LET US GROW SPIRITUALLY

Recently during meetings with the good churches at Hebron Lane in Shepherdsville, Ky, and Fultondale in Birmingham, Ala. I witnessed six precious souls baptized into Christ and twelve restored to the Lord. I was thrilled at the prospectivework these would do in the kingdom of Christ.Certainly I rejoiced with them in the forgiveness oftheir sins and the hope they had of eternal life. I believe every saint who loves truth and the Lord felt as I did when they beheld the same scene I just mentioned. But what about the future?

As I watched these people buried with Christ inbaptism, I could not but wonder what the yearswould bring to them as they faced the evil world withtheir new life. I asked myself, Will they continue inthe faith and grow to be strong as the years pass?Will they, on the other hand, fail to grow in the graceand in the knowledge of Jesus Christ? The answerwill depend largely upon the work of the more maturein the church.

We must get away from the idea that all we arerequired to do is "teach and baptize" and then forgetthese babes in Christ. Jesus said, "Go ye therefore,and TEACH all nations, BAPTIZING THEM in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the HolySpirit: TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE all thingswhatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I amwith you alway, even unto the end of the world"(Matt. 28:19, 20). Observe that "teaching them to observe" follows baptizing them. In the averagecongregation today the stress is put upon teaching and baptizing, but little effort is made to teach themto observe what the Lord requires in the growth of achild of God.

Those who truly obey the gospel by faith are eagerto know more about the word of God, and they wantto be strong in the faith, but discouragement andpoor examples on the part of many in the churchhinder this growth. The responsibility rests upon each member of the church to help develop thespiritual growth of those new creatures in Christ.

The person baptized must "desire the sincere milkof the word, that ye may grow thereby" (1 Pet. 2:2).The last verse of 2 Peter 3 says, "But grow in grace,and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour JesusChrist." We must encourage the babes in Christ to DESIRE to grow in knowledge of the word.

There is only one thing that will make one growspiritually: the word of God. Nothing else will do it.Paul said, "And now, brethren, I commend you toGod, and to the word of his grace, which is able tobuild you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified" (Acts 20:32). There aresome who "for the time" ought to be teachers, butthey need to be taught again the first principles.(Heb. 5:12). The new creature in Christ must desireto learn.

We must teach the newly baptized into Christ notto be carried about by every wind of doctrine—do notbe led by every doctrine that comes along—"butspeaking the truth in love, may grow up into him inall things, which is the head, even Christ" (Eph. 4:15). Paul gave thanks that the Thessalonians grew—"because that your faith groweth exceedingly. . ." (2 Thess. 1:3).

We should teach them that since they are madefree from sin they should not continue in sin (Rom.6:1-12). "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek thosethings which are above, where Christ sitteth on theright hand of God" (Col. 3:1). This chapter continuesto instruct us to "put off those evil practices thatbelong to the old man, and "put on" the things thatbelong to the new man. In Colossians 1:28 Paul says:"Whom we preach (Christ) warning every man, andteaching every man in all wisdom; that we maypresent every man perfect in Christ Jesus." We are to continue in the faith we have accepted, "grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope ofthe gospel. . ." (Col. 1:23).

Every new creature in Christ should be made aware that"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners,but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundationof the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself beingthe chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit" (Eph. 2:19-22).

Paul instructed Timothy in these words: "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).

All these passages clearly instruct us to teach the baptized to grow in the faith and avoid every wind ofdoctrine that is designed to lead away from the faith once delivered. They must learn to develop from milk to meat."For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the wordof righteousness: for he is a babe. But the strong meatbelongeth to them that are of full age, even those whoby reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil" (Heb. 5:13, 14). We mustexercise and develop those whom we have taught andbaptized into Christ.

If one is overcome in a fault, "ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted" (Gal. 6:1). Each one of us should feel a personal responsibility to teach and cause to grow those who have recently been baptized into Christ.

I have quoted extensively from scriptures rather thanjust refer to the passages. I did this deliberately becausemost people do not take the time to read the references.By giving the passages in print the reader will have the text of the inspired word in connection with the statements of this writer. Search the Scriptures whether these things be so!

AN EXEGESIS OF 1 COR. 11:1-16

by James W. Shear

With a Review of the tract by Hiram Hutto

entitled "Command or Custom?"

A careful study of a controversial issue.

Some have never studied the passage at all.Many have considered only one side of the matter.Some have tried to bind their consciences on others. We believe this study by Shear contributessomething worthwhile to all interested students.

Paperback $2.95 Order from: Religious Supply Center

Searching The Scriptures

Volume 21 February, 1980 Number 2

Published Monthly at

BROOKS, KENTUCKY

Second Class Postage Paid at Brooks, Kentucky

and at an Additional Mailing OfficeUSPS-487-440

CONNIE W. ADAMS, Editor

Office of Publication

52 Yearling DriveBrooks, Kentucky 40109Phone (502) 957-2257

SUBSCRIPTION RATES

$7 per year in advance

Club rate: $6 per year for 4 or more

Bundles to one address: 12 for $ 5.00 24 for $10.00

Group subscriptions: 12 for$ 5.00 per month 24 for $10.00 per month

Address subscriptions end manuscripts to Connie W. Adams, P. O. Box 68, Brooks, Kentucky 40109.

Address supply orders to Religious Supply Center, Inc., P. O.Box 13164, Louisville, Kentucky 40213, Phone (502) 3669014.

POSTMASTER: Send change of address forms to P. O. Box68, Brooks, Kentucky 40109.

Bound Volume 19-20

(1978-79)—STS

READY APRIL 1

This 572 page Bound Volume matches all previous volumes. It is the largest one we haveoffered due to the increase in the size of the paper to 24 pages plus two 32 page specialissues. Included are specials on:

The Church — Live Issues Old and Newand The War Against the Works of the Flesh

$9.50

Ordernow fromP. O. Box 68 Brooks, KY 40109

Page 3

CONTROVERSY

Jesus prayed that all who believe on him through the testimony of the apostles might be one (Jno.17:20-21). The Holy Spirit through Paul gave us theplatform upon which that oneness must rest (Eph.4:1-6). Aside from that platform there might be unityin error, but there can be no unity with God and hisword. If all men loved the truth and stood in it, thenthere would be no occasion for controversy. The factthat some are unwilling to walk in the old pathsmakes controversy necessary if we are to preservepurity of faith and practice in the church of the Lord.

There are some who feel that all controversy amongbrethren is wrong. Some call any difference a quarrel,a fuss or strife. Certainly, difference can lead to suchunrighteous action. But what saith the scriptures?

Solomon said, "Debate thy cause with thy neighbor himself; and discover not a secret to another" (Prov. 25:9). The speech which cost Stephen his life was brought on as a result of disputing withcertain religionists of his day. He got the best of themin the exchange, they could not answer him and sodecided to kill him (Acts 6:9-15). The events surrounding his death in Acts 7, show that God hadgreat respect for this man who got into this situationthrough controversy. Some brethren would have beenashamed of Stephen and would have rebuked him forhis lack of "tact." Paul said he was "set for the defense of the gospel" (Phil 1:17). If the gospel were never controverted then there would never be an occasion for defending it.

Evidently, some brethren think this applies only todifferences between the church and the denominations. It is all right to oppose error outsidethe church but shameful for brethren to express honest differences. Disputing just for the sake of disputing is wrong. But when "the faith once delivered to the saints" is being perverted thensomeone had better oppose such perversion or elseall will be taken captive by it.

A Case In Point

Consider the case in Galatians 2. Peter erred, notin teaching but in practice in his relationship to theGentile brethren. Even Barnabas, as well as other Jewish brethren, were carried away with him in thiswrong. Paul said Peter "was to be blamed" and thatit was .necessary for him to withstand him "to the face." That would have made some of my brethren oftoday very nervous. They might even have rejected the book of Galatians on the ground that it upsetthem to read of such differences between brethren. Some would have called it a "fuss." Paul said he not only withstood Peter "to the face" but that he did it "before them all." Earlier in the chapter Paul showedthat such conduct would deprive Gentile brethren oftheir liberty in Christ, would bring them into bondage and would hinder the truth of the gospel fromcontinuing with them (Gal. 2:4, 5, 11-14). If that controversy had not been settled in the light of divinetruth, then the gospel would have been compromised,shorn of its power, and the eternal hope of futuregenerations would have been jeopardized.

Suppose the question of circumcising the Gentileshad not been settled by apostolic order in Acts 15.The terms of salvation for the whole Gentile world hung in the balance. While Paul was at Antioch, when the teachers came from Jerusalem, the HolySpirit directed him in teaching the truth on thismatter. The meeting in Jerusalem reported in Acts 15did not change that. Paul said "they that were somewhat added nothing to me" (Gal. 2:6). Ratherthat meeting confirmed for all time to come that whatPaul had taught in Antioch in opposing the false teachers was the will of God, recognized and taughtby the other apostles. There were some tense days inAntioch when Paul contended with these teachers and even with Peter. There were more days of tension inJerusalem when the church was called together tohear the controversy. The Judaizing teachers were allowed to speak and make out their case. Then theirerror was exposed. The apostles and elders were notafraid for the brethren to hear both sides of the controversy. Neither were they apprehensive as to the result when the truth was set forth in opposition toerror. There was no attempt at censorship. No effort was made to throttle the discussion. This was not argument for the sake of argument. This was a serious issue that had to be settled once and for all. Those of us who enjoy the blessings of the gospeltoday reap the fruits brought forth by the settlementof that problem by inspired men.

