5.01 - IS THE BIBLE TRUE?

IS THE BIBLE TRUE? My friends and brethren, I am delighted to see such a fine audience assembled—possibly twenty-five hundred are present. Just twenty years ago yesterday, I came into your midst for the first tabernacle meeting. The stenographer who was present at that time to take down that which was delivered is with us again this afternoon, and I am sure a number who were at that first meeting twenty years past are also here. To satisfy a curiosity, let me ask every one of you who attended that meeting on the first night please to stand for just a moment. (Perhaps one thousand arose.) That is fine. Through a kindly Providence we have been spared this score of years, and I joy and rejoice that it is mine to be with you at this time for another study which I trust may be both pleasant and profitable to all. It has been announced that the theme for the afternoon would be: ""Is the Bible True?" Doubtless, some of you wonder why I selected such a subject. Your very presence indicates that you are interested in this study. I have been on railroad cars when they pulled into the station. I have seen men walk along with a hammer and have heard them knock the wheels of that car on which I was. I never got alarmed at such and decided that there was danger. I understood that there was precious freight aboard and that they just wanted to make certain that everything was safe and secure. I believe that it is not amiss for us to examine that foundation, upon which our hopes must forever rest, and to take another survey of things that have challenged the attention of many people through the passing of the years.

I wonder if you are thinking of the importance attached to such a question as our subject. What does it imply? If the Bible is God’s book, it is true; if not, it is the work of man, and, may I say, if the work of man, it is the greatest imposition this world has ever seen, because from beginning to end it claims to be a product from the hand of God, and that its statements were penned by holy men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. If it is not God’s book, it must come down from the high pinnacle on which it has placed itself, to the common level of man. But even more than that, it would have to sink beneath the ordinary writings of honest men because of the claim that it makes. If such claim turned out to be false, then it sinks below such a level. What is involved in a study of this kind? I want to say to you, friends, that our conception of God Almighty is based upon the Bible. No people, no nation, ever has had a conception of one true and living God where the Bible has not gone. You might say that all nations have by nature been worshiping characters. That is true, but nature has never taught anybody the existence of but one Supreme Being. May I suggest to you, friends, that all that I know about Christ, the Holy Spirit, Christianity, yea, and mankind, as he was, as he is, and as he shall be, rests upon the statements of the Bible. If that be not true, then I have held the wrong ideals, the wrong impressions, and the wrong hopes all the days of my life. We are forced to acknowledge that things existing in the natural world evidence some power and some character back of them all. No man with good sense can think for long that things we behold came by chance. When we view the great system of worlds round about us, traveling at such rapid rates and moving in such wonderful harmony, we surely cannot imagine that such things just came by accident. They evidence the fact that there was some mighty power, some great designer, back of them all. But we are unable to find out just who that somebody was. We are doomed to pass on in ignorance, if his identity is never revealed by other means.

Illustrative of that fact, I have here a watch, on the face of which I can look and tell the passing of the hours, minutes, and seconds. I know that this thing did not just happen. I know that somebody with a master mind was back of it, and saw the end from the beginning. The watch itself, therefore, testifies unquestionably to the fact that somebody was back of it, but that watch, of itself, never would tell who that somebody is or was. Hence, I must learn who he was from another source. On its face there is written the name "Hamilton." So, I conclude that while the watch bears evidence of the fact that somebody designed it, the writing upon the face of it tells who that somebody was. The heavens declare the glory of a Supreme Being. The Bible reveals His name and characteristics. May I suggest again, friends, that, compared with all other books, the Bible has been worth more to the world, not only than any other book, but than all other books combined. It would be better for the world to blot out every other book rather than to take from the world the one book called the Bible. We could better begin to build a civilization upon the one book, the Bible, than upon all others that ever have been written by mortal man. Compared, therefore, to the writings of the multiplied thousands, I hesitate not to suggest that, measured from the good it has done, from the sunshine it has brought, from the comfort that has been received from its sacred pages, the Bible stands the most important and by far the most valuable volume the world has ever known. It comes to the fair youths of our land as a lamp to their feet; to those of mature years as a guide to their footsteps; and to those of declining years with the assurance that "the Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to He down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul; he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." These are the Old Testament assurances. Then from the New Testament this statement: “I go to prepare a place for you, and I if go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." It does not