IMPOSSIBLE APOSTASY?No. 3

H. E. Phillips

The advocates of the doctrine of Eternal Securityof the Believers will always go to I John 3:9 andwave aside every passage that contains a warning to the children of God against apostasy. The passage says: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." If this passageteaches what they claim for it, this entire epistle ofJohn is a mess and does not contain the truth. Theymake John contradict himself and all the other writers of the New Testament. This is how simple the matter is: If I John 3:9 means that whosoever is born of God cannot possibly commit a single sin —it is physically and mentally impossible for him toengage in one single sin — and cannot possibly belost even if he could commit every sin in the book, itmust follow that John was so mixed up that he forgot what he said before and after this verse.

Any reasonable study of this verse in context

must consider three questions: (1) Who is born of

God? (2) What does "cannot commit sin" — "can

not sin" mean? (3) What does "for his seed re

maineth in him" have to do with "he cannot sin?" I

believe a scriptural answer to these questions is es

sential to understand this verse in the light of all the

revelation of God.

The word "born" is from "gennao" which means

to bring forth and is used of both the physical birth

and a spiritual birth. W. E. Vine says of this word:

"It is used metaphorically (a) in the writings of the

Apostle John, of the gracious act of God in confer

ring upon those who believe the nature and disposi

tion of 'children,' imparting to them spiritual life,

John 3:3, 5, 7; I John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18;..."

This word is used of the physical birth of Christ.To Mary the angel said: "The Holy Ghost shall comeupon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). In Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus the word is used eight times in John 3:3-8. It is used

in reference to physical birth and the new birth of

water and Spirit. This birth to enter into the king

dom must be of water and of the Spirit. It cannot

refer to anything more or less than the one who

"has been born of God" in I John 3:9.

Kenneth Wuest in his Greek New Testament said

of I John 2:29 — "'Born' is from the perfect par

ticiple of gennao. The perfect tense speaks of a past

completed action having present results. The ex

panded translation reads, 'having been born with the

present result that you are a child (of God) by

birth.' " There are six passages in I John that speak of

"born of God" or "born from God" and all from

the same term. Combining all these will give the full

sense of the expression.I John 2:29 — "If ye know that he is righteous,

ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is

born of him." As we know absolutely that God is

righteous, we perceive that everyone who does

righteousness has been born of God. In the first

chapter "walking in darkness" is in contrast with

"walking in the light." To work righteousness is to

do the truth or "walk in the light," which is the

same thing.Righteousness means to do or be right. To do

right is to follow the standard that is right. "Mytongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments are righteousness" (Psalms 119:172). Israel had a zeal for God, "but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves untothe righteousness of God" (Rom. 10:2,3). God's righteousness is to be obeyed, and this means tosubmit to His commandments. One who establishes his own righteousness, which means to do his ownwill, cannot obey God's righteousness while doing

his own righteousness.The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to

all who believe (Rom. 1:16)'. "For therein" (in the

gospel of Christ) "is the righteousness of God re

vealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just

shall live by faith" (Rom. 1:17). The righteousness

(commandments) of God are revealed in the gospel

of Christ.

When Peter came to the house of Cornelius and learned why he had been sent for, he opened hismouth and said, "Of a truth I perceive that God isno respecter of persons: but in every nation he thatfeareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptedwith him" (Acts 10:34,35).

The "righteousness" may not always be towardthe same goal. God's righteousness is in order to receive the remission of sins. This the alien sinner must obey. But the "righteousness" of I John 2:29 is that done as a result of "having been born fromGod." It is the fruit of the birth rather than in order to be born of God. Look at it: If we know absolutely that God is righteous, we must logically understandthat all who do righteousness (obey the commandments of God) have been born of Him because He isthe source of all righteousness. Righteousness ofGod indicates that the one is of God who does it.

Who is born of God? I John 2:29 says that everyone that does righteousness is born of God — "hasbeen born from God." Righteousness means the commandments of God (Psa. 119:172). To work righteousness is to do the commandments of God. One who has been born of God does the commandments of God. The righteousness of God is revealed in thegospel (Rom. 1:17). The fruit, therefore, of havingbeen born of God is to obey the commandments ofGod as revealed in the gospel, and these are acceptedwith him (Acts 10:34,35).

What does this have to do with the passage inI John 3:9? It shows that the one who has been born of God does righteousness, therefore, he does not commit sin when he is doing righteousness. The oneborn of God "doth not commit sin" because he "doeth righteousness."

I John 4:7 says: "Beloved, let us love one another : for love is of God; and every one that lovethis born of God, and knoweth God." This love is notjust any love. The love is for "one another." We areresponsible for what we love because God tells usto love our enemies (Matt. 5:44-46), which is noteasy to do. We are told not to love the world (I John2:15,16). This loving one another is not to make us children of God, but it is the fruit of having beenborn of God.

The one who does not love his brother is in darkness: does not love God (I John 1:6; 4:20.21). He does not the truth (I John 1:6), but the one who has been born from God "doeth righteousness." "By thiswe know that we love the children of God. when we love God, and keep his commandments" (I John5:2). "And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him,because we keep his commandments, and do thosethings that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the nameof his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as hegave us commandment" (I John 3:22,23). "He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion ofstumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother isin darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knowethnot whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes" (I John 2:9-11). "He that hatethhis brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him" (I John3:15). "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar, for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love hisbrother also" (I John 4:20, 21).

