Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
May 17, 1982
NUMBER 3, PAGE 6-7,13b

News And Views

Charles A. Holt, 4662 University Dr., Wichita Falls, Texas


William H. Lewis is moving from Knoxville, Tennessee, to St. Petersburg, Florida, where he will follow James P. Needham in the work with the 9th Avenue congregation. Needham has moved to Louisville, Kentucky, to labor with the sound brethren of the Taylor Blvd. -church A NEW ONE ON ME: I recently ran across a new problem; at least, I have never encountered it before, and have never even heard of it elsewhere. We have a young lady here who is very allergic to grapejuice! When I say very allergic, I mean just that. Even having grapes in the house causes her to break out in an awful rash and great whelps. Just the touch of grape juice — even no more than is taken in the Lord's Supper, makes her sick. She is not to have it or be around it in any shape, form or fashion whatever. Well, what would YOU advise her to do? She was only recently baptized and every time she has taken the fruit of the vine in observing the Lord's Supper it has made her very sick. Is there any substitute? Could she use strawberry juice? Would it be permissible in such a case to forego taking the fruit of the vine? I should like very much to have any ideas — and the REASONS THEREFORE — that any reader of this column may have regarding this matter. It is certainly a problem to the young lady "BOTH SIDES?" Recently there have appeared a couple of articles in this paper which "were presented as being opposite certain other articles which have appeared in this journal." No doubt these articles were offered supposedly in answer to some remarks I had made relative to "the marriage question." While they may have been "presented as being opposite" or in answer to some of the things that I have written, I deny that any of the articles have in reality dealt with the point or points that I raised. They all "beg the question" from start to finish, and in reality discussed a matter — the so-called "Fuqua position" (which is getting to be an epithet and title of stigma given by many to any and every position with which-they do not agree concerning any of the various .ramifications of this problem!), about which no question was raised whatever. I merely raised the question as to how far we dare to go with requiring one to renounce a second marriage, go back to mate number one, or else live in celibacy. Some say that this must be done in every case where there has been a remarriage after a divorce for other than scriptural cause. Those who advocated this view (law?) insist that if they do not accept this conclusion and thus separate from the present mate, they are "living in adultery." (And once more I should like to raise the question of where we ever read the phrase, "living in adultery"? We claim to speak where the oracles of God speak, yet we could not produce that phrase from the Word of God to save our very lives. To use such a term — without proving that it is correct and valid — that it expresses an exact teaching of the Bible — is to beg the question and cloud the issue.) Apparently there are some today who are bent upon PRESSING their DEDUCTION and CONCLUSION concerning this matter upon any and everyone who may be guilty of such second Marriages as ate judged "living in adultery," even to the point of withdrawing from them., There, is also talk of making it "the next major issue" in the church. Moreover, those who are such ardent advocates of this view DEMAND that all of us MUST accept without reservation their DEDUCTIONS on this question or else we are "unsound on the marriage question."To refuse to go as far as they do with such a position is to be guilty of the so-called "Fuqua position" or at least be guilty of trying to defend and justify any and all second marriages! My "word or caution" had to do only with the intensity and degree with which and to which this DEDUCTION is being pushed; and the branding of all who refuse to become "judge and jury" (in DEMANDING that those who are "living in adultery" MUST either separate from the present companion and either return to the first companion or remain unmarried; and unless they will comply with this degree they will be withdrawn from!) as being "unsound on the marriage question." From what I have seen, read, and heard even since my "word of caution" was given, I am convinced that some serious caution is badly needed. The new church in Montgomery, Alabama, is now meeting at 657 South Court St. They have a lot in the Gay Meadows section of Montgomery and they hope to begin construction on a building sometime later in the year.

Investigation Of Purgatory

A few weeks ago I carried an article in this column regarding a lawsuit to take place in California, which would have to do with an investigation of the Catholic purgatory. At the time that I lifted the article for publication I had no idea as to the background of the case nor the motives of those who are pushing for the "investigation." The following letter from Brother Henry A. Kirkland, 631 Monterey St., Vallejo, California, gives some interesting information concerning this affair.

March 29, 1962

Dear Brother Holt:

In reference to the printing an article considering the "Purgatory Probe" in the Gospel Guardian of March 29, 1962, I should like to submit some more facts which I believe may serve to show that the suit instigated in San Francisco, by one Vincent Hallinan will not be a "triumph of truth" in ANY EVENT, for that is not the purpose of the atheist Hallinan and he is not a gentleman of honor in search of truth, but is a well known "communist fellow-traveler" who is serving only one cause, that of destruction of confidence in God's Word.

