10 years after. If we must be called 'Christian' in order to be the Lord's church, then the church on the day of Pentecost was not he Lord's church and never became: the Lord's church for 10 long years. If the church of our Lord continued for 10 long years without being called Christian' and it was a true New Testament church, why cannot a church now be a true New Testament church without being called Christian'?"

Bogard again confuses the individual with the church, but overlooking that for the time being, I shall just tell him that the name "Christian" was not binding on disciples till it was given. This "new name" was a subject of prophecy (Isa. 62:2) and could not be given till the conversion of the Gentiles, which took place in Acts 10. So in the very next chapter we have the name Christian given, and from that time on the name is binding on the Lord's people. All truth was not revealed on Pentecost—it took time for all of it to be made known.

But while I think about it I want to ask Bogard about the name Baptist. No "individual disciple" of the Lord was called Baptist on the day of Pentecost nor anywhere else in all the New Testament. About 63 years passed after Pentecost before the divine record closed, but during those "63 long years" no mention was ever made of the church or of any member of it as "Baptist." And "if we must be called "Baptist in order to be the Lord's church," the church "on the day of Pentecost was not the Lord's and never became the Lord's during the 63 long years that followed." Furthermore, "if the church of our Lord continued for 63 long years without being called Baptist,' and it was a true New Testament church, why cannot a church now be a true New Testament church without being called Baptist'?" This is handing Bogard's reasoning right back to him on the same platter and with the same trimmings that were connected with it as he handed it out. If it works in one case, it works in the other. And yet Bogard would not recognize any church as a New Testament church that is not called "Baptist" today. If it is not a "Baptist Church," it is not a New Testament church, according to Bogard.

Furthermore, Bogard, in his article, delivers himself in the following fashion:

"Anyone authorized to baptize is a Baptist. That is the way God fixed it. When Jesus organized his church he sent it on a mission. (Mat. 28:19, 20) When he sent the church out as a missionary he authorized, yes, commanded that missionary church to baptize. Therefore it was in fact a Missionary Baptist Church."

This is really interesting. It tells us when the church became a "Missionary Baptist Church." It became "missionary" when Jesus sent it on a mission according to Mat. 28:19, and it became "Baptist" when Jesus in Mat. 28:19 authorized it to baptize. Hence, it became "in fact," according to Bogard, a "Missionary Baptist Church" when Jesus gave the commission of Mat. 28:19. But that commission was given after Jesus arose from the dead. Bogard claims the church was set up at the beginning of the Lord's ministry before his death, and that it was in operation "three long years" before he died. Well, since it did not become a "Missionary Baptist Church" till after Jesus arose, I am curious to know what kind of church it was during the three years or so of the Lord's personal ministry. I wonder if Bogard will tell us. And further using his reasoning I ask: "If the church of the Lord continued three long years without becoming Missionary Baptist,' why cannot a church now be a true New Testament church without becoming Missionary Baptist'?" I am willing to listen at him clear this matter up. I wonder if he will undertake it. If he clears it up, I shall be glad to pass his explanation on to my readers.

A Lesson In Seventh Grade Grammar

And now Bogard makes me smile, almost audibly. I wonder how this statement strikes you:

"By the way, Campbellites need to take a course in seventh grade grammar. When they do they will learn that names are never in the possessive case, but always in the nominative case. The expression, The Church of Christ,' is in the possessive case and denotes ownership and is not a name at all."

I have seen this argument in print a number of times from Bogard's pen. Other little Baptist preachers over the country think it is a wonderful argument. So they have "laid hold" on it and are keeping it going. I have heard them make it as they have been taught it by Bogard. But I have never yet seen the man who can make as many blunders as Bogard can while claiming to know as much as he claims to know. Perhaps his assumption of knowledge has his brethren so "flabbergasted" that they never think to investigate his claims to see if his statements are true. They just assume that Bogard could not be mistaken about it. So they accept his arguments at face value and begin to shoot them from their guns. However, I want to take a little time out just here and give Board and his brethren "a course in seventh grade grammar." And, incidentally, I would like to know what "seventh grade grammar" he got his information from. Now look at his statement again: "Names are never in the possessive case, but always in the nominative case." I have never yet seen a seventh grade grammar that gives any such statement. If Bogard knows of one, I wish he would pass the information on to me. Who is the author of it? And where can I obtain a copy?

And I wonder if Bogard ever looked into a seventh grade grammar to see what is the meaning of case anyway. Grammars which I have looked into tell me that "Case is that modification of a noun or pronoun which denotes its office in the sentence." Case, therefore, concerns only two parts of speech nouns and pronouns. But what are nouns and pronouns? The grammars which I have studied always told me that "a noun is the name of anything." And they said that "a pronoun is a word used for a noun." I wonder if this agrees with Bogard's seventh grade grammar. Since "a noun is the name of anything" then "the name of anything is a noun." In other words, all names are nouns, and all nouns are names. . Hence, a "name" is used just as a "noun" is used. To say that "a name is always in the nominative case" is to say that "a noun is always in the nominative case." And as a "pronoun" is a word used for a "noun" we would have to say that "a pronoun is always in the nominative case." How does this begin to look? And how does it make Bogard look as a grammarian? If "a name is always in the nominative case," what is used in other cases? It can't be a noun, for a noun is a name. It can't be a pronoun, for a pronoun is used for a noun. In fact, if Bogard's statement is true, there can be only one case-the nominative. But my grammars have always told me there are three cases in English—the nominative, the possessive and the objective. What parts of speech are dealt with in the possessive and the objective case? It can't be a noun, for that is a name, and Bogard says "names are never used in the possessive case, but always in the nominative case." Nor can it be a pronoun, for a pronoun is used just as a noun is used

So I suppose Board's "seventh grade grammar" puts adverbs and verbs in the possessive case and adjectives in the objective case. It must be something of this kind, for according to him, it cannot be a noun or a pronoun. It must be something else, and if not adjectives, verbs and adverbs, I would like for him to tell me what part of speech is used in the possessive case and the objective case. Anybody, of course, who has ever studied "seventh grade grammar" learned that nouns (or names) are used in all three cases. In fact "case" has nothing to do with anything except names and words used for names—nouns and pronouns.