These passages from I John show that loving ourbrother is a commandment of God, that we cannotlove God and not love our brother, that we are liarsif we say we love God and hate our brother — and all liars will have their part in the lake of fire (Rev.21:8) —that we are murderers and have not eternal life abiding in us if we love not our brother, and thatwe are in darkness and do not the truth if we love not our brother. This is talking about loving a brother, hence, the relationship in Christ is under consideration in I John. I John 4:7 teaches that one who has been born from God loves his brother; thisis the fruit of being born of God. It is not given as acondition here for becoming a child of God. The onewho hates his brother must have been a child of God, else he would not have a brother to hate or love.The meaning is that the one who has been born fromGod does not hate his brother, therefore, he does notkeep on sinning as stated in I John 3:9.

But that we may clearly see that the love of abrother refers to brethren in Christ and not brethren in some other sense, we look at some other passages relating to the subject.

"Let brotherly love continue" (Heb. 13:1). The whole context shows this to mean brethren in Christ. "Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful,be courteous: not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing: knowing thatye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing" (I Pet. 3:8,9). We who are brethren are called to inherit a blessing. We are called by the gospel (II Thess. 2:14); we are partakers of the heavenly calling (Heb. 3:1) ; we must walk worthyof the vocation wherewith we are called (Eph. 4:1).All this proves that brotherly love under consideration in these verses is in Christ, which would meanthat they are children of God. A child of God canhate his brother and be under the condemnation as stated in I John. It must follow that "born of God" in I John 3:9 does not mean a state wherein one cannot possibly commit sin.

WHAT IT MEANS TO BE IN CHRIST

In our last article, we noted that baptism putsone into Christ, and Paul said, "if any man be inChrist he is a new creature: old things are passedaway; behold, all things are become new" (II Cor. 5:17). In the next article or two, we are going to involve ourselves with showing what it means to be"in Christ."

NEW LIFE IN CHRIST

The expression (or its equivalent) "in Christ"occurs over one hundred and thirty times in theNew Testament. Not only does Paul point out thatwe are "new creatures" in Christ, but Christ says that we do not have life unless we abide "in Him." In John 15:4, you will recall, Jesus said, "Abide in me, and I in you. As a branch cannot bear fruit ofitself, except it abide in the vine; no more can yeabide in me." There is no life without Christ, and itis not enough to just know about him, we must enterthat spiritual relationship that puts us in Christ that we might have life. For without him, we cando nothing.

CHRIST IS THE SPHERE OF THIS NEW LIFE

I would like to think of this new life in Christ as a sphere rather than a circle drawn on the groundthat we might stand in. For, the circle would not encompass us as would a sphere. The reason for this is because of what the Bible teaches us about the new life in Christ. In our new life in Christ we are in a position of having protection from the forces ofevil that would "cast darts" at the Christian. Paul tells us that we, as Christians, have an armour thatGod provides us with to "ward off" the thrusts of the evil one. In Eph. 6:11 we are told, "Put on the whole armour of God that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." He then gives those who are "in Christ" instructions concerning thearmour provided. That with which we are to gird ourloins is truth, our breastplate is righteousness, our shoes representative of a readiness of mind that comes from the gospel of Christ, taking the shield of faith — the confidence we have in the promises of God, the helmet of salvation — or the hope of salvation which will defend you from the fear of death, and the sword of the Spirit (the rest beingdefensive armour —• but this offensive) the wordof God. Thus, in Christ we are in a position of beingprotected by that which Christ gives us and alsobeing able to make our attacks on the foes that weengage in battle.

For those who are "in Christ," Paul said, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not sufferyou to be tempted above that ye are able but will with the temptation also make a way of escape, thatye may be able to bear it" (I Cor. 10:13).

Also, those who are in this "sphere" are recipientsof whatever is contained inside. Paul said, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whohath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:" (Eph. 1:3).

JUSTIFICATION "IN CHRIST"

One of the spiritual blessings that we have "in Christ" is justification. The word justification, as itis used in Romans 4:25 means, "The act of God's declaring men free from guilt and acceptable tohim; adjudging to be righteous" (Thayer, P. 151, column two, from the word dikiosis). Paul points out in the above passage that the basis for our justification was the death, burial, and resurrection ofChrist. "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." Hence, "in Christ" there is reconciliation of man to God by way of justification — "out of Christ" there is alienation. "In Christ" there is life — "out of Christ" there is death. "In Christ" there is peace — "out ofChrist" there is enmity with God.

TWO UNIQUE DECLARATIONS

There are at least two unique declarations set forth in Christianity that is not made by any otherreligion, whether it be Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. First, no declaration was ever made that anyonewho founded such religion was a sinless man and also became sin for his followers that he might takeaway sin, as did Jesus. Secondly, that Christ a deadand buried man, was made alive — and is life. Both of these are inseparably connected with the facts ofthe gospel — the death, burial, and resurrection ofChrist. Christ became the Justifier, Reconciler, andSavior. According to Isaiah, he suffered in our stead,not because he deserved it, but because we deservedit. Our life was purchased by his death. We do not have to ask the same question that Job asked, "If

a man die, shall he live again?" We know that Paulpromised that those who are "in Christ," and faithful, will be received unto the Lord himself and everbe with him (I Thess. 4:13-17).

CONCLUSION

To be in Christ is more than mere pardon andreconciliation — it includes being counted as just,and put on the same standing as Christ, before God.If you are not a Christian, "in Christ" you are alienated, at enmity with God, and dead spiritually. Whynot believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,repent of your sins and be baptized into Christ forthe remission of sins in order to have reconciliation,life, and peace "in Christ" where all spiritual blessings are found.

MORE THOUGHTS ON JAMES 1:27

In the October 1970 issue of this journal I wrote an article on the Greek reflexive pronoun heauton. In the December 1970 issue of this journal there appeared what purported to be a reply to my article.

For the most part, the so-called reply to my articleis utter and sheer nonsense; and is only dignified bya response. Were it not for several outright and absolute misrepresentations, I would not bother tomake any response whatsoever.

