Sequachee Valley news. (Sequachee [Sequatchie], Tenn.) 1896-1952, 1908-09-02
SALVATION is OF THE LORD


Wei, Uncle joe, | am really sur
prisea at yur weakness, | stick right
TO the bush salvation is Of the Lord
when quoted what Paul said 1t
pleased God by the foolishneSs OF
preaching to save them that believed.
Il Cor 1:2). SO this certainly teach
es that salvation is of TIE Lord.
Now, let's see who was pleased. 1t
pleased God. and not the preacher
paid by the foolishness of preaching.
Pleased who: God. Pleased hlm to
do what? Save them that believed.
The reason you can't see Paul teaches
here that salvation is of the Lord is
because you don't understand the sec
ond person in the English language.
| will hand you a few bible points
that further teach that salvation is of
the Lord. John 2:9-'l vowed saliva
ton is of the Lord" Acts 4;12-Neith-
err is salvation in any other, - Psalms
25:5-.'Thou art God of my saliva
ton. 4" Psalms 62:t-"God, from him
cometh my salvation. " Psalms 65:5-'
answer, us, O God of our salvation.
Psalms :S-"SalvatiOn belOngeth to
the Lord - To give and hand out: not
to a preacher. | have pointed out to
you in the language of the psalmist,
David, Psalms 1928, "To him will
| show the salvation of God. These
references. are enough to suffice and
prove to the satisfaction of any unbi-
ased or unprecedented person that deliv-
erance from sin, death or danger is
from God and can not be handed out
or given out by any man on earth.
You misquoted me and the Bible
both on Luke 1877. Here are your
words verbatim and literatim, And
in the same house remain, eating such
things as they giveth. " Good, this
again proves to be gift, not a charge
This is my text again, and you go on
and say it proves your argument to a
"t''. Wrong again. Down You come.
Never said that. Here is what said :
In the same house remain eating and
drinking such things as they give: for
the laborer is worthy of his hire. -
Luke 1877. Here the Lord said the
preacher was worthy of his hire and
not Waterman. Why didn't you
quote all of the verse. ? You knew the
latter part killed your position. First
part taught that preachers were'worth-
to receive something to eat, and i'll
the last part. the Saviour says he is
worthy of his hire, or whatever the
church wants to contribute for God
has ordained that they that preach the
gospel should live of the GOSPEL.
You have already admitted that this
scripture meant support of the minis
try, the same in substance as the Lev.
itical priesthood, and you have turned
around in your last article and denied
it.
| have never said that a preacher
should have a drawn contract. My
contention is preacher should have a
living. You seem to think the church
is a kind of an institution like an
almshOuse, loaded down with money
to help everybody. No, it is not that
way. We are under obligations tC
support the ministry, and we are il
duty bound to help the needy saint,
and those of the household of faith.
We are also morally to help, if we
are able, outsiders. If any would
borrow of you turn them not away.
and if an enemy hungers, feed them,
and if any thirst give them drink fol
in 50 doing We will heap Goals of fire
upon his head. - We are not in duty
bound to see after all needy ones al
we are the preacher. We are in duty
bound to look after needy brothers ant
sisters. The church is not an or
phan's home or IA poor house. w
would have to possess the minis of thu
government if we left off preachin!
and served tables and devoted our tim,
to looking after all the needy Wha
is the matter with you You say ;