Aw, to give him a concrete example, that he might be able to grasp this let us take the name "John." This was the name of the forerunner of Christ—the man called John the Baptist. Bogard claims a close relationship to him; so this example should prove interesting. How can we use the name John? Bogard says "only in the nominative case." But, according to my grammars, it can be used in all the cases. Let us give it a try. 1. John reproved Herod. In this sentence "John" is in the nominative case for it is the subject of the sentence. And grammars say: "the Nominative case of a noun or pronoun denotes its office as subject or attribute complement (called by some predicate nominative)." But is this its only use? Bogard says it is. But take the next sentence. 2. Herod beheaded John. "John" is still a "name," but it is not used in the nominative case. It is the object complement of the verb "beheaded." Hence, it is in the objective case, for "the objective case denotes its office as object complement or as principal word in a prepositional phrase." 3. John's head was brought in on a platter. This time the name "John" is in the possessive case for it serves as a "possessive modifier." So the name "John" has been used in all three cases, and Bogard has been shown to need much instruction in seventh grade grammar.

But I want to take the example Bogard uses—"The' Church of Christ." He says this is no name at all, for it is in the possessive case, whereas names "are always in the nominative case." Let us get the sentence from the New Testament—"The churches of Christ salute you." (Rom. 16:16.) The word "churches" is a name. In this sentence it is used as the subject and is therefore in the nominative case. "Christ" is also a name. It is the principal word of a prepositional phrase, the object of the preposition, and is in the objective case. So neither "churches" nor "Christ" in this sentence is in the possessive case. And Bogard is wrong again. While such expressions often denote "ownership" their "case construction" is not possessive. The fact that ownership is involved does not eliminate the "name" element from the sentence. If I say, "The sons of Smith went to town," would you decide that you cannot tell anything about the name from this sentence? Then why decide that "churches of Christ" is "no name at all"? Following A Common Sense Rule.

It is certainly true that the name of a thing is only one point of identification. I might start a search for John Smith. Hs name would help me to identify him, but I would not be dependent entirely on his name. He has other characteristics, and, along with his name, I must also keep them in mind. I might walk into a group of men and say: "I am looking for John Smith." A dozen men might stand up, for often we find men wearing this name. By knowing other characteristics of the man I am looking for, I would be able to determine if he is in this group, but I would certainly not expect to find him among those who were not named John Smith. Likewise a number of churches might wear the Scriptural name, but merely wearing the name would not be sufficient. By a knowledge of the characteristics of the New Testament church I can determine if it is among said group of churches. But surely I would not expect to find it among churches that do not wear the Scriptural name. The Missionary Baptist Church has neither the name nor the characteristics, and I am certain it is not the New Testament Church.

Concerning matters of this nature Bogard says: "Would calling a buzzard an eagle take the stink out of him? If you call a polecat a rabbit will that stop the polecat from stinking? If you call a vicious tiger a lamb would that take his ferocious nature out of him? If you call a Campbellite congregation the Church of Christ will that make it so? Things should be called what they are and when you adopt that rule, a common sense rule, it will follow that the New Testament church was a Missionary Baptist Church."

No, it would not make a buzzard an eagle just by calling it that, and a polecat would not become a rabbit by merely calling it that. However, if you were walking through a zoo looking for an "eagle," you would not expect to find it in a cage labeled "buzzards." Or if you were looking for a "rabbit," you would not expect to find it in the cage labeled "skunks." Likewise, if you were looking for "the Church of Christ," you should not expect to find it behind the label, "Missionary Baptist Church." Thanks, Mr. Bogard, for the illustration. It does a fine job in showing up the false claim of Baptist preachers.

But Bogard tells us that "things should be called what they are." I fully agree with him in this. This, as he says, is "a common sense rule." But he concludes that the New Testament church is in reality the "Missionary Baptist Church" and should be called that. If it was the "Missionary Baptist Church," I agree that "it should have been called that." But it never was. Neither Christ nor his apostles ever referred to it by that name. In all the history of the New Testament church no reference to the "Missionary Baptist Church" can be found. One of two conclusions must follow. Either the New Testament church was not the "Missionary Baptist Church" or inspired writers failed to follow the "common sense rule" of calling things what they were. Do you think they failed to follow this "common sense rule?" I am certain that they called the church what it was, and since they did not call it the Missionary Baptist Church, I am sure it was not that. But they did refer to congregations of the New Testament church as "the churches of Christ." (Rom. 16:16). They called them what they were. That was the "common sense" thing to do.

Why John Was Called "The Baptist." Bogard says:

"The personal name of John the Baptist was simply John.' (Luke 1:59-63) That was what his father called him. His religious name was Baptist for that was what God called him. (Mat. 3:1) John was not the Baptist because he baptized. It was the other way around; he was a Baptist before he ever baptized anyone."

When Jesus was referred to as "the carpenter" I suppose he was not a carpenter because he constructed buildings. And Barabbas was said to be "a robber." That, however, would not mean that he was a robber because he robbed some one but was a robber before he ever robbed anyone. Do you suppose this is so? The word "Baptist" comes from the Greek word "Baptistes" and means, according to Thayer, "a baptizer; one who administers the rite of baptism." So John the Baptist simply means John the baptizer, and if John had never baptized any one, I wonder if he would have been called "the Baptist." When Bogard says "his religious name was Baptist," he says what he could not prove if his life depended upon it. This would indicate that he was an adherent of the "Baptist religion," and there was no such thing. If this was "his religious name," there must have been some organization, or institution, or church wearing that name. But there was none. Did John belong to the "Baptist Church"? He would have to if his religious name was Baptist, and this would require the existence of the church during John's ministry. A long time ago Baptist preachers claimed that the church was founded by John on the banks of the Jordan, but they were so often whipped on this point that they gave it up, and now you can scarcely find one who is willing to take that position. Yet Bogard must return to it to sustain the idea that Baptist was the religious name of John. In fact, he will have to go farther back than that. He claims that John had this "religious name" before he ever baptized anyone. Then there would have to be a Baptist Church and a Baptist religion before John ever began his work. Is Bogard ready for this position? And furthermore, if His "religious name was Baptist," will Bogard or some of his brethren be so kind as to give us the name of some other person mentioned in the New Testament that wore this "religious name"? And if John could wear "Baptist" as his "religious name," before he ever baptized anyone and without ever being baptized himself, why does Bogard now require people to be baptized before they can wear that name? All this simply shows this is another foolish blunder of Bogard's.