"He denied that HEAUTON can be both sin

gular and plural in number."

In the "reply" to my article, this statement iswritten: "He denied that HEAUTON can be both singular and plural in number." Now, this is an outright falsehood! What I wrote was this: "The wordheauton, 'himself,' in James 1:27 is not plural in thepassage." I affirmed in my article, and I still affirm,that heuton is not plural in James 1:27. Of course,any student of Greek knows very well that heuton has a plural form; but the plain fact is that theplural does not occur in James 1:27. Some people seem to think that heuton can be either singular orplural at the same time. This is nothing but sheernonsense, and any student of Greek knows that it isnonsense. Some people insist on calling heauton an indefinite pronoun when this is an outright mistake.The word heauton is simply not an indefinite pronoun; it is a reflexive pronoun.

"Our Brother says that no Lexicographerdefines HEAUTON as being plural."

In the "reply" to my article, this statement iswritten: "Our brother says that no Lexicographerdefines HEAUTON as being plural." Now, this isanother outright falsehood! What I wrote was this: "Liberal brethren find the plural form of the wordin Thayer's lexicon and then cry out, 'Plural!' as if Thayer is saying that the word is plural in James

1:27. Thayer is saying no such thing; nor does any other lexicographer." I affirmed in my article, and I still affirm, that no lexicographer says that heauton is plural in James 1:27. Obviously, all lexicographers know that heauton has a plural form; but they know very well that the plural form doesnot occur in James 1:27.

"The pronoun 'US' is a collective plurality of three."

In the "reply" to my article, these statements are written: "Gen 1:26, 'Let US make man __ The pronoun 'US' is a collective plurality of three." Now,this is another bit of grammatical nonsense. Obviously, the word "us" is a plural pronoun; but torefer to it as a "collective plurality" is ungrammatical both in English and in Greek. There are at leasteight different kinds of pronoun, but there is not acollective pronoun. There are collective nouns, butnot collective pronouns. The very fact that "us" isplural in form indicates that it is not collective; inasmuch as the very distinguishing mark of collective nouns is that they represent a plurality in a

singular form.

DOES HE STILL NOT UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE?

In the November 8, 1970 issue of THE IN

FORMER, bulletin of the Garfield Heights church

in Indianapolis, brother W. L. Totty wrote an arti

cle entitled "Visiting Orphans is a Generic Com

mand." He began by saying:

"The blight of anti-ism which has plagued thechurch and divided congregations for about twentyyears has just about gone with the wind."

In the first place, his use of the ambiguous term

"anti" doesn't accomplish anything. Everyone is op

posed to or anti something. Even brother Totty

would qualify, for, if nothing else, I'm sure he is

anti-antis! And if the movement of which he speaks

has "gone with the wind," why do they continue to

write and preach so much about it? You have heard

of whistling past the graveyard, haven't you?

After some further comment about the championswho will no longer defend what they believe (so hesays), brother Totty said:

"There is another side to the question; that is,the sin that those people committed when theycaused division among brethren. The Bible says God hates the man who sows discord among brethren(Prov. 6:16-19). . . .The division was not caused bythose who had been supporting the orphan homessince 1846. We did not say others must support thechildren in this manner. But the division was caused by that faction's saying that it could not be done in that manner. If the Bible had said it is wrong tosupport the homes, those brethren would have been

right; but the Bible doesn't say how to support

needy children; it just says to do it. And since a

home of some sort is necessary; therefore, the home

is scriptural, for anything necessary to obeying a

command of God is inherent in the command,

whether mentioned or not. That principle is clearly

taught in Christ's commission to go and preach the

gospel to every creature. The gospel is the thing to

be preached, and we must go to preach it. The

method of going is not stated; therefore, we may

walk, drive an automobile, fly a plane or use any

other method available to us; but we must go and

preach the gospel. The same principle applies to care

of orphans. Every congregation may do that as it

thinks best, but it must be done."

After many years of writing, reading and debat

ing this issue, does he still not understand what the

issue is? Does he not know the difference between

organizations and methods? Does he not know how

to establish scriptural authority?

He thinks the principle is the same in preaching the gospel and relieving the needy — and I agree.If I were defending a missionary society, I certainlywould appreciate his arguments. Remember, he isnot trying to justify a home (we all know that ahome is necessary) but rather a benevolent societywhich provides a home. He carefully avoids the distinction, but it is there nevertheless. To show thathis reasoning will justify a missionary society, I'll take one of his statements and simply substituteevangelistic terms where he uses benevolent terms.

It would read like this:

If the Bible had said it is wrong to support themissionary society, those brethren would have been right; but the Bible doesn't say how to support thepreaching of the gospel; it just says do it. And sincea gospel meeting of some sort is necessary, therefore, the missionary society is scriptural, for anything necessary to obeying a command of God isinherent in the command, whether mentioned or not.

See what I mean? That sounds exactly like the

arguments of J. B. Briney in his defense of the mis

sionary society. The fact that Christ did not tell us

(the church or the individual) how to preach the

gospel does not justify a missionary society. Like

wise, the fact that Christ did not tell us (the church

or the individual) how to care for the needy does

not justify a benevolent society. If the failure to

specify the means and methods to be employed by

the church will justify another organization (which

must use its own methods) in one case, it will do the

same in another. If not, why not?

Brother Totty says that they have never told usthat we must support children in the manner which he defends. Well, let's see about that. In the benevolent work of the church (and that's what we are discussing; not the individual) he and the GospelAdvocate contend that elders, acting as elders, cannot oversee the care of the needy. They say thatsuch work must be under a board. Is that not right?We are the ones who have not prescribed the manner! We contend that the church is free to use anymeans or methods necessary in any of its work. Or, to use his own words, "every congregation may do that as it thinks best." But that does not authorize it to build or work through another organizationwhich acts "as it thinks best."