Why Controversy?

Controversy arises among faithful children of God when error is taught and practiced. If everyone wentalong with the error, then there would be no dispute.But if some are determined to keep the faith purewhile others are equally determined to press theirerrors, then you can expect to see controversy. If noone had opposed instrumental music when that wasfirst brought in, then we would all be in the ChristianChurch today. Tolbert Fanning started the Gospel Advocate in 1855 to oppose the missionary societyand other innovations and said so in the first issue. Some brethren got quite exercised over all the "arguing" when the controversy arose over Premillennialism, but it had to be thrashed out or the whole church would have gone into speculative sectarianism.

Let those brethren who have introduced human institutions, centralized arrangements unknown tothe New Testament, the various elements of the social gospel, and those now committed to corrupting theminds of the brethren with outright Calvinism, hearus plainly. We did not begin these controversies.They did. There was harmony among brethren overteaching and practice until these issues were introduced. When those caught up in these errorsdecide to return to the doctrine of Christ and speakwhere the Bible speaks and be silent where it issilent, then harmony will prevail once more, woundscan be healed and forgot, and we can march and fightfor truth and right shoulder to shoulder as we oncedid. Until that time we shall oppose them with every ounce of strength God gives us. We shall review theirerroneous articles, turn the spotlight of divine truthon their unscriptural schemes and practices and shalldo all within our power to cause every person we can persuade to listen or to read to understand the difference between "the faith once delivered" and the "doctrines and commandments of men." The opposition will continue until they have either ceased the error being taught and practiced or have gone so far into denominationalism that it has become apparent to all that they are not even distantly related to the blood-bought church of theLord. All the while we shall have our finger on thepassage which charges us to "earnestly contend forthe faith which was once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

This is the second in a series of studies in our review of some material entitled, "CampbelliteQuestions and Baptist Answers." We now quote fromthe material:

"2. 'Where do you find Scriptural authority for wearing the name Baptist?' In Matt. 3:1, God calls the preacher He sent to prepare the material out ofwhich His Son was to organize His church, a Baptist.The only baptism that ever came from heaven; thatGod the Father ever sanctioned by audible voice; that the Holy Spirit ever approved by a visible manifestation of His presence; that the Lord Jesus,King of glory, ever submitted to, was Baptistbaptism. All other baptisms came from men. No manhas followed Christ in baptism, until like his Lord, hehad been baptized by a Baptist preacher."

The first statement in his answer is false. The Bible does not refer to John or anyone else as "a Baptist." This is a favorite tactic of Baptist preachers. If they can cause people to believe thatJohn was "a" Baptist, it would be implied that therewere others. But "a Baptist" or "Baptists" cannot be found in the scriptures. John was "the" Baptist or baptizer. He was the only one, and he announced that he was going out of business (John 3:30). Christ was never referred to as "a Christ"—which would have implied others—but he was "the" Christ(see Matt. 16:16), the only one.

I deny the second statement in his answer. No onethat we read about in the scriptures ever received "Baptist baptism." We have emphasized already the difference in John's baptism and that of Baptiststoday. Certainly Jesus, and many others of that time, received John's baptism. It was for the remission of sins and pointed to the coming of Christ.John's baptism ceased with the work and mission ofJohn.

In Acts 18:24-26, we have record of a man preaching the true gospel in every way except onJohn's baptism. Evidently this was after the baptismof Christ and the great commission became effective.When two Christians heard him preach, they taughthim "the way of God more accurately." That's what I'm trying to do for my Baptist friends today.

In Acts 19:1-5 we read of Paul finding twelve menat Ephesus who had received John's baptism. Paul corrected them by showing that John's baptismpointed to the coming of Christ and Christ's baptism(which they should have received) pointed back toChrist and the cross. When they heard this, "they

Page 5

were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." If John's baptism was "the only baptism that evercame from heaven," and if John's baptism was validthen and is now, why were those men baptized again?

The baptism which Christ commanded after his resurrection was not the baptism of John. Was it therefore not from heaven? It was by his authority(Matt. 28:18, 19); in the name of the Father, Son, andthe Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19); a form of the death,burial and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6:3-5); andinto Christ and his body or kingdom (John 3:3-5;Rom. 6:3; I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27). None of this wastrue of John's baptism!

The last sentence in the quotation should bereworded. It should read: No man has followed Christ today who has been baptized by a Baptist preacher!

We quote again from the answer:

"If Jesus had been baptized to induct Him into thepriesthood, it would have been done by a Jewishpriest, not a Baptist preacher. The very fact thatGod sent John to baptize shows that it was something new and not a continuation of an Old Testament rite or ceremony."

Christ could not be a priest on earth (and neverwill be) because he came from the wrong tribe (Heb.7:12-14; 8:4). He is now the High Priest over his"royal priesthood" (I Peter 2:5, 9) as he rules in hiskingdom from heaven through his word, and makesintercession for the saints, Christians, who are all priests (Heb. 7:24,27).

It is true that John's baptism was "not a continuation of an Old Testament rite or ceremony."No one was commanded to be baptized in the OldTestament. John came at the close of the Old Testament era to call the Jews to repentance andprepare the people and a way for the coming ofChrist. (Isaiah 40:3; Mal. 4:5, 6; Matt. 3:2-12.) Although John lived and died under the law of Moses, as did Jesus, there is a sense in which wecould say that his work was between the two testaments. It was a transitional period—from thelaw to the gospel.

"3. 'Can you give chapter and verse?' Yes! In Matt. 3:1 God calls the man who baptized Jesus, aBaptist. If the Lord Jesus walked sixty miles to get aman, whom His Father called a Baptist to baptizeHim, that name ought to be good enough for anyfollower of His."

Another deliberate misquotation. God never called John "a Baptist." Christ was not a Baptist; he did not follow John nor wear that name. The name Baptist may be "good enough" for a follower of John or a member of the Baptist denomination, but it isnot good enough for me! Since I am a follower ofChrist, I should wear a name which gives honor andpreeminence to him—Christian (Acts 4:12; 11:26; Col.1:18).

Questions 2 and 3 have not been answered. Matthew 3:1 does not authorize anyone to wear thename Baptist. We ask for "chapter and verse" which speaks of "Baptists" (plural) or "a Baptist" or which authorizes anyone to wear that name today.

(This study will continue in the next issue.)

JESUS OUR EXAMPLE

The admonitions to follow after, emulate, or mimicJesus are many (Mk 8:34; 1 Cor 11:1; 1 Pet 2:21,etc.). The reason for such is obvious—he was perfect!Never was there a situation for which he did not have an appropriate solution; never was there a problemfor which he did not have the right answer; never wasthere a circumstance for which he could not recommend the very best advice.

Any example is introduced for the purpose of being followed. It becomes the standard, model, mold, or illustration of something to be accomplished. In the case of Jesus, he said, "For I have given you anexample, that ye should do as I have done to you." His life forms the basis for our handling the varioussituations we encounter as we live here.

Jesus is our Example Regarding Attitude

A person's attitude is his disposition, his frame ofmind. The attitude of Jesus was perfect. His point ofview was always of the very highest sort. In Phil 2:5,his attitude is manifestly declared and then enjoinedupon us. "Have this mind in you, which was also inChrist Jesus: who existing in the form of God,counted not the being on an equality with God athing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking theform of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea, the death of the cross." Jesus is our illustration of the right attitude.

His attitude toward fallen man is seen in the fact that he gave himself freely (Jno 10:17-18). Nowherewas there a source for man's salvation; nowhere wasthere available the purchase price for our redemption;nowhere was there a potency strong enough to furnish us with our regeneration. But Jesus Christ freely "gave himself for our sins, that he mightdeliver us from this present evil world ..." (Gal 1:4).It was he who, according to Paul's affirmation (Acts

20: 35), taught that "it is more blessed to give thanto receive." Surely such an attitude of love is worthyof our emulation!

He is the prime illustration of meekness. When Jesus had washed the feet of the disciples and thereby shown his own meekness, he said, "For I have given you an example that ye should do as Ihave done to you" (Jno 13:15-16). Never was there atime when the Son of Man was not completely under

the control of his Father (Jno 4:34). And such

discipline, such control over one's own being is what

meekness is all about. In every situation he did as

the Father would have him do and even in the face of

extremes he showed an unalterable confidence in God

(Cf. Lk 22:41-42; Jno 6:38). Such meekness is not

common to man naturally; it must be learned. Was

there even a better standard for an attitude of

meekness? I think not!