II. Depending On Spurious Scripture

The following quotation is taken from the Orthodox Baptist Searchlight of May 25, 1943. It was written by Ben M. Bogard, editor of that paper.

"Carnpbellites make much of the good confession which reads: I believe that Jesus is the Son of God.' That verse is not in the original Greek and was properly left out by the revisers and when they did it the Campbellite sugar-teat was taken from them."

"In this connection we will mention another fact. The Campbellite sugar-teat found in Mark 16:15, 16, is not found in the oldest Greek manuscripts. It was added by some one many years after the Bible was completed and put in to bolster up a false doctrine. All scholars are agreed that the part of Mark 16 from verse 9 on down to the end of the chapter is an addition to the word of God. It is found in our translations but in the Revised Version a foot note explains that it is not in the original Greek. So the Campbellites depend on two passages more than any others for their doctrines and neither one of them is found in the original Greek. When it becomes necessary for Baptists to depend on spurious interpolations instead of the very word of God for their doctrine, right then we will take out."

A number of statements in this quotation deserve consideration. And I want you to remember that last statement of Bogard's: "When it becomes necessary for Baptists to depend on spurious interpolations instead of the very word of God for their doctrine, right then we will take out." I shall have some interesting use for this statement before the close of this article. But first let us look at it.

The Good Confession

Bogard thinks there is no scriptural authority for it, and Baptist preachers often make fun of "the good confession." In Acts 8:37 we have recorded the passage to which Bogard refers. It concerns the conversion of the eunuch. Philip preached Jesus to him as they traveled along the way. They came unto a certain water and the eunuch said: "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (v.36). Then follows the statement of verse 37: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Bogard tells us that this "verse is not in the original Greek and was properly left out by the revisers." He refers, of course, to the Revised Version. And because the revisers left it out he thinks the "Campbellites" have lost proof for a doctrine which they preach.

In the first place, if this portion of the record is left out, we have a break in the story that cannot be bridged. Philip asked what hindered him from being baptized, and if this verse is left out, we have no answer given by Philip to the eunuch's question. He was never told what hindered him or what he must do to become a proper subject of baptism. Thus the baptizing took place with no answer being given to the eunuch's question. This makes a serious break in the story. And besides, the very thing contained in that confession is what the Lord requires of one before he can be baptized. Even Bogard will admit that a man cannot properly be baptized until he believes in Jesus as the Son of God. The very faith that is necessary to qualify one for baptism is the faith that is expressed in "the good confession." Why, then, be so determined to get rid of it?

But Bogard says: "That verse is not in the original Greek." What does he mean to imply by this statement? He leaves the impression on his reader, and I have no doubt that he intended to do so, that the original copy of Luke's record is available, and that this verse is lacking from his record. But any one who is at all informed about the matter knows that the "original Greek" of Luke's record is not available. We do not have that "original Greek." We have a number of manuscript copies but we do not have the original. But Bogard might protest that he meant it is not in the Greek manuscripts which we do have. But neither would this be the truth. It is true that it is not in many of the manuscript copies, but it is in some of them. Authorities say that it is found in Manuscript E and "several others of minor importance," and it is found also "in the Vulgate and Arabic." Manuscript E has the record in "original Greek," if by that expression we simply mean the original language in which the record was made. So it is in some of the "original Greek" manuscript copies.

But the translators of the Revised Version left it out, so Bogard tells us, and it is therefore not Scripture at all. I know that the verse has been rejected by many critics, and I know that the translators of the Revised Version left it out of the text. But they did put it in a footnote. Their statement reads as follows: "Some ancient authorities insert, wholly or in part, verse 37: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." I wonder if Bogard could not find that in his copy of the Revised Version? He could easily find the footnote at Mark 16:16, for he thought he found something to his liking, but he did not even mention a footnote at Acts 8:37. I wonder why he mentioned one and failed to mention the other. The reason is obvious. The footnote at Acts 8:37 did not suit him. Bogard claims that ancient authorities do not contain this part of the record—"it is not in the original Greek." But the translators say that "some ancient authorities" insert it. So it has more in its favor than Bogard claims for it.

But suppose I just admit that this verse is not a part of the Bible. Would that take away from us the teaching of the good confession? Must we "depend" upon this verse to sustain that doctrine? Absolutely not. A number of other passages 'that have never been questioned teach the good confession. Take Paul's statement in Rom. 10:9,10. He says: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." I wonder if this is "the very word of God." This enjoins a confession upon men as a condition of salvation. Paul said: "If thou shalt confess, "thou shalt be saved." Also that this "confession is made unto salvation." But what confession is it? The same confession recorded in Acts 8:37. "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus." To confess "the Lord Jesus" is the same as to confess; "that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." And we do not have to depend on Acts 8:37 at all for "the good confession." Then Paul wrote Timothy after this fashion: "Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses." (1 Tim. 6:12.) The Revised Version reads (in case Bogard should like to take a peek at it): "Fight the good fight of the faith, lay hold on the life eternal, whereunto thou was called, and didst confess the good confession in the sight of many witnesses." Timothy, therefore, made "the good confession" unto eternal life. This agrees with the statement in Rom. 10:10 that men must "confess the Lord Jesus—unto salvation." A number of Scriptures thus authorize the good confession, and the truthfulness of our teaching does not depend on the authenticity of Acts 8:37.

The Baptist Confession

But what about the confession made by Baptists? What confession do they require of their candidates for baptism? Here it is: "Do you believe that God for Christ's sake has pardoned your sins?" Now, just where can this confession be found in the word of the Lord? No inspired man ever asked any one to make this confession. And no example of this confession's being made can be found in all the book of God. Neither did inspired men ever teach that such a confession is to be made by any one. But this is the confession that Baptists require. It cannot be found anywhere in "the very word of God." Neither can it be found in any "spurious interpolation" to the word of God. Not a line in all the Bible, whether authentic or spurious, gives any authority for it. Yet Bogard says: "When it becomes necessary for Baptists to depend on spurious interpolations instead of the very word of God for their doctrine, right then we will take out." Well, it is certainly time for him to start taking out, for he cannot even "depend on spurious interpolations," to say nothing of "the very word of God," and he must "depend" on something entirely outside of the Bible for his doctrine. If this is not so, let him give a statement in "the very word of God" that authorizes or sanctions the confession practiced by Baptists. I challenge him to show even a "spurious interpolation" that contains it.