His charge that we caused the division is an old

and familiar tactic to evade responsibility. It re

minds me of what the little boy said about the cat.

His mother heard the cat squall and shouted, "Stop

pulling that cat's tail." The boy replied, "I'm not

pulling it. I'm just standing on it and she is doing

the pulling." We are simply contending for the suffi

ciency of the church in overseeing, financing and

doing all of its work, and we oppose any organiza

tion which seeks to displace the church. Those who

depart from this scriptural principle are guilty of

causing any division which may result.

Many religious issues are caused by a misuse ofletters. The sectarians are bad at that. When James says that salvation is N-O-T by faith only, theychange the T to a W; when they get over to Peter's statement that baptism does N-O-W save us, theychange the W to a T. That's not much difference, butit makes a lot of difference. When discussing thechurch and organizations, some brethren say thatthe issue is H-O-W the work is to be done, but they have the W on the wrong end of the word. It is notH-O-W, but rather W-H-0. If they'll just rememberto move the W from the last to the first, they'll have it right. Do you suppose they can do that? We shall see.

Yes, visiting orphans is a generic command — andso is preaching the gospel. But building organizationsother than the church is not a command — genericor otherwise.

An old misinterpretation of I Cor. 15:8, still repeated among our brethren, ought to be corrected.The verse reads, "... and last of all, as to the (child)untimely born, he appeared to me also." The KJVhas, "And last of all he was seen of me also, as ofone born out of due time."

The being as one "untimely born" does not referto the time when the Lord appeared to Paul. No reference is made to the fact that Paul saw Jesus onlyafter the ascension.

The KJV marginal note, "Or an abortive," gets at the meaning. The Greek noun is ektroma which is derived from the verb meaning to miscarry. The noun means "an abortion, abortive birth, an untimely birth" (Grim-Thayer, Lex., 200), "untimely birth, miscarriage" (Arndt-Girgrich, Lex., 246). The ideain "born out of due time" is not born late, but thevery opposite, born too early.

Job 3:16, Psalm 58:8, and Eccl. 6:3-5 indicate themeaning of an untimely birth — namely, the birth of a still-born child, one that never sees the light.

Paul's comparison of himself to an abortive birthpoints to his inferiority as an apostle — at least hisfeeling of inferiority and unworthiness. The verynext verse explains what he means: "For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."

Some notable scholars have seen the point. Thus

H. A. W. Meyer: "What Paul meant to indicate in a figurative way by to ektroma is clearly manifest from ver. 9, namely, that he was inferior to, and less worthy than, the rest of the apostles, in theproportion in which the abortive child stands behind that born mature."

Thus Grimm, in Grimm-Thayer's Lexicon: "... Paul likens himself to an ektroma, and in vs. 9 explains in that same sense: that he is as inferior to the rest of the apostles as an immature birth comes shortof a mature one, and is no more worthy of the nameof an apostle than an abortion is of the name of achild."

P. O. Box 155 Romulus, Michigan 48174

QUESTION: I have not been in the church longand I am puzzled over one question which I am unable to answer for myself. In I Tim. 2:11 it says forthe women to learn in silence and in the next verse it says for the woman not to teach nor to usurpauthority over the man. This is my question, Can awoman teach ladies classes in church? If so, give meScriptural answers, for I have not found in the Bible where the woman was teaching at all in the church,only her children at home. — M.E.S.

ANSWER: I do not know the religious background of our querist, but, usually, when one is converted from denominationalism, he is so accustomed towomen participating in public worship on a plane of equality in relation to men that he does not becomeconcerned with the limitations mentioned above until a good while thereafter. It is good that our querist,even as a young convert, has learned that there are divine limitations in the matter under study and hasa desire to respect them. However, caution must beexercised. One must be careful to determine justwhat truth is, then observe only restrictions that are divinely authorized and not those arbitrarily imposed by men.

There are several passages that authorize women toteach. One is found in Titus 2:3-5: "The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine,teachers of good things; That they may teach theyoung women to be sober, to love their husbands,to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepersat home, good, obedient to their own husbands, thatthe word of God be not blasphemed." In this passage women are told what to teach, but nothing is saidabout where the teaching is to be done. I do not know of any Scripture that restricts her teaching to "only her children at home." The church is in need of women teachers today who can and will teach whatis here authorized. This teaching, however, must bedone in harmony with divine limitations. These limitations are perhaps best set forth in the followingverses:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches:

for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but

they are commanded to be under obedience, as

also saith the law. And if they will learn any

thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for

it is a shame for women to speak in the church"

(I Cor. 14:34,35). "Let the woman learn in

silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a

woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the

man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived,

but the woman being deceived was in the trans

gression" (I Tim. 2:11-14).

These verses involve a fundamental principle governing the relationship of men and women. A careful examination of this principle as set forth in these verses should clarify the issue.

While the Corinthian passage applied directly to a general assembly in which saints benefited byexercising themselves in spiritual gifts, the like ofwhich we do not have today, since the passing of theage of miracles, it, nevertheless, sets forth the fundamental principle under consideration. Notice that Paul commanded the woman to "keep silence in thechurches" (assemblies) and "not to speak in thechurch" (assembly), and then added, "as also saiththe law." This means that the principle applied hereis the same principle that applied under the law. Itapplied under the law; it applied in this assembly,and it applies today — and for the same reason! Thatis why it does not fully meet the issue to say thispassage applies only to an assembly wherein spiritualgifts prevailed or to the age of miracles. But what isthe reason for the restriction or what is the principle?Paul makes it clear in verse thirty-four when he saysconcerning women, "they are commanded to be underobedience." This is what the law required. Furthermore, Paul referred to this law in the First Timothypassage when he said, "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but thewoman being deceived was in the transgression."Again, the law said, ". . . and thy desire shall be tothy husband, and he shall rule over thee" (Gen. 3:16). Thus, the fundamental principle is for the woman in relation to man to be under obedience, insubjection — not usurping authority over man.