matter, friends, how men may, apparently, despise the Bible, ignore it and make light of it. I have observed that when they come to the close of their careers, they call for that sacred volume. What is it today that is attacking the Bible? It is not crime, for the more crime exists in the world, the more need there is for the Bible. It is not sin that is making the attack upon the sacred oracles, because the greater the sin of the world the more need there is for the Bible as a standard to measure it and to condemn it. What is the thing that is attacking it? It is the so-called educated man who disbelieves the Bible’ and who is seeking some kind of a scientific excuse for rejecting it, and for ignoring God Almighty. Therefore, throughout the land, and in many institutions of learning, and many times in the pulpit, an effort is made to minimize the Bible and to criticize it on the ground that it is contrary to science. Now let it be remembered once for all that there has never yet been announced a correct and true principle of science that, in one particle, contradicts the word of God. The Research Science Bureau, with headquarters at Los Angeles, has proposed to give a thousand dollars in cash to anybody who will find a single, solitary contradiction between the Bible and science. Young men, why don’t you and your professor go and get the money thus guaranteed? Friends, let me suggest to you that there are just three verses in the Bible worth more than all that man has ever written. The first verse is Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." You ask a Christian man how things started, and what is the genesis of all matters. He goes back to the very beginning where all men have to go. I grant you that he assumes the existence of a God, all-wise, all-powerful, unlimited in nature. With that one assumption all else is easy of under stand)".

You ask a student of the Bible: "Do you understand how things came into existence?" "Do you understand how this old earth was formed and arranged?" "Why, of course, just as Paul understood it. (Hebrews 11:3) ’By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God."’ Now, if the skeptic asks me about my knowledge of God, I simply say that I assume His existence with the characteristics I have mentioned, and upon that I base all things else. That is the background and the cause of all that exists upon the face of the earth today. But if we ask the atheist to explain how things came to be, he will commence by assuming two things: first, that dead matter existed, and second, that natural law acting upon dead matter brought about things as they are. These are the only two theories regarding the beginning of life and the origin of things upon the earth. I must subscribe to one or the other. The Christian man is criticized on the ground that he assumes the existence of God. I grant you that. What does the atheist do? He not only assumes one thing, but two, to start with, and then, before the brakes can be put on, he will assume a third thing. Here they are: first, matter always existed; second, force was coexistent; and then, before you can stop him, he will assume that force acted upon matter, and the result was the bringing forth of life upon the earth. These theories challenge every boy and every girl that start out in life. Let me say to you, friends, that the origin of life is a real problem to all the scientists who leave God out. I took pains to write down just what some of them had to say along that line and I read the same to you now. First, from Mr. H. F. Osborn, scientist of Columbia University, with degrees not only from Columbia, but Princeton, Trinity, Cambridge, and Christiana. He was at one time president of the World Association of Scientists in its great meeting. Hear him. Mr. Osborn said: "The mode of the origin of life is pure speculation." Let me ask: Why not quit speculating about it? He says: "All experiments have proved fruitless." Of course, that is so? as anybody, not even called a scientist, would suggest. Then again, from Mr. Tyndall, a great English scientist: "From the beginning to the end of the inquiry, there is not a shadow of evidence of spontaneous generation." Some have imagined that life just spontaneously burst into existence. If they are correct, why does it not keep on "busting" and coming forth? And if spontaneous generation was once the case, what stopped it? If it did it before, why can’t it do it again? Mr. Tyndall further says: "Life must be the antecedent of life." That is, life cannot come from dead matter, a statement that anybody knows without having a knowledge of science. Professor Conn says: "There is not the slightest evidence that living matter could arise from nonliving matter." And then Mr. H. H. Newman of Chicago University, who volunteered to come down to Dayton at the Scopes trial and testify to the scientific point of view, says this: "The problem of the origin of life has not been solved." And to a skeptic it has not. All efforts made on the part of the scientific world to discover what life is, and the source of it, have thus far been a failure and will continue to be. It is an axiomatic truth that out of a thing that does not hold that thing sought, nothing of that kind can come. For instance, you might strike into the mountain, and dig away for hours, and days, and months in search of coal, but if there be no coal stored in the mountain you are certain to get none from it. You search for gold, but if there is no gold in the place searched, you cannot find it by any kind of picking and digging and dynamiting. Why? Because it is not there. "You cannot get blood out of a turnip." So take dead matter and you will find it impossible for life to come out of that which does not contain life. There. fore, as these men well say, the problem of it is yet unsolved. If you leave out God Almighty, it will never be solved.