What About Mark 16:16?

In this passage Jesus said: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." This puts salvation after both believe and baptism and makes both necessary to salvation. But Bogard teaches that men are saved before they are baptized. Something, therefore, must be done about this passage. Bogard cannot answer it—so he just denies that it is the word of God. He calls it a "spurious interpolation" and says it is not in the "original Greek." He says: "All scholars are agreed that the part of Mark 16 from verse 9 on down to the end of the chapter is an addition to the word of God." But this is absolutely not true... Scholars are not agreed on any such thing. The authenticity of the passage is not questioned, some question its genuineness. In other words, it is not denied that it is of divine authority, but some doubt that Mark wrote it. So it is a question of whether Mark wrote it and not a question of its inspiration. But Bogard says: "In the Revised Version a footnote explains that it is not in the original Greek." And again this is not so. It is one of Bogard's tricks to make people think the passage is not the word of the Lord. The translators of the Revised Version say no such thing as this which Bogard attributes to them. Why did not Bogard tell what they said in their own words instead of misrepresenting them? They do not say that it is "not in the original Greek." After all, the "original" of Mark is not available—we have MSS copies of it. The Greek is the language in which it was "originally" written, and there are MSS copies in the "original language" that contain this passage.

Let us see what the translators of the Revised Version actually, said in the footnote. Here it is in their own words "The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel." This is vastly different from saying that it "is not in the original Greek." And don't forget that the 101 translators of the Revised Version left these verses in the text. If they were convinced that they are not in the "original Greek," why did they leave them in? They did not even put them in a footnote. But they say the two oldest Greek Manuscripts do not contain this passage. Even that does not mean the passage is spurious, or that it is not the "very word of God." Note the following facts about this passage.

1. The 47 translators of the King James Version left it in the text of the New Testament. These men were Greek scholars. They were not "agreed that it is an addition to the word of God."

2. The 101 translators of the Revised Version left it in the text. They did not agree that it is an addition to the word of the Lord; yet they were Greek scholars.

3. It is found in three of the four great uncial Manuscripts (A. C. and D.). See Smith's New Testament History, page 704. These three manuscripts are in the "original Greek." But Bogard says the passage is not in the "original Greek."

4. It is not found in two of the great manuscripts—the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. These are the "two oldest Greek manuscripts" to which the translators of the Revised Version refer in their footnote. But they were not written earlier than the fourth century. In the Greek New Testament, by Wescott & Hort, page 564, we have the statement that these two manuscripts "appear to belong to the middle of the fourth century." So "the two oldest Greek manuscripts" in which the passage is not found date only to the fourth century.

5. The passage existed in manuscripts older than these, for it was quoted by Irenaeus in the second century. Note the following:

"Irenaeus cites both the opening and closing words: an important testimony in any case, but doubly so from the doubt that has been cast on the closing verses. The passage is rejected by the majority of modern critics, on the testimony of MSS. and of old writers, and on the internal evidence of the diction. Though it is probable that this section is from a different hand, and was annexed to the Gospel soon after the time of the Apostles, it must be remembered that it is found in three of the four great uncial MSS. (A. C. D.), besides being quoted without any question by Irenaeus. With the exception of these few verses, the genuineness of the Gospel is placed above the reach of reasonable doubt." Smith's New Testament History, p. 704.

It will be seen from this quotation that "the doubt that has been cast on the closing verses" by "the majority of modern critics" has to do with "the genuineness of the Gospel" and not its authenticity. The question is whether Mark wrote it, not whether it is inspired. And note the fact that Irenaeus quoted the passage without any question in the second century. We, therefore, know that it was in some Greek manuscript approximately two hundred years older than the ones we now have that leave it out, for if it had not been in such copies of the gospel, Irenaeus could not have quoted it.

6. One of "the two oldest Greek manuscripts" that leaves it out—Mss. B, or the Vaticanus manuscript, also leaves out a part of the book of Hebrews, all of the Pastoral Epistles, the book of Philemon, and the entire book of Revelation. The following quotation is taken from Wescott & Hort's Greek New Testament, page 564:

"B, Codex Vaticanus, at Rome, containing the whole New Testament except the later chapters of Hebrews, the Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, and the Apocalypse."

For Bogard to be consistent he must say that the later chapters of Hebrews, the Pastoral Epistles, the book of Philemon and the entire book of Revelation (the Apocalypse) are "spurious interpolations" and are not "the very word of God." He declares such to be true of Mark 16:16 because it is not in the "original Greek" of this manuscript. These other portions of the word of God are not in it either, but he does not think to denounce them as spurious interpolations.

He wants to get rid of Mark 16:16, however, and the only way to do so is to deny that it is "the very word of God." But until he is willing to reject the entire book of Revelation and other portions mentioned, we shall not let him get by with his denial. And if he decides to deny them all, we will just let him take his stand with the infidels.