His willingness to forgive is astounding! Notice the

urgency he felt regarding the deliverance of mankind.

"I must work the works of him that sent me while it

is day; for the night cometh when no man can work"

(Jno 9:4). His was a sincere compassion, an urgent

concern for the spiritual welfare of the lost. See the

pathos, observe his heaviness of heart, as he cries out

in an exclamation of longing love, "O, Jerusalem,

Jerusalem . . . how often would I have gathered thy

children together even as a hen gathereth her

chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matt

23:37). See him there on the height of Golgotha after

he has suffered immense physical pain and

unutterable spiritual torment, as his bloody brow

furrows and he cries out to God, "Father, forgive

them, for they know not what they do." Observe his

outstretched arms and his longing love as he begs,

"Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden

and I will give you rest" (Matt 11:28). We would do

well to show the same compassion, the same devotion

to duty, the same attitude of concern regarding

forgiveness, "forbearing one another, and forgiving

one another . . . even as Christ forgave you, so also

do ye" (Col 3:13).

Jesus Is Our Example Regarding Well-Doing

Even as a child, Jesus went about doing good. InLk. 2 is recorded the incident of his parentsrelocating him after fearing he was lost. In answer totheir queries concerning his whereabouts, Jesus said,"How is it that ye sought me? Know ye not that Imust be about my Father's Business?" He is our great example of well-doing.

He was constantly teaching (Matt 4:23), and hetaught not what was merely pleasing to the ear of the hearer, but what the hearer needed. He told each person, each audience what they needed to hear. When he spoke to Nicodemus, he spoke regarding hisneed (Jno 3: 1-ff). When conversing with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well, he sought her spiritual welfare and even convicted her of sin (Jno4:5-ff). And when teaching the Pharisees, there neverwas a time when there was any evasion, but in everyinstance a constant reference to the truth applicableat the time. Jesus was constantly a truth teacher.And the very best thing a man can do for his fellowsis to teach them the truth!

It is obvious from reading the accounts of Jesusand his life as a teacher that he was a man of immense energy, totally committed to the task to beaccomplished. It is easy to see that Jesus went aboutDOING good. Not admitting the need; not merelyplanning to do good; not even resolving to do so—but DOING so! He taught about doing in his famous mountain message (Matt 7:21-ff). He taughtthat there would be a day of reckoning and that itwould be greatly concerned with our constancy inwell doing (Matt 25:14-ff). And he showed examplesof how a structure founded on inaction will not stand the test of adversity (Matt 7:24-27). He is truly our example of a total commitment, a complete dedication to the aim and purpose.

Jesus Is Our Example Of Emulating An Example

Jesus was the perfect photograph of God. "Who, being the brightness of his glory, and the expressimage of his person, and upholding all things by theword of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majestyon high" (Heb. 1:3). And in Col 1:15, he is called" ... the image of the invisible God, the firstborn ofevery creature." Jesus declares of himself "he that hath seen me hath seen the father," and in Jno 1:18we are told, "No man hath seen God at any time; theonly begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Jesus perfectly showed us the essential nature and the true characteristics of the Father by declaring in his lifeand attitude the righteousness of God, the Father.

Christ perfectly radiated the LIGHT of God. In Jno 12:44-46, we are shown how he has enlightenedmen and thereby released them from the darkness ofignorance, superstition, and sin, for "he that seethme seeth him that sent me," he said. In Jno 1:9, we are told of him, "That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." Yes,he is the perfect revelation of God. We are to followhis example of reflection by being a reflection of him(Matt 5:14-16).

Jesus perfectly radiated the LOVE of God. In Jno 15:9-14, he tells us how that "as the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you." Then he says, "continue ye in my love," enjoining that same assignment upon us. All that we know of love, allthat we can ever know of it in its pure form is seen inChrist's illustration of it. Just as he was the perfectillustration of the love of God, even so we should beexamples of his love toward our fellows. "Beloved, ifGod so loved us, we ought also to love one another.No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfectedin us" (1 Jno 4:11-12). Just as Christ was a manifestation of God's love, even so should we be examples of that love one toward another, "for love isof God; and everyone that loveth is born of God, andknoweth God" (1 Jno 4:7).

Jesus perfectly radiated the eternal LIFE which isof God. In Jno 12:50, the demonstration is shown. "And I know," said Jesus, "that his commandmentis life everlasting: whatsoever I speak, therefore, evenas the Father said unto me, so I speak." Again, "I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth onme though he be dead, he shall live. And whosoeverliveth and believeth in me shall never die" (Jno11:25). These passages are affirmation of the eternallife that is in Christ, who was the "monogenesTheos," the only begotten God! We must live so asto show others our confidence in the affirmations of that eternal life. Paul, in 2 Tim 1:12, gives testimony to such by stating, "For the which cause I also sufferthese things; nevertheless, I am not ashamed, for Iknow whom I have believed and am persuaded thathe is able to keep that which I have committed untohim against that day." Our confidence is further buoyed by the assurance that "God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we shall live together with him.Wherefore, comfort yourselves together and edify one another . . ." Since he is our assurance of the resurrection, we should be an example of such to adoubting and skeptical world, "for the wages of sin isdeath, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom 6:23).

In every learning situation there is example givento illustrate fact. Christ is our example. He is the perfect manifestation of a godly attitude. He is the prime example of constancy in well doing. He radiates perfectly the light, love, and life of God.Yes, truly Jesus is our great example. Since we havesuch a great leader, let us follow his every step,emulate his every mood, mimic his every action, for"he the great example is, and pattern for me."

CONFERENCE ON FAMILIES— GOVERNMENT STYLE

A few months ago in this space, we wrote of so-called children's liberation and governmentconferences on the child, and suggested that it mightbe wise to conduct some conferences on the family. Acouple of readers wrote to inform that a conference onthe family was being planned by our government.Only problem: They've redefined the family. As Humpty Dumpty explained to a bewildered Alice, "Aword means only what I want it to mean, nothing more or less."

From the Pro-Family Forum Newsletter, Oct., 1979, we are told that the White House Conference on Families will be conducted in June or July of1980. A 40-member commission has been appointedby President Carter. Three regional meetings will take place in Baltimore, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles. Each state will elect delegates to its regionalmeeting.

The newsletter continues: "It is becomingincreasingly clear that a major goal is to gain public acceptance for redefining the family. If they can accomplish this, then—in the name of the family—the family will be destroyed. For example, Betty Friedan and other feminists announced severalmonths ago a seminar in 1979 to be called: A National Assembly on the Future of the Family. Ms. Friedan says it will mark 'Phase 2 of the human liberation movement.' What is a family? Ms. Friedan says: 'Family is people who are living together with deep commitment and with mutual needs and sharing.' She speaks of 'new forms emerging' (News and Observor, Raleigh, N.D., 2-18-79).

"According to this definition, a family could be ahomosexual couple, a commune, or professional parents and child care centers.

"In the planning draft of the National IYC Commission, they affirm: 'The right to a family, not necessarily society's traditional view of a family, but any unit that needs specific support from societal institutions and agencies, both formal and informal.'

"So, under the guise of 'strengthening the family' the traditional family is to be destroyed—and anykind of living arrangement is to be considered just asvalid and desirable. Of course, this would pave the way for all legislation involving 'gay rights,' federally-controlled child development centers, etc.,and the goal is not only legal acceptance but socialacceptance of the 'emerging new family forms.' "

Brethren, let us not be deluded by the philosophythat Christians should not be concerned with such "political" issues. These matters are moral issues with very definite spiritual undertones. Because someungodly government leaders and libertarians make them political issues does not change their basic moral nature.

Let us "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph. 5:11).

-———— O -———

HOW MUCH IS ONE PERSON WORTH?

As I write this, our country is in the midst of theIranian crisis. Hopefully, by the time you read this,that crisis will have been resolved in a good way.

One thought-provoking sidelight has been the offerof a couple of well known names to trade places withthe 53 hostages now being held. Muhammad Ali,retired heavyweight boxing champion, and JamesEarl Ray, convicted assassin of Martin Luther King,have both offered themselves in exchange for those captives.

That's mighty big of them. Without trying toponder motives, sincerity, etc., one wonders why Aliand Ray would think themselves worthy substitutesfor 53 persons. Their gestures may have been considered had they offered themselves in trade for one hostage each.

How much is a person worth? Various estimatesare offered as to the material value of the physicalbody. As for the soul of man, it is worth more thanall the material world together (Matt. 16:26). But onething for sure. One soul is worth no more than another: "They that trust in their wealth, and boastthemselves in the multitude of their riches; None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor giveto God a ransom for him: (For the redemption of

their soul is precious, and it ceaseth forever:) That he

should still live forever, and not see corruption"

(Psalm 49:6-9).

There's but one exception. It involves "God manifest in the flesh." He "gave himself a ransom forall" (1 Tim. 2:6). Should one ask how He could possibly substitute for all other people, the answer issimple. He is worth more than all other people.

