EVIDENCES — THE OLD TESTAMENT

In my last two articles on this subject, it was shown, I believe, beyond shadow of doubt to theperson who is willing to honestly weigh the evidence,that the Bible is in fact the Word of God, that Jesus was born of a virgin and is therefore the Son of God.The scientific facts revealed in the Scriptures couldonly have been known by the person or persons whocreated these things, or (as the situation was, and is)for the ones writing the things to have had them revealed to them by the one who did create them — inthis case Jehovah God (Acts 17:24-26). Also we wereable to show through secular history that Jesus did,in fact, live upon this earth, and by Divine historythat he was born of a virgin.

Now, those who claim to believe the Bible denymany of the miracles of the Old Testament, but claim they believe the New Testament and want a "red letter edition" because "they say" they believe in Jesus and what he said.

In the Old Testament we read of the flood that was brought upon the whole world (Genesis 6). We alsoread about Sodom and Gomorah being destroyed byfire and brimstone that God rained down from heaven, and Lot's wife disobeying God as she left thecities in which dwelt her kins-people and friends, andlooking back in violation to what God had ordered,turned to a pillar of salt (Genesis 16:26). We also read of Jonah and the great fish that God prepared toswallow him and the story of how he stayed three days and three nights in the fish's belly and then wasvomited up by the fish (Jonah 1:17). Or you mightturn to II Kings chapter five and read about Naaman

the leper and how God told him to go dip seven times

in the Jordan river and he would be cleansed, and it

was so.

But many will say, "Oh, these are just myths.

They are not actually real occurrences." However,

anyone who claims to believe in the words of Christ

cannot discount any of the above things, as well as

many other events in the Old Testament, for Christ

"puts his stamp of approval" on all of the above and

many more. For example, what about the flood? In

Matthew 24:37-39 we read where Jesus said, "But as

the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of

the Son of man be. For in the days that were before

the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying

and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah

entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood

came, and took them all away; so shall also the

coming of the Son of man be."

"But what about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's wife? What about that myth" someone may ask? "Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought,they sold, they planted, they builded; but the sameday that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire andbrimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Eventhus shall it be in the day when the Son of man isrevealed. In that day, he which shall be upon thehousetop, and his stuff in the house, let him notcome down to take it away: and he that is in thefield, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife" (Luke 17:28-32). Thus Jesus adds respectability to this Old Testament occurrence byshowing that that which was to happen concerninghis coming was just like something about which theywere very familiar.

Then, there is the "story" of Jonah. This particularstory brings to my memory an explanation given bya woman in Punta Gorda, Florida a number of yearsago. When asked if she believed the Bible, she repliedthat she did not believe that many of the happenings in the Old Testament were more than myths. She said that she had asked her Episcopal priest about the case of Jonah, for example. He told her that she should ask his wife, thatshe knew more about such matters than he. When the preacher's wife was consulted, she observed that these things

Page 2

were just sayings. What kind of sayings, you mayask? "Oh," the preacher's wife replied, "kind of like our saying 'he's in a pickle' when we are in trouble" she replied. I recall telling the lady that I thoughtthe preacher's wife was in a "whale of a pickle" onthat one in view of what Christ said concerningJonah. When the Scribes and Pharisees asked for a sign from Jesus, "He answered and said unto them,an evil and adulterous generation seeketh after asign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but thesign of the prophet Jonah: For as Jonah was threedays and three nights in the whale's belly; so shallthe Son of man be three days and three nights in theheart of the earth" (Matthew 12:39-40). That's how much credibility Jesus gave to the "story" of Jonah, the Episcopal preacher's wife notwithstanding.

Finally, what about Naaman' Is it possible that aman who was a leper could be cleansed of his leprosy by dipping seven time in the Jordan? Obviously,there were no others mentioned as being able to dothis and be cleansed. This is, in fact, the very pointthat Jesus made when he was discussing the situation. "And many lepers were in Israel in thetime of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them wascleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian." Thus, these "happenings of the Old Testament" are not justmyths, but real occurrences about which both Jesusand the people knew.

"DELIVER SUCH AN ONE UNTO SATAN"

The church at Corinth had a problem. Evidently,they did not regard it as such, for they had donenothing about it and there was manifest a sense of arrogance and support for a brother who was engagedin immoral behavior. I Corinthians 5 gave inspiredinstruction as to what to do about the matter. The future standing of that church before God was at stake. In view of the fact that similar situations arise among the churches with varying reactions (if any),we thought it good to consider the problem here.

The Situation at Corinth

In verse 1, Paul said "It is reported commonly thatthere is fornication among you." This was not just amatter of idle gossip. The evidence was clear and wasgenerally known. No such instruction as that contained in this chapter would have been given purely on the basis of hearsay. Neither Paul nor theHoly Spirit which guided his writing would have ever so acted. Not only did fornication exist, but it involved a case of incest wherein "one should have his father's wife." This was not to be passed over assimply a case of changing social mores. It was not asickness. It was not an "alternate life-style." It was fornication. It was sinful. But it was also shameful before God. Verse 2 reveals that the brethren were swelled with pride and there had beenno expression of mourning nor reflection of sorrowover this.

The Prescribed Remedy

Paul said he had "judged already _ concerning him that hath so done this deed" (verse 3). The apostleswere to sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes ofIsrael (Mt. 19:28). The apostles delivered divine judgment or teaching designed for all of God's holynation, which now is spiritual Israel, the church. Paulwas not just passing out good advice. This wasdivine judgment directed by the Holy Spirit.

The action to be taken was public. The sin waspublicly known. It was "reported commonly."Therefore, their response was to be of a public nature. They were to act "when they (ye) are gathered together" (Verse 4).

Now, what is it that they were to do when they were gathered together? Paul said they were "to deliver such an one unto Satan" (verse 5). Pauldid not tell them to do something which he did not practice. He said of Hymenaeus and Alexander,"Whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they maylearn not to blaspheme" (1 Tim. 1:20). Whatever this phrase meant, Paul taught it and practiced it and

now urges this upon the church in Corinth.

What do you do when you "deliver such an oneunto Satan"? Other expressions in the passage helpto explain it. Verse 2 says "that he that hath donethis deed might be taken away from among you."Something was to be done which would isolate and ostracize this brother so that he would not be considered as among them. In verse 7 Paul said "Purge out therefore the old leaven." This was anevil influence with the potential of spreading as leavento contaminate "the whole lump" (verse 6). They could not afford to ignore it. The safety and wellbeing of the whole congregation was at stake. Sin, harbored, defended or tolerated has an evil effect onothers in the congregation. Would to God that allmight understand this. Then in verse 11, Paulfurther explained what it means to "deliver such anone unto Satan." He wrote "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or adrunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no notto eat." They could not regulate the world at large, butthey could, within the congregation and in their social dealings with one another, avoid such individuals. No equality was to be granted to themin the social circle. Such would have indicated approval or endorsement of their unrighteousconduct. They were not to "keep company" nor eveneat with them. This was called in verse 12, judging "them that are within." Then, in verse 13 Paul closedthis section by saying "Therefore put away fromamong yourselves that wicked person." Can therebe any doubt but that delivering one unto Satan isclarified by these contextual statements or admonitions?

It was called "deliver (ing) . . . such an one untoSatan" because the brethren cut him off from them. The brother had made a choice which was incompatible with righteousness. It was a choice which gratified the flesh and honored Satan ratherthan God. By putting him away from amongthem; purging him out, keeping no company with him,they simply recognized his choice and turned himover to it with all its frightful consequences. He could not serve Satan and receive their hand in fellowship.