7. Even Bogard regards this passage as "the very word of God" when he is not fighting baptism. In debates on baptism he claims it is a "spurious interpolation," but in other matters he thinks it is good. He has changed back and forth in his various written works. But here is proof that the passage is not considered as an addition to the word of God when Bogard uses it for other purposes. In chapter 8, page 41, of Baptist Way-Book, writing under the title of "The Way of Mission Work in History," Bogard says: "The Apostolic Baptists were Missionary Baptists. This is abundantly proved by the Master's commanding the church to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature'." Here he quotes Mark 16:15 as "abundant proof" for Missionary Baptists, and yet that verse is a part of the passage that Bogard says is a "spurious interpolation" and no part of "the very word of God." But maybe Bogard has changed his idea of the passage since he wrote the Way-Book. Well, he often changes, as is shown by his various debates and books in print. In his debate with N. B. Hardeman he said on page 273: "I have never yet said that Mark 16:16 was a part of the word of God." Well, in his Way-Book he said that verse 15 contained the "Master's commandment" to the church, and if verse 15 is the Master's commandment, so is verse 16, for it is all a part of the same passage that Bogard says is not in the "original Greek." It was in 1938 that he made this statement in debate with N. B. Hardeman, and that was since he wrote the Way-Book. But let us look at a statement made since the Hardeman-Bogard Debate. In the Orthodox Baptist Searchlight, Nov. 10, 1943, we have another statement by him. This was about five years since his debate with Hardeman. It was about six months later than the issue of his paper from which the quotation was made at the beginning of this article. What does he say at this date? Well, he publishes a sermon that he preached over the radio on the subject: "Put Christ First In All Things." He asks the question: "What was the work that Jesus told his followers to do?" In answering the question he gives a number of things that Jesus did not tell them. After that he comes to this question again: "What, then, does Jesus want his people to do?" And here is his answer: "The work of the church is to go into all the world and preach the gospel'." So he quotes from Mark 16:15 again, and he says this is what "Jesus told" his people to do. Well, if this is what Jesus said, it must be "the very word of God" and not a "spurious interpolation." If it is a spurious interpolation, Bogard is "depending on a spurious interpolation" to prove what Jesus wants the church to do. And since he has promised to "take out" when he does a thing of that kind, he would just as well unhitch himself, for he is certainly depending on what he says is not in the original Greek. Did someone say that "the legs of the lame are unequal?"

But I want to leave this final question with "Dr." Bogard. Since he has said "when it becomes necessary for Baptists to depend on spurious interpolations instead of the very word of God for their doctrine, right then we will take out," I want to know what he depends on for the name Baptist Church. It is nowhere found in all the word of God. And there is no "spurious interpolation" in the Bible that even remotely hints at it. He is, therefore, unable to sustain his doctrine and practice along this line by the word of God nor by "spurious interpolations." He must go completely out of the realm of the Bible to find it. And I might tell him that when I cannot sustain my doctrine and practice by even a "spurious interpolation," to say nothing of the word of God, right then I'll take out. And if he can find even some "spurious Scripture" for the "Baptist Church", I would like to see it. Maybe he will print it for us in an early issue of the Orthodox Baptist Searchlight.

III. What Preachers Tell Us

We can't always depend on what preachers tell us. Sometimes they tell us the truth; sometimes it is otherwise. But we are usually willing to accept what they say if they do not contradict the word of the Lord. And a great many people will accept them even if they do contradict what God says. The following story is told by a Baptist preacher, E. P. Alldredge, writing in the American Baptist of Sept. 11, 1944. As far as I know the story is true, and in the main, his comments upon the story are true. But I am convinced that he was not the preacher to tell us about it and make the comments. It is a story that concerns

Confessing To The Wrong Person

Mr. Alldredge gets his information from a journal published by the Episcopalians. In fact, he gives a quotation from said journal. From it we learn that a Roman Catholic girl, while in New York, went looking for a Catholic Church that she might confess to a Catholic priest. She found what seemed to be a good Catholic Church, made her confession, obtained her forgiveness; and then the following Sunday she discovered somehow that she had confessed to a Protestant Episcopal minister instead of to a Catholic priest. Her father was somewhat upset and wanted something done about it. Whether anything was done, I do not know, but Mr. Alldredge says:

"In such a delicate and distressful situation, we wonder if a Baptist might not offer two helpful suggestions."

It is all right, I suppose, for any one to offer "helpful suggestions" when any situation presents itself that is "delicate and distressful." And yet if the suggestions put the one who offers them into the same "delicate and distressful situation," it would likely be better for him to keep still. For that reason I am sure this Baptist preacher talked out of turn. Let us take a look at his first "helpful suggestion." Here it is:

l. Why go to a confessional at all—Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, Episcopalian, or Lutheran? There is not even a hint in the New Testament Scriptures that any one of the apostles established a confessional, or made a confession to any one of his fellow ministers, or advised or suggested that any Christian should go to a confessional."

What boldness a Baptist preacher must have to offer a suggestion like that! It is certainly true that there "is not even a hint in the New Testament" that any inspired man "established a confessional." And there is no Scriptural authority for any man to "go to a confessional—Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, Episcopalian, or Lutheran." But I wonder how it happened not to occur to this Baptist preacher that "there is not even a hint in the New Testament" that "any of the apostles," or the Lord himself, ever established a Baptist Church. Neither is there "a hint in the New Testament" that any inspired man ever "advised or suggested that any Christian" or any one else should join a Baptist Church or even "go to a Baptist Church." It looks to me like this Baptist preacher is in the same "delicate and distressful situation" that the Catholic priest is in and needs someone to offer some helpful suggestions to him. The Catholic priest or the Episcopal minister could offer to this Baptist preacher the same suggestion he offered them, and with as much propriety and good sense, for it is evident to all who know the facts of the case—and no one knows them better than this Baptist that the same verse in the New Testament that mentions the Baptist Church tells also of the Catholic confessional. It mentions neither, of course, but the Catholic has just as much divine authority for his confessional as the Baptist has for his Baptist Church. I am not sure that he could not come nearer proving divine authority for his confessional than any man can for the Baptist Church. James said: "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another." (Jas. 5:16) While this does not sanction the Catholic confessional, it does give authority for one man to confess to another and for one to pray for another. If any Baptist preacher could find a passage in the New Testament that mentioned anything that sounded as much like a Baptist Church as this does a confessional, he would make the discovery of the century as far as Baptists are concerned, and his name would be heralded to the ends of the earth. What Baptist preacher would not be willing to give the last shirt off his back for just such a passage? They have been searching diligently for it for years, but no man has ever found it. I would suggest that Baptist preachers keep quiet when anything is said about what is hinted at or mentioned in the New Testament. They might save themselves from a "delicate and distressful situation."

