TIME, TALENT AND TREASURE

Donald R. Givens

Dedication to the Lord God is an absolute essential in our life lived under the sun. Dedication to Him of one's time, talent, and treasure must bepracticed by each and every disciple. The Lord accepts no half-hearted service nor divided allegiance.

TIME

The wise Christian applies the instruction ofEph. 5:16 to "redeem the time," which means to "buy up or seize all opportunities." Life is but a vapor; it is so very short and therefore the wise redeem the time. David prayed an important prayerwhen he said: "Jehovah, make me to know mine end,And the measure of my days, what it is; Let meknow how frail I am" (Psalms 39:4). Do you realize how frail you are? Frail human beings need to betaught to number their days, and obtain hearts ofwisdom (Psalms 90:12). Time is precious because itis the stuff of which life is made. Seize the opportunities to use time wisely. Concentrate on thingsof superior .value, which will abide. "We must work7—PHILLIPS (Searching the Scriptures) Ml O3

the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work," so spakeJesus in John 9:4. There is coming a time, whenTIME itself will be no more.

TALENT

The word "talent" is used here to mean one's abilities. Every member of the church has some kind of ability, whether small or large. These talents will be multiplied with proper use, but willdecrease with disuse. Not only should we seize the time, but our talents must be put to work inthe vineyard of the Lord. It is a sin to let one'sspiritual abilities decay and fade away. "For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have needof milk, and not of solid food" (Heb. 5:12).

Notice: "YE OUGHT . . ." You ought (that is OBLIGATION!) to have been teachers, but they had notredeemed the time by using their opportunities togain teaching talent and grow and be useful toothers. What is it "ye ought" to be doing? Are yourtalents lying dormant?

TREASURE

Time, talent, and treasure must all be devoted tothe Lord God. Treasure takes on the character of the possessor. Treasure can be either one's servant orhis master. Frequently "treasure and trouble" go hand in hand: "In the house of the righteous ismuch treasure; But in the revenues of the wicked istrouble ... Better is little, with the fear of Jehovah,Than great treasure and trouble therewith" (Prov.15:6,16).

Jesus gave powerful but much-neglected admonition when He commanded men to lay up their treasure in heaven instead of on the moth and rust-corrupted and thief-ridden earth. One's treasure in heaven can never be wrested from him. No earthlypower can rob you of your treasure laid up inheaven!

Where is your heart ? Exactly where your treasureis (Matt. 6:21). If your efforts, deeds, and goals areall consumed toward earthly treasures, you need expect none in heaven. The following vivid languagefrom the inspired pen of James warns against heaping up treasure in a selfish manner: "Come now, yerich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and yourgarments are moth-eaten. Your gold and your silverare rusted; and their rust shall be for a testimonyagainst you, and shall eat your flesh as fire. Ye havelaid up your treasure in the last days" (James 5:1-3).Not a very sweet picture is it? How much better tolay up treasures in heaven and have firm hope ofreceiving "an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heavenfor you" (I Peter 1:4).

Search your heart and answer: Am I dedicatingmy time, talent, and treasure to the Lord who diedfor me? Make it certain. Eternity is getting closerwith every breath you take.

One of Shakespeare's characters in As You Like It speaks of the quiet life which "finds tongues intrees, books in running brooks, sermons in stones,and good in everything." A preacher learns to see sermons in conversations, incidents and quotations(as well as in stones) and the following thoughtswere stimulated by a chance quotation from theBritish philosopher and atheist, Bertrand Russell.

The utter hopelessness of materialism, its darkness, its complete and ultimate despair, stand out soclearly in this statement. Read it two or three timesif necessary. Then notice with me the sharp contrastthe New Testament gives to Russell's despair. Here is his statement:

That Man is the product of causes which hadno prevision of the end they were achieving;that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears,his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome ofaccidental collocations of atoms; that no fire,no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond thegrave; that all the labours of the ages, all thedevotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system,and that the whole temple of Man's achievementmust inevitably be buried beneath the debris ofa universe in ruins — all these things, if notquite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain,that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of thesetruths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.

We may summarize the substance of his statementlike this: Man's origin was purely accidental. Because he sprang from an accident, there is no purpose to his life. Since there is no purpose, there isnothing after this life toward which to strive or togive life meaning. Therefore the only basis for living is "unyielding despair."

How fitting are the words of the Apostle Paul,with reference to the philosophy of humanism andatheism: "Your world was a world without hopeand without God" (Ephesians 2:12, New English Bible). The Word of God is light in a world of darkness in giving man a hopeful alternative to thisdespair of human wisdom.

MAN'S TRUE ORIGIN AND GOD'S PURPOSE

Man's origin was God Himself, through Jesus Christ. It was not by accident that man came intoexistence, but plan. Because God created man Hehad a purpose for him, and because He had thiseternal purpose He created man in the first place.That purpose involves something after and beyondthis life — something toward which man may strive;something to give this life significance and meaning.

Therefore, the basis for true living and abundantlife is the knowledge of God and obedience to Him

— in the full confidence that He has a purpose forman, and that He will carry it out! Listen to Paulagain:

God has made known to us His hidden purpose

— such was His will and pleasure determinedbeforehand in Christ — to be put into effectwhen the time was ripe: namely, that the universe, all in heaven and on earth, might bebrought into a unity in Christ. In Christ indeedwe have been given our share in the heritage,as was decreed in His design whose purpose iseverywhere at work (Eph. 1:9-11).

Is there purpose to the universe? Is there design? Is a master plan being carried out? Is there any sign or assurance of this plan? We know that there is! To the Colossians, Paul wrote:

Christ is the image of the invisible God; His isthe primacy over all created things. In Him everything in heaven and on earth was created,not only things visible, but also the invisibleorders of thrones, sovereignties, authorities,and powers: the whole universe has been created through Him and for Him. And He existsbefore everything, and all things are held together in Him . . . For in Him the completebeing of God, by God's own choice, came todwell. Through Him God chose to reconcile thewhole universe to Himself, making peacethrough the shedding of His blood upon thecross — to reconcile all things, whether on earthor in heaven, through Him alone (Col. 1:15-20).

THE FUTURE IS HOPEFUL

The created universe is not now in a state of glory.Everything, it seems, is really out of joint. Again,we know that this is not the intended state of things

— the present imperfection and disarray is the result of sin. Some day God will remove the curse ofsin. The Bible says:

The created universe waits with eager expectation for God's sons to be revealed. It was made the victim of frustration, not by its own choice,but because of Him who made it so, yet alwaysthere was hope, because the universe itself isto be freed from the shackles of mortality andenter upon the liberty and splendour of the children of God (Rom. 8:19-21).