These verses, however, do not forbid a woman tospeak or teach under any condition — even in thechurch (assembly). If so, then she cannot sing (Col.3:16) or confess either Christ or her sins in the assembly. The Greek word "hesuchia" translated "silence," according to Thayer, does not mean making no sound at all, but rather "quietness: descriptiveof the life of one who stays home doing his own work,and does not officiously meddle with the affairs ofothers." Thus, these verses only forbid her to speakor teach whenever and wherever she usurps authorityover man. This is the fundamental principle she mustalways observe. This is why she cannot teach a classof men, even though she can teach a class of women or children. This is why she cannot be a public pro-claimer of the word. The evangelist must "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority (Gr. "epitage")

— (Titus 2:15). The woman, however, must be underauthority (Gr. "hupotage") — (I Tim. 2:11).

There is a parallel in the grammatical constructionof I Tim. 2:12 and Acts 4:18 which should throw more light on the matter. Notice the latter: "And theycalled them and commanded them not to speak at allnor teach in the name of Jesus." This restriction did not forbid Peter and John speaking and teaching atall, but rather only such speaking and teaching aswas in the name of Jesus. So it is in I Tim. 2:12. The woman is not forbidden to teach or to usurp authorityunder any condition, but rather only such teachingand exercising of authority as is over man. This is

the fundamental principle that has governed woman from creation.

THE CHRISTIAN AND MILITANCY

Michael Grushon, Hobart, Ind.

Militancy as a way of life is becoming more prevalent on the American scene. Almost every cause can either boast or deplore its militant factions. There are black militants, militant anarchists, student militants, and woman's liberation militants; allof whom are capturing their share of the headlines.

The actions of militants are largely viewed as radical lawlessness. With such a view I am willing to concur. However, we need to realize that militancy of and in itself is not always bad. There aresome causes which justify a form of militancy. Perhaps if we have the definition of militancy beforeus it will make such an admission possible for all.Webster's New World Dictionary defines "militant" as, "to serve as a soldier; fighting, ready and willingto fight; warlike; combative." Thus, for some causesmilitancy would win the approval of all or most ofthe members of our society.

There is a need for teaching concerning militancyin the church today. Not just the negative approachwhich condemns the illegal and lawless activities ofthe majority of the notorious militants of today, butsound, firm teaching of the New Testament that Christians are expected to be militant. That is right,your eyes are not deceiving you, the New Testamentteaches that the Christian is to be a militant. In this article we will examine some of the languageused by the inspired writers which indicate thatsuch an assertion must be so.

The first such indication of the militant nature of Christianity that we would like to cite is Paul's admonition to Timothy in II Timothy 2:2. It reads,"Suffer hardship with me as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No soldier on service entangleth himself with the affairs of this life that he may please him who hath enrolled him to be a soldier." We all recognizethe militant nature of a soldier's occupation. Paul used this figure thus emphasizing the similarities between a soldier in the military and a soldier ofChrist. Both must be able to endure hardship and both must have a dedication to the fight which isbefore them.

No government enlists the aid of a soldier and then sends him out without any method to protect himself, in order to fight an enemy which has neverbeen identified. Such would be folly, resulting in the defeat of all the soldier's efforts. Neither does God act in such an unwise way for we find Paul saying in Ephesians 6:11-17, "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, thatye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all to stand. Stand therefore, havingyour loins girt about with truth, and having on thebreastplate of righteousness; and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; aboveall, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall beable to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. Andtake the helmet of salvation, and the sword of theSpirit, which is the word of God." Thus, God doesexpect his servants to be militant because he provides us with a perfect set of armour, points us towards the most awesome adversary any army everhad, and orders us to stand fast. To do so in the faceof the onslaughts hurled by Satan takes tenacitythat would be admired and desired in any army.

Another good indication that God intended for Christians to be militant is the words that are used to exhort Christians to action. Jude 3 says, "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me towrite unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Contend means, "To strive in combat, struggle." Jude says that he felt it necessaryto exhort his readers to contend for the faith. Hence we are to wage combat and struggle with those who would overthrow the faith. Paul told Timothy to"Fight the good fight of faith." If we ever expectto lay hold on eternal life it will be after a life dedicated to the defense of the gospel.

The final indication that the New Testament

teaches that Christians should be militant which we

will consider in this article is the meaning of the

term which is used to indicate the objective of living

the Christian life. In Romans 12:21 Paul instructs

us, "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with

good." The word which is translated overcome in

this passage also can be translated conquer. Thus

Paul is saying that we should conquer the evil in

this life by the good which we can do. The apostle

John used the same word when he said, "For what

soever is born of God overcometh the world, even

our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but

he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"

Thus John says that the key to the Christian's con

quest is his faith in Jesus, but important to our

present consideration is the fact that we are ex

pected to conquer.

The usage that the New Testament makes of such

militant terms establishes that the Christian should

have a militant attitude concerning his life as a

Christian. Of course, we realize that our form of

militancy is not the bomb throwing, building burn

ing type so spectacularly carried out by the modern

militant, but we are to be militant, carrying forth a

spiritual battle to the enemies of the gospel.