"For by him were all things created, that are inheaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created byhim, and for him: and he is before all things, and byhim all things consist" (Col. 1:16, 17).

---------------o---------------ABOUT THE EVANGELICAL'S PATRONSAINT

Clive Staples Lewis has posthumously wielded quite an influence in these recent times. The above title will not be seriously questioned by readers ofsuch evangelical organs as Christianity Today or Eternity. Some young gospel preachers have been turned on to Lewis to the extent that their writingssound just like him. One such young man of exceptional talent has expressed the fearful prediction that it will soon become popular to criticizeLewis.

Let me say that I have been a C. S. Lewis readerfor years. I have benefited greatly from such booksof popular theology as Miracles, The Problem of Pain, and Mere Christianity, the last of which I've read four times. Other books and essays have provedhelpful or entertaining, usually both. I've read through the seven volumes of Chronicles of Narnia twice with my children, and look forward to the thirdjourney through those remarkable adventures as soonas my three-year-old is ready. At this time, Lewis' space trilogy is being enjoyed by Daddy and the twomiddle kids at the Green house.

But people need to keep their heads about mortals.Let us give credit where it is due, but remain awareof a teacher's faults where they exist. Dr. Raymond

F. Swiburg, professor of biblical hermeneutics and Old Testament interpretation at Concordia Seminaryin Fort Wayne, Ind., documented, in the Oct. 8, 1979, issue of The Christian News (an evangelicalLutheran magazine) some of the doctrines that C. S.Lewis espoused.

Lewis rejected Biblical inerrancy. He taught that God used many forms of inspiration outside theBible, including pagan myths. He believed in theistic evolution. He taught that the Genesis account of man's fall was a myth. He believed that some animals might have immortal souls. He had a false understanding of Christ's atonement, accepting the "example theory". He taught that pagans ("people inother religions . . .") may "belong to Christ withoutknowing it." Lewis believed in purgatory and praying for and to the dead.

C. S. Lewis was a brilliant thinker and writer. His Mere Christianity will equip one to meet atheistic arguments as well as any book I know. But let us learn "not to think of men above that which is written" (1 Cor. 4:6).

THE NEED FOR PROPER CONDUCT

"These things write I unto thee, hoping to comeunto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thoumayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself inthe house of God, which is the church of the livingGod, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:14-15).

Paul wrote to Timothy some things that would instruct him with regard to conducting himself properly in God's household or family, the church.Notice that he said "how thou oughtest to behave." The word "ought" (Gr. DEI) implies a moral obligation to do or not to do something, hence, absolutely necessary. There is, then, in God's house, the church, a standard of personal conduct or a behaviour pattern which is positively binding on themembers of that family. It is necessarily implied alsothat there is a behaviour pattern which would betotally incompatible with being a member of the church and thus unacceptable to God.

It is noteworthy that without inspired instructionTimothy would not have known how to conduct himself in the church. We do not accidentally attainto a Godly standard. We must first learn what the standard requires and work hard at it to conform ourselves to that standard.

Notice also that this conduct of which Paul speaksto Timothy is to characterize one who is "in the house of God." God is particular how the members ofHis family behave. When someone comes into our own earthly families, the family head has the right tolay down the ground rules. Even an overnight guest must abide by them. In Israel of old, the sojournerhad to abide by the same rule as Israel. There wasone law for Israel and the stranger. Of course, it is tobe hoped that there would be no "overnighters" nor "sojourners" in the church of the Lord. But we fear itis sometimes true. Some abide in the family circle ofGod only a spiritual "fortnight" before they hit the road back over the Devil's house, the world. Some fall away quite early while others do so later on undervarying circumstances of life. Some of these never return. They do not like to behave themselves.

In prospect of the establishment of the church,Jesus describes the behaviour pattern of His disciples as "the salt of the earth" and the "the light of the world." Negatively he made reference to those who might not attain unto this standard as salt that hadlost its savour and as light hidden under a bushel.

Brethren, God set the standard just like He wantedit. He set it high. This is true whether we are talking about the plan of salvation, worship, the work of thechurch, organization, relationships, or morality. It shall be our purpose in succeeding articles underthis heading to expand some of these matters in a very practical way for our edification.

EVIDENCES—THE BIBLE-GOD'S WORD

The title of this article provides us with the greatest challenge made known to any person on theface of God's earth—if in fact it is God's earth. The Bible affirms that it (The Bible) is God's Word. But who is to "vouch" for the Bible?

I have in my library a number of books on evidences. Many of them are written in such a complicated way (or perhaps it is just a lack of "brain-power" on my part) that they are difficult to understand.

In this article, and others that will follow, it is mydesire to present some material that I hope will be soplain and simple that all will be able to grasp itwithout a great deal of effort. Also, it is my beliefthat the material will be "un-get-over-able" as far as opponents of the Bible are concerned. When the articles are completed, I will welcome any commentsor criticisms you may have on the material presented.

Today we have many scientific facts that have beenacquired because of the modern equipment inventedby man in the past two or three centuries. And eventhough much of the equipment becomes obsolete, asother and better equipment is provided (the telescope,for example) the facts discovered by the first inventions are only the more fully established.

The facts about many of the sciences of our day (Astronomy, Meteorology, Oceanology, etc) were known and affirmed by men in the Bible thousands of years before scientific proof was recorded by scientists. Who could know these things except theone(s) who created them? How could men like Job,Isaiah, and Solomon know about such things? Job,for example, was a chieftain of the land of Uz. Isaiah was a statesman, and Solomon a king. But let's observe some of the knowledge they possessed aboutscientific facts.

First of all, Isaiah recorded the fact that the earthwas round when he wrote, "It is he that sitteth uponthe circle of the earth. . ." (Isaiah 40:22). Solomon inProverbs 8:29 tells us that the sea has boundaries. "When he gave the sea his decree (boundary, JTS)that the waters should not pass his commandment."

Then Job records a number of facts for us in Job

26:7. "He stretcheth out the north over the empty

Page 10

space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." Both ofthese Bible facts are now scientific facts. Also Amos and Solomon made known the fact that the water goes in cycles from the sea, to the clouds, to therivers, and back to the sea again. "All the rivers runinto the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they returnagain" (Eccl. 1:7); ". . .he that calleth for the watersof the sea and poureth them out upon the face of theearth: the Lord is his name" (Amos 9:6).

The apostle Paul affirms that which has been discovered by man in the last century, that all menare of one blood. Both Amos and Paul point out howthis came about. "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing he is Lord of heaven and earth,dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither isworshipped with men's hands, as though he neededany thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath,and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth . . ." (Acts 17:24-26).

Both Amos and Paul affirm that all these thingswere done by The Lord. But how did they knowabout them? "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake asthey were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21).

In view of the evidence shown in this article, whocan deny that the only one who could know the workings of the heavens, the earth, and mankind, would be the one who made them!

We can read in Romans 4:5 that faith counted for righteousness. In Gal. 3:26 we read that we are all children of God by faith. In Rom. 5:1 we read thatbeing justified by faith we have peace. Paul said in Eph. 2:8-9 that we are saved by grace through faith.Peter tells us in Acts 15:9 that hearts are purified byfaith. Paul declared in Rom. 3:25 that God set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.We learn from Acts 26:18 that we receive forgivenessof sins and an inheritance by faith. Paul said in 2 Tim. 3:15 that salvation was through faith in Christ.Rom. 5:2 says we have access by faith into the grace in Christ Jesus. And in Heb. 11:6 we learn that without faith it is impossible to please God.

I have cited TEN PASSAGES which predicate salvation on faith. Of course we could cite ten more! But what would THAT prove relative to repentance?What would THAT prove relative to baptism? Nothing!

Of course we are justified by faith, saved by faith, sanctified by faith, purified by faith, and are childrenof God fey faith. The same is true with reference tothe blood. Nobody denies that it is the blood of Christ that justifies and redeems us. Of course we areredeemed by the blood, cleansed by the blood,washed in the blood, and purchased by the blood.But what does that prove relative to repentance? What does that prove relative to baptism? Simplynothing at all!

The denominationalist says we don't have to be baptized because we are saved by faith, by grace, andby the blood. Suppose I say we don't have to repentbecause we are saved by faith, and by grace and byblood? You see, what I would say along that linewould make no more sense that what THEY sayabout the matter. What either of us would say wouldmake no sense.

We ARE saved by faith and by grace and by theblood. But THAT doesn't mean we don't have to repent! Jesus said for us to repent and that unless wedid we could not get into the kingdom of heaven(Luke 13:3, 5). He said we would perish unless we repent.

We ARE saved by faith and by grace and by theblood. But THAT doesn't mean we don't have to be baptized. Jesus said for us to be baptized and thatunless we are born of water and the Spirit we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. So, let's be sensible about this matter. Let's read and heed the scriptures.