Other passages bearing on the subject of correctivemeasures for the wayward indicate that such publicdenouncement and putting away should be prefacedby prayerful and careful effort to show the brother (orsister) the terrible nature of sin and what it does tothe soul. In the matter of personal offenses, our Lordtaught that the efforts of the individual wrongedshould be exerted in the hope of affecting repentance.That failing, then the influence of others as witnessesshould be called upon. Should that fail, then thematter was to be made known to the church that a larger circle of influence should be brought to bear tobring unto them "as an heathen man and a publican"(Mt. 18:15-17). This accords with Gal. 6:1 which says"Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye whichare spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit ofmeekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." Brethren who fall into sin are to be approached "in the spirit of meekness" and every righteous effort ought to be exhausted before it becomes necessary to "deliver such an one unto Satan." This rules out hasty, vindictive action. Italso rules out this business of accumulating a large backlog of apostates and then after some teaching onthe subject, summarily reading a long list of namesor deleting their names from the next directory ofmembers. Some good that does! No, brethren, first,do everything possible to bring about repentance. Allthe while, it should be recognized that should suchefforts fail, then the drastic measure of 1 Cor. 5 mustbe carried out.

Why?

Some rationalize that this will do no good. That is

not our business. In fact, that attitude in the face of

divine instruction is not far removed from unbelief.

The first reason this must be done is because the

Lord said so. That is always the best reason to do

anything. Why be baptized? The Lord said to. Why

eat the Lord's supper? Because he said "this do."

Why "deliver such an one unto Satan?" Because the

Lord said so. But; someone objects, that will just

"run him off." No, no, my brethren. He is already

"off." His sins have separated him from his God.

God does not sanction his action and neither should

we. The public action of the church is simply to take

recognition of where he is spiritually. He has chosen

Satan. He indicates no repentance. Good and faithful

brethren do not drive or "run" people into serving

the flesh and thus serving Satan. But sadly the time

comes when we have to face reality and turn such an

one over to his own choice. But faithful brethren also

have to indicate a choice. If they choose to please

God, then they must repudiate such conduct on the

part of those who have enjoyed with them the sweet

and sacred fellowship of the saints of God.

Our passage shows that this action is calculated tobring about "the destruction of the flesh" to the end that "the spirit may be saved in the day of the LordJesus" (verse 5). The action prescribed in this passage is strong medicine. It is meant to shake andawaken the erring to his senses so that he may bring his passions under control thus bringing about "the destruction of the flesh." If the desired effect is produced then the ultimate good of it all will be hisfinal salvation at the coming of the Lord. I firmlybelieve that the knowledge that my brethren wereabout to cut me off from their hallowed and revered associations would do more to bring me to my kneesthan anything I can imagine. How could one whoever cherished the blessedness of walking in the light,of tasting the heavenly gift, and the upliftinginfluences of those of "like precious faith" ever be thesame again when this is withheld? If there is anyfaint recollection or fond memory cherished of thosegrand and glorious days when this brother once stood tall and unashamed among the people of God, shouldnot this severe measure bring shame and grief to hisspirit which in turn will spark genuine repentance?

This action must be taken in cases of the unrepentant for the good of the church. Paul said "Alittle leaven leavens the whole lump." It is a painful

decision to amputate a finger, an arm or a leg. Itwould never even be considered were it not essential to save the life of the body. Likewise, such uncorrected spiritual disease as that which prevailed atCorinth is an affront to the sensitivities of everyfaithful child of God. It cannot be endured. It must be corrected, or else the drastic measures of thispassage must be applied.

A Happy Ending

For all those who challenge the practice outlined inthis chapter by an inspired apostle, it needs to beshown that the action was taken and that this did result in "the destruction of the flesh" so that the brethren were called upon to forgive the repentingbrother lest he be burdened with "overmuch sorrow." Read 2 Cor. 2:1-11. Hearken to these words, all whodoubt that it does any good to carry out such corrective action: "Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, andcomfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow" (verses 6-7).This is a clear reference to the action of 1 Cor. 5 which was "inflicted of many." The brother had repented. Paul would never have urged them to forgive and comfort him as long as he practiced thissin and thus served Satan.

Like Corinth, there are many congregations whichneed to do some house-cleaning. Such would put sinin its proper light, manifest the indignation of therighteous against it, get the word out among all towhom such misconduct may be reported that thecongregation does not approve of ungodly behavior among its members, and may result in saving thesouls of those who are caught in the snare of theDevil.

---------- o ---------

THINGS TO COME

The excellent series on Baptist doctrine byEugene Britnell will be continued next month. This month, see the article by Ken Green for more teaching against this growing but false religion.

Articles on Military Service

Readers may recall that in the editorial ("ToughDecisions") in the March issue, we offered to carry anarticle by a representative brother on opposite sidesof the question of the right of Christians to participate in military service, and if so, to what extent. We are pleased to announce that two of ourregular writers have agreed to do this for the study ofour readers. Both of these men have written for Searching the Scriptures for a number of years and their offerings are appreciated by a host ofreaders. They hold differing views on this matter. Each will prepare his article without seeing the other's material and will seek to establish the positionhe holds from a scriptural base. Ken Green is of theconviction that a Christian may perform combatduties in time of war. He has engaged in one writtendebate on the subject (Green-Thrasher Debate) andalso had an exchange several years ago in the Gospel Guardian with another brother, EugeneBritnell is convinced that a Christian may performsome duties in military service, but that he may notkill for his country in war. Both of these men are abundantly able to present their respective views. Wewill carry their articles as soon after our Augustspecial issue as possible. Watch for it.

August Special

The theme of our August special issue this yearwill be "Challenges to Faith." Subjects have been chosen and writers have been contacted about contributing material for this issue. We will announceall subjects and writers for this special, 32 page edition beginning in the May issue.

Over the past few years I have read numerousarticles which were written by some renowned gospelpreachers attempting to enlighten the brotherhood asto the Apostle's position on the believer's marriage status when her unbelieving husband departs the marriage. Most deny that the Apostle is adding desertion to the list of exceptions for a scripturalremarriage. Most also deny that a scriptural divorceis here intended which of course would free the believer to wed again. Much has been said about theword "bondage" and its Greek meaning. Many even quote some of the old timers and argue their comments regarding the verse.

I think that one opinion is about as good as another which is about all I have heard and read regarding the subject. I often wondered why God would favor the unbeliever in his departing and allowthe believer to suffer the consequences of desertion and abandonment without the freedom to remarry asis the case of the innocent partner in Matt. 19:9. It isobvious from comparing verses 11 to 15 that Godtreats the Christian much differently than He doesthe unbeliever. Now if the freedom is not the right todivorce and remarry then whom has God favored?Some argue that the only exception to the divorcerule is found in Matt. 19:9; therefore the Apostlecannot add another one. I cannot believe that God would not allow the Apostle to make another exception to the rule when a different situation wasfaced. It seems to me that Paul is doing exactlywhat Jesus did. He is freeing the innocent. If all ofthe Greek scholars cannot agree on just what theGreek says on the word "BONDAGE", why don't they look up the Greek word for "DEPARTETH". It can be explained in Thayers Greek Lexicon on page674 and the word is "KORIZO", It means "DIVORCED".

(Editor's Note: Be sure to read Weldon E. Warnock'sresponse to this which follows. You may wish toreread Brother Warnock's two articles (November andDecember, 1979 Issues) reviewing the book, Not Under Bondage by James D. Bales.)

My brief remarks are in response to the short

article by Edwin P. Knapp, Sr. that appears in this

issue of STS. Brother Knapp believes it is not fair for

God to favor the unbeliever in divorce and remarriage

over the believer. But this is a concoction of his own

imagination. I do not read anywhere where God

favors one over the other. I do not recall in the New

Testament of two sets of marriage laws-one for

unbelievers and one for believers.

Brother Knapp assumes that the unbeliever who

deserts the believer is free to remarry, and this

desertion gives the believer the right to remarry also.