"STAY OUT OF THE WATER"

Ben M. Bogard, prominent Baptist debater of aby gone decade, had what he thought was a humorous dodge to I Peter 3:21. When presented with the statement, "Baptism doth also now save us" he would reply with a smile, "Why, Noah wasn't savedby getting into the water, he was saved by staying out of it." This seemed to satisfy most Baptists.

In our study this month I would like to take up

this passage for close observation. Peter says,

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the

longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah,

while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is,

eight souls were saved by water. The like figure

whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, (not

the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the

answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the

resurrection of Jesus Christ." One of the evasions

of this great text is a play on the word "figure."

Baptist debaters are good at figures! It is obvious

to any student of the Bible that the figure is a com

parison between Noah's salvation and ours.

The word "antitupon" according to Lexicographers means "A striking back, metaphorically, resisting, adverse; then in a passive sense, struck back;in the N.T. Metaphorically, corresponding to a copyof an archetype, etc." Thus it can be observed thatthe figure of this text is a comparison between Noah's salvation and ours. Baptist preachers try their best to make the text say "we are saved bybaptism figuratively." If we are saved by baptism only in a figurative sense then Noah was only savedfrom the flood figuratively. If this be so we mightas well turn infidel and deny all the Bible. Sectarian preachers can throw this word figure around somuch that it will confuse the less informed and cause many to be lost.

Several years ago brother A. W. Young wrote a

poem and called it BAPTIST FIGURATIVE FOOL

ISHNESS. It is my opinion that he should have left

out the word saphead; but the rest of it is fitting. I

would like to give it now: "The Bible teaches us of God,

A being that's supreme;

Creator of each particle

Of his universal scheme.It teaches us of Jesus,

Known as the Son of man; The

founder of the Christian faith,

The Author of its plan.It teaches of the Spirit,Who gave to us the wordThat reveals in all his glory

Our Christ, the risen Lord. It says His death and burialAnd resurrection from the grave

Is, in fact the true foundation

Of God's own plan to save.These facts God calls the gospel,His own appointed way; A

form of which comprisesWhat sinners must obey.By faith, which comes by hearing,They are dipped beneath the wave;And thus obey the gospel,God's appointed way to save.But we have on earth a people,And "Baptist" is their name,Who do not believe the word of God,And hence reject the same.They have a figurative GodAnd a figurative Son,

A figurative Spirit;And the figure's just begun.Their figurative LordHas a figurative planTo save within a figureA figurative man.With a figurative gospel,Preached in a figure, too,

They get a figurative mourner,And figure him right through.He then tells a figurative storyOf blessings figured in,

Of figurative deliverance From figurative sin.Then the Baptists take a vote,On the figurative plan,

To decide upon the statusOf this figurative man.

They baptize him, in a figure,In a literal mudhole,If they decide he has salvation In his figurative soul.

Thus by a figure, in a figure,And figuring with a vim,They figure on a saphead,And make a Baptist out of him.And when they are done figuring,He's figured there to stay;

He's figured to a finish,And cannot fall away.But the real old devil,In his literal lively hell, Isfiguring on this figuring,And it suits him very well.For his agents — they are figuring

Upon poor, fallen man;And in his place and by his grace They carry out his plan.Then never let a Baptist Church

Begin to figure on your soul;But trust in the Lord Jesus,And he will make you whole.If you'll submit yourself to him And his commands obey,

You'll surely go to heaven,Because he is the Way."Any student of the Bible knows that Noah wassaved by water. However, the Bible does not teach

that Noah was saved by water exactly as we are

today. Noah was saved by WATER in that God

caused the ark to float, thus allowing the water to

serve as a line of separation between Noah and a sin

ful world. He saves the sinner today by water (bap

tism) in that it (baptism) is for the remission of

sins (Acts 2:38). Also it saves in that it puts oneinto Christ (Gal. 3:26-27).

It is true that Noah was saved by staying out of

the water. However, we must remember that the

Bible says he was saved by water! All people who

go to heaven will be saved by the blood of Christ.

But not all people are saved by his blood the same

way. For example, we who live in this age must

obey the gospel (Rom. 1:16; Rom. 6:3-4), but the

people of the Mosaic age did not have to obey the

gospel of Christ. They had to observe the ordinances

which Jehovah had given to them at that time. Yes,

we are saved by the blood, but not in the same way.

We are also saved by water but not in the same way.

The last dodge on this text is on "the filth of the

flesh." Some few Baptist debaters will try to argue

that "filth" means sin. Thus, they insist that bap

tism does not take away sins. However, just a little

study will show one that filth in this text means dirt

on the body. All lexicographers are agreed on this

point. In other words, baptism is not a mere bath to

wash dirt off the body. The word translated filth

does not mean sin! Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone would takethe Bible for what it says rather than wresting it to

their own destruction?

When John wrote, "We love Him because He first

loved us" (I John 4:19), he was reminding us of a

first principle of true religion. He was saying — as

one teacher put it — that we can never love God as

He loved us, because He loved us FIRST! He loved

us while we were in opposition to Him, while we

were sinners (Rom. 5:8).

The religion of the Bible is unique among world

religions, not only because it alone is true, but with

respect to its divine teaching concerning God. It is

a God-centered religion. The Father is "above all and

through all and in all" (Eph. 4:6). "Of Him, and

through Him and to Him are all things" (Rom.

11:36). In the Bible, God always makes the first

move toward man. Man's obligations consist (in one

way or another) of responding to God's gracious

acts of salvation, as to a sovereign God.