Scripture clearly teaches that the "new heavensand new earth" will not be of the same material stuff as this present one. Yet we need to be impressed at the same time with the vast and cosmicproportions of God's eternal purpose as Paul statesit in this passage by the Spirit.

The present order of things is dying. It is runningdown. One day it will be totally destroyed. Even Bertrand Russell believed that. But whereas this was to him a signal for despair and hopelessness(since he did not know God and could not understand the meaning of the presently-cursed situation), it is to us who believe an incentive for godlyliving and constant, obedient faith. Listen to Peter,speaking by the Spirit:

But the Day of the Lord will come; it will comeunexpected as a thief. On that day the heavenswill disappear with a great rushing sound, the elements will disintegrate in flames, and theearth with all that is in it will be laid bare. Since the whole universe is to break up in thisway, think what sort of people you ought to be,what devout and dedicated lives you should live!(II Peter 3:10,11).

CONCLUSION

Our faith, our hope, our works and lives aregrounded in these sure words of God. The scientific truths expressed in these Scriptures are in completeaccord with the known "laws" of physics and other natural sciences. In addition to the testimony ofscience, we have the more sure word of prophecy,the words of our Lord Jesus, and the Spirit-givenwords of His apostles and prophets. Let us be diligent to "be found at peace with Him, unblemished and above reproach in His sight." And let us be busy telling lost men without hope that God is reallythere and He has a purpose for them!

— 944 South Geyer Road St.Louis, Mo. 63122

(We interrupt the series brother Hogland began last

month to find place for this one. The series on "Hard

Questions" will continue next month—Editor.)

"THE DEMONSTRATING EXAMPLE"

For decades brethren all over the country hadargued that authority in Bible matters could be established in only three ways — that is, by command, apostolic example or necessary inference. Ithas long been my deep conviction that every apostasy in the church has slipped in by mudding the water over apostolic example. Since the last seriesof innovations have made their way into the church,the apostolic example idea has taken a severe attack from those who do not want to stay within the confines of God's law. Reams of paper have been wastedin writing articles on why this means of establishing authority is not correct or at least to water itdown to the degree that it will no longer be a deterrent to the innovator.

One of the last to join the "band wagon" was Bat-sell Barrett Baxter, of Herald of Truth fame. Brother Baxter preached a series of sermons at theHillsboro church in Nashville, Tenn., on this subjectand some of the material was published. In his article Brother Baxter says the following: "However,this problem can be solved by the simple expedientof looking behind any given example for a basic commandment of God, which the example is demonstrating. If the example in question is a clear demonstration of a basic teaching or commandment ofthe Lord, it is a binding example." Great shades ofAristotle! Did you notice what he said? He tellsus an example is binding IF behind it one finds abasic COMMAND OF GOD. Now doesn't that make lots of sense? If we have the COMMAND, we don'tneed the EXAMPLE. He tells us twice that if a command backs up the example then it is binding.It seems to me that any person should be able tosee through such foolish reasoning. Why in thename of common sense would we need an example if we had the command to back it up? This is justanother way the modern innovationist is seeking to confuse the minds of brethren and bring in false doctrine.

Later in the article he brings up Acts 20:7 andhangs himself as high as Haaman. He says, "Still another is that found in Acts 20:7 in which the apostle Paul, Luke, and other Christians came together to eat the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week. We know that Christians are to eat the Lord's Supper; from this example we know whenit is to be done. By reading I Cor. 16:2, we learn that the Corinthian Christians were instructed to lay by in store on the first day of the week. Since we also are commanded to give, the example of the Corinthian church doing it on the Lord's day becomes our binding example to do our laying by onthat day. All of these we believe are binding examples upon Christians because of the underlying commandment which each mirrors."

Kind reader, I have heard of pulling rabbits outof hats and changing horses in the middle of the stream but you will never see a better example ofshifting gears that Brother Baxter demonstrates when he shifts from the Lord's Supper example inActs 20:7, to the giving example in I Cor. 16. As a matter of fact, he changed gears so fast if one wasnot careful he might think he was still with theLord's Supper in I Cor. 16. My, my, what deception!Are my brethren so naive they can't see this? Notice he says there must be an underlying commandment which mirrors the example. Where in the world is the underlying command that tells us toobserve the Lord's Supper on Sunday? He will never find it because it is on the BLANK page of yourBible. He knew some good brother would ask about the command that backs up eating the Lord's Supper on Sunday and so what does he do? He pulls a rabbit out of the hat by telling them about I Cor.16! Can people in the church be so ill informed thatthey think Paul is discussing the Lord's Supper inI Cor; 16 ? If so, it is far later than we think. Brethren, listen, you don't have to find a command to back up an apostolic example. If you have the command, you don't need the example.

Someone may ask why all these articles lately onApostolic examples. The truth of the matter is thatyears ago brethren were not trying to slip in theirencroachments and therefore did not need to destroythem. Today, it is different because brethren are desiring to bring in many things which the apostolicexamples completely destroy. So the solution, as faras they are concerned, is to destroy the apostolicexample or at least confuse the brethren to thepoint that they will no longer insist on their use.

Kind friend, just remember it is not difficult toknow when an example is binding. Remember thisrule — when the uniformity and congruity of God'slaw points to the fact that a thing was done in a certain way or at a certain time we must emulatethat example. Paul said in Phil. 4:9, "These things,which ye have both learned and received, and heard,and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall bewith you." Let us go back to Acts 20:7 to see whyit is binding. First, it is the ONLY passage in theBible which tells us WHEN to observe the Lord's Supper. Second, is there any other example of thebrethren eating the Lord's Supper at any other time? Certainly not. Let us suppose that we could find a passage where the brethren ate the Lord's Supperon Tuesday. What would this do to our passage inActs 20:7? Anyone should know that it would invalidate it and then Acts 20:7 becomes an example, butnot a binding one. But since the uniformity of God's law points to the fact that the Lord's Supper was

observed only on Sunday, then it becomes a BIND

ING example for us today. Now isn't that simple?

I was reading an issue of "The Guardian" which is the official publication of the Catholic Diocese ofLittle Rock, and noticed that the paper carried anumber of wine and beer advertisements. Can youimagine a religious paper advertising alcoholic beverages? That isn't strange for the Catholics, forthey even make it! But the Bible says: "Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it givethhis colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder" (Prov. 23:31,32).