I, like the good brother in San Bernardino, California, also agree that it is time for the investigation of Purgatory. However, I should like to have it investigated in the light of God's word and not in the light of "modern scientific" reasoning as advanced by these Atheists. Further, according to the facts close at hand, a thorough investigation of it will not be conducted — if the case is ever admitted under the rules of evidence — by this man, for he will only be the champion of a far advanced cause in this area — Atheism. Please consider the following evidence:

In reference to this suit, Mr. Hallinan appeared on the program P.M. West, January 4th, at midnight, pacific time, with another lawyer to discuss the problems inherent in getting the suit to be admitted to trial. The discussion was to center around the rules of evidence in such cases and the intent was to determine if the suit could meet such qualifications. The complete discussion and rules are too lengthy to go into. Suffice it to say that Mr. Hallinan did not confine himself to such discussion but spent the entire time ranting and raving against the BIBLE, filling his conversation with such statements as it is, "a book of myths, superstitions, etc.," and making or asking such questions as, "You don't really believe that Eve ate an APPLE (emphasis mine - HAK), do you?" By such action he clearly demonstrated not only his ignorance of the Book of God, but also wherein his intentions lay in this suit. As a result of this program, which I personally watched, I wrote Mr. Hallinan the letter, a copy of which is enclosed, also including the proposition for discussion (copy also enclosed), but as of this date have not heard a word from him in this regard.

Having spent the last four years in the area Just north of San Francisco, with almost two and a half years preaching (sometimes supporting myself and in the last ten months being supported fully) I am quite conversant with the situation in this area in regards to Catholicism and Atheism. I have wrangled with the atheists and never been able to get one of them to answer satisfactorily. Just as I have stood against the inroads and innovations of the brethren, including their institutions and have never been able to get them to give satisfactory answers. While my name is synonymous with ANTI — for I also stand planted against Denominationalism, Catholicism, and Institutionalism, still it has never been my purpose to start a fight for the sake of fighting nor to debate with the idea of trying to "make a name" — only desiring to find Truth and adhere to it. Trying at all times to be gentle and meek as the scriptures teach, which in most cases is not the same as men imagine.

I really did not and still do not care to handle this debate myself, but had hoped to instigate it and get Roy Cogdill — he was a lawyer himself — to debate this atheistic lawyer. If you would like to send this Hallinan a copy of the Guardian and maybe smoke him out, his address is enclosed on letters.

We Can Be Sure That Mr. Hallinan Will Not Accept The Challenge Offered By Our Brother; Nor Will Any Of Those Who Stand With Him Do So. The Proposition Which Bro. Kirkland Sent Is As Follows: "Resolved: That The Bible Is A Book Of Myths, Inaccuracies And Superstitions. That It Can Not Be Relied Upon In The Realm Of Man's Creation, Purpose On Earth, Nature, Nor Eternal Destiny." It Certainly Would Make Interesting Listening To Hear One Of These Atheists Take In Hand The Task Of Proving This Proposition In An Honorable Public Discussion.

To give further insight into this affair, I want to present an article which I received from Grover W. Hunt of Tuscumbia, Alabama. He clipped it from a little magazine called "Liberal," which is published by those who are atheists. Read the article taken from the December, 1961, issue.

Suit Filed To Locate Hell Charles Stevens

A prominent San Francisco attorney has filed suit to contest the will of David F. Supple of that city, who left his entire estate to 35 Roman Catholic institutions, disinheriting his relatives. Vincent Hallinan, the attorney, says that Supple was unduly influenced through fear of horrible torture in the flames of purgatory and hell to leave his money to the Church by statements that his torture could be averted thereby Hallinan charges that the testator was of unsound mind and "was persuaded and induced to so believe the teachings of the church that he entertained a constant and morbid fear that, upon his death, his soul might be 'consigned to hell — or that it would not attain heaven except after a long and painful stay in purgatory."

"In effect," Hallinan says, "I am asking the church to pinpoint the exact location of heaven, hell and purgatory." He asks that the will be set aside and the court declare that Supple died intestate. He challenges the claim of the church to act as the agent of God on earth and that they can ease a person's way through a purgatory into a heaven. In teaching this doctrine Hallinan charges "the church is guilty of fraud."

Hallinan is a former Catholic. "I went to St. Ignatius High School for four years and then four years to St. Ignatius University and got a B.A. degree. Then four more years and got a law degree. I was at that time a Roman Catholic. Now I'm a roaring atheist."