The Old Testament begins with God acting — andHis work was "very good" (Gen. 1:31). The storyof the Jewish people — from Abraham, throughMoses and the prophets, to Christ — is a COVENANT story. Again God is seen moving toward His

creatures to save them; He is calling man, leadingman, giving His divine Word to man — requiring man to respond to divine grace by submissive andtrusting obedience. Psalms 105, 135 and 136 (amongothers) sum up this story in beautiful poetry. Thesepsalms must have been sung frequently in OldTestament worship and perhaps in early Christian worship as well (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). The God ofthe Old Testament is a God who acts to save His people, then calls on them to respond in faithfulness.Such psalms as we have just noticed formed the

background for the birth of John the Immerser

(Luke 1:67-69) and of Messiah Jesus (Luke 1:46

55). Jesus claimed to be fulfilling the Old Testament

law, prophets and psalms (Luke 24:44-48), and

began His personal ministry- by just such a state

ment of identification and purpose (Luke 4:16-21;

Matt. 4:12-17). He was telling those who listened

that He, Jesus of Nazareth, was sent by the God of

their fathers — once more, but finally and com

pletely — to save man.

The apostolic preaching recorded in the book ofActs may be regarded as typical of the rest of thepreaching of the apostles. In these sermons of Spirit-filled men, the same themes are stressed which we have seen already from Genesis to Jesus — God acting to save His people, and these people required torespond in faith and obedience. This is especiallytrue of Stephen's sermon before the Sanhedrin(Acts 7) and Paul's synagogue sermon at Pisidian

Antioch (13:14-41), but may be said fairly of Peter's

sermons at Pentecost (2:14-40), at the Temple

(3:12-26), before the Council (4:8-12) and at Cor

nelius' house (10:34-43). The same may be said of

Paul's sermon to the Athenians (17:22-31).

THE POINT FOR US

The point is the same for us today. By our own

sins we have become alienated from the true God,

who is absolutely holy and just. We can never please

Him by ourselves, nor can we alone appease Him.

Man is forever weak through the flesh. We can not

be GOOD enough, or DO enough, or PERFORM

enough to make ourselves right with God — after

we have once sinned and rebelled against Him.

But God has acted FIRST — to save us! His Son became a man. He lived a perfect life, in OUR stead.He died — for OUR sins. He rose — for OUR justification. Because of the life He lived, then gave indeath, God can accept US — rebellious sinners though we were. "He hath made us accepted in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:7). We are counted righteous in

union with Christ (I Cor. 1:29-31; II Cor. 5:21).

As has always been the case, man must respond

to God's grace. He must believe that Jesus is God's

Son — with a committing, trusting faith. He must

repent of his sins — turn the other way in his mind.

He must confess that faith before men — by word

of mouth and by action. And he must be identified

with Christ in water baptism, being buried and

raised with Him — through faith in the working of

God (Col. 2:12; Acts 2:38; I Pet. 3:21, 22).

The same faith that led to this obedience must continue through all the believer's life — still believing, still trusting, still obeying. Are you "set right" with God? If not, turn to Him this very dayin penitent and sincere faith, demonstrated by complete and trusting obedience. Do not reject God's love and grace! His righteous wrath is the only alternative. God has already acted to save you. What is

your response ?

944 South Geyer Road

Kirkwood, Mo. 63122

IS THE CHURCH INDISPENSABLETO CHRISTIANITY?

MACON PREACHERS

Several years ago, on a TV panel discussion origi

nating in Macon, Georgia, several preachers dis

cussed this question: "Is the church indispensable

to Christianity?"

In this article the reader is invited to examine

material pertinent to this question.

WHICH CHURCH?

The above-mentioned panel members agreed that

by the term "church" they meant the "church on

the corner," or, the local denomination.

Or, in other words, these men were asking

whether the Baptist Church, or Methodist Church,

etc., was absolutely necessary to the life of Chris

tianity.

THE REAL ISSUE

Actually, the real issue involved here is not whether or not Christianity can live without these

churches, but whether or not Christianity can live

with them. The question asked by the Macon preachers im

plies their assumption that all denominations have a

perfect right to exist in the first place. However, this

assumption is entirely unwarranted, and wholly

without Bible proof. The man does not live who can

justify by the Bible a division of professed Chris

tians into different and differing churches.

To the contrary, I Cor. 1:10-13 positively con

demns what we know today as denominational Chris

tianity.

THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH

It can be affirmed without fear of successful contradiction that the New Testament church is

indispensable to the life of Christianity.

It would be impossible to have Christianity with

out the church simply because Christians are the

church. See, in this regard, such passages as Acts

2:47; Eph. 5:23; I Cor. 12:27; Heb. 3:6.

WHAT IS IT?

Someone is surely to ask, "But what is the New

Testament church?" It is odd and unfortunate that whenever the term

"church" is used, the minds of most people are

confused.

Why should this be true of the term "church"

when it is not true of other Bible words ?

If neighbors are discussing the goodness of "God"

does someone come along and ask, "But which God

are you talking about?"

And even if a skeptic should ask, "Which God?"

the reply would be, without any indication of con

fusion, "The Bible God." Is there any misunderstanding among believersin the Bible when people speak of the New Testa

ment "Jesus" or of the New Testament "Spirit?"

To the contrary, people grasp immediately the

necessity of maintaining the concept of "God," of

"Christ,", and of the "Spirit," that is presented in

the writings of the apostles and inspired men.

WHAT ABOUT THE CHURCH?

Therefore, since the meaning is perfectly clearwhen we speak of the New Testament "God," or

"Jesus," or "Spirit," why can't we, with equal ease,

understand what is meant by the New Testament

"church?" If the New Testament "God" means "the God pre

sented in the Bible," then what would the New Tes

tament "church" mean?

And if our concept of "God" must be exactly whatit was in the mind of Paul, then why must not my

concept of the "church" be exactly what it was in

the mind of Paul? Why will people hold today the Bible view of God

and yet steadfastly refuse today the Bible view of

the church?