He writes: "I often wondered why God would favor

the unbeliever in his departing and allow the believer

to suffer the consequences of desertion and

abandonment without the freedom to remarry." It

is strange how people can read into a passage

something that is not there. Brother Knapp does

this. Nothing whatsoever is said about anybody in I

Cor. 7:15, sinner or saint, being free to remarry.

Knapp's version of I Cor. 7:15 would go something

like this: "But if the unbeliever divorces a believer he

is no longer bound to the believer and he may

remarry. A brother or sister is no longer bound by

the marriage bond to the unbelieving deserter, but is

free to remarry." This manner of rendition takes

unjustifiable liberty with the verse and forces

preconceived notions into the text. This is called

"wresting the Scriptures."

Observe how subjective brother Knapp is. He says:"I cannot believe that God would not allow the Apostle to make another exception to the rule when adifferent situation exists." Instead of accepting whatGod says (this is the only way any man can knowhow God feels), Knapp puts himself in God's placeand says, "I cannot believe that God would, etc., etc." How would Knapp or anybody else know whatGod would or would not do, except by what God revealed?

Concerning the word "bondage" in I Cor. 7:15, Knapp jumps to the conclusion, as others do, thatthe marriage bond is meant. The Greek word is dedoulotai, third person sing. perf., ind., pass, of douloo. The word douloo is defined by Thayer: "to make a slave or reduce to bondage—to be under bondage, held by constraint of law or necessity, in some matter" (p. 158). Arndt-Gingrich define the word: "make someone a slave (doulos), enslave, subject—to bound (as a slave)" (p. 205).

The noun form of dedoulotai is doulos. W.E. Vine says that doulos means "originally the lowest term inthe scale of servitude, came also to mean one whogives himself up to the will of another." Therefore, according to these Greek authorities, the word "bondage" in I Cor. 7:15 has no reference to marriageat all, but rather has reference to slavery, to bebound as a slave; servitude.

However, when speaking of the marriage bond,Paul does not use this word for bondage. He uses theword, dedesai, perf. pass. ind. of deo. Twice in I Cor. 7:27, 39, and once in Rom. 7:2, when writing aboutthe marriage bond, Paul chose deo. But, in I Cor.

7:15 Paul used the word dedoulotai, from douloo, a word never used in connection with the marriagebond, unless I Cor. 7:15 is the exception. But I Cor. 7:15 is not the exception. When Paul meant slavery,he used douloo. When he meant the marriage bond, he used deo. It is just that simple.

Brother Knapp writes that if there is not agreement among the Greek scholars on "bondage," why don't they look up the Greek for "departeth."Well, brother Knapp, they have and you quoted oneby the name of Thayer. (The Greek word is chorizo, brother, and not "korizo.") Thayer says: "to leave a husband or wife: of divorce, I Cor. 7:11, 15" (p. 674).Arndt-Gingrich state: "separate (oneself), be separated of divorce" (p. 898).

But what brother Knapp fails to see is that a divorce in the Bible is not always a loosing of themarriage bond. The word chorizo (separate, divorce)in I Cor. 7:15 is the same word in I Cor. 7:10-11. In verse 10 the wife is told not to depart (separate,divorce) from her husband, but if she does depart (v.11), let her remain unmarried. Is the wife freed or loosed from her husband in verses 10-11? Remember,Paul uses the same word in these verses as he does in

v. 15. And, brother Knapp suggests that they are DIVORCED (not bound) in v. 15. Logic would require the same interpretation in verses 10-11. So, according to Knapp's reasoning, a believer desertinga believer is also grounds for remarriage. But Paul says the deserter is to remain unmarried.

The Bible teaches a man and a woman may bemarried, but not bound. Compare Mk. 6:17 of Herod and Herodias. Romans 7:2-3 shows us that a woman might marry another while bound to her living husband. The marriage is adulterous, but nevertheless, it is called a "marriage." The Bible uses marriage and divorce sometimes in an accommodative sense. We could say that God accomodatively acknowledges all marriages, but Hedoes not sanction and approve all marriages. God onlyapproves those marriages that are joined together byHim through His Will. Also, God may accomodatively acknowledge a divorce, but that does not mean He has sanctioned it or loosed the bond of the couple involved in the divorce.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are only two reasons,biblically, for remarriage: (1) Death (Rom. 7:2-3) and

(2) Fornication (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). May we respectwhat the Bible teaches on this matter, as well as allother subjects, and have the courage to stand on ourconviction.

REMINISCENCE of W.A. CAMERON (No. 1)

(Author's Note: William Alan Cameron, about whom these lines are written, is the great uncle of thewriter. Upon the death of his first wife, Maude, hecourted and married the youngest sister of my paternal grandmother, Alberta Westbrook. Sis. Cameron now makes her home with her daughter andson-in-law, Mary and Bob Stoner, living at 6164 34thAve. N., St. Petersburg, Fla. 33710. On January 5,1980 she was 96 years old. It is my hope these lineswill bring fond remembrance of her as well as Uncle"Billy" and cause our readers, their friends and oursalike, in remembering a faithful and valiant preacherof yesteryear to resolve to serve more diligently thatwe may be numbered together finally. Like Abel ofold, bro. Cameron "being dead, yet speaketh.")

Mr. W. A. Cameron

4761 1st Avenue North

St. Petersburg, Fla.

(last earthly address)

Dear Uncle Billy,

It has been a long time since we corresponded, infact about 25 years. Even so, I remember clearlymany of the things about which you wrote over the years. The observations about your own life as a preacher and the advice given to me as a young preacher continues to benefit.

No doubt jet age preachers of today would find ithard to appreciate the extent of your travels. In factsome of the records are amazing, over 30,000 milesbefore 1907 preaching and teaching is enviable eventoday. Had the people of Stockton, Georgia known the son born on that Sunday, August 14, 1870, wasto preach the gospel of Christ for more than 60 yearsno doubt they would have to a man acclaimed the event.

Uncle Billy, I never told you this, but I havealways admired you above all other of my kinsmen,taking what I hope is understandable pride in youraccomplishments to the glory of God. True we were always separated by a number of years, you being 55 years my senior, and by many miles most of the time, yet the gospel formed a bond which spannedboth the time and distance. Your letters alwaysreflected that closeness and appreciation and meantand continue to mean much as I struggle in faith and hope.

Reminiscing from 1980 back to 1892 spans almost

100 years. The coming of F. B. Srygley to Valdosta,

Ga. will no doubt ever be a red letter day in your life.

I would like to have heard bro. Srygley preach since

reading of him is so stirring. He surely must have a

place in history's hall of fame as one of the truly

great gospel preachers. What a memorable day,

March 2, 1892, as we mark the date upon which you

and your wife were baptized for the remission of sins.

I can almost hear that confession, "I believe Jesus

Christ to be the Son of God," as you go down into

the water to be buried by bro. E. J. Griffen. You set

an admirable example, one which many today would

do well to follow, speaking at prayer meeting that

very night. Why Uncle Billy, we have men in the

church today who have been members for years and

they have yet to even wait on the Lord's table or lead

prayer, let alone speak on Wednesday night or any

other time for that matter. How do you explain that?

Is it a lack of faith and commitment or just plain

laziness?

I guess times haven't changed all that much whenwe consider the preacher's need to sustain himself and provide a living for his family. You mentioned tome the frequent need to work with your hands all thewhile preaching wherever and whenever you could.Paul is remembered as a tent maker. In your casethere are many secular activities to be remembered,railroad man, undertaker, embalmer, furniture shop operator, specializing in repair and re-finishing and perhaps some things I can't recall. All of which go toillustrate the desire to preach will not be thwartedeven though the practical demands of life have to besatisfied in other ways. Times of inflation such as inour day may very well necessitate preachers workingwith their hands at other jobs to provide adequateliving where brethren among whom they labor cannotor will not provide. Such now as with you does proveto be a deterrent to the potential good that might bedone but need not be a barrier.