No Salvation Outside Of Baptist Church

Baptist preachers have long raised a howl about the idea of salvation in the church. When gospel preachers contend that there is no salvation for responsible people in this age outside of the church of the New Testament Baptist preachers have tried to create prejudice against us and sympathy for them by saying that will damn all good Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans and all others who are not members of "the so-called church of Christ." So it may sound a little strange for a Baptist preacher to tell us that salvation is possible only in the Baptist Church. And yet one preacher recently did that. I don't think he intended to do it, and likely was not aware at the time that he was doing it. But he did it anyway. The preacher is C. R. Meadows, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Texas, and recently connected with Jacksonville Baptist College. He sent a report of a meeting to American Baptist, of which D. N. Jackson is editor. The report concerned a meeting conducted in Jacksonville and was published in the issue of May 26, 1944. After telling the results of the meeting Mr. Meadows said:

"Now, Bro. Jackson, we are already looking forward to having you with us again in the fall. It seems to me that we need to be busy in revivals all over the country. The people need the simple, plain gospel which is the power of God unto salvation, as only Baptist people can preach it."

I suppose D. N. Jackson indorsed this statement. At least he registered no objection to it, and he headed the report like this: "Good Report Concerning Texas Church And College." If what Meadows told us was not true, or if Jackson did not think it was true, he said nothing about it. It is very unusual, of course, for a Baptist preacher to tell us that "the simple, plain gospel" is "the power of God unto salvation." I know that Paul said that in Rom. 1:16, but Paul was not a Baptist preacher. He lived and died hundreds of years before a Baptist Church was ever heard of. Generally, Baptist preachers do not agree with Paul, they are not willing to say that the gospel is "the power" of God unto salvation. D. N. Jackson himself has denied this in debate with me, claiming that the gospel is only a small part of the power to save—that there must be a power distinct from the gospel and in addition to it exerted upon the sinner before it is possible for him to be saved. In case such is true, then the gospel is not "the power of God unto salvation." But C. R. Meadows says it is. So some of them must be learning. But he not only said "the gospel is the power of God unto salvation" but declared "only Baptist people can preach it." Note his statement again: "The people need the simple, plain gospel which is the power of God unto salvation, as only Baptist people can preach it." This means, of course, that Methodist preachers cannot preach it. Neither can Presbyterian preachers. Lutheran preachers, Pentecostal preachers, or any other kind except Baptists, for "only Baptist people can preach it." So all the tears Baptist preachers have shed about the Methodists going to hell if our preaching is true have been wasted, because they will now have to go to hell if Meadows' "Good Report" is true. How were Methodists converted anyway? They were converted under the preaching of Methodist preachers. But Methodist preachers cannot preach "the simple, plain gospel which is the power of God unto salvation"-"only Baptist people can preach it." So if Methodists were saved by the preaching of Methodist preachers, they were saved without hearing the gospel "which is the power of God" to save. They must hear Baptists preach in order to hear that gospel. If they were saved under Methodist preaching, they were saved independent of the power of God. In fact, according to Mr. Meadows, no one will be saved except those who have been converted under the preaching of Baptists. This consigns every body to hell but the Baptists, for those who are converted under Baptist preaching become Baptists, and nobody else ever obeys the gospel, because their preachers can't preach it.

Mr. Meadows is the man, if you remember, that I mentioned in a former article, who re-baptized a Baptist preacher at Jacksonville sometime ago after he had been preaching to and baptizing people for several years. The question was raised then as to what was the status of all those this preacher baptized before his re-baptism. And now it appears that none of them could possibly be saved. Prior to his re-baptism that preacher was not a Baptist, as he had not received Baptist baptism according to their "age old position," and during that time he could not preach the gospel that is God's power to save, for "only Baptist people can" do that. Whoever accepted his preaching during those years were not saved, unless men can be saved without hearing "the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation, as only Baptist people can preach it." It is time now for Baptist preachers to start shedding tears for them.

IV. Report Of Mabelvale Debate

From March 12 to March 16 inclusive I met W. Eugene Davis, Missionary Baptist, in a debate at Mabelvale, near Little Rock, Arkansas. Elder Davis is editor and owner of The Oklahoma Missionary Baptist. On the editorial page of March 20, 1945, and with editorial endorsement, the following report of the debate appeared. It was written by Elder Jack Dean, moderator for Elder Davis. Before commenting on the report I want you to read it as follows:

The debate is now history. To say that Brother Davis defended and presented Baptist doctrine is to state it mildly. He is much the master of any situation where a defense of "the faith once for all delivered unto the saints" is involved. His arguments from the scriptures are unanswerable. The only recourse left the Campbellites is ridicule and misrepresentation, which they are capable of doing.

It is doubted that the Campbellites in this section of the country will want any more debates very soon. If you are bothered with these folks in your community, it will do your soul good to get Brother Davis in there for a defense of Baptist Doctrine. The church here, of which I am pastor, was well pleased with the debate, in fact all Baptists who attended said that it was the most complete victory for Bible truth witnessed in a long time.

Mr. Porter, who represented the Campbellites, is given up to be a very good debater, but he was made to look like a beginner. In fact the defeat was so crushing to the Campbellites that they all started to talking, and that while Brother Davis was on the floor. They even went so far as to object to his using the scriptures. If you need a good debater, do not fail to call on Brother Davis.

ELDER JACK DEAN, Mabelvale, Arkansas.

I have learned a good while ago that it does not seem to hurt the consciences of Baptist preachers to lie. I thought that Jack Dean, young Baptist preacher who moderated for Davis might be able to state things more accurately than many of them, as he is yet a young preacher and has not had so much experience in preaching Baptist doctrine as some of them. But after reading the above report by him, I shall have to admit that he "sounds like a veteran" among Baptist preachers. It was really amusing to me to read the statement that Davis "is much the master of any situation." It will no doubt cause you to get a good laugh if you were among those who attended the discussion. Davis is a likable sort of fellow. I had never met him before until we met for this discussion. He has a characteristic smile that helps you to like his personality. That smile remained for the first two sessions of the debate. Whether he was presenting his arguments or being prodded by his opponent, he could look at you with a smile that made you think he might be enjoying the discussion. But after the second session he began to break, the smile began to diminish and agony began to register in its place. During the last session of the debate, as I made my two speeches, the smile was entirely gone. Davis sat, as all the audience knows, with his head down, his eyes staring at the floor by way of his nose, his lips trembling and quivering, and though I pressed him constantly I could not even get him to open his eyes and look at me. Whenever my opponent drives me to a condition like that I shall never give editorial endorsement to a report that says I was "master of any situation." I know when men suffer. I have seen them suffer before. And if any man's agony was ever written upon his brow, it was so with Davis before the debate was over. The statement that Davis made Porter "look like a beginner" is about the biggest joke I have heard since the war started. Along with it may be classed the statement: "It is doubted that the Campbellites in this section of the country will want any more debates very soon." Let them call for one and see how quickly they are accommodated. But I predict that Elder Davis will not be running over anybody to get into it.