Jesus said go teach and baptize the people (Matt.28:19). Jesus said he that believeth and is baptizedshall be saved (Mark 16:15-16). Peter said baptismdoth also now save us (1 Pet. 3:21). Peter said repentand be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).Paul said we are baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3). Paul said we are baptized into the body (1 Cor.12:13). Ananias said baptism washed away sins (Acts22:16). Paul said we are raised up from baptism towalk a new life (Rom. 6:4). Paul said God quickensus in baptism (Col. 2:12, 13). Peter said EVERYONEof you should be baptized (Acts 2:38).

The real truth is that we contact the blood of Christ when we are baptized into his death (Rom.6:3). Baptism is a part of faith (Acts 19:1-5). Thesepeople were told that they should BELIEVE on Christ. And when they heard this (that they shouldbelieve) they were baptized. Read it. The way to besaved by faith, by grace, and by the blood, is tobelieve and be baptized (Mark 16:15-16). May Godhelp you to do it.

(This is a continuation of the text of my lecturedelivered in the Crescent Park Lectureship, Odessa,Texas, November 6, 1979. May I suggest that you reread the first part as printed in last month's edition of "Searching The Scriptures," for which this servesas the concluding section. —Robert A. Bolton).

ARGUMENT: Mental divorce after unscriptural divorce and remarriage frees both mates.

QUOTATION: "If two Christians get a divorce with no cause of fornication involved, and theyremarry, can they live with their second spouse? Myanswer is, if the first mate now puts them away forthe cause of adultery. Then that loosed the bond andthe innocent one can now remarry according to 1 Corinthians 7:27-28. And that would also free the guilty." — (SLD — 136).

QUOTATION: "When an innocent woman is divorced, this divorce is, in the sight of God 'no divorce." He does not recognize it! The innocent woman is still married in God's sight and the husband who 'divorced' her is still married to her in God's Sight. Their marriage has not been dissolvedand as far as God is concerned she is not 'put away' (Apoluo). When her husband remarried he committed adultery. I contend that the innocent may then 'put away' her husband. Reason? That is exactly whatChrist said she could do!" — (BCD-GA-301).

QUOTATION: "Historically, the divorce under consideration in Mt. 5:31; 19 3-9 had the effect of severing completely the marriage tie (Deut. 24:1-4).Mere separation from bed and board is nowhere to befound in the context. To the Jews, lawful divorce (Apoluo) resulted in (meant) totally dissolving themarriage bond and not mere separation from bed andboard." - (BCD - GA - 367).

ANSWER: In these quotations it should be obvious that at least two different meanings are attached to the word "Apoluo-Divorce." In the argument, the married couple obtains a divorce (Apoluo); this is the first divorce. Then the man marries another and is guilty of adultery. Now, the woman can put-away (apoluo) the man from whomshe has already been divorced (apoluoed). That wouldbe a second divorce. But, according to this "one loosed, both loosed" argument, if divorce (Apoluo)meant totally dissolving the marriage bond and notmere separation from bed and board, why would the woman have to wait for her husband to commit adultery before she could "put him away," inasmuch as their marriage bond had been totally dissolved(Apoluoed)? The only logical answer I can come up with is that, in reality, this second divorce is simplysome form of mental action that the woman takes. They have already divorced once, and in spite of

what the theory contends, of necessity they have

separated. So what is there left to be done except

some mental action being taken on the part of the

woman? Although legally and actually divorced, they

are still married and will be until the woman who has

been put away already by her husband decided to

mentally divorce him. And so, until she mentally

divorces him, he is "living in adultery" with his

second wife. Question please? What if she never

decided to mentally divorce him? I heard of just such

a case one time. A man divorced his wife, who was

not guilty of infidelity, and married another woman.

In spite of it all, his first wife maintained that she

still loved him, still considered him her husband, and

always would, and would gladly take him back when

and if he should return to her. Thus, she never

intends to "mentally divorce" him. Therefore,

according to this argument, the man will be "living in

adultery" (something that those who champion this

theory deny is possible) with his second mate as long

as he remains married to her. If not, why not? Just

what would that man have to do to make his second

marriage right with the Lord? It would be interesting

to hear one of these "one loosed, both loosed"

advocates tell us, wouldn't it?

ARGUMENT: The guilty put-away fornicatordoesn't have a spouse, so to avoid fornication he ispermitted to have one, that is, to marry again.

QUOTATION: "Now what condition is the guiltyput-away fornicator in? Does he have a spouse? . . .No, he doesn't have a spouse, then he would like tohave one. 1 Corinthians 7:2 . . . 'To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife' . . . ! Let him have his own spouse .... There is certainly nothing in the scriptures that would forbid him having one." — (SLD - 167).

QUOTATION: "The guilty, put-away fornicatordoesn't have a spouse, and thus could not commitadultery if he married one who was not a spouse ofanother." — (BCD -GA -328).

ANSWER: This argument is based upon the reasoning that the one put away for fornication is nolonger married and thus, no adultery could possiblybe committed in a second marriage. The thing that iswrong with this reasoning, as plausible as it maysound to some, is the false assumption that "husband" and "wife" or "spouse" refers to one whois presently in a marriage relationship, and if a divorce has occurred, no marriage exists, thus, one isnot the "spouse" of another. Now since adultery is defined by W. E. Vine as denoting "one who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another," theargument is that the one divorced is not married,that is, is not the spouse of another, therefore, noadultery could possibly be committed in any subsequent marriage. Certainly, the word "spouse"or even "husband or "wife" may refer to one presentlymarried, but it may also refer to one who is boundthough not married. Consider again, Mark 6:17-18 and Romans 7:2-3. In Mark 6 we are told that Herodias was married to Herod but referred to as the wife of Philip. Thus, she was married to one man but the spouse" of another, that is, married to Herod but bound to Philip. In Romans 7, the woman is marriedto one man but "wife" or "spouse" to another. She iswife or spouse to the man to whom she is bound, yetmarried to another man, thus an adulteress. So it is obvious that the manner in which the Bible uses the terms "husband" and "wife", or as the theorist prefers the word "spouse" as being synonymous witheither, these words do not necessarily refer to thosewho are presently in a marriage relationship. Therefore, the argument as presented is really no argument at all, based as it is upon a false assumption. Thus, the truth still stands that, as per Matthew 19:9 The unfaithful mate who is divorcedby the innocent partner commits adultery in any subsequent marriage to another, not because he or sheis married to the first mate, but rather because, inGod's sight, he or she is still bound.

ARGUMENT: The word "loosed" in 1 Corinthians

7:27-28 includes the guilty party who has been put

away, and who, thus, may remarry with divine

approval.

QUOTATION: "Who is loosed? The widows and the virgins are loosed, 1 Cor. 7:28. The widows are loosed, 1 Cor 7:39. The innocent party is loosed,Matt. 19:9 . . . . the guilty party doesn't have a spouse, either . . . he was put away for the cause offornication . . .those that are not bound can marry without sin. The virgins are not bound; widows arenot bound; the innocent are not bound; and, the guilty are not bound. The Bible says if you are notbound, you do not sin if you marry." — (SLD - 168169).

ANSWER: In 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, Paul said, "Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned." Proponentsof the "one loosed, both loosed" theory make thepassage read something like this: "Are you divorcedfrom a wife? Seek not a wife. But and if you marryagain, you have not sinned." Now, the question is, may the word "divorced" be substituted for the "loosed," and does the word "marry" refer to a second marriage and the word "wife" a second wife? According to Lexicographers, the word "loosed" in the second part of this passage simply means not tied or fastened, that is, free. It does not mean "divorced." Arndt and Gingrich, Thayer, and the Expositor's Greek Testament all define the word as meaning "free from a wife;" that is, "not bound to awife;" "spoken of a single man, whether he has already has a wife or has not yet married, and that it"applies either to a bachelor or widower." But, weare told that Paul says to those "bound" not to seek to be "loosed," therefore, divorce has to be under consideration, for how could a "bound" one be "loosed" without divorce? Thus, when Paul asks in the second part, "art thou loosed?" It must of necessity mean, or at least include, "divorced." My friends, such reasoning overlooks the fact that in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, two different Greek words areused which are translated by the one English word "loosed." In the first instance, "loosed" is translated from a Greek term that does refer to divorce this once in the New Testament. But, in the second instance,an entirely different Greek word is used, which, as wehave pointed out, is defined by the scholars as simplymeaning "free" or "unattached." Thus, the word "divorced" and the word "free" do not mean the same thing. And so the guilty party who has been divorced does not come within the scope of the passage. It simply includes the never married or widowed.

ARGUMENT: Either the guilty party who has

been divorced by the innocent is tree to remarry because he is loosed, or he must pay a penalty byremaining celibate the rest of his life, which penaltyis imposed by man and not God.

QUOTATION: "I have two choices to tell that guilty, put-away fornicator .... he damned hissoul, but I have two choices to tell him. He is either free to marry, because he is loose, 1 Cor. 7:27-28," or"I have the choice to tell him that he must pay apenalty .... We're talking about the penalty thatthe brethren are going to put upon him ... He hascommitted an awful sin and he has damned his soul, and we're going to make him pay for it . . . . The only reason why he cannot go out and marry is because he's got to pay penance?" — (SLD -169173).