Some 25 years or so back when I wrote you foradvice about entering full time preaching work youreflected upon your own decision to do the same in1901. I have always appreciated the practical, down to earth, observations and picture you at that timepresented to me. One who has walked in the valleysand climbed upon the mountainside always has something worthwhile to share with those who willlisten. You mentioned early years when brethren paid you less than $20 for the entire year ofpreaching efforts, remembering times when returninghome broke you would have to borrow and/or goimmediately to work to earn enough to buy food foryour family. And then, there were the mountainsides,those moments of brightness produced when the power of truth was recalled and goodly numbers obeyed the gospel call. Thanks for the honest appraisal which enables me even today to recognize that the Lord's work as I engage in it is much the same as it was with you, both valleys and mountainsides, disappointments and joys.

(to be continued)

JESUS OUR EXAMPLE: HOW JESUS DEALT WITH PERSONS

Our English word "person" is from the Latin "persona," and originally meant an actor's mask. It came to mean the taking on of a character and later,a person, one who has assumed his own role in life;one who becomes a distinctive individual. The Bible states the principle of life graphically in Genesis 2:7,"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath oflife." God affirms that he is a person in his magnificent statement in Exodus 3:14, "I AM THATI AM."

Jesus and Persons

Jesus was a person. He was a distinct entity, an individual just like every other person. He was possessed of very personal traits and characteristicswhich made up his own personality. Furthermore, Jesus, who before had been God, became a person inorder to save persons (Phil. 2:5-ff; Jno. 18:37, etc)The reason? God so regarded the dignity of being that he determined in his own mind to save and preserve it (Eph. 3:10-11; Jno. 3:16). Such concern isradiated in Christ's estimate of the soul. He asks,"What shall a man be profited if he shall gain thewhole world and lose his own soul. Or what shall he give in exchange for his soul?" (Matt. 16:26) The word "soul" as here used has to do with the life principle, the being of man. He further illustrates hisregard for that being in the enormous price he willingly paid for man's redemption. Hebrews 2:9 says, "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lowerthan the angels for the suffering of death, crownedwith glory and honor; that he by the grace of Godshould taste death for every man" (Cf. Lk. 19:10; I Jno. 3:16; Jno. 10:17-18).

A further demonstration of his respect for livingand his regard for life is seen in the lessons he taught. He stressed the motive, not just the act. Heshowed the value of purity of life over popularity or power. He showed that the heavenly provision wasmore to be coveted than worldly accumulations. Allof his instruction shows how highly he regarded lifeand the state of being. We would do well to remember such teachings and to apply them to ourlives.

Jesus and His Family

Jesus dealt with all manner of persons from almost

every walk of life. He dealt with the rich and the

poor, the educated and the illiterate, the highly

respected and the debased, those who were good and

those who were evil.

His dealings with his family are characterized by

love and concern. Little is said about his early family

life, especially that period between adolescence and

the beginning of his personal ministry. But all that is

said about his life with his family attests to the

constancy of his love, the consistency of his care, the

never-ending devotion he had for his family. He

obviously loved them very much. However, while his

affection for his Mother is shown clearly in his

provision for her at his death (Jno. 19:25-27), still he

had already shown early in his life that his family

should not seek to detract from his heavenly mission

(Lk. 2:48-50), a fact reiterated early in his personal

ministry (Mk. 3:31-35).

Jesus and His Friends

Jesus had friends (Jno. 11:11). He loved his friends. Such love is shown in his constant association with a host of companions. There are fewinstances recorded in his life when he was not in the presence of those whom he loved; he was constantlysurrounded by those who loved him. He was truly a friend to man. His affection for his friends is illustrated in the statement of those who observed his conduct at the tomb of Lazarus. Said they, "Beholdhow he loved him!" He lovingly trusted his friends,even committing the care of his Mother to his friendat his death (Jno. 19:27).

Jesus always treated his friends fairly, honestly.He encouraged them when they were deserving and itwas appropriate (Matt. 16:17-18). He rebuked them when it was necessary (Lk. 22:31). His actions toward his friends were always characterized by courtesy, consideration, humility, and genuine kindness.

His patience with his friends is wonderful to observe. It is beautifully seen in his dealings with John the Baptist, the personal harbinger of his new kingdom. He never loses his confidence in and respect for this great friend, even though it seems that John had lost his confidence in him as the Messiah. He is not cross, nor impatient, nor is his answer acrimonious to John when he has been asked if he is truly the Anointed One. Rather, in an open show of patience and love, he says of John, "ofman born of woman, there hath not risen a greater" (Matt. 11:11).

His loving, fair, compassionate, benign, and patient attitude toward his friends is certainly worthyof our careful consideration and emulation.

Jesus and His Enemies

Jesus could not have taught the revolutionaryprinciples of the new kingdom without disquieting and disconcerting some people. He found some who opposed him; he made some enemies. The principlethat "all who live godly in Christ Jesus shall sufferpersecution" was first proven in the life of Jesus himself (II Tim. 3:12). And yet his attitude toward those who sought his demise is absolutely astounding! True, he unashamedly admitted to their existence; rebuked them openly concerning their

Page 9

hypocrisy; showed their iniquity in promoting their own traditions above the laws of God; even drovethem out of the Temple, lashing out at their makingof merchandise in the house of God. And through itall, he never stopped loving them! It is he who said,"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them thatdespitefully use you (Matt. 5:44). And while he realized that he could not convert them all (Matt.23:37), he sought after a reconciliation until justseconds before his death. Those Pentecostians, whohad before slain him and nailed him to the cross at Golgotha, must have been impressed as his bleedingheart cried out selflessly, "Father, forgive them, forthey know not what they do." These same Pentocostians were to come to be his devoted followers,an open demonstration of the principles of truth heapplied to his relationship to his enemies. Such a disposition toward those who would alignthemselves against us today is recommended for usby him who illustrated it so perfectly in his life (Col. 3:13; Eph. 4:32; Rom. 13:17-21). What a Saviour!

The Methods of Jesus

The methodology of Jesus in his dealings with persons is worth our serious consideration. It is obviously the best. His attitude toward all with whom he had any dealing was of the most sublimesort, no matter the station in life of that person, nor matter the kind of relationship he had with them. Icall to your attention several things that impress megreatly about Jesus and his handling of persons.

First, he recognized individual differences in persons. He teaches this fact in the parable of thetalents and he amplifies it in his actions as he dealswith all manner of persons. His handling of suchdiverse personalities as the woman at the well, Nicodemus, Zacchaeus, the rich young ruler, theMother of the sons of Zebedee, and a host of others allshow how he regarded and appreciated the distinctiveness of their personalities and how he adapted histeachings to appeal to these differences in every situation. Can we not learn from his example?

Secondly, he recognized that before he could demand self control from his disciples, he must firstbecome its illustrator himself. I read once that "admiration precedes imitation." Jesus pays his respect for this principle in his dealings with people.He believed it! Thus, his temptation in the wilderness, his washing of this disciples feet, even hisdeath at Calvary. His life was the very picture of everything he enjoined in his teachings. He constantly showed his contemporaries his teachings ina well-regulated life. We should certainly deal with ourpeers in the same way he did.

Thirdly, he recognized the need for impartiality. Itwas said of him that he "regardest not the person ofmen" (Matt. 22:16). He treated all men as important.Never was there a withholding of the truth out ofrespect for a friendship or because of a person's standing. And never does the record speak of hishaving overly applied the punitive part of the truth to one considered to be his enemy. He loved the truth; he loved men. And never once did he align them against one another. What an example of anunbiased mind! We should follow his pattern.