Don't fail to read "Beware the Commercialized Faith Healers" in the June, 1971 issue of Reader's Digest. It is an excellent treatment of the fake healing movement, and exposes them for what they are.As a sample, we quote the following paragraph fromthe article:

"How can people be so gullible ? Well, it is evidentthat a great many who believe in faith healing areemotionally and psychologically ill. The broadcastsand the crusades, with their singing, clapping and shouting, give them a therapy they don't find in established churches, a spiritual uplift for which they hunger. Some show up regularly in the healinglines. For instance, there was the elderly man who claimed he had been cured of heart trouble in a previous meeting in an Eastern city. 'I'm well and spry now,' he said. 'But I'm going to get healed again!'"

When the Lord and the apostles healed people,they didn't need to be healed again. The miracleswhich they performed were real and complete, and even the critics could not deny it (Acts 4:14).

The June 27, 1971 issue of FAMILY WEEKLY,the magazine in many newspapers across the country, carried a story about Glen Campbell, the famous singer and entertainer from Delight, Arkansas.In speaking of his life and moral standards, the writer said: "Glen inherited his moral fiber from his family, all devoted Church of Christ members." Glenwas quoted as saying, "I went to every church whenI was a kid — even the Holy Roller Church becauseI dug its singing. I'm very broad-minded about religion. There's one God, so why all these denominations going in different directions?"

We are glad that the church has had some influence upon Glen, but he needs to realize that one can get too broad-minded to fit into the narrow waywhich leads to God and eternal life (Matt. 7:13,14).His last question is a good one. The same chapterwhich says there is one God, also says there is onebody (Eph. 4:4-6). That body is the church (Eph.1:22,23). These denominations were built by men.They teach different doctrines all right, but they are all headed in the same direction — and it's not toward heaven! Jesus said, "Every plant which myheavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up" (Matt. 15:13).

A recent newspaper article quoted Billy Grahamas saying: "I'm an exhorter. I stand at the door ofthe kingdom of heaven and say, come in. And whenthey come in, they go by the way of their particularchurch."

Billy may exhort people to enter the kingdom,but we deny that he teaches them how to enter. Hiswork is like that of the scribes and Pharisees of whom Jesus said, "ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye enter not in yourselves, neithersuffer ye them that are entering in to enter" (Matt.23:13). When preachers refuse to tell men andwomen how to enter the kingdom, they are not inviting them to enter; rather, they shut the kingdom so that they cannot enter.

Jesus said, "Except one be born of water and theSpirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"(John 3:5). Billy doesn't preach this, and if he did he would not interpret it correctly, for he does notbelieve that baptism is essential to entrance into thekingdom.

The apostle Peter was given the keys of the kingdom (Matt. 16:19). Surely he and the other apostles told people how to enter the kingdom. When thefirst gospel sermon was preached in the name of the risen Redeemer, Peter commanded sinners to "repent, and be baptized every one of you in the nameof Jesus Christ for (unto) the remission of sins . . ."(Acts 2:38). Did anybody ever hear or hear of Billy Graham telling sinners to do that ? No! He may stand at the door of the kingdom, but he does not tell people how to enter.

And what about this doctrine of people enteringthe kingdom "by way of their particular church"?No such idea is taught in the word of God! Billyhsmethod of conversion is to have people bow theirhead or come and stand before him, pray for forgiveness, and then go home and join the church oftheir choice. That's what he is talking about, but hecan't read of such in the Bible. The church of Christ is the kingdom of Christ (Matt. 16:18,19). Whenone is born again, he becomes a citizen of the kingdom (Col. 1:13,14) and is added by the Lord to hischurch (Acts 2:47). He has no more right to selectthe church of his choice than he does the God of his choice. Jesus taught that a divided kingdom cannotstand (Matt. 12:25). If his kingdom is made up ofpeople who are divided into hundreds of differentchurches (as Billy's statement implies) then it isdivided and cannot stand. But the Bible says that itwill stand forever (Dan. 2:44; Heb. 12:28), therefore Christ authorized no such arrangement.

According to a recent AP article out of London,Bernadette Devlin, the controversial, revolutionary member of the House of Commons, is pregnant outof wedlock. The political organization which supported her election said, "We cannot but admire, asalways, Miss Devlin's courage." Are we discussingher courage, or her character? But listen to this:Rev. Ian Paisley said, "All I can say is what the Lord Jesus Christ said, 'He that hath no sin let him cast the first stone.' " That's a typical attitude toward sin, but it is wrong. Jesus was speaking ofthose who were hypocritical and equally guilty ofsin. He did not mean that no one is ever in positionto rebuke those who sin. The world-wide trend of our age is toward unrighteousness and permissiveness, with total disregard for the law of God, and a lack of censure and punishment of the guilty.

These words have no reference to any particularperson's brother. They have to do with the compositional use of the word "brother." From the number of times I see this word wrongly written inletters, articles and reports, it seems to me thatmany of our brethren have a hang-up on the word.They are so skittish of using the word as an unscriptural title that they shy around it and fall unwittingly into a quagmire of literary error. This addsto the image of an uneducated "ministry" in the churches of Christ. It grates upon the nerves of afew of us who happen to think that brethren who write for others to read should state their truths in keeping with good literary usage, rather than committing an error in composition in an effort to prevent an error in religious titular usage. One error never justifies another. Neither do two errors decrease the sum of error, nor does the commission ofa second error eradicate the first.

Now let no pencil-happy brother accuse me of seeking to justify the use of unscriptural titles. I suppose that my record of preaching and writingagainst such over the past forty years would compare favorably with most of those who agree withme, and is probably as obnoxious as most to those who do not. I recall writing one brother who wasadvertised for a meeting as "Dr.___________," andhe wrote me that he agreed with me and did not wantto be the wearer of an unscriptural title. When Iwrote to know if he told the brethren where he held the meeting that or just went on and accepted thehonor in silence, he never found time to write meagain! I do not believe that the word "brother" should be used to designate preachers as a separateclass in the church. The fact that some may do thisdoes not make it right. The abuse of a practice doesnot necessarily make the practice wrong. When a practice is scriptural, the abusers of it only are wrong.

The practice we are talking about here is the habitof writing "brother" with a little "b" when using the word as a proper adjective; such as, "Dear brother Nowlin." The query department editor ofone religious journal said he knew of no copy rulethat would require the term "brother" to be spelled with a capital letter unless it appears at the beginning of a sentence and expressed his "personal belief" that it should not be spelled with a capitalelsewhere. My effort to help him remember his rulesof composition was ignored for six months and thenanswered with one paragraph saying that he had not had time to digest my explanation. Some explanation! Some digestion!