If today we believe in the Bible "Jesus," can't we

believe in, with equal vigor, the Bible "church?"

BOUND

Each bound volume is two years or 24 issues. Skillfully bound in beautiful Fabricord covering, navy blue, printed in gold, and will withstand constant use for many years. Each bound volume matches previous bound volumes. The entire two years bound in one volume is indexed for easy reference to both author and title of article.

VOLUME 1-1960-1961 (out of print) VOLUME II - 1962-1963 (only a few left) VOLUME I I I - 1964-1965 (about 40 left) VOLUME I V -1966-1967 VOLUME V-19681969

EACH BOUND VOLUME

$7.50

Nothing is more inconsistent than false doctrine,unless it be the advocates of such doctrine. False teachers, in their attempts to get around the teaching of the New Testament on water baptism, usually start out by admitting that such passages as Mark16:16, Matt. 28:18,20, Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16teach water baptism. They take every twist and useevery quibble known in an attempt to prove thatthese passages do not mean what they say, and usually wind up taking the position that Mark 16:16is no part of the Word of God. Ben M. Bogard, oneof the best debaters the Missionary Baptist Churchhas ever produced, had 237 debates before he diedin May 1951.

Bogard sometimes took the position that Mark

16:16 was genuine Scripture and at other times hetook the position that it was spurious, depending onhow he wanted to use it. In 1910, when he was in debate with Dr. I. N. Penick, Bogard used Mark 16:16 and said it was a command of God. In 1915 in his debate with a gospel preacher, Joe S. Warlick,Bogard denied that Mark 16:16 was inspired Scripture. In 1929 in his "Waybook" on page 41 he quotesMark 16:16 as the inspired Word of God. Again indebate with Aimee McPherson in 1934 Bogard tookthe position that Mark 16:16 was the inspired Wordof God. But then, in his debate with N. B. Hardemanin Little Rock, Arkansas in April 1938 Bogard said,"I have never yet said that Mark 16:16 was a partof the word of God" (Hardeman-Bogard Debate,Page 273).

Such twisting and quibbling is typical of all falseteachers. The truth of the matter is that any person who has enough intelligence to be accountableto God, knows that Jesus said, "He that believeth,and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned," and there is no way in theworld to get the necessity of baptism out of thisplain statement! But someone says, "I just can't seethat baptism is necessary." If you are really telling the truth when you make this statement — if after reading the plain simple statement of the Christ,"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,"you just cannot see that "He that believeth and isbaptized shall be saved," don't worry about youreternal condition, for only those who are capable of"hearing and learning" (John 6:45) are accountableto God anyway! If you honestly do not have enough intelligence to understand that "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" you are not responsible to God. If you do have enough intelligence tounderstand that "He that believeth, and is baptized,shall be saved" and you refuse to believe it, you will be damned for Christ said, "but he that believethnot shall be damned."

Many false teachers, when they see that they cannot refute the many New Testament passages thatteach baptism, start telling us about how many baptisms they read about in the Bible (some say three,some say five, some say seven etc.) and then they try to look wise and ask, "which one is Mark 16:16,Acts 2:38, Rom. 6:3,4, I Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:27, etc. taking about?" When you answer this denominational quibble by showing that even if there were adozen baptisms prior to the baptism the Apostlespreached and administered under the commissionof Christ commencing at Pentecost (Acts 2), the New Testament says there is now "ONE BAPTISM" (Eph. 4:5), they will many times say, "Oh, that isHoly Spirit baptism." These advocates of false doctrine will many times hasten to add, "Oh, I havebeen baptized in water." Well, if the New Testamentpassages on baptism mean Holy Spirit baptism, why were you baptized in water? And why do most ofthose who affirm that the baptism passages meanHoly Spirit baptism practice water baptism? Don't talk to me about three or five or seven baptisms. TheBible says there is now "ONE BAPTISM," Eph. 4:5.

Holy Spirit baptism was a promise to the Apostles, Luke 24:49-Acts 1:5, and only Christ could administer it, Matt. 3:11. I have never heard anyoneclaim that man was ever commanded to perform, orhad the power to administer Holy Spirit baptism.

Man is authorized to and has the power to performbaptism. The baptism which Jesus says saves (Mark 16:16) is the baptism which he commanded the Apostles to perform. They were to teach all nations,"baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:18,20). The first preaching of the Apostles under the commission given in Matt.28:18,20 was on Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.Here the Apostle Peter commanded those who asked what they must do to "Repent, and be baptizedevery one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for theremission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift ofthe Holy Spirit" (Acts. 2:38). "They that gladly received his word were baptized" (verse 41). And they were baptized in water or else Peter contradicted his own preaching about ten years later whenhe asked, "Can any man forbid WATER, that theseshould not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?" (Acts 10:47). "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of theLord" (Acts 10:48). All of the twisting, squirming,fuming, fussing, and quibbling of denominationalismwill never get the water out of Acts 10:47,48! Remember that there is ONE BAPTISM (Eph. 4:5;and Peter dared any man to forbid WATER that itshould not be performed!

The mission of the Apostles and preachers of theNew Testament period was to "preach Jesus." Acts 8:26-39 is an inspired record of an inspired man preaching Jesus. We are told that Philip "preachedunto him Jesus" (verse 35). This is all that he preached. "And as they went on their way, theycame unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, where in the world did youever get the idea that you need to be baptized? My friend, you are saved by faith alone. All you haveto do is just believe in Christ. True, baptism is a command of Christ, but I did not even mention baptism for anyone knows that you cannot do all ofthe commands, so there is no point in trying to do any of them. God is a just God and He certainlywill not send anyone to Hell for not obeying Him.