And he recognized the effectivity of education asopposed to coercion as the tool for change (Jno. 8:32;II Tim. 2:2). True, his work was revolutionary, hismission calculated to disrupt and change. But he recognized that changing the mind is necessary beforethe changing of the actions will take place. We, eventoday, are often guilty of seeking to force truth (evenwith our subtle verbal assaults!) without givingproper time for its recipient to contemplate it, decideabout it, and observe its effectiveness through anapplication to his life. Jesus did not seek to "forcefeed" his hearers, but brought them alongconfidently, carefully, lovingly, so as to give themsufficient time to assimilate the truth and to observe its beauty as it worked in their lives. We can gaingreat good from copying such a noble example!

Jesus Our Example

Jesus' dealings with people was flawless. There canbe no better pattern to regulate our contact withother persons than that given by the lowly man of Galilee, Jesus. "To whom (else) shall we go?" (Jno. 6:68). Whose attitude was ever better? Whose teachings were more perfectly applied to the situation? Whose ideals were ever more noble, whosemission higher? And whose promises were ever moresure? Truly, "he the great example is, and pattern forme."

From the previous article we noted that in thegreat eighth chapter of Romans there stems forth twoimportant words which constitute the whole train of thought: "children," and "heirs."

The Spirit Himself bears witness with ourspirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow-heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer withHim in order that we may also be glorifiedwith Him, vs. 16-17.

It would seem that the word "children" is used to represent the position of a child as such, signifyingwhat is to be expected from him in that regard. Theword "heirs" is used to convey the position of a childin the family, denoting the blessings received. Wesaw that God expects from His children a Spiritual Life, Spiritual Walk, Spiritual Mind, Spiritual Growth, and Spiritual Talk in order to have a Spiritual Adoption. In a moment the blessings received as "heirs" will be considered.

It should be pointed out just here, that we CANknow whether or not we are children of God by thetwo tests here given (vs. 16-17). First, Paul says weCAN know if "the Spirit bears witness with our spirit." We understand from this that two spirits areunder consideration: (1) the Holy Spirit, and (2) ourown spirit, and that the two must agree. However,the pertinent question often asked is, "How does theHoly Spirit bear witness with our spirit?" From this eighth chapter we know that the Holy Spirit bearswitness the same as He (1) indwells (vs. 11), and (2) leads (vs. 14). Yet, how is this accomplished? Frompassages such as 1 Jno. 5:6-7; John 6:63; 17:17; 2Tim. 2:15 and a multitude of others it my convictionthat the Holy Spirit bears witness with our spiritTHROUGH THE WORD! We see also that the two must agree. You can't have the feeling (emotion)without the Spirit (reason), nor can you have theSpirit (reason) without the feeling (emotion). The twoMUST agree and when they do Paul says you CANknow that you are a child of God. Second, he affirmswe CAN know "if we suffer with Him," (vs. 17). Oursonship is made conditional upon our willingness tosuffer. Being so Paul says we CAN know "we are children, and if children, heirs also."

Heirs of God (vs. 17)

First as a member of God's family we receive a family discipline, vs. 18. To compare the sufferingsencountered here with the future glories is but an exercise in futility. The apostle himself left his familytradition, reputation, prominence — FOR WHAT? Suffering! The other apostles left everything to follow Christ — FOR WHAT? Suffering! Christ leftthe glories of heaven — FOR WHAT? Suffering!What about you and me? Choosing Christ often timesinvolves many losses and sacrifices — FOR WHAT? Suffering! Now let us pose the question — "Is itworth it?" "Is it worth it Paul?"

"For I consider that the sufferings of this

present time are not worthy to be compared

with the glory that is to be revealed to us"

(vs. 18).

"Is it worth it Peter?"

"... share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing; so that also at the revelation of Hisglory, you may rejoice with exaltation" (1 Pet. 4:13).

"Is it worth it Lord?"

"Blessed are those who have been persecuted

for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the

kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:10).

Yes, my friend it is worth it! We may not understandit all but it is all accomplished in order to disciplineand purify our souls and make us long for the "citywhich is to come."

Second, as heirs of God we receive a family freedom, vs. 19-25. This is admittedly a difficult

section of scripture. There are apparently two

creations under discussion in these verses: (1) the

"creation" (vs. 19, 21), and (2) the "whole creation"

(vs. 22). Understanding that the church is the

"new creation" of Christ (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:15)

the passage is made clearer. It would seem that the

"creation" would have reference to the church, while

the "whole creation" would refer to all humanity.

What is the point? Paul is simply writing to

encourage the Christian who is experiencing suffering

telling him that he is not alone for not just the

Christian but all humanity is subject to suffering,

death and decay. Yet. Paul says that they suffer

("whole creation") and have no hope. You suffer (the

Christian) and do have hope. Now we are under the

bondage of suffering and because of such we groan.

But soon we will be set FREE as we obtain our

"adoption as sons, the redemption of our body," and

"as we long for the day when with Him we shall be

glorified." What a beautiful picture of hope is painted

in these verses for the child of God.

As heirs of God we also receive a family harmony,vs. 26-28. This too is a difficult section of scripturebut it's difficulty should not detour us from a carefulstudy. It is the belief of this writer that the human spirit and not the Holy Spirit is under consideration in verses 26-27. The point being thatour spirit expresses feelings that we may contain,but that words cannot properly express, to Christ whointercedes for us (vs. 34). And what a comforting thought is to be found in verse 28, wherein "all things" work together for our good. What are the"all things" under consideration? Remaining incontext we see from previous verses that Paul speaksof the groanings and sufferings of this life. All of ourafflictions, trials, persecutions and sufferings work together for our good (salvation). How so? Theyteach us the truth about our transitory condition andin doing so help us to look to God for support and toheaven as our home. This is a blessing we have (1) ifwe love God (John 14:21; 1 John 5:3; 2 John 6), and

(2) if we are called according to His purpose. What isHis purpose? Simply, to save all who want to be saved. What is His call? The gospel of Christ:

"And it was for this He called you through

our gospel, that you may gain the glory of

our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess. 2:14).

Thus, those who answer His call are the called (2

Tim. 1:9-10).

Paul furthermore proclaims that as heirs there is granted unto us a family likeness (vs 29). Beingpredestined according to the gospel, and in obeyingthat gospel, we are conformed to the image of HisSon. In the human family there is often no likenessamong children — but not so with God's family for all will have the likeness of the Son. Paul declares that when we are baptized we "arise to walk in a newnessof life," requiring a continuous walk in the steps ofthe Savior. He is our example in life, in death, yea even in all things. May we follow His example andsubscribe to His teaching.

Next we see that as heirs we inherit a family

Page 11

security (vs. 30-39). Realizing that it is by the gospelthat we are predestined and by the gospel that we arecalled, we see that we are also "justified" (forgiven)and "glorified" (eternal life). However, can we ever lose our salvation once attained? Notice that God won't take it from you (vs. 33), Christ won't take it from you (vs. 34), and all these externals can't remove this great blessing from your grasp. There isonly one way that you can lose eternal life and that isif YOU lose it. It cannot be lost externally, only internally. For you see, YOU can refuse to bearwitness with the Spirit (vs. 16), and thus lose eternallife. YOU can refuse to suffer (vs. 17), and thus loseeternal life. Finally, YOU can refuse to love God (vs.28), and thus lose your salvation. And who is to blame? No one but yourself. However, if you remainfaithful and true to Him who has called you then thecomforting security, pictured in a chapter that beginsand ends with security, is yours. And in times of despair, trouble and distress to read that, "if God isfor us, who can be against us?" is truly a blessing without price.