Another statement that is characteristic of Baptist preachers in their lack of veracity is this: "The defeat was so crushing to the Campbellites that they all started to talking, and that while Brother Davis was on the floor." This is as far from the truth as the east is from the west. I resent being called Campbellites, of course, but I know whom he means by the slanderous use he makes of the term. Often during the discussion, while Davis was on the floor, he would direct his talk to some of our gospel preachers in the audience, whom he called school boys, and often he got a response from them. But to say "they all began talking" while Davis was on the floor has not a speck of truth involved. And, except for Baptist doctrine, I could not understand how any man who claims to be a child of God could say: "They even went so far as to object to his using the scriptures." Nothing of this kind ever occurred at any time during the entire discussion. I wonder if Jack Dean thinks that people who heard the debate will be willing to swallow such falsehoods. Once during the discussion Davis began to introduce new arguments in his final negative of the proposition, based on scriptures that had never been used in the debate. E. R. Harper, my moderator objected: He did not object to his using scriptures but he objected to his making new arguments in his final negative when I had no chance to reply. I suppose that is what Dean calls "objecting to his using the scriptures." That is about as close to the truth as you could well expect a Baptist preacher to get. But after we objected—nobody objected but my moderator and me—to his new arguments in his final negative, we let him proceed with his new arguments, for we realized he needed them badly. But we wanted the audience to be aware of the fact that he was introducing new arguments when he knew I had no chance to reply.

I said, "except for Baptist doctrine," I could not understand how a man claiming to be a child of God could make such statements. But I fully understand it in connection with Baptist doctrine. It is but practicing what they preach—that a child of God can commit any sin beneath heaven, die in the very act and go to heaven anyway. During our discussion of the possibility of apostasy I asked Elder Davis two written questions. He wrote his answers to the questions. The questions with his answers are as follows:

1. Is it possible for a Baptist child of God to get drunk and commit murder?

Answer: Yes.

2. If he should die while drunk and in the act of murder, would he go to heaven?

Answer: Yes.

These are Davis' own answers to these questions, and while some Baptists might hate to admit that such is Baptist doctrine, it is so. This is what they teach. Every act of the alien, they claim, is a sin in the sight of God; but the child of God may do anything and it will not be held against him. Before conversion the man may refuse to drink, but it is a sin and he will die and go to hell; but after conversion he may become a drunken sot, die in the gutter while intoxicated, and still go to heaven. Before conversion he may refuse to have any trouble with his neighbor, but such is a sin, and he will die and go to hell; but after conversion he may take his razor and cut his neighbor's throat from ear to ear, die in the very act, and go to heaven. Before conversion he may control the lusts of the flesh, but it is a sin, and he will die and go to hell; but after conversion he may ravish your wife and daughter, get killed in the very act, but he will go to heaven anyway. Before conversion if he tells the truth, it is a sin, and he will be sent to hell for it; but after conversion he may lie to every man he meets, and he may die with lies upon his lips, but he will go to heaven anyway. So I suppose that explains why Baptist preachers can say such things in their report of a debate. It doesn't hurt them to lie, according to their doctrine, for they will go to heaven in spite of it all. I suppose we should not, therefore, be greatly surprised at the report on the editorial page of Davis' paper.

But to show you how well he was "master of every situation" I shall mention a few situations. While discussing the question of Christ's sitting on David's literal throne in Jerusalem when he returns, I introduced the statement in Jer. 22:30 concerning Coniah, also called Jeconiah and Jeconias. God, through the prophet, said: "Write this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." It was shown from this statement that no man of the seed of Coniah could ever rule any more "in Judah" on the throne of David. But Matthew, in his genealogy of Jesus, traces his descent directly through Coniah; therefore, Jesus is "the seed of Coniah," and can never rule on David's throne "in Judah." But that very kind of reign Davis and all premillennialists are claiming for him at his second coming. The book of God says it shall not be. Davis, who was "master of every situation," replied that Jesus was not a descendant of Coniah, for Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, and Jesus was not the son of Joseph. To get the line of Christ, he claimed, we must take Luke's genealogy, for he traces to Mary and not Joseph. Then he insisted that according to Luke's record Jesus is not descendant of Coniah. Well, I turned to Luke's record, in Luke 3:27, and found that Luke traced his genealogy through Salathial and Zorobabel, the son and grandson of Coniah according to Mat. 1:12. So the "situation" did not stay "mastered" for Davis. Since he said Luke gave the genealogy of. Mary, and she was a direct descendant of Salathial and Zorobabel, that made her a descendant of Coniah, for she came through the son and grandson of Coniah, Under pressure Davis admitted that Mary was the seed of Coniah, but still insisted that Jesus was not, although he was the son of Mary. Everybody, including Davis himself, could see his predicament. So he tried to master this situation in a different fashion. In a subsequent session of the debate he took the position that Coniah was childless, according to Jeremiah, and Jesus could not therefore be a descendant of his. But this failed to "master the situation" for he had already said that Joseph was a descendant of Coniah and admitted that Mary was, as the point was pressed upon him. I was curious to know how Joseph and Mary could be descendants of Coniah if he was childless. Besides, Matthew said: "Jeconias begat Salathial." So I wanted to know how this could be true if he had no children. Jeremiah does not say that Coniah was childless. He was not childless. Seven sons of Coniah are listed in 1 Chron. 3:17,18. But God said, "Write him childless." In other words, as far as any son of his ever ruling on the throne of David "in Judah" was concerned, he was to be reckoned childless. No son of his, no descendant of his, was ever thus to rule. So that eliminates any such rule on the earth by Jesus when he comes the second time. This shows how well Davis was "master of every situation."