ANSWER: Now, my friends, no one among us questions the fact that the guilty party may obtainforgiveness of his or her infidelity. Such is the obvious teaching of the Scriptures, when the requiredconditions are properly met. But the fact that theguilty party may not remarry with divine approval is not based upon the principle of penalty, or punishment, or penance, as per this argument, butrather on the absence of any such right or privilegebeing revealed by the Lord in the New Testament.The right and privilege of remarriage for the innocentwho has divorced the guilty is implied, if not expressly stated, and may be necessarily inferred from Matthew 19:9. But, nowhere in the New Testament is any such provision revealed for the guilty to remarry with divine approval. Such assumption is based, not upon what the scriptures actually teach, but rather upon flimsy inferentialsupposition and reasoning that is too inadequate toafford any assurance of comfort and safety to the guilty. In reality, I contend that marriage is a privilege, designed by an infinite God, for the benefitand happiness of his creature, man. When a personviolates his vows before God, by unfaithfulness towardhis innocent mate, and is thus put-away, althoughupon meeting divinely imposed conditions, he mayobtain forgiveness, the privilege of marriage has beenforfeited, and in the absence of any revelation on thematter, no subsequent marriage may be entered withdivine approval. If this be "paying a penalty," sobe it! But, it seems inconsistent to make no such claim for the innocent parties involved in some divorces, those who have been put-away without scriptural cause, but who must remain unmarried orbe reconciled lest adultery be the result. This argument is just another emotional smoke-screen designed to justify the "one loosed, both loosed" theory. After all, brethren, sin is deceitful and "the way of the transgressor is hard."

Page 13

My friends, the New Testament teaches that marriage is a serious matter, not to be entered intowith frivolity, and binding for life. When a man and woman, who have the right and privilege to marry,make a solemn agreement with one another, and covenant before God and man, to live together in theholy bonds of matrimony until parted by death, Godjoins them together and man dare not put themasunder. According to the scriptures, there are only two reasons why those in the marriage relationship, having been joined together by God, may be permitted to marry someone else: death and fornication. In either case, only one of the parties tothe original marriage has the privilege of remarriage.In the case of the death of one of the mates, thesurviving partner is free to be married to another.In the case of fornication, the innocent partner, whohas divorced the guilty, is free to be married to another, undoubtedly because the sin of fornication isviewed by God as serious enough to permit the innocent to divorce the guilty, if desired, so that thesevering of the relationship is considered as permanent as if the guilty had actually died. No other reasons for remarriage are sanctioned by the scriptures. Now, certainly this is the force of the statement of Jesus in Matthew 19:9 as understood by the disciples, for they replied in verse 10, "if the caseof the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient tomarry." It is absolutely impossible for me to conceive how the disciples would have made such a statement if they had understood Jesus as teaching what the proponents of the "one loosed,both loosed" theory argue!

Now, I readily recognize that people can get themselves so entangled and involved in marital relationships that sometimes it is most difficult, ifnot actually impossible, to know with certainty how to apply the scriptures to their particular circumstances. But, unless we are seeking justification for something, or someone, in questionable, if not sinful, circumstances, we will never have any problem understanding exactly whatthe Lord says. But, when, by sophistry and specious reasoning, we attempt to circumvent whatthe Lord has said, we show our disrespect for Bible authority, deny the Lord and Master, and open up a whole "Pandora's Box" of immoralities and problems.

Those of us who do not accept the "one loosed,both loosed" theory are often charged with being inconsistent, not applying what we teach to those who are guilty, by failing to withdraw from those inso-called adulterous marriages or refusing to demand such marriages be dissolved. And I am certain thatall too often the charge has great merit, although it ishardly our responsibility to sit in judgment on other men's souls. The Bible says, "fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Hebrews 13:4). Butthose who make such charges against us are even more inconsistent than we, and certainly more reticent to accept the consequences of their position.As an example, I have in my possession copies ofletters of withdrawal made against a man and a woman, who though married to others, neither of whom were guilty of fornication, announced their intention to divorce their mates and marry each other. Then at a future date, come before the church,make confession and repent, seeking forgiveness, sothat they might continue in their adulterous relationship. They were simply following the logical steps of the position under review, but, the local preacher and elders who teach this very position,were unwilling to accept the consequences of theirown teaching, hence, the action of withdrawal. I am happy to report that the couple so involved, did notdivorce their mates and remarry, but rather repentedand were forgiven. Yet, it should be obvious that their actions in this matter were simply the logical consequences of the "one loosed, both loosed" theory. Does it not seem to you, under the circumstances, that it ill behooves these fellows to charge us with inconsistency? Where is the honestyand sincerity in such action when they refuse thelogical consequences of their own teaching? But, as Iindicated in my opening remarks, not all who holdthis position are honest and sincere. Witness the statement of one who is a champion of this theory.At the close of a recent debate on this question, inwhich he acted as moderator for the "one loosed,both loosed" advocate, he was asked the question,"when are you brethren going to give up your falsedoctrine and start preaching the truth on this subject?" As reported, his paraphrased answer was,"if what you brethren are teaching on this subject isthe truth, you can have it!" My brethren, such anattitude is entirely unworthy of one who calls himself agospel preacher, and simply serves as further confirmation of the fact that the "one loosed, both loosed" theory is just so much immoral rubbish, rotten to the core.

Friends, to insist upon faithful observance of thelaw of the Lord regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage, even to the point of dissolution of adulterous unions, will not cause nearly as much sorrow, heartache, and problem as has invaded the homes of our great nation which have been broken by unscriptural divorce and remarriage. To each of you here, and to those preachers among us who are contending for this pernicious doctrine, may I ask,why not spend your precious time trying to impress upon men and women, both young and old, thatmarriage is a sacred and permanent relationship, adivine contract for life, rather than attempting to continually find loop-holes in what Christ and theapostles have said? Little good it does to teach against adultery and then attempt to defend the adulterers. May God help us to see the folly inhuman wisdom!

In closing, may I state that I am not disposed toanswer every twist and turn of reasoning designed tobolster the "one loosed, both loosed" theory. Neitheram I inclined to debate every challenger of truth onthis issue—and in this connection, may I speak mypeace, whether any one agrees or not. I regret thaton both sides of this issue there are those who feel compelled to go out of their way to propagate theirposition by setting themselves up as "champions of their cause," through continuous challenge to the opposition nationwide. Personally, I will not be drawn into or embroiled in a discussion with some self-styled antagonist on the east or west coast, who because of an over-exaggerated sense of his own soundness and importance, feels disposed to make anall out effort to come before my brethren at WalnutStreet in Dallas or anywhere else I might preach, to"set the record straight" by answering what I teachin the local congregation where I labor. If such men desire to preach such ungodly, immoral doctrine intheir local congregations, that is their responsibilityand business, and I feel no compulsion whatsoever todemand "equal time" in their "diocese." Neither do I feel compelled to grant them liberty or license, to saynothing of an audience, to propagate what I conceiveto be the gravest error. If editors of religious journalsor elders of local congregations desire to provide such"equal space" and "equal time," so be it! But, as for me, I fully intend, as I have always done, to continueto do my own teaching, in my own way, at my own local level, and wherever I feel I should answer an invitation to speak, such as here in Odessa, mindingmy own business, without feeling I must be forced todignify every challenger to that work by acquiescingto every challenge. And I verily believe with all my heart that the cause of truth and the unity of brethren would be better served if all would follow the same course.

CAN MAN BELIEVE IN GOD? (2)

Royce Chandler3915 Franklin Rd. Nashville, TN 37204

The human mind cannot believe that which is unbelievable; logical minds do not reasonably acceptthat which appears to be illogical. Before believing a proposition, one must possess enough evidence to convince him of its believability. This axiom is truein all fields of study, including those of science andreligion.

Faith is not opposed to reason; reason is not antagonistic to faith. One can have no faith in a proposition until he sees enough proof of its rationality, so that his faith is built upon evidenceand reason; faith cannot exist apart from those twoessentials.

Biblical faith demands proof. Believers in God holdtheir faith because of evidence, not in spite of it. Theabundant evidence available makes belief in a divine Creator rational: more rational, in fact, than disbelief.

For faith to be had, then, its logical grounds mustbe seen and intelligently weighed, for faith is the end-product of sound reasoning upon sound testimonyaccording to this order: (1) a proposition is presented for belief; (2) evidence is submitted to produce belief;

(3) reasons weighs the evidence; (4) a judgment regarding the evidence's strength is reached; (5) ifcredible, the proposition is accepted; if incredible, itis rejected.

One cannot believe in God if the evidence does not make it rational to believe. Likewise, if the evidenceis seen to be strong and incontrovertible, an honestman cannot help but believe in Him.

In Romans 1:20 it is argued that the Gentiles were"without excuse" for their atheism: "For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things thatare made, even his everlasting power and divinity;that they may be without excuse." In articles to come we want to consider some of the evidences which should convince us beyond any rational doubtto believe in God and in all that pertains to Him.