Romans 8 is a predominant passage used by thosewho follow the persuasion of John Calvin to prove (?)their erroneous doctrine. Yet, here in the very passage used to uphold Calvinism we see it destroyed. Romans 8 destroys Inherited Depravity inverse 3. Romans 8 destroys Unconditional Election inverse 28 when coupled with 2 Thess. 2:14 and 2 Tim.1:9-10. And Romans 8 destroys the doctrine of thePerseverance of the Saints (verses 16-17, 28, 30-39).

Finally, back in verse 17 Paul assures us that asheirs we have the right to lay claim to our familyreward. It is such a reward that refuses comparisonand denies cataloging. Paul tried to catalogue the inheritance in 1 Cor. 3:21-23 but found that such was an impossible task. For you see, after this veil oftears has been trodden we will have a new dwellingplace, a new body, and a new home. There will be notears, no death, no mourning, and no decay. There will be no light needed, for God will be the illumination. And yet perhaps the greatest expectation for which we await is that we will be "heirs of God." We will inherit the presence of God.And we will reign with Him forever and ever for "weare His children; and as children, heirs also."

It has been 2 years since my father, James P.

Miller, passed away and just now I finished

unpacking 8 cardboard boxes of his books. As I

began the task of unpacking them, it was an

experience that for a few moments I would like to

share with you. It was somewhat of a surprise to see

what was in each box when I opened it. I do not

remember what was packed in them, or even if I

helped pack most of them at his death. Most of the

books were in terrible condition. They were all old to

begin with, and after journeying around the country

during all his preaching years, each move had taken

its toll. They had been stored away in damp,

mildewed rooms for some time. Everything he had

worked with was in these 8 boxes. Of course, there

should have been more, but not only the moving had

measured its toll, so had the borrowing brethren. One

young preacher called my mother some time ago to

say that he had "borrowed" over 20 volumes of dad's

books without asking. Confession is fine, but as yet

we have not received any of them back.

Therefore, most of the books which were left were

either in too poor a condition for people to be

interested in, or were just personal notes and papers.

And, concerning the notes and papers, there were

reams of them: Debate notes with everyone ranging

from baptism to the institutional question. Folder

after folder of poorly typed pages full of misspelled

words made up most of the eight cardboard boxes.As I piled them out on a big table, it was sad tofeel that these pages did not represent hours, hoursand hours of work, but the work of a life time! The product of a life time of study, teaching, and preaching piled up on a table from 8 cardboard boxes.Work done in Philadelphia, sermons preached in Akron, debates held all over the country, now mildewed, torn, disorganized and packed in 8 cardboard boxes. Were they important? To him theywere more than important. They were his life! Other than my mother and myself, there was no other lifefor him. Yet, that which was his life, shipped, packedand unpacked, pilfered through, and waiting for some2 years before I could even get a place to put it, hasnow come to light again. But for how long? It would be too long until I will have to fold the tents here inOrlando and go somewhere else, and from the looksof these books, most of them won't make another move. Precious to him? Yes. A life of work? Yes. Packed in 8 cardboard boxes. As the early morning thought began to clear, it became more and more apparent that really these 8boxes were not the product of his life. The product ofhis life was not tangible or material in any sense, andhe would be ashamed of me for thinking it to be.That was the one point upon which I was raised toknow better! The produce of his life was not the books, the papers, the notes, or the file folders, butthe Gospel of my Lord sown in the hearts of men!What he left could not be contained in 8 cardboard boxes, or in a million cardboard boxes. What he left were the hearts of men who worshiped the Lord, because his only goal in life was to preach to themJesus Christ and Him crucified.

So be it, brethren. life is not the abundance of what we have or what we leave materially for others.He left no fortune, not even enough for a widow tolive on in today's world, but he did leave more than 8cardboard boxes worth of souls for the harvest. Will we do as well?

"NOT LIKE A HEN AFTER A HAWK"

On December 7, 1862, the venerable Jacob Creath,Jr., delivered a sermon to his home congregation atPalmyra, Missouri, on proper behavior in worship. It was designed to teach the brethren how to conductthemselves in their religious assemblies. The lessonwas based on 1 Timothy 3:14-16, and a line from thePsalms: "Holiness becometh thy house, O Lord, forever."

After speaking of sacred places, persons, andthings mentioned in the Bible, Creath proceeded togive several rules that, in his sage judgment, should be observed at all times by Christian worshipers.Some of these are interesting because of their archaicquaintness, while others simply remind us that somequestionable attitudes have been around for a longtime. Here are the rules he specified:

"1. All persons who go to a place of worship shouldreligiously and conscientiously endeavor to be in theplace before the service begins....

"2. It is expected of all orderly persons that theywill approach the place of worship in a becoming manner, seriously and soberly, not laughing nor joking, not boisterously, but sedately, as though theyhad some knowledge of the Being they are going toworship.

"3. After entering the place of worship, and beingseated, there should be no talking or laughing, norwhispering, as though we had come there for chitchat, or to hear and report all the news of the weekpast, and like we had met in a ballroom or a theater,instead of a place of worship . . . . No wonder, then (the worshipers) return as they came, without benefit,

full of levity and frolic, as if they had been to a circus

or a horse race.

"4. When the benediction is pronounced, we should

retire silently and orderly, not fly up like a hen after

a hawk when he has taken off one of her chickens,

and thereby shake off every impression made by the

sermon as effectively as ducks shake off the rain that

falls on them .... Meeting houses were not built for

chit-chat, but for the instruction, devotion, prayer,

praise, worship, reading the Scriptures, and

preaching ....

"5. No well bred persons will carry their dogs to

places of worship. Even the heathens would not allow

dogs to enter their temples .... No persons of good

manners will carry cigars or pipes near a place of

worship, much less stand in the door or in the house

and puff them. This marks the person a rowdy. No

orderly person will whittle sticks or pare his nails

with a knife during the hours of worship; nor chew

tobacco, nor spit the ambier juice on the floor, or

walls, or pulpit . . . nor sleep during preaching." P.

Donan, Memoir of Jacob Creath, Jr., pp. 183-187.)

If the citing of these rules by Creath presupposesirreverent behavior on the part of some brethren morethan a century ago, then it seems that very littleimprovement has been made in this department inthe intervening years; we still have a lot of irreverentbehavior, in my opinion. Of course, a few reformshave come to pass: Most brethren leave their dogs athome these days (or frequently stay there with them,in some cases); there is hardly ever any spitting ofambier juice on the floor, walls, and pulpit any more; and whittling is now almost a lost craft, in or out ofthe services.

But whatever slack has been left by the passing ofthese old customs has been more than taken up bychewing gum, nail clippers, and uncontrolled children. Even preachers sometimes help take up theslack. Some have become skilled in preventing the "seriousness and soberness" of the worship frombecoming too burdensome on the brethren by keepingthem tittering on the brink of hilarity with a procession of stale jokes, or "one-liners" tossed outat stated intervals with the dexterity of a stand-upcomic on a TV talk show, and with no apparent redeeming social value other than to keep the audience awake and happy and the speaker popular.

One thing can be said about our brethren: Some ofus will simply not be outdone by spiritual refinement.

QUESTION: If one of a family has been

disfellowshiped (1 Cor. 5:11), what should be done in

view of the prohibition "no not to eat," if when

the church has a get-together after services, the

withdrawn attends and eats? Please explain. —T.G.C.

ANSWER: Perhaps a few observations on the

verse in question will be in order before answering the

above question. I believe that our querist is right in

applying the expression "no not to eat" to that which

is done on a social basis. Some think that it refers to

the Lord's Supper. However, verses nine and ten

show that the "company" which Christians are not to

keep, and which includes the prohibition "no not to

eat," is that permitted and frequently kept with the

world. Therefore, the "company" (including the

eating) under consideration is social.