Now, read this: Woods, George B., and Turner, W.Arthur, The Odyssey Handbook and Guide to Writing, The Odyssey Press, New York, 1954, p. 192,sec. 55f, says,

"Capitalize words denoting family relationship

when they precede the name of a person or when

they are used for an individual person.

RIGHT: I have just received a letter from Mother

Smith.

RIGHT: I asked Father to take Brother Tom for

a walk.

RIGHT: Mary wrote me that both her mother and

her older sister had gone to Mexico."

As can easily be seen, "mother" is used in the third sentence as a common noun and is not capitalized. In the first sentence it is used as a properadjective and is capitalized.

Again, Green, Hutcherson, Leake and McCarter,Complete College Composition, 1946, pp. 189, 190, par. 16, says,

"Capitalize proper nouns, proper adjectives, and

phrases which are specific individualizing names.

(c) Words of family relationship (father, mother,brother) when used with a person's name orinstead of a person's name: . . .

Tell Father and Mother that Aunt Amy is here.

My father and my mother will be glad to see their

aunt."

With the above authorities agree the usage of theword "brother" in two passages from the New Testament KJV: "Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me,Brother Saul, receive thy sight" (Acts 22:i3a).

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lordis salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul alsoaccording to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you" (II Pet. 3:15).

In the first passage the word indicating spiritualfamily relationship is used as a proper adjectivepreceding the name of a person, and is capitalized.In the second, it is used as a common noun in apposition and is not capitalized. Does capitalizing theword "Brother" make it a title? If so, so be it! Infact, it is a title whether capitalized or not. Websterdefines a title as "An inscription put over something,as a name by which it is known or distinguished." So, a name is a title. A scriptural name is a scriptural title, although not necessarily a "flattering title" (Job 32:21,22).

Brethren, let's not be so timorous about titles that

we forget our rules of composition "Tell it like it is."3004: Gena Dr. Decatur, Ga. 30032

PROPER ACTION OF WORSHIP

In our last article notice was given to improper acts of worship. Our attention must now turn to the proper action as required of God.

REDEFINE WORSHIP

We need to keep in mind our definition of worshipby Thayer, page 548, "prop, to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence;...hence amongthe Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the kneeand touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence (to make a "salom");...hence in the New Testament by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication." Thayer further says it is used "of homage shown to men of superior rank" and "of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ, to heavenly beings, and to demons."

GOD AUTHORIZEDACTION

We need to learn what action God has authorized in worship to Him. If we are to please God in ourworship to Him, we must render to Him the actionHe requires rather than what we decide to render to Him.

The ultimate purpose of our worship is to make uslike God, the object of our worship. God must directus to become like Him for apart from revelation fromGod man does not know the nature of God.

PRIVATE AND PUBLIC WORSHIP

There are some acts of worship which God has authorized to be rendered only in public worship; other acts may be rendered in both public and privateworship.

By a study of the New Testament one learns thatthere are five acts of worship. All five of these actswere engaged in public worship. Two of these rendered only in public worship while three of these wererendered in private worship. These five actions are;

(1) eating the Lord's Supper, (2) contributing of ourmeans into the Lord's treasury, (3) singing praise to God and to one another for teaching, (4) praying unto the Father, and (5) studying and teaching theword of God. The first two of these were offered unto God only in public worship on the first day ofthe week. (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-4) The last three of these five acts were rendered in both public and private worship.

CONCLUSION

With this material before us, in some articles oneach of these acts of worship we will study the teaching of the New Testament to learn the will of God inregard to our worship.

I appreciate the manner in which brother J. T. Smith expressed his view of "The Covering of I Cor.11," under the like caption, in the July issue of Searching the Scriptures. It was an interesting article, but I am unable to agree with his treatment offour of the five points which he enumerated as follows: (1) Why was this instruction given? (2) Whowas authorized in the word of God to wear it? (3)Where was the covering to be worn? (4) Was it simply a matter of custom? (5) Must a veil be worn?

We accord with brother Smith's view of pointNo. 4 — it was not simply a matter of custom — but beyond this we do not concur. The rest of his articleseems to reflect the tacit conclusion that the ordinance of I Cor. 11:1-16 draws its force from inspiration and takes its direction from prophecy in particular. Whether or not brother Smith understood his own writing to reflect this view, I cannot say;but I maintain that it unmistakably does. Please notethe following words: "Also woman was to wear the veil when she prayed or prophesied showing thateven though she could do what man did in prayingand prophesying, she recognized man as her head."Employment of the term "even though" is not without deep-reaching significance.

The above quotation from the pen of brother J. T.Smith implies that the woman is subjugated to theheadship of the man, but that her "prophesying" was an usurpation of man's role; nevertheless, ifshe covered her head with a "veil", such usurpation would be ignored. Regarded in this manner, the "veil" served as a cloak for the improper conduct ofthe woman.

We deny that the implication stated in the above paragraph is true. In every phase of teaching, including prophesying, woman was and is restrictedto those functions which do not impinge on man's headship (I Tim. 2:12; I Cor. 14:34-35). It is not literally true that the inspired woman "could do what man did in praying and prophesying" (brotherSmith, no doubt, agrees), and as long as she kept herself in her proper place she posed no greaterthreat to the headship of man than does an uninspired woman of today, who teaches within the samelimited sphere. Therefore the inspired woman, whombrother Smith intimates as overstepping her boundsand needing to apologize by covering her head witha veil, did not do that at all. if she prophesied only where God's word permitted her to; that is, outsidethe assembly and to audiences of women. In doingthis she would not have needed a "veil" because the ordinance was not based on prophecy, nor even inspiration in any part. It was founded on the primacy of the man. But the inspired woman, literally prophesying in the limited manner permitted her, did not affront man's primacy in any way; therefore,she is not to be singled out from the ranks of Christian women in general, as being the peculiar subjectof the ordinance which requires every woman "praying" or "prophesying" to have "a sign of authority on her head." The spiritual gift of prophecy did notrequire a woman to wear a covering, nor can theabsence of that spiritual gift nullify God's ordinancewhich was imposed on other grounds and not on prophecy.

A few moments' consideration of the following analysis of Paul's argument in I Cor. 11:7-10 will enable one to see clearly how that the ordinancewhich requires women to cover their heads when "praying" or "prophesying" is predicated entirely onthe primacy of the man, plus nothing.