Now the second basic verse in the Genesis record, which guarantees continuity of life, is Genesis 1:24, which says: "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind." This is said nine times over in that first chapter of Genesis: "Let everything bring forth after its kind." There never has been any fact that scientists have been able to find that has rendered the opposite of that true. Nature refuses to violate that law. No change whatsoever during the passing of the centuries has contradicted that statement. Everything must bring forth after its kind. If I were ever to have a discussion with a man who denies the Bible, I would hold the argument to two points, and until those were answered I would rest at ease. First, explain the origin of life. Second, explain the different species upon the earth. Now Genesis 1:24 commands that everything shall bring forth after its kind, and the passing of the sixty centuries, or the millions and billions of years, if one wants to enlarge upon it, never has seen a violation of that sacred and divine principle as enunciated by the God of the Bible. Mr. W. C. Allee, the scientist, says that there are 636,000 different species, and he says that as yet, not one of them has been found in a state of transition from one thing to another thing. The transmutation of the species is not found, and not one evidence is there to indicate that such a change ever took place. Now I will read on that point, and suggest to you just what these men who deny the Bible have to say about a thing of that sort. Hear, again, Mr. Newman: "One of the truisms of biology is the familiar fact that like produces like." He says: "Sparrows must have sparrows as their ancestors." And yet, after stating that in the biological field, he would want me to believe that a beautiful woman, true in all regards, came from some low animal, and that she is akin to every reptile on the face of the earth. I am reading from a statement of Prof. W. M. Bateson of England, perhaps one of the world’s greatest biologists, who says: "While forty years ago the Darwinian theory was accepted without question, today scientists have come to a point where they are unable to offer explanation for the genesis of species. There is no evidence of any one species acquiring faculties, but there are plenty of examples of species losing faculties. Species lose things, but do not add to their possessions. Variations of many kinds, often considerable, we daily witness, but no origin of species." In other words, take a tomato and it may grow from a small one into a great Ponderosa—but it is still a tomato. We talk about the horse of the long ago and then of the great Percheron of today, but they are still horses. Professor Louis Agassiz, the greatest naturalist that Switzerland ever produced, says: "The theory or the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, mischievous in tendency." I wonder what our boys and girls have to say about such quotations from scientists that are really recognized as such? Sir William Dawson has this to say: "The record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms. Every grade of life was in its highest and best estate when first introduced." Lord Kelvin, greatest of modern scientists, says: “I marvel at the undue haste with which teachers in our universities and preachers in our pulpits are restating truth in the terms of evolution while evolution remains an unproved hypothesis. ’ Then Professor Shaler of Harvard University: "It begins to be evident to naturalists that the Darwinian hypothesis is still essentially unverified." And yet, men of small caliber have been teaching and writing and preaching these things as matters of fact. Real scholars say: "Evolution is yet an unproved theory." Doctor Ethridge of the British Museum says: "Ninetenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views." I will have to read that to boys and girls that think they are smart when they are just about ready to graduate from high school. I never saw one who took that POSITION who did not feel as if he had more sense than the average fellow. All these so-called scientists look down in pity and disdain upon the rest of us as being so obtuse as to accept God’s Word. Then we have a statement in regard to the transmutation of the species. But until somebody finds a kind of an animal in a go-between state that is, neither that from which it started, nor as yet having reached that toward which it is headed, let us pay no attention to all of the "smart alecks" that talk about the change of the species. Let us give no heed to this nonsense until, out of the multiplied hundreds and thousands of species living, and those that are dead, with their fossils imbedded in the rocks, they find something. If you go back half a billion of years they like to count long years if you go back a billion years, if you dig in the rocks and find the skeleton of a fish, it is just like the fish you catch down here in the Cumberland River. It has not changed one particle. I am calling your attention next to the fact of man’s existence upon the earth. That he is here is evident. How did he come to be? What about our origin? Whence did we come? There are again two theories. One is that there was a germ away back yonder somewhere in the depths of the sea and, after a while, that germ gave birth to two germs. One of these children was a vegetable and the other was an animal. Just think of a family starting with one parent from which two children are born. From a single source there was a little Johnny and then his little sister, Mary. Some can believe that and yet cannot believe the Bible! After a while, the animal part of the