Then, too, while discussing baptism as essential to salvation, I introduced John 3:5 in which Jesus said: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." I contended that this included baptism as a condition of salvation. He made the usual Bogard run by substituting the word baptize for born throughout the passage, claiming that we claim that born means baptize. But no one ever made that claim, and he based his argument upon a misrepresentation, we have never said that the word "born" means "baptize."

But we claim that "born of water" has reference to baptism, and we are perfectly willing for the word baptize to be substituted for such expressions. But not for the word born. I endeavored to get him to tell me what "born of water" meant that I might substitute his definition for the word "born" throughout the passage, He saw the handwriting on the wall, the situation looked bad, and he refused to say. Under constant and continued pressure he said: "Born of water means what it says," Then I asked what the word "-water" in the passage means. He replied: "It means what it says," "Well, does it mean water' " I questioned, he again replied that it means what it says. So I asked: "Does it say water'?" He replied that it does. So it says "'water," and it means what it says; therefore it means water. But usually Baptist preachers claim it means "Spirit." Davis, however, says it means water just as it says, I believe that too. Since then Davis admits that "water" means "water" I want him to note the fact that Jesus put water between a man and the kingdom of God, and I insisted that he tell us where and what the water is that is between a man and the kingdom of God. The "situation" was never "mastered" by Davis.

Many other such situations could be given if space permitted. To those who heard the discussion such a report as occurred in the Oklahoma Missionary Baptist will really be amusing.

In closing I give herewith the following report of the debate which appeared in The Tennessee Valley Christian, edited by Franklin T. Puckett, minister of the Poplar Street church in Florence, Alabama. Along with many other gospel preachers he heard the debate. But here is his report: "Several preachers of the Tri-Cities area recently returned from a trip to Mabelvale, Arkansas, where Bro. W. Curtis Porter engaged Mr. W. Eugene Davis in a religious discussion concerning certain points of difference between the two. The debate lasted five nights (March 12-16) and included discussions of the following topics: premillennialism, the plan of salvation, apostasy, and the return of the Jews to Palestine.

Mr. Davis, a reputable Baptist minister, and editor of the Oklahoma Missionary Baptist, while laboring strenuously to present convincing arguments in defense of his positions, was woefully put to shame by Bro. Porter's masterful exposition of the truth of God's word. Bro. Porter's power lay in his irrefutable arguments, his driving logic, and his genial personality, all of which gave him complete mastery of his audience. The general sentiment prevailing among preachers of the church of Christ who were present was that Bro. Curtis Porter ranks at the very top in his ability to expose the erroneous doctrines of denominationalism. May God grant him a long, healthy, and prosperous life in the Master's vineyard. The faith of the gospel will never suffer at the hands of men of his caliber."

V. A New Heresy

There were heresies in the church in the days of the apostles. False teachers came from Jerusalem to Antioch and taught that Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses in order to be saved. With these teachers of heresy Paul and Barnabas had a big debate. The trouble was not settled by compromise nor by ignoring it. Some in Corinth taught a "no resurrection" heresy. And others taught that "the resurrection is past already" and overthrew the faith of some. It is no new thing for a heretic to appear in the church with some system of false doctrine.

In the nineteenth century teachers in the church began to advocate the instrumental music heresy. Later came the premillennial heresy with all its varied theories. And now a new heresy has appeared in this part of the country. For several years Thos. L. Conner, now of Leachville, Arkansas, has been preaching that there will be no judgment after death—that all judgment for man takes place during his lifetime. Recently he has begun a persistent and constant agitation of this theory. Wherever he goes, he advocates, both publicly and privately, this theory. He has caused much disturbance among brethren. And, according to the information which I have received, this and another hobby of his have resulted in the division of congregations. He has been challenging far and wide any one to meet him in debate on this issue. And the news has been spread around that every preacher is afraid to meet him. Some people have been made to believe this and have been convinced that he must have the truth, or preachers would not be afraid of him. Recently his challenge was made in such a way as to include me. I accepted his challenge and propositions have been signed for a discussion. The propositions to be debated are as follows:

1. The Scriptures teach that there will be a judgment for man after death and at the second coming of Christ.

2. The Scriptures teach that the intermediate state of the dead was destroyed when Jesus arose and all judgment for man takes place during his lifetime in the Christian age.

I am to affirm the first proposition; Conner, the second. The discussion will be held at the Boynton church, north of Leachville, Ark., where Conner is serving as preacher. The date has not yet been set but will be just as soon as my blood count is reduced far enough toward normal to make it safe for me to engage in a discussion. I am fully convinced that circumstances justify this debate. Some may think the whole thing should be ignored, but ignoring Conner and his theory will not stop the theory. Not that Conner is such an outstanding preacher, for he is not, but he has had a number of debates and has great confidence in his debating ability. And he is fully determined to revolutionize the church with this theory. He has a broadcast on a station that covers seven or eight states and has preached his theory extensively in his broadcast work. Furthermore, he has a number of preachers under his training. His son, Marshall Conner, is destined to be a preacher of no small ability. Already he is constantly advocating his theory. Two other young preachers—Cecil Cagle and Lowell Blassingame—are under his tutorship. And I understand that they have accepted the theory. Whether they are already preaching it or not I have not learned. But the theory has opportunity to become a major trouble in the church. I am convinced that the quickest way to kill it is to debate it at every opportunity. This I have resolved to do. The folly of ignoring heresies has been fully shown in connection with the theory of premillennialism. Had it been fought constantly from the time it first appeared among us it would have never reached the magnitude that it did. If I live, and if the Lord wills, this new heresy shall not go unchallenged for twenty years. I feel that brethren should know that when you call these men who are advocating this theory you are inviting trouble. Just recently Eugene S. Smith, of Dallas, Texas, added impetus to this theory and encouragement to the heretic when he appeared on Conner's broadcast. He was conducting a meeting for the church at Black Oak, Ark., and was invited by Conner to speak over the radio. His sermon was given to the advocating of the first part of Conner's theory—the destruction of the intermediate state. Whether Bro. Smith also accepts Bro. Conner's theory of the judgment was not stated. But at least he added his influence to the theory by preaching a portion of the very things Conner has been so persistently agitating. But the thing will soon be tested in public discussion. If I know in time when the discussion will be I shall make announcement of the date in our papers.