(Conclusion) I. "For a man indeed ought not tohave his head veiled" (Deductive argument)

A. "Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man" (Inductivesupport #1)

1. "For the man is not of the woman; but

the woman of the man" (Inductive support #2)

2. "For neither was the man created for the

woman; but the woman for the man" (Conclusion restated in terms of the woman's obligation)

II. "For this cause (reference to the deductive argument used to sustain the initial conclusion,R.W.L.) ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head"

A rule governing the duration of divine ordinancescan be stated as follows: all divine ordinances continue to be of force until such a time as they areabolished by decree, or until the fact or principle upon which they are founded ceases to exist. For example, Heb. 11:6: "Without faith it is impossibleto be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh toGod must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him." The ordinance of "faith," contained in these words is founded on the fact that we have not seen God. But one day,when we shall see him, the foundation of the ordinance will have ceased to exist. Whenever no decree of abolition has been made, an ordinance is as eternal as its foundation. Therefore, if we can prove that afoundation still exists, we prove, simultaneously, the continuing existence of all ordinances based on thatfoundation. In the case of the ordinance of I Cor. 11:1-16, which requires women to cover their headswhen "praying" or "prophesying", the above analysis of Paul's argument clearly establishes its foundation as being the primacy of the man; a principlewhich continues to exist. It is apparent to all that this ordinance has not been abolished by decree,therefore it is yet of force. The passing of the former days of spiritual gifts, and the cessation ofhuman customs, left the ordinance of I Cor.ll:l-16 standing as firm as the day it came down from heaven. Wherever women are "praying or prophesying"the ordinance must be obeyed.

But can uninspired women prophesy today? If they cannot, they certainly can and do pray! The attempt to make "praying" a subordinate part of "prophesying" is unworthy of those brethren who make it. The conjunction "or" which is found in theexpression "praying or prophesying", disjoins thetwo terms which it modifies, rather than conjoiningthem, as some endeavor to have it do. Without a doubt, we have women who in the Christian assemblies are "praying" within the purview of I Cor. 11:1-16, which requires them to cover their heads while so doing. Also, the foundation of that ordinance is very much alive, and to disobey it is sin.

In brother Ralph Lewis' review of my article on ICor. 11, he puts words in my mouth (or pen) by trying to show in his third paragraph that I was sayingthat a woman was usurping authority over the man;but the wearing of a veil would exonerate her. Nosuch thought occurred to me. In fact, she could notpray or prophesy where men were present, and werepraying and prophesying, without usurping authority over them. Paul instructs her to keep quiet in such agathering in I Cor. 14:34. The veil was used as a sign to show her recognition of headship anywhere shecould pray or prophesy.

Brother Lewis just asserted that the praying doneby the women was not miraculous, but he gave noproof. (For the proof of my argument that it was miraculous, see my first article in the July issue ofthis publication). Let me hasten to say, however,whatever the man was doing, the woman was doing.

In his last paragraph, he says that the uninspiredwoman still prays today in the assembly, hence sheneeds to wear the veil. Is this the only time women pray today? If not, why limit the covering to the assembly? May I humbly suggest to brother Lewis that the covering God has given a woman to use forall times (to show the primacy of man) is her long hair. "For her long hair was given to her for (insteadof) a veil" (I C or. 11:15).

The reader's attention is called to an article by brother J. T. Smith on this subject in the August1971 issue of Searching The Scriptures.

In previous articles of exchange with brotherSmith on this subject, I have advanced a numberof arguments and posed some very pertinent andrelevant questions on the subject. For some reason,brother Smith hasn't dealt with these. Until these arguments are met and set aside (shown to be inerror) the position stands. I have shown: (1) That Jesus promised Holy Spirit baptism exclusively toHis apostles, (2) That no need or necessity for such"overwhelming in the Spirit" existed in Cornelius,as inspiration's purpose was served by the apostles,

(3) That no demonstration or evidence of such baptism was manifested at the "outpouring of the HolySpirit" on Cornelius, since only the "gift of tongues"was demonstrated by Cornelius. These facts still stand, undaunted and unanswered.

ACTS 2 AND 10

In brother Smith's itemization of the events of Acts 2, it is obvious to the "casual" reader that somethings are missing! He only mentions "tonguesspeaking" in connection with Holy Spirit baptism in this reference. But Luke, the inspired writer, saysthere was a "sound as of a rushing mighty wind,and it filled all the house where they were sitting." He further states, "And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon eachof them: and they were all filled with the HolyGhost, and began to speak with other tongues, asthe Spirit gave them utterance." This did not happen at the house of Cornelius. So, brother Smith's argument breaks down, and everyone knows that Acts 2 and Acts 10 aren't parallel. My friends, if "tongues speaking" is all the evidence of Holy Spirit baptism, I can cite numerous cases in the New Testament.

I have pointed out previously that Joel did not prophesy "Holy Spirit baptism," and challenged mybeloved brother to produce the evidence of it. But he asserts again without the proof that "what the Lord called the baptism of the Spirit is the samething that Joel called 'pouring out of the spirit'." I emphatically deny this. Joel made no reference to Holy Spirit baptism. Joel stated or predicted that"God would pour out of his spirit on all flesh." He did not predict the form, and I might add just herethat some of Joel's prophecy quoted by Peter in Acts 2 was not fulfilled on Pentecost nor at the house of Cornelius. My friends, Joel did not call "Holy Spirit baptism" anything, for he (for the third time) did not mention this.

While we are on the subject of Joel, let us noticebrother Smith's argument on the "abundant bestowal" of the Holy Spirit. I think the weakest argument I have ever seen on the subject was made on

this. In fact, a weak argument always results whenone seeks to identify the object by the action of theverb. He gives Thayer's definition on page 201 (page20 in the article is a mis-print) of the Greek wordekcheo as an abundant bestowal, and concludes thatthis means "Holy Spirit baptism." Methodist preachers have (when you could get one to defend hisdoctrine) argued that if baptism is "pouring out"when the Spirit is the element, then, baptism is"pouring out" when water is the element. It wouldbe interesting to hear brother Smith answer this.If the Methodist preacher employed an "abundantbestowal" of water, would it be baptism? The apostles were "overwhelmed in the Spirit"; Cornelius was not. Again, if one accepts the conclusion ofbrother Smith's argument, all who have been savedby the "washing of regeneration" (Titus 3:5) havelikewise been baptized in the Spirit. The same Greekword ekcheo is used in Titus 3:6: "which he poured out on us richly" and this information is also givenby Thayer on the same page (201) where brotherSmith found the word in Acts 2:17 and Acts 10:45. If the word in its meaning in these two referencesdenotes Holy Spirit baptism, then the same is trueof Titus 3:6. Paul uses the word richly in this reference ; so I guess this means that we have received a double dose of Holy Spirit baptism. I might addhere that the direct from heaven expression used bybrother Smith is not a part of the definition.