germ developed, multiplied, and became a fish, then an amphibian, and then a land animal, then a still larger one, until it came to be a monkey that wrapped his tail around limbs and swung back and forth. Then, in the course of time, he and his fellows lost their tails—and here we stand. That is the theory. There are folks who look as if they can believe that. You will be surprised when I recite to you some things about matters of that kind. You begin to ask how it was that we had certain characteristics and features. For instance, how came we to have eyes? Well, they will tell you that the little animal had a pigment in its skin, and when it was out of the water the sun, playing over the surface of it, seemed to concentrate on one little particle in that pigment, and the rays irritated that little pigment until, in response to that irritation, the eye came out. Well, it is fortunate it came out where it did, I must say. And after a while it happened that the sun’s rays irritated another little spot, and there came out another eye, and it is also fortunate that it came where it did. I wonder why one did not come out on the chin, and the other on the back of the neck. Again, you ask how it came to pass that locomotion was possible, and the theorists will tell you that a little water dog washed upon the shore. It had a wart on its belly. It is fortunate it had it on its belly instead of its back. It found by wiggling around that the little wart was of benefit to it, and after a while it began to exercise that little wart and it developed into a leg. And now it would have been mighty bad if there had not been another wart, or if that additional wart had been on the back. We would have been different animals from what we are now if the legs had come, one on the belly and the other on the back. Do you believe such stuff? I want to read to you from Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, who claims to believe both the Bible and the evolutionists. He is a Baptist preacher, but pastor of a Presbyterian Church and is sponsored by the Federation of the Churches of Christ in America. Let me read to you some things he said in a little book, "The Meaning of Faith," page 128: "The biologists tell us that if a man has eyes it is because light waves beat on the skin and the eyes came out in response; that if he has ears, it is because the sound waves were there first, and the ears came out to where he could use them. Biologists assert all the powers that man has have come in response to the environment. If there had been no water, there would have been no fins; if there had been no air, there would have been no wings; if there had been no land, there would have been no legs. All of it, therefore, came about in response to circumstances"—and yet he poses as a preacher and is really a great and an entertaining speaker; but he does not believe the Bible. Now when asked along that line some other questions, he chooses to answer on the origin of man as does Professor Osborne. In 1916, Mr. Osborne said this: "We know that man descended from some unknown apelike form." I just wonder how does he know that it came from some unknown thing? If it is unknown, how does he know about it? He said he. knew it. Yet in 1927 he said: "The myth of ape ancestry lingers on the stage, in the movies, in certain scientific parlance, but the ape ancestry is entirely out of date and its place is taken by the recent demonstration that we are descended from the dawn man." I just want you to think for a moment what a really educated man, with a string of degrees to equal which there is scarcely another, said. In 1916, he said that we know that man came from some unknown apelike origin or form. Eleven years after that he said: "The myth of ape ancestry lingers only in the movies, on the stage, and is removed from the realm of intelligence." Well, the attempted origins that these fellows give for man are interesting and amusing as well. Mr. Darwin said that the origin of man was 200,000,000 years ago. His son came along and said: "Dad, you missed it; it was just 57,000,000 of years." The difference is only 143,000,000 years. But what difference does 143,000,000 years make in science? That does not amount to anything. The smallest estimate from the scientists that I ever have seen is 24,000,000 of years since man’s origin upon the earth, and the greatest estimate is 300,000,000. Boys and girls, note it: scientists are nearly together. Some of them say 24,000,000 of years, and the others 300,000,000, and yet there is no discrepancy. They can look you right in the face with all the colossal cheek and monumental gall imaginable and say: "That is scientific." How much difference? Oh, just 276,000,000 years. Yet, if they find in the Bible where a name is spelled one time "Boaz" and the next time "Booz," they shout, "Contradiction in the Bible." I want you to think of it. That old book has stood as a challenge to all of its enemies throughout the centuries. With Argus eyes and a fine-tooth comb they have gone through it with the hope of finding contradictions. They have come out humiliated with their inability to find one single contradiction between the Bible and the established facts of science I said to you that those fellows did not believe the Bible. Of course, Doctor Fosdick does not believe it. Listen again as I announce what they deny. They deny, first of all, the inspiration of the Bible; second, that man was created in the moral image of God; third, that man sinned and fell; fourth, that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin; fifth, that there is any merit in the atoning power of the blood of Christ; sixth, that the resurrection