I suppose that our querist means by "when the

church has a get-together after services" that the "get

together" is arranged for and provided by an

individual or individuals of the church and not by the

church as such. Such social functions are no part of

the mission of the church. However right and needful

such may be for individuals, it is not a responsibility

of the church. This, however, is another issue and

involves a study of the mission of the church.

In the light of 1 Cor. 5, both the church and theindividual Christian have a duty toward the brotherin question. The church is not under obligation topolice its assemblies. The person in question mayenter the building, listen, study, sing—even partakeof the Lord's Supper, but not with the endorsementof the church. No doubt, this is the reason for thepublic action of verses four and five. The publicannouncement serves to mark such an one as beingwithout church approval.

If the invitation to the social "get-together" were extended on the basis of a public announcement or topeople in general, there would be no obligation topolice the "get-together" or the functions thereof. The person in question may attend and participate,but such would not necessarily imply social acceptance or endorsement of his spiritual condition.Such association, however, should be on a limitedbasis and as much as possible of the nature of admonishing him as a brother (2 Thess. 3:6, 15). If,however, the disfellowshiped brother attended a social"get-together" of Christians on the basis of a personal invitation, then the responsibility for hisparticipation falls on the Christian or Christians whoarranged for such, and who have thereby violated 1 Cor. 5:9-11. I would not knowingly attend such orshare in that which implies endorsement of the guilty—either the disfellowshiped or those responsiblefor his presence.

If Christians were more careful to practice thesocial ostracism demanded in 1 Cor. 5:11, many moreof the disfellowshiped would be moved to turn untothe Lord and seek not only His favor but also thefellowship of saints. Unfortunately, some allow personal feelings and sentiment to thwart the divineobjective (1 Cor. 5:5).

I think it wise to add that I do not hold that the husband and wife, parent and child relationships orthat of relatives fall into the category of the"company" under consideration. Such relationships donot imply social acceptance or rejection. Duties prevail here regardless.

The brothers of Joseph were in a dilemma. Theyhad sold their innocent brother into slavery, and nowthat the cruel deed was done, they had to in someway cleverly disguise their evil deed. Fearing theirfather's wrath should he discover what they had doneto his beloved son, they felt it necessary to distortthe truth. They would feign concern over their brother's welfare, and deceive their father into believing a lie. The inspired details of their plan canbe found in the book of Genesis chapter thirty seven.

In short, Joseph's coat was taken and dipped inthe blood of an he-goat so it would appear he hadbeen killed. The brothers then proceeded to ask Jacob(supposedly in all innocence), "This we have found;know not whether it is thy son's coat or not" (Gen37:32)? Jacob fell for their deception and concludedthat "an evil beast hath devoured him, Joseph iswithout doubt (emphasis mine BH) torn in pieces." How unfortunate. Jacob made the sometimes fatal mistake of making a decision before all the evidencewas in. He accepted the story as a definite truth onthe basis of flimsy evidence. Perhaps the reason whyhe accepted it so readily was because he was blindedby the love he had for his sons and did not want toquestion their sincerity. Whatever the reason, heaccepted it as truth and emotionally reacted. NoticeGen. 37:34. "And Jacob rent his garments, and putsackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his sonmany days." So great was his grief that all his sonsand daughters could not comfort him for "he refusedto be comforted and he said, For I will go down toSheol to my son mourning, and his father wept forhim" (Gen 37:35).

For years and years Jacob held remorse in hisheart over his son and was apparently emotionallyupset, not because Joseph was really dead, but because he thought he was dead. Jacob had been

deceived! He believed a lie and therefore reacted

emotionally as if he had actually seen Joseph torn

asunder with his own eyes. So established was this

belief that when years later his sons tried to tell him

that he was in fact alive and well in Egypt, "His

heart fainted for he believed them not" (Gen 45:26).

Interesting—he heard a lie, believed it, and reacted

emotionally and dramatically to it. Now Jacob hears

the truth, but he refuses to believe it, and

consequently, there is no emotional reaction. It was

not until "he saw the wagons that Joseph had brought

to carry him" that "the spirit of Jacob their Father

revived" (Gen 45:27). Finally, Jacob gave up his

previous false belief, accepted the truth, and reacted

appropriately.Paul said that "these things were written for our admonition" (I Cor. 10:11) and "for our learning"(Rom 15:4). What is the lesson? OUR EMOTIONAL REACTION TO A MESSAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER THAT MESSAGE WAS TRUE OR FALSE. How many people in the religious world, when error is pointed out tothem, reason— "But it can't be wrong (or false) because I felt so good when I asked the Lord into myheart, or when I began to speak in tongues, or when Isang in the choir, or played the piano," or whatever. Indoing personal work over the years I have heard them all. This example from the Old Testament demonstrates that emotions, no matter how sincere or pronounced, are not the standard by which one candetermine the truth. Just as Jacob was sincere but deceived because he did not fully investigate beforehe came to a decision, such is the case with manypeople today. And, like the brothers of Joseph,denominational teachers appear to innocent listenersto be sincere bearers of truth, but in reality cleverlydistort truth and sell their followers into the "slaveryof sin." False teachers today often feign concern fortheir listeners welfare, convincing them that they willplease their Heavenly Father by following the doctrines of men. Sadly, they will displease God by following error and therefore suffer their Father's wrath as a result. For, "Whosoever goethonward and abideth not in the teaching of Christhath not God" (II Jn 9) nor His beloved Son.

Satan is "the Deceiver of the whole world" (Rev12:7) and "a liar from the beginning" (Jn. 8:44). Andsmall wonder, what a better way to keep people fromthe word than to isolate certain passages, twist them,(as Satan did in the second temptation of Jesus inMatt 4:6), and in so doing convince the deceived thatbecause they felt so good when they believed, orbegan to practice error, they must have been right tobegin with! I believe that if one obeys, or is obeyingthe truth, he ought to feel good about it, but onlyafter he is assured that he truly has obeyed God by fervently and objectively studying the scripturesremembering that "the sum of Thy word is truth"(Ps 119:160).

Every child of God would do well to realize thatwhere feelings are exalted ignorance will prevail.Jesus said, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" (Jn 8:32). Pilate asked, "What is truth" (Mt. 18:38)? The answer is given in the gospelof John, "Sanctify thyself in truth; thy word is truth" (Jn. 17:17). The Bible teaches that the word isthe standard by which we will be judged (Jn 12:48).To claim our feelings or anything else as the standard is heresy.

The story of Jacob and Joseph demonstrates wellthe folly of emotionalism. Beware. He that standethon his emotions—take heed lest he fall!

ANSWER TO A BAPTIST PREACHER

John R. Rice is a name that most people in

religious circles recognize. The Sword of the Lord of

which he has been Editor for forty-five years, reaches

over 100,000 homes each week. Mr. Rice is in his

eighties and has long been a leader in Fundamentalist

ranks.

In the January 11, 1980 issue of The Sword of theLord there appears a lengthy letter from Mr. Rice captioned, "Answer to a Church of Christ Preacher."Space will not suffer a detailed review, but we believea few points of rebuttal are called for.

The "Church of Christ preacher" is not named and only short exchanges of his letter are quoted or referred to, so we shall not concern ourselves with what Mr. Rice said that he said. We shall look at some of the misrepresentations and false allegationsof Rice himself.

He begins by alleging that "... the church of Christ is a false cult in that, as I see it, it is wrong on the essential plan of salvation . . . the preachers have told me that I am unconverted and I am going to Hell because I have not beenbaptized by a Church of Christ preacher."

If we are indeed wrong on the essential plan ofsalvation, then we are a false cult. On the other hand, if Mr. Rice is wrong on the essential plan ofsalvation, he is a false teacher, and a member of a false cult. I for one do not believe he is unconverted because he has not been baptized by a Church ofChrist preacher. I believe he is unconverted becausehe obviously does not understand the plan of salvation. If he accepted and obeyed the truth, itwould be of no consequence who baptized him.