While I was preaching on a daily radio program, thisquestion was called in by a listener: Will Methodistsand Baptists be saved? It is a good question because allshould be concerned about themselves and others in the matter of salvation. Before answering the direct question was called in by a listener: Will Methodists groups, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, the Mormons, the Christian Scientists,and all so-called Protestant groups. We might broaden it still further by asking if all the many factions andparties among those groups are going to be saved. Weall know that within each of the older denominations some are premillennial and some are not; some are modernistic and some are not. We also hear of General Baptists, Freewill Baptists, and Primitive Baptists. Many congregations are breaking away from the conferences and associations as the denominational machinery comes under the control of modernists andsupports schools with teachers who deny the virginbirth, the miracles, and the inspiration and authority ofthe Scriptures. These professors would make Christ onlya man and the Bible just a book, not the book.

While we are asking questions, we might broaden theoriginal question still more. Are Catholics to be saved?Would that include the Greek Orthodox as well as the Roman Catholic? The Roman church is going through acrisis now more serious than at any other time since theReformation. Are the more liberal and more conservative elements both acceptable?

While we are asking who will be saved, we might askabout devout Mohammedans, Buddhists, Jews, andother so-called non-Christian religious people. I would, with all sincerity and courtesy, like to ask the one whocalled to ask the question and all others who havereason to wonder about the same to grapple with thequestions I have asked which are parallel to the question sent to us.

Let us join with the apostles in asking, "Who then can be saved?" (Matt. 19:25.) These questions are inorder, and we need to think much more on the question of salvation than the typical American does. Our agehas decided that one could hardly miss the way. TheBible uses such expressions as, "Let him that thinkethhe standeth take heed lest he fall;" "Give diligence tomake your calling and election sure;" and "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (1 Cor.10:12; 2 Pet. 1:10; Phil. 2:12). An excellent suggestion which is found in the good book is in 2 Cor. 13:5, andreads as follows: "Examine yourselves, whether ye be inthe faith; prove your own selves." This suggests thatthe individual should become very concerned about hisown condition and search the scriptures as suggested inActs 17:11.

Whatever I say will not be the final word, "For wemust all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body,according to that he hath done, whether it be good orbad" (2 Cor. 5:10). Let me offer this comment: Everydetail suggested concerning the church by Christ andthe Spirit-directed apostles has been changed by one group or another in the broad spectrum of denominationalism as mentioned above. Does Christ care? If the baptism, the name, the Lord's supper, theworship, and the work of the church do not matter, thendoes anything matter? How many changes will the Lordallow? If nothing matters, He could have given a briefNew Testament in such a case which would have read something like this: Let every man do that which isright in his own eyes.

I have preached among churches of Christ for severaldecades, but I do not claim that any single church, assuch, will be saved. No church is going to be saved as acollectivity. The judgment is to be individual in nature.It does not guarantee that a body of people is acceptable to God because it writes on its building thatit is of Christ. I have been asked what churches of Christ teach on this subject or that. An answer that I have often given is that members (at least nominal members)teach both sides of every issue. Some are premillennial, some' are not; some go out for the church support ofentertainment and other aspects of the social gospel,and some do not; some are worldly and hypocritical, andsome are the salt of the earth; some attend very littleand are as lukewarm as the church at Laodicea, and some are fervent in spirit; some will stand for nothingand are blown about by every wind of doctrine, andsome will contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. I have had very pleasant association with wonderful people, but I am willing to admit imperfections among us and within each one of us. Wemust all depend on the blood of Christ and the grace ofGod.

If one is what he ought to be he is not self righteous,egotistical, or conceited, but each is to be interested inhis own salvation and in the salvation of relatives, friends, and neighbors. We are taught to exhort one another daily lest any be hardened through thedeceitfulness of sin (Heb. 3:12, 13). One may be humble,unselfish, kind, and well informed as to what the Bible

teaches and at the same time point out errors that are

common in the land. We are not to be ashamed of the

gospel. We are not to be ashamed of the passages of

scriptures such as Eph. 4:1-6 that speaks of one Lord,

one faith, and one baptism. It is not bigotry for one to

shout the truth from the house top, for the truth can

make us free (John 8:31, 32). The gospel is God's power

to save the soul (James 1:21). One who tells you the

truth is not your enemy (Gal. 4:16). I can be helped by

further teaching, and so can you.

It is my honest impression that the sin most oftencondemned in the New Testament is the sin of teachingthe wrong doctrine. Please consider this idea with an open Bible before you. Our Lord said, "Beware .of falseprophets" (Matt. 7:15). Look at that verse and study the context. He taught more on this in Mark 7,Matthew 15, Matthew 23, and many other places. John explained that we should not believe "every spirit, buttry the spirits whether they are of God: because manyfalse prophets are gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1).Peter added some very serious information concerningfalse teachers in 2 Peter 2:1-3. He pointed out that theywould bring in damnable heresies, that many would follow their pernicious ways, and that the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. He admitted that covetousness would lead these false teachers to make merchandise of the souls of men. Religious racketeers are grievoussinners. Men speak that which they ought not for filthylucre's sake (Titus 1:11). The same Holy Spirit thatguided Peter and John warned through Paul that anyman or even an angel would stand accursed if he did not teach that which had been given by revelation.Please read and study Galatians 1:6-12.

The Lord prayed for unity (John 17:20-23). The apostles taught and worked for it. "Now I beseech you,brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that yeall speak the same thing, and that there be no divisionsamong you; but that ye be perfectly joined together inthe same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10).That is heaven's standard or goal that is set before us,and we need to press toward it. Let one seek humbly touphold any point of Bible teaching without being thought of as a bigot. This Bible teaching is not suggesting some form of ecumenism where groups uniteby compromise and through lack of conviction. Maybe a word is being coined when I say that the ecumenicalmovement is unity on nothingness. We are to walk by faith.

If men organize a new church in 1980, every uniquefeature will be unscriptural. If its doctrine and practicecould be found in the New Testament, it would not be anew church nor would its features be unique or new.Men have started many churches that were to a greatextent based on the errors of the founders of these churches, and they are in competition with the plan andpattern laid down by Christ in the New Testament. Thisis a fact, and we should face it. None will reach perfection, but every one should press toward the markfor the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Subscribe for a Friend

God has always made known His will to man. "God, who at sundry times and in divers mannersspake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whomalso he made the worlds" (Heb. 1:1-2). Thus, God has spoken to different people in different ways in thepast, but today God speaks to us by Jesus Christ.

In determining truth today many ask, "What doesthe College say, or what do the religious paperssay, what do the elders think, does our preacherbelieve it that way?" We really need to ask. "WHAT HATH THE LORD SPOKEN?" (Num. 23:17).

Reasons for Listening to Christ 1) Christspoke with authority. "And Jesus came and spakeunto them, saying, All power (authority) is given untome in heaven and in earth" (Matt. 28:18). While Jesuswas on earth people were astonished at his teaching,"For he taught them as one having authority, and notas the scribes" (Matt. 7:29).

2) Has God's approval. God said concerning Jesus,"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased;hear ye him" (Matt. 17:5). When God puts his approval on one, then we need to listen!

3) Jesus is the way to the Father. When Thomas asked how one could know the way, Jesussaid, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no mancometh unto the Father, but by me" (Jno. 14:6). If we fail to hear Christ we are refusing the only way to the Father!

4) He has the words of life. At a time in the life of Jesus, when many of his disciples went back andwalked no more with him, Peter said, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternallife" (Jno. 6:68).

5) God's only way of speaking to us. As the Hebrew writer has told us, God, "hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son. . ." (Heb. 1:2). Theonly method that God uses today to let us know Hiswill is as we read the words of Christ as recorded in the New Testament.

6) Hear or be cut off. Look at the consequence of failing to hear the Lord. "For Moses truly said untothe fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raiseup unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shallye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul,which will not hear that prophet shall be destroyedfrom among the people" (Acts 3:22-23). Come the judgment day, each of us will be judged by the words of the Lord (Jno. 12:48) so we had better listen to

what he has to say!

Some Things He Has Spoken

Since we have Bible reasons for listening to whatthe Lord hath spoken, let's now take a look at some things he has said:

1) What hath the Lord spoken about sin? All we know about sin is revealed in the Word of God. Sin separates man from God (Isa. 59:2). Sin is universalin that all have sinned (Rom. 3:23). When we transgress God's law we are sinners (1 Jno. 3:4). Sin,when it is full grown, brings death (Rom. 6:23; Jas. 1:14-15).

2) The Lord speaks about salvation. Christ died that men might be saved (1 Jno. 2:1-2). Salvation is in Jesus Christ (2 Tim. 2:10) and is apersonal matter (1 Tim. 4:16). Salvation comes about when men have enough faith to obey the Lord (Heb.11:6; Heb. 5:8-9).

3) We are told about the church. We are told that Christ is the builder of the Church (Matt. 16:18);that he is the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11); Jesus is thehead and savior of the body (Eph. 5:23).