Now to brother Smith's argument from Acts 15:8-9. I surmise that a lot of raised eyelids tookplace when this was read. In fact, if brethren didn't "cringe" when they read that, there is no hope thatthey will understand it anyway. If I understand hisargument, brother Smith applies the no difference of Acts 15:9 to the pouring out of God's Spirit, and argues that both Jew and Gentile alike received Holy Spirit baptism. You see, "there was no difference." Brother Smith is the first man that I know of that will admit to no difference between Cornelius and the apostles. My friends, apply that argument(it's brother Smith's) to Cornelius, Paul and TheTwelve. No difference? The "no difference" of Acts

15:9 refers to the fact that God requires no morenor less of the Gentiles in becoming an heir of God,than He does of the Jews, and obviously not to nodistinction in the measure of the Spirit. "And putno difference between us and them, purifying theirhearts by faith" (Acts 15:9). The purifying or justification of the Gentile was the area of application here, not the giving of the Spirit.

I yet have hope of brother Smith coming to thetruth on this matter, for in his last article, he gaveup the strongest argument he made in the first article on the "like gift" and admitted that it was thegift of tongues. Here is his statement: "The gift thatwas given the Jews in the very beginning to showthe power of God was the gift of speaking in tongues.The same is true of Cornelius." So brother Smith admits that which Cornelius received was the "giftof tongues," and that's right (Acts 10:44-46).

I have never denied what was attributed to me in the last paragraph of his article. I have denied andstill deny brother Smith's allegation that Corneliusreceived the same thing as the apostles and thatthere was "no difference." I don't believe brother Smith will accept the conclusion of his no difference argument. I think he made that in haste or else hefailed to make a careful research of the matter.

Let no one get the mistaken idea that there is anything between brother Smith and myself other thanthe issue. We love each other as brethren and have respect and regard for one another. We disagree onan issue, and seeking the truth, we desire to discussour differences regarding the issue over which we differ. I trust that these things have been profitableto our readers. Even though there are many brethren more qualified to write on the subject than amI, since they were hesitant to do so, I took 'up mypen in keeping with my obligation as given in Jude 3 and I Peter 3:15.

I appreciate brother Smith in his willingness toreply to my articles. I appreciate also men with conviction as demonstrated by him and the good spiritof his articles. I have endeavored to deal with his arguments without casting any reflection upon him.It is my hope and prayer that I have succeeded.May we all come to a greater knowledge and appreciation for the truth.

— 3368 William Tell Drive Memphis, Tenn. 38127

Brethren James Needham and Dudley Spears, both

of the Orlando, Fla. area are going to the Philippine

Islands next February. They will be teaching classes

eight hours a day. six days a week, preaching each

night and on Lord's Day. The response to truth in the

Philippines is indeed one of the most rewarding that

can be found today.

If you desire to have part of this work by contri

buting to their travel and work fund, please contact

them. You may write James Needham at the Palm

Springs Church of Christ, 600 Palm Springs Drive.

Altamonte Springs, Fla. 32701 and Dudley Spears at

35 W. Par Ave., Orlando, Fla. 32804. Kenneth Hirshey, 1215 N. 90th St., Omaha, Neb.,

68114— On July 11, 1971 a conservative work was

started in Omaha, Nebraska. The work was started

with help from notices published in several period

icals. As a result of these announcements, the names

of three families were received. The church here is

composed of 10 members, plus 9 children, with the

congregation meeting at 1215 North 90th Street in

the home of Kenneth Hirshey.

The Offutt Air Base is at nearby Bellvue Nebraska.

I'm sure there are some service personnel stationed at

this Air Base who should be attending a sound con

gregation. Council Bluff Iowa is just across the

Missouri River from Omaha, and they, too, have no

congregation. Omaha is a city of about 400,000 pop

ulation. This area was in need of a sound congrega

tion and one has been provided. Those who know of

anyone living near Omaha and wish them contacted

please write the following:

W.F. Bates, 12213 S. 25th Ave., Omaha, Neb. 68123

Timothy Fox, 3075 Mason, Omaha, Neb. 68105

Kenneth Hirshey, 1215 N. 90th St., Omaha, Neb.,

68114.

We are all thankful that we were able to locate each

other and thus be able to meet together doing the

Lord's work here. I am thankful for the three who

noticed the article in the magazines and took time to

write me.

W.L. Wharton Jr. will be with the Valley Station

congregation. This congregation is located on Dixie

Highway south of Louisville, Ky. The dates, October

24-29. There will be a series of meetings beginning Oct

ober 4th and continuing through October 11th. Gene

Frost of Cullman, Alabama will be the speaker. Ser

vices will be at 7:30 p.m. each evening at the

Gardiner Lane church in Louisville, Kentucky.

J.T. Smith will begin a series of meetings with the

church of Christ in Noblesville, Indiana October 11

17.

The Shively church of Christ in Louisville, Ken

tucky announces a series of meetings with Jim Ward

of Akron, Ohio doing the preaching. The dates that

have been scheduled are October 11-17.

Calvin C. Essary, 9132 Sierra Ave., Fontana, Calif.

92335— The elders of the church of Christ meeting

at 9132 Sierra Avenue in Fontana, California, have

scheduled a Gospel Meeting for September 26- Oct

ober 2, during which lessons of special interest and

considerable importance will be presented. The speak

er for this series of lessons will be brother John M.

Trokey, recently of Loma Mira, California. The

lessons to be presented are: Sunday, am. "What are Christians?"Sunday, am. "What are Christians' responsibilities

toward 'Babes in Christ'?"

Sunday, p.m. "What are 'babes in Christ' responsi

bilities?"

Monday, "How do Christians, and those becoming,

know that they believe?"

Tuesday. "How do Christians know that they love

Christ?''

Wednesday, "What are Christians' responsibilities

toward Alien Sinners?"

Thursday, "What are Christians' responsibilities

toward one another?"

Friday, "What are Eldership's responsibilities to

ward members?"

Saturday, "What are members' responsibilities to

ward the Elders?"All who can do so are urged to take advantage of

this opportunity to study these vital matters. Week

night meetings will begin at 7:30.

We are pleased to announce that brother Trokey

will in September be beginning work with the church

in Fontana on a regular and full-time basis. Lord per

mitting. I will be moving in September to begin work

with the faithful church meeting at 300 N. E. 83rd

Terrace, Kansas City, Missouri, 64118. William C. Sexton, 2804 Lafayette, St. Joseph, Mo.