The suit further states that Supple was induced to make his will upon the statements and misrepresentations of Catholic officials that the church had power to direct his soul to a happy destination. "There is no soul in the sense set forth.... therefore the bestowal of gifts upon the Church cannot and does not procure for (the individual) any merit or standing which will insure the immediate or ultimate entry of the fictitious soul into a fictitious Heaven nor the release of any person from the equally fictitious Purgatory."

After filing the suit Hallinan said that if the Church can point out exactly where this place Hell is, perhaps we can get someone to drop an H-bomb on it, and what a greater thing that would be for mankind.

Will the court actually hear this case? If they do will the Bishop appear to defend it? He can only say he believes these places exist because he read it or heard it. But this is hearsay, not evidence.

About Those Spot Cards

In his "News and Views" column of April 5. 1962, issue of the Gospel Guardian, brother Charles Holt stated he would like to see articles concerning the "spot cards." It has been quite some time (far too long, I fear) since I have written or said anything on the subject. Most of the points I used to make in preaching along this line (and the same shall be true of this article) were based upon some statements in a booklet, entitled. "A Deck of Cards" by Charles F. Weigle, which can be purchased from Zonderwan Publishing House of Grand Rapids, Michigan.


Concerning their origin Mr. Weigle writes, "It is an interesting fact that the first deck of cards was made for King Charles of France, an insane man, in 1392. Whoever the inventor was, he evidently had a hatred for the Bible and its divine author, for the teaching of the card language is in direct opposition to the sacred and beautiful teachings of the Bible. That is one reason you may see decks of cards in the hands of prostitutes, drunkards, thieves, murderers, bandits, kidnapers, and gamblers, but never in the hands of saints of God. You will find cards in taverns, brothels, prisons, insane asylums, gambling dens and like places, but never in prayer meetings."


Perhaps many do not realize that there are secrets connected with these (spot) cards. Mr. Weigle tells us that the information he has given regarding the secrets of the cards has been verified by professional gamblers and a gambling fraternity. The King card represents the devil, "the Prince of darkness"; the Ten Spot represents the "spirit of lawlessness" and stands in opposition to the moral law as found in the ten commandments. On page seventeen of his booklet Mr. Weigle says, "There is a card in the 'dirty deck' called the Jack. In the secret language of cards it represents the lustful libertine, from the pimp who lives off the earnings of the prostitute, to the licentious man who seeks his victims in the higher levels of society. He is the moral leper who lives only to gratify his fleshly lusts."

Now in the language of the cards the Queen represents Mary, the mother of Jesus; however, she is called the "mother of harlots." The Joker represents the Lord Jesus Christ, but according to the secrets of the cards Joker means "fool," thus the Saviour is called a fool and held to ridicule. Then says Mr. Weigle, "The climax of all that is diabolical. In connection with the language of cards is this: Jesus Christ, the joker, is said to be the child, the off spring of the licentious Jack and the Queen, the mother of harlots."

After calling attention to and pointing out these things I have had some to say, "We have spot cards at our house and play with them, but did not know that about them," and they left the impression upon me that they planned to continue. An observation or two seem to be in order. First, if "ignorance is bliss" I suppose it is "folly to be wise." Second, after one receives "light" does he not have a greater obligation than before?

Those Innocent (?) Games In The Home

The author of the booklet also contends that, "Nine-tenths of all gambling is done with cards and nine-tenths of the gamblers today learned to play cards at home." Perhaps a knowledge of facts like these is what prompted Foy E. Wallace, Jr., to state in a sermon some years ago, "Card playing is the kindergarten for gambling."

In the sermon on the mount the Saviour said, "A tree is known by its fruits." Just as the "fruits" of such practices as dancing, drinking, the wearing of immodest dress are everything but wholesome and desirable, the same can be said about the "spot cards." It was Paul who wrote, "Abstain from every form of evil." (1 Thess. 5:22 - A.S.V.)

Which Will You Do?

As it is with most discussions like this one some will be benefitted and some will not. Some, no doubt, will assume the attitude, "We do not care what you say about it, we plan to continue playing"; however, some may be like a brother in Flint, Michigan, several years ago who told me after hearing a lesson in which I condemned the "spot cards," "I plan to dispose of them." Which will you do? I sincerely pray your decision will be that of the Michigan brother and that you will dispose of them. Would it not be better to be "safe than sorry"?

— John Iverson, The Persuader, Port Arthur, Texas