is wholly unscientific, therefore, untrue; seventh, that Jesus Christ will never come again, not having come the first time; and, eighth, there will be no general judgment at the last day. All of these points are bluntly denied by the enemies of the Bible, among whom are teachers in some of our tax-supported schools. Christians are called upon to erect fine buildings, to equip them with all modern fixtures and to furnish the children to hear every criticism of the word of God. It objection is made to their teaching, they howl about their freedom of speech. If infidels want to teach their stuff, let them erect their own buildings, equip them, provide their own salaries and likewise furnish their own children. To secure their places and to draw salaries furnished by Christian parents, they claim to believe the Bible and yet they deny the fundamentals I have just mentioned. Friends, what do you think of a Bible without these basic truths? Because I believe God’s Word, in common with a host of others, Freed-Hardeman College exists today. I do not ask those who deny these basic facts to help us build, equip, and keep it going. Various denominations have their schools by appealing to those of similar beliefs. Let all infidels do likewise and thus stay out of institutions erected by those who believe the Bible. And now, let me call attention to some other matters. Have you ever thought of the wonderful changes that have been wrought, and of the development that has come about in things material? Consider the progress in worldly things compared with the time when the Bible was written. Take our mode of travel, our manner of life, our way of living—what is the ratio expressive of the progress through the two thousand years since John dropped the pen of inspiration? It is almost unbelievable. Man has solved the problems of the earth, and has sought to unlock the mysteries of things beyond. He has delved into the bosom of the earth and made her bring forth the treasures stored away. Not only that, he has scaled the heights and has been able to reveal things hitherto undreamed of. The lightnings flashed back in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve were there; the thunders roared and rolled across the arched sky, but they thought nothing of it. The same condition prevailed throughout the centuries, and finally man caught on. He at last imprisoned the lightning in a small wire and has made it to serve man in a thousand ways. And again, Abraham no doubt heard the rushing mighty winds sweep over his native land. In Syria and in Palestine he viewed the falling of waters to lower depths. It never seemed to dawn upon him that these were challenges to him and to his fellows. The power of the rapid winds, the fretting and foaming of the waterfalls were ever asking: Why not use us to draw your water, enable you to travel at tremendous speed, and turn the wheels of your machinery? After so long a time, we have utilized the air and now we seek to dam every stream in all the land. Marvelous indeed has been our progress in all things material. But when it comes to the most vital things that ever challenged our attention, such as sin, salvation, and the hope of eternal reward, what can we say? There has not been one bit of progress made along these lines since John dropped the pen of inspiration from fingers weary, twenty centuries ago. What new fact has man ever learned about God or Christ or the Holy Spirit apart from the Bible? Absolutely none. What new command challenging our attention for eternity ever has been delivered? Not one. And again, what new promise ever has been made other than that found in the Bible? The answer is: None. Our progress in the material world is unlimited. Our progress in the religious realm has not moved one inch from that announced when the Bible was completed. According to accepted chronology, the time from the first chapter of Genesis to the last chapter of Revelation is exactly 4,100 years. From Moses, the first writer, to John, the last, there is a period of 1,600 years. Here then is a volume covering 4,000 years penned by about forty writers who lived from 1,500 years before Christ to about 100 years after the birth of our Lord. It is well to ask: Who were those men? Were they college professors? No. Did they have their degrees? No. Did they come from parents who were makers of phrases? No. Who were they? Many of them were men whose ancestors had spent a long period of time as captives in the land of Egypt. Their fathers had bowed their backs to the rays of an Egyptian sun, and had marched under the crack of the whip of hard taskmasters to carry on their everincreasing labors. They lived on garlic and onions, and, according to tradition, the average life of the workingman was only about three months. Their posterity, 600,000 men, besides women and children, marched across the Red Sea, and for forty long years lived in that great and terrible wilderness fed with manna from on high. They ultimately passed into a little country of about 7,000 square miles. There, in an isolated land, they lived and moved and wrote their story. They had no great libraries with the learning of the past poured into their laps. They had no daily papers with special columnists to give them the news. They had no speedy ships to contact the nations across the seas. They had no telephones, nor telegraphs, nor cables. Radios were wanting. They were an unlearned, ignorant collection of men, with a background that the aristocracy of our time would be ashamed of. There was no possibility of collusion or conspiracy among them. They all wrote about the same general theme—viz., man—his origin, duty, and destiny.