4) The Lord has spoken about the judgment.The judgment will be for all (2 Cor. 5:10). Each of uswill be judged by the gospel of our Lord (Rom. 2:16).The judgment will be final (Matt. 25:46).

Surely, we need to know that the Lord hath spoken!

Page 17

Many people, and even religious leaders of our daybelieve that God will accept any and all forms ofworship as long as it is done in honesty, and fromsincere hearts. Thus they conclude that being religious is sufficient to the saving of souls. Such isnot the case in reality.

God demonstrated his displeasure with unauthorized forms of worship many times in the OldTestament. One such case is that of Cain and Abel in Genesis the fourth chapter "And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cainand his offering he had not respect" (Gen. 4:4-5).The Hebrew writer says "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain" (Heb. 11:4). Both sacrifices were offered with sincere and honest motives; but one was accepted while the other was rejected. The reason was that Abel's was by faith. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10:17). Thus Abel's sacrifice was according to God's instruction wherein Cain's was not.

Many people who profess faith in Christ and recognize Jesus as Lord and Saviour fail to honorHim because they do not follow the properinstructions. The observance of the commandments of men results in vain worship. Jesus said, "For in vaindo they worship me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9). We find on every hand today those who claim to worship God inspirit and in truth; yet they are observing the commandments of men. We must do Bible acts in worship to God and those only in the Bible prescribed way.

Jesus emphasized the need of following the instructions of God, showing that good intentionwithout obedience to his word is not enough. "Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enterthe Kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will ofmy Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21). Not onlythis but in the day of judgment many religious peoplewho have done many wonderful works in all their sincerity are going to be lost eternally. "Many will say to me in that day Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have castout devils? and in thy name done many wonderfulworks? And then will I profess unto them, I neverknew you: depart from me ye that work iniquity"(Matt. 7:22-23). The wonderful works that these religious people will have done will have been wonderful in man's eyes. The key to their condemnation is in the nature, in which theyperformed these wonderful deeds. They did them ininiquity, or otherwise translated lawlessness. The Greek word is anomia (without law) —"The condition of one without law,—either because ignorant of it orviolating it" (Page 48, Thayer's Greek Lexicon).Hence the souls of those mentioned in Matt. 7:21-23 will be lost because they did what they did withoutinstruction from God.

For worship to be accepted of God today we mustact in accordance with the law of Christ, to fail in this is to sin (1 Jn. 3:4). Every doctrine, act ofworship, and religious practice must be found withinthe New Testament. If not it must be abandoned. Christ didn't come to make the world religious. It was religious when he got here. He came to make theworld religiously right. What about your religion?

FREE TRACTS WHILE THEY LAST

The series of articles by J. T. Smith on GOD'S PATTERN

which appeared in installments in this paper last year have been put into tract form and will be sent free to any who request it as long as the supply lasts. This was an excellent series and shoulddo much more good with this extended circulation. If interested,then write to: J. T. Smith, P.O. Box 572, Dyersburg, Tennessee38024.

NEW LOCATION IN MANHATTAN, KANSAS WILLIAM C. SEXTON, 1937 Judson, Manhattan, Kansas 66502 — The Manhattan church began meeting on December 2 inthe recently purchased property at 1112 Pierre Street in Manhattan. We are located two blocks south of the City Buildingwhich is on Poyntz St., the main east-west street throughManhattan which is also highway 18. We were able to purchase this building on contract for which we are grateful. Although it isa house, we feel we can turn it into an acceptable and adequatemeeting place. We had been meeting since June in a rented realty Page 18

office. We were required to set up seats and take them down andstore them away. We could hang out a sign during services buthad to store it away at other times We hope that any coming tothis town, to Fort Riley or Kansas State University will rememberus and visit us while here.

GARRETH L. CLAIR, 3549 E. Crocus, Phoenix, Arizona 85032 — Just a note to inform readers about the work progress in Tempe, Arizona, a city of 110,000. We are bounded on one side by Mesa and to the west and north by Phoenix. The propertypurchased on Price Road off University is almost free of debt(we expect to have the land paid in 4 to 5 months). There havebeen two baptisms and two restorations here recently. We continue to meet at 1290 Mill in Tempe until our building program is completed. Visitors to this area are invited to meetwith us.

INFORMATION NEEDED JACK H. KIRBY— 1325 Panlener, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88001 — Churches standing for the New Testament order are scarce in New Mexico. We are attempting to locate conservative brethren in or near to the principal cities here that have no faithful brethren meeting to our knowledge If anyreaders know of such in the following cities, please contact us sowe can establish communication with them, and seek to establish a faithful church in that city. Carlsbad, Clovis, Farmington, Gallup,Grants, Las Vegas (N.M.), Ruiodoso. Santa Fe. Write to the aboveaddress or call 522-8660. We are pleased with the work here andenjoying steady growth. Four have been baptized recently.

NEW CONGREGATION IN SAVANNAH

GLENN R. REDMOND, 11808 Middleground Rd., Savannah, Georgia — We are pleased to announce that another sound congregation of God's people is meeting in Savannah, Georgia.We are located at 11808 Middleground Road in the southwest portion of the city. just six miles off of I-95, up the "Gateway toSavannah" exit, highway 204. For further information call 925-1719; 925-2458 or 925-1479. We extend a welcome to all to worship with us when you are in the Savannah area. We meet onSundays at 10 and 11 AM and 6:30 PM and on Wednesday nights at 7:30.

PRINTING EQUIPMENT FOR SALE DENNIS C. ABERNATHY, P.O Box 1226, Gladewater, Texas75674 — The church here wishes to sell the following printingequipment; IBM Selectic Composer, AB DICK 321 Off—Set Press. Paper Jogger, Heavy Duty Paper Cutter, AB DICK 52 Folder, Addressograph equipment (plate maker, etc.) File Cabinet (address plates), Odds and ends supplies for thisequipment. Total price for the above listed equipment—$4,000.Write to . North Main and Gay Church of Christ, P.O. Box 1226,

Gladewater. Texas 75674. Or you may call 214-845-2816 (office) or 214-845-6139 (home)RAY F. DIVELY, 425 Dippold Ave., Baden, PA 15005—The year

1979 was another busy year for me. Besides the local work, I wasprivileged to preach for 19 congregations in 12 states. Also Ipreached in Canada, England and made my sixth preaching trip to India. If any congregation would like to have a personal reporton the Lord's work in India, I will be more than willing to makesuch report. Please contact me.

CONTACTS SOUGHT IN WILLIAMSTOWN, NEW

JERSEY AREA

DORRIS V. RADER, 729 Westside Dr., Tullahoma, Tennessee

37388—A husband and wife I baptized have moved to Williams-

town, New Jersey and report they have been unable to locate a

sound congregation in that area. Bob Bunting who lived and

worked in New Jersey a few years ago did not know of such a

work in that area either. Would you put a note in Searching the

Scriptures to see if any of the readers might know of Christians in

that area with whom this family could get in touch in the hope of

establishing a congregation there? Write to me at the above

address and I will put you in touch with this family in

Williamstown.

PREACHERS NEEDED CLEARWATER, FLORIDA — H. E. PHILLIPS The Northeast church of Christ in Clearwater, Florida desires to secure the services of a good man to labor with them in the gospel. This church is only a few years old and is located in afast growing part of the city. They have a small but adequate building in the first stage of growth. There are manyopportunities and good prospects for a healthy growth with thischurch. The Northeast church is presently unable to fullysupport a man full time, but can provide a good portion of his support. Roland Lewis, Dean of Florida College, has been preaching with this church since its beginning. I am presently interested in this work because my mother and three of my brothers and their families are members of this church. Anyoneinterested in working with them may contact H.L. Phillips, 2226 S.Curtis Dr., Clearwater, Florida 33516. Telephone: 813-531-2984.RAYTOWN, MISSOURI — The church meeting at 5825 Sterling in Raytown, Missouri is in need of a full time preacher. Raytown is in the Kansas City, Missouri suburbs. We have a remodeled building in a middle-income housing area. We have been meeting at this location for 5 years and are self-supporting with excellentgrowth potential. If anyone is interested he may write to: Churchof Christ, 5825 Sterling, Raytown, Missouri 64133 or call Marion

O. Morgan at 816-358-1688.

APOLOGIES FOR LATE MAILING

We deeply regret the inconvenience to our readers from the latemailing of our December issue. Problems in the printing plantwere responsible. We have tried very hard to have this paper inthe mail by the 10th of each month and with few exceptions thishas been done. Thanks for your patience. We will try to keep it onschedule as much as possible.

CORRECTION

In the editorial in the December issue, entitled Editorial Stew, we has an item about the new bound volumes. Early in the itemwe said the price for Vol. 19-20 would be $10.00. Then later in theitem we gave the price as $9.50. Obviously both cannot be right.$9.50 is the correct price. These will be ready by April 1. The editor takes the blame for this mistake.

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH

BAPTISMS 206

RESTORATIONS 115

(Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)