64507: I am resigning my relationship as full time

evangelist with the 10th and Lincoln Street congre

gation here in St. Joseph, Missouri, effective Sept

ember 1, 1971. After that date, I shall be available

for week-end meetings within 200 miles of St. Joseph

on short notice. I shall be available for meetings at a

greater distance on longer notice.

I am 42 years of age and have been preaching for

14 years, the last 5 1/2 with the 10th and Lincoln

church. I may be contacted at 2804 Lafayette, St.

Joseph, Missouri 64507 or by phone: 816-233-3214. The Manslick Road church in Louisville, Kentucky

will begin a series of meetings October 25th and will

continue them through the 31st. Donald Townsley is

to be the preacher. Robert Jackson is to be with the church in Plain

field, Indiana for a series of meetings on October 18

John Clark was recently in a weekend series on

"Studies in Family Life". The dates were August 28

29.

Elvis Bozarth recently moved from Berea, Ohio to

work with the church in Glen Burnie, Md. He will be

printing a bi-monthly paper called The Instructor

that will be sent to anyone who desires it, free of

charge. Write to Elvis at 5 Mohawk Dr., Glen Burnie,

Md. 21061. Wayne Ernest is to begin a series of meetings with

the church in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The dates will be

October 4-10. There will be a series of meetings October 24-29 at

the 6th Avenue congregation in Pine Bluff, Ark.

James W. Adams will be the speaker. The church in Dade City, Fla. has engaged Connie

Adams to preach in a series of meetings for them

October 4-10. James R. Cope was in one of his famous week

end meetings with lessons on the home and family.

This series was conducted on August 21,22,23 at the

Par Avenue meeting house in Orlando, Fla. The church in Kettle, Kentucky recently engaged

brother Dudley Ross Spears to work with them in a

good series of meetings. Three were restored, and one

was baptized. Randal McPherson is the local preacher

at Kettle. Carol Sutton recently engaged in a series of meet

ings in which one was baptized and three confessed

sins. The host to brother Sutton was the Sunny Hills

church in Athens, Ala. Edgar Walker is leaving the Haynes Street church in

Dayton, Ohio where he has worked for the past two

years to work with the South West congregation in

Miami, Florida. On August 11th Hiram Hutto moved from Sunny

Hills church in Athens, Alabama to work with the

Midfield church in Birmingham, Alabama. A new congregation was recently started in Chatta

nooga, Tennessee, on May, 2, 1971. The North Terr

ace church of Christ is composed of faithful Christ

ians. They are meeting at 4115 North Terrace Road

in Chattanooga. When you are traveling in that area,

visit with them. There is easy access to their building.

Simply take the Moore Road exit when traveling on

Interstate 24. The building is located between Bolver

Ave. and Moore Road. If you have any problem find

ing their meeting place, call Paul Steen at 629-6842

or Bill Holt 689-1009. Or, if you prefer you may call

the local preacher. Mack Stephens at 866-1608. They

extend you a cordial welcome.

SEND A CLUB TODAY! Three Subscriptions For $10.00

"And daily in the temple, and in every house,they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ"(Acts 5:42). This manifestation of wonderful zeal came after the apostles had been threatened, beaten,and asked not to preach in the name of Christ. Peterand John had, at a previous time, been asked notto teach in this name, but in their zeal they hadfilled Jerusalem with this doctrine (Acts 5:28). Thisamazing job of teaching was in obedience to Godand in harmony with their great faith. This generation, the world over, needs this same gospelpreached in this same bold, courageous, and continuous manner. Neither atomic bombs nor wealth can do what needs to be done. Men need to have faith in God and an understanding of His will. Thisis a matter of teaching.

There were more teachers in the early churchthan the twelve apostles. Men who heard were taught that their task was to teach faithful men that they, in turn, might teach others, also (II Tim.2:2). An example of this can be seen when we see the word picture of the Jerusalem church when itwas scattered by persecution. "They that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word" (Acts 8:4). This reference is to members generallyrather than to the apostles. Men learned and taughtothers so that they might teach still others.

We see that people with heathen background would be difficult to reach. Men like Paul would need to teach daily to reach great numbers in citieslike Ephesus. Prejudiced Jews were also difficult toreach. Note the inspired description of his work atEphesus and Athens. "He went into the synagogue,and spoke boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning thekingdom of God. But when divers were hardened,and believed not, but spoke evil of that way beforethe multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. And this continued by the space of two years; so, that all they which dwelt in Asia heardthe word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks"(Acts 19:8-10). "Now while Paul waited for them atAthens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he sawthe city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and withthe devout persons, and in the market daily withthem that met with him" (Acts 17:16,17). The people at Athens mocked and called Paul a babbler, buthe "ceased not to teach." They spoke evil of the wayand even a mob effort climaxed the acts of the opponents of truth, but all they of "Asia heard the word." They did not all accept the truth. Paul waspure from their blood because he shunned not todeclare the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:26,27).People with honest and good hearts received theword. Good was done by teaching.

When evangelists go out and make disciples andbaptize them, the task has just begun. Those baptized are then to be taught to observe all thingswhatsoever Christ has commanded (Matt. 28:18-20).In looking further at the record of Paul's work at Ephesus we can see that he "ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears" (Acts 20:28-31).This warning was directed to the disciples concerning the certain danger of false teachers. The disciples needed to be warned. It was urgent enough tocall for work night and day. Is there less dangertoday? Are there no false teachers? Is heresy nolonger dangerous? Is it now impossible for disciplesto be drawn away after false teachers?

Peter was still reminding the brethren of the lawand of dangers when he had but a short time in theflesh. "Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though yeknow them, and be established in the present truth.Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. Moreover I will endeavor that ye may be ableafter my decease to have these things always in remembrance" (II Peter 1:12-15). Repetition was necessary. They knew these things, but Peter knew that there is a tendency to drift, to become lukewarm, or to leave the first love (Heb. 2:1; Rev. 3:16;Rev. 2:4). Peter ceased not to teach. He did not want them to become entangled again in the pollutions of the world after having escaped (II Peter2:20-22). Their being rooted and grounded so thatthey could not be easily blown about by false doctrine was their only hope because the heresy would,indeed, come (I Cor. 11:19). They would be testedas by fire (I Cor. 3:10-15).