There were about forty of them who produced sixty-six books that cover the history of 4,100 years. And among all of these there is not a single contradiction in their historical statements nor a single discrepancy in their moral teaching. The Bible has been in the hands of the Gentiles for about 2,000 years. It has had no better treatment than it had when in the custody of the Jews. Like the Jews, the Gentiles have perverted its teaching and corrupted its practice. It may well be asked, why did not those who transcribed the ancient copies change the text so as to harmonize with their own personal views? What mighty power hindered their yielding to such temptations? It seems to me that we are forced to say the power that penned it has also preserved it. The fact that the Bible has lived through all the centuries in spite of its enemies and those who seek to pervert its teaching is among the greatest of all miracles. No two men can write at length about the same thing but there will be contradictions in their statements. No one man can write voluminously for a period of years, but he will change his mind and correct the mistakes of twenty-five or thirty years ago and thus revise his manuscript. Nothing of that kind took place among the writers of the Bible. How do you account for such? There is just one explanation, and it is that holy men of old spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Let me present this for your consideration. Suppose you select ten of the most intelligent citizens of Nashville and ask them to write a history of this city for the past twentyfive years. Give them plenty of time and every means to learn what has gone on in the city. Finally, collect the manuscripts that have been penned. I will guarantee that you will find more contradictions and discrepancies than all the Argus-eyed critics have discovered in the Bible for the past two thousand years. I once heard the great Clarence Darrow lecture against the Bible. I felt like saying: "Mr. Darrow, why do you have to fight the Bible, to damn it and to ridicule it, in order to accomplish your purpose? If you will only write a better book and thus give a better account of man’s presence upon the earth; if you will give a better outline of his purpose and duty; if you will write a book that will bring greater comfort to those who suffer and sigh, and brighter hopes to those who come to the end of life’s journey, the Bible will at once pass into the realm of obsolete volumes. Mr. Ford and other builders of automobiles never criticized nor made fun of old Dobbin and the stray. They simply made vehicles that will get you there and fetch you back faster and with more ease. As a result, the old horse and buggy went the way of all the earth. No man can be galvanized into respectability by ridiculing someone else. The Bible is either the word of God or it is the work of man. If the work of man, then man ought to write a better book or admit that with the passing of nineteen centuries he has gone backward. It is embarrassing to have to admit that with all of our schools and colleges—our varied sources of information— no man for the past nineteen hundred years has been able to write a book equal to this one called the Bible. The Bible lays no claim to being a treatise on science, and yet it is the most scientific volume the world has ever known. It teaches the science of life. We must go back to the law of Moses for the foundation principles governing our relations as citizens of this world, and we go to the Sermon on the Mount to learn our moral and spiritual obligations preparatory to the world to come. My friends, the world is engaged in a terrible conflict. Death and destruction, devastation and despair are evidenced in all the nations of the earth. The intellectual, physical, and material forces are combined in the most effective manner known to the history of the human family. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, all men are going to be affected by it in one way or another. I feel certain that the way of life will never be with us as it has been, regardless of the results. I have here a letter from Mr. Roger Babson, the greatest statistician living. It bears date of February 16, 1942. Among other things, he has this to say: "One thing is certain, namely, the world cannot recover from this deluge as long as it ignores God and His laws. That is what brought on World War II. It will be Christ or chaos after the armistice. The world will have prosperity or revolution after Germany, Japan, and Italy are defeated. These are alternatives about which we all may be well aware." Let me repeat: "One thing is certain, the world cannot recover from this deluge as long as it ignores God and His laws." Friends, I believe that. Men have tried to get the right philosophy of life; they have spent years of thinking and years of toil and have asked: "What can we do? What legislation can we enact?" I have no doubt they have done their best, but just remember, "It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." After all that our legislators