We are to preach the word in season and out ofseason and there is still the need of reproving, rebuking, and exhorting because the day when thechurch will not endure sound doctrine still tends to come. Somebody failed to carefully teach (indoctrinate) those baptized so congregations are filledwith members that remember pleasantly the suppers, games, sermonettes, and other "social gospel" ideas brought from the denominations about us. Somebody failed to rebuke sin enough and to purge out the old leaven so that whole congregations are leavened with worldliness. To cry out against the social drink, immodesty, the dance, or institutionalism leads to the idea that there is need to change preachers.

The sad pruning time has come to the church inhundreds of cities. When the grape vine has been greatly pruned it produces even more and betterfruit the next season. Let the church of the Lord attack error with zeal now. Truth is powerful. Thepruned vine may have a cut-back look, but it can grow and produce if it has good roots in good soil.The power of the gospel is the power that gets thejob done. Let the "progressives" build their kitchens,coach their ball teams, and send their money to theirinstitutions. It is time for those who are devoted to the narrow way of truth and holiness to get up onthe house tops and shout the truth of God aloud.Truth crushed to earth will rise again.

The apostles did not wait for a big house on the main corner to preach. They might preach in the market place, the school house, a private home, outby a river side, or in Mars Hill. The great fact to notice is that "they ceased not to teach." They didnot wait for a good season when all might be readyto receive the message and praise them for it. Paulwould preach on the resurrection at Athens whilePeter preached the same message at Jerusalem. Itmight appear to be foolishness to the Greeks, and itmight be a stumbling block to the Jews. Some goodhearts would see the power of God in the messageand gladly accept the word.

While we are busy building back that which hasso recently been lost or is presently being lost tothe storm of worldliness and digression, let us resolve to build on a solid foundation and hold that which we build. Hay and stubble cannot stand the test of fire, so we might take heed how we build andtry more for gold, silver, and precious stone. Numbers should not be our goal. Preach the whole gospel and let the number take care of itself. If theymock and leave when the whole truth is preached,they are the chaff rather than the wheat. Temptations, pressures, and the deceitfulness of sin are great, so we should exhort one another daily (Heb.3:12,13). We should diligently seek to restore theone overtaken in a fault (Gal. 6:1). One good precious stone is of great value. We must not allow philosophy and vain deceit to spoil any if we can possibly avoid it (Col. 2:8).

Elijah was wrong when he thought he was alone.Paul approached the work of establishing the church in the wicked city of Corinth with trembling, but hepreached the story of Christ crucified and the taskwas done. He did not wait for an assured salary, buthe made tents. He did not wait for a big auditoriumon a busy corner, but he went into the house of Justus. He did not spend much time and money advertising his big tent, where he got his degrees, andhis former high standing with the high priest. He preached Christ and Him crucified. He spoke and held not his peace. He reasoned, persuaded, testified,and taught (see Acts 18:1-11). He sought not to convert the world by giving away one hundred thousand dollars worth of clothing as a good way to begin his campaign. He relied solely on the powerfulgospel preached in all sincerity and love and backed by a pure life. In that generation gospel preachersceased not to teach. They took no time to boast orto court the world and big names. The Master had commanded that they should preach the gospel toevery creature, and they took Him at His word.

— P. O. Box 866 Hartsell, Ala. 35640

Almost every volume dealing with the "restoration movement" and written by denominational authors refers to the leaders of the movement as "Arminians." I was interested in discovering justwhat was meant by the term "Arminian" when I first began to read these books.

Contextual setting almost always gives two cluesto the "Arminians." They stand opposed to the Calvinists, and, they are filled with evangelistic fervor.

ORIGIN OF ARMINIANISM

In 16th century Europe, the "reformation movement" led by such notables as Martin Luther and John Calvin, achieved phenomenal success. In Holland, Calvinistic Presbyterianism was approved bythe national Dutch synods which adopted the Heidelberg Catechism as the theological standard of theReformed Church of Holland. After 1575, the University of Leyden became a primary center for thestudy of the Calvinistic views of this denomination.

In 1603, however a man named James Arminius was added to the theology faculty of the University.While a proponent of reformation, Arminius did notaccept all aspects of Calvin's theology. He was primarily concerned that Calvinism as taught by hisassociates left no alternative but to consider God as the author of sin. He was also convinced that it left man only a machine in the hands of a God who had already determined his every movement and decided his eternal destiny.

Arminius proposed that a national synod debatehis positions, but when it was finally allowed in 1618 (nine years after his death), each of those advocating his beliefs were censured. They werecalled "Arminians," and although expelled fromorthodox Presbyterianism, exerted a great influence upon Anglican and Methodist adherents after 1625.

THE "ARMINIAN PHILOSOPHY"

James Arminius wished to modify four of thefive cardinal tenets of John Calvin's system of theology.

(1) Total Hereditary Depravity: Arminius, likeCalvin, accepted the fact that man is born in sinand from his birth needs the atonement of Christ. (2) Unconditional Election: While Calvin believed that man had nothing at all to do with his election to salvation, Arminius held that man can initiatehis own salvation by turning to God. God, he said,created man with free moral ability to choose whether he would cooperate with God in salvation or reject the Lord. (3) Limited Atonement: Calvin affirmed that Christ died only for the elect. Arminius taught thatwhile Christ's death only benefited those who cameto be classified as believers, it was sufficient for

all; i.e., any who would believe would receive itsblessings.

(4) Impossibility of Apostasy: Calvin held that God would supply grace to all the elect sufficient tokeep them from so sinning as to be lost eternally. Arminius preached that while God cared for his own and provided them with grace sufficient to withstand sin's temptations, it was nevertheless possible for them to fall by resisting the will of God and thus his grace. (5) Predestination and Foreordination: Calvin taught that God decreed that certain ones were elect to salvation before birth and others were elect to damnation. Arminius disputed that by saying thatmen are indeed personally elect, but that the election is not arbitrary; it is based upon the foreknowledge of God that some will believe and otherswill not.

THE RESTORERS

It is not difficult to see why the leaders of the"restoration movement" in America are often classified as "Arminians." Any "revivalist" might beso called, because the essence of "revivalism" is the belief that man may choose his eternal destiny andthat the preaching of the word of God is needed toconvince him that he must choose to serve the Lord.

When Campbell and Stone quoted Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized every one of you . . .", theywere denying the Calvinistic teachings of Presbyterians and Baptists. Unlike Arminius, they also opposed the doctrine of total hereditary depravity; but like him. they opposed the other major doctrines ofJohn Calvin.

(Note: Historical data may be verified by PhilipSchaff in History of the Christian Church, Vol III;or by Earle E. Cairns in Christianity Through the Centuries.)