have done, failure has been written across their path. We have learned that we cannot depend on the wisdom of man. Peace and tranquillity will not return to this land of ours until we hark back to the Sermon on the Mount, and be taught by the greatest of all teachers. Our troubles regarding capital and labor, industry and agriculture, and the almost unlimited differences among men will not disappear until we adopt the principle that "all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." Hear Mr. Babson as he continues: "We sincerely hope that the churches of America will soon unite and state courageously that the world must turn over a new leaf in order to bring peace to the world. Not only must the United States lead the return to God, but we who are rejoicing in and enjoying security and comforts should lead in such a spiritual awakening." I think it is well said that the churches of America must unite their varied forces. But I am wondering on what ground people who claim to love God can get together. Let me say that if some major points could be settled, all other differences would soon be gone. I submit first "Our Creed." Can the religious world ever unite upon some man-made discipline, confession of faith, or church manual? Is that possible? Absolutely not. Why? Because each one can truly say: "Mine is as good as yours."

Would, for instance, the Methodist people ever be willing to give up their human discipline to accept the Presbyterian man-made "Confession of Faith"? There could be no earthly reason for so doing. There is only one hope of unity on this line, and that is for all to give up their human booklets and to accept the Bible as the one and only rule of faith and practice. This, all must do, if Mr. Babson’s statement ever comes true. Next, we must unite upon a name all can adopt without the sacrifice of any principle. That name must, of course, be found in the New Testament. Will the Baptists give up their name and agree to wear the name "Episcopalian"? They glory in their name and yet they should know that there never was but one Baptist on this earth and that he said: “I must decrease." The name "Baptists" is nowhere found in all the Bible and, of course, the Baptist Church is a stranger to God’s Word. Will the Methodists and Presbyterians ever agree to wear the name "Catholic"? And so I might continue. What then is the hope of uniting on a name? We must surely accept that by which the disciples were first called and leave off all else. James says they had blasphemed that worthy name and, be it remembered, you can blaspheme only that which is of divine origin. Again, can we unite on the subject, the action, and the design of baptism? You may think such impossible, but it is not after we decide to accept the Bible as our only rule of faith and practice. Everyone who knows what the Bible says knows full well that teaching, faith, repentance, and confession precede baptism. These necessary prerequisites eliminate all save those who are able to comply with them. Every church on earth that accepts baptism at all believes that immersion was the act commanded by Christ. Its design was clearly stated in the Great Commission in these words: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Among the last statements ever made by the Son of God upon this earth, he said salvation follows baptism. In the first sermon ever thereafter preached, the Holy Spirit through Peter said to those cut to their hearts: "Repent, and be baptized . . . for the remission of sins." Those who believe the Bible will have no trouble in believing that "remission of sins" follows both "repent" and "be baptized." All denominations agree that when Christians meet on the first day of the week to teach, to pray, to eat the Lord’s Supper, to contribute of their means as they have prospered, and to sing God’s praise and make melody in their hearts, they have worshiped as it is written. As regards the spreading of the gospel, all who believe the Bible know that Paul said that the manifold wisdom of God was to be made known by the church and that this was according to God’s eternal purpose. He did not regard the church as a "spiritual contingent"—a mere incident or accident. Upon such grounds as thus stated, I think it possible for the religious world to unite and go forth as a solid phalanx against the forces of the devil. I cannot say that I hope for such, because there are too many "pastors" who would lose their jobs. The love of money is the root of all evil and they joy and rejoice over the division among professed followers of the Lord. The Bible and the Bible alone will solve every problem and unite all warring factions. Young men, do not reject the Bible. It gives the only sensible explanation of our origin, of our duty, and of our destiny. Don’t you be among that number who scoff at the religion of the Bible. It is the world’s last hope and its comfort and consolation you will need in the time of trouble, and in the hour of death. And now, for your presence, patience, and politeness, I want to express my profound gratitude.