Salvation By Faith Only It is stated that: "He (the Lord) has plainly saidagain and again in the Bible that all who cometo Him for salvation receive it." John 6:37, "... him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" and

Romans 10:13, ". . . For whosoever shall call upon

the name of the Lord shall be saved" are given as

proof-texts.

The rich young ruler came to Jesus for salvation(Matt. 19) but did not receive it. Reason: He rejectedthe conditions that were announced. Therefore one must come in the right way, on God's terms. Callingon the name of the Lord apparently involves morethan merely believing in Christ, or praying "the sinner's prayer." Jesus said, "Not every one that sayeth unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdomof heaven, but he that doeth the will of my fatherwhich is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21).

Mr. Rice states: "I say that when a man honestlyturns from sin and trusts in Christ, he is saved.You say that, no, after he trusts in Christ, he isnot saved until he is baptized."

We know what Mr. Rice and others of his persuasion say. What we are most concerned about is what the scriptures teach. If they mention otherconditions as being essential to salvation, then one isnot saved until he submits to those conditions.

He says, "Unfortunately, any group, such as theChurch of Christ group, which adds to God's planof salvation, often confuses the issue . . ." So againand again he alleges and assumes the very point indispute. Yes, if anyone adds to what God has said,he is wrong. But one is not wrong if he teaches anddemands just what God has clearly revealed.

Mark 16:16

Mr. Rice denies that there are two conditions here. Such cannot be, according to him, for "there is onlyone condition in John 3:16, John 3:18, John 3:36,and in many, many other Scriptures . . . " We are then treated to a wonderful new rule of hermeneutics:

"Whatever God says in one verse, if there were notanother verse in the Bible, is still true and can be trusted...to make God giving different plans ofsalvation in different verses is wholly foreign to thenature of God and to the integrity of the Bible."

Well, how would that work if we applied it to Acts

22:16 which specifies baptism as essential to the washing away of sins and says nothing of faith,repentance, trust, or anything else. What if I shouldbase a doctrine of salvation by baptism only on thatverse? God, of course, does not give different plans ofsalvation in different verses. He does plainly revealdifferent conditions of salvation, each of which wemust obey.

Acts 2:38 Here we are told that "no Greek teacher in the world" thinks that Acts 2:38 means we must be baptized to be saved. This is because if "for remission of sins" meant "in order to", "it would have used the Greek word hina instead of the little Greek preposition eis. He says, "But the Greek word eis is never translated for, meaning "in order to." Even in English one is paid for work, not in order to get a man to work, but because he has worked. A lady is praised for her beauty which she alreadyhas." Mr. Rice goes on to say that eis "is an indefinite

preposition of reference and is variously translated to, for, unto, at, toward, etc. . . It has the general meaning of 'in view of,' or 'looking to,'or 'at,' or 'toward,' or 'with reference to.'"

We hate to accuse someone of handling the word ofGod deceitfully and being out and out dishonest, butsurely Mr. Rice knows that he is being less thanhonest in these matters. For starters, regardless of what "for" (eis) means in Acts 2:38, "repent" is "for" the same thing that "be baptized" is "for." There's but one "for" in the verse. If repentance is essential to remission of sins, according to this passage, so is baptism. If baptism refers to remissionof sins that have already taken place, then repentancerefers to the same thing. It is grammatically impossible for a word to have two different meanings in the single usage of the word.

Certainly the English preposition "for" sometimes means "because of." But the Greek word which means "because of is dia and it is not used in Acts

2:38.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, is probably the most monumental work ever published on NewTestament Greek. It says of eis: "More common in the N.T. is the temporal and final use in which anaction is performed or a state of affairs is maintained or sought with a view to some appointed end." It then gives Matt. 26:28 (Jesus sheds his blood for (eis) the remission of sins) and Acts 2:28 as examples.

It's truly a shame that translators and other scholars have not understood the truth (according toMr. Rice) on this matter. The English Revised Version of Acts 2:38 says "unto the remission ofsins." So does the American Standard Version. I cannot find one translation that renders the word as Mr. Rice contends it should be translated.

Galatians 3:27

A bit further on, Mr. Rice contends, "The HolySpirit used that little preposition (eis) in a similarpassage (to Gal. 3:27) in I Cor. 10:2, 'And were allbaptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.'The word into in I Cor. 10:2 is the same Greek preposition as the word into in Galatians

3:27. So if it is really literally 'baptized into Christ'in Galatians 3:27. So it is really literally 'baptizedinto Christ' in Galatians 3:27, then it must be literally 'baptized into Moses' in I Cor. 10:2."

No one that I know of maintains that one is literally put into Christ when he is baptized. I think we all understand that relationship is under consideration. Thayer observes that to be in (Greek,en) Christ or God means to be in a condition in which one "is wholly joined and to whose powerand influence he is subject, so that the formermay be likened to the place in which the latterlives and moves" (p. 211). To enter into Christ or Moses would mean to enter into that kind of relationship. I Cor. 10:1, 2 does not mean Israel merely did something with reference to Moses. Thatcould mean anything! It means, and it says quiteplainly, that they were baptized unto Moses, i.e., intoa relationship or union with him.

Acts 22:16 The most unbelievable fact of Mr. Rice's entire article is in this section. Those who have read books and articles from him in defense of the verbal inspiration of the scriptures and an inerrant Bible will stand amazed. He says, "Notice that this is a divine account of what Paul said Ananias said. But God's account of what Ananias said is given in Acts

9:17. . . In Acts 9:17, Ananias calls Paul, 'BrotherSaul'. . . Ananias called Saul brother, because hedid think Saul was saved, of course. You will notein that account that there was nothing said aboutPaul needing to be baptized to be saved. . . When the Bible says that Satan said a certainthing, then Satan said it. That does not mean that what Satan said was right. . . Paul wasa good man, and what he said he intended toreport what Ananias said rightly (sic). . . IfGod quotes a good man, the good man may betelling the truth, or he may intend to tell the truthbut not say it exactly with the detailed accuracyas if his statement was divinely inspired."

Whew!

There is very little to be said. It is pathetic to see a man who has fought for the infallibility of thesacred text as John R. Rice has, forced to such aposition. He cannot deny that the passage plainlyteaches that sins are washed away when one is baptized. But it is obvious that Mr. Rice does notbelieve Paul accurately represented what was said byAnanias. It is conclusive that Mr. Rice does not believe Paul was divinely inspired as he delivered thisspeech! Yet Jesus had promised his disciples thatthey would be inspired when they offered a defensebefore their accusers (Matt. 10:19, 20).

Let it be noted that in Acts 22:1, Paul called hisenemies "brethren." This did not mean they weresaved. They were brethren in the Jewish community.

Is it not significant that while there are twoaccounts of Ananias' conversation with Paul, Mr. Riceaccepts the one that fits his doctrine as "the divine record" and places question marks all over the other?This is a reflection of how he deals with the subjectof baptism all along.

He, and other Baptists, base their doctrine of salvation by faith only upon those scriptures thatmention only faith. Then they reject the passagesthat demand baptism by reasoning: "These do not mean what they say, else they would contradict theseother passages."

But the only thing they contradict is Mr. Rice's doctrine. There is no contradiction between faith and baptism. They are both necessary for salvation.

It is axiomatic that nothing produces nothing: wecannot get from something a thing that is not there.Everything in our experience comes from a source possessing the same qualities as the thing that isreproduced: e.g., animal life comes only from otheranimal life, and oak trees come only from other oaktrees. It is impossible to get oaks from cows orkittens from lumps of coal. All admit these facts innature, but many deny them in explaining our world's origin.

Order in our universe could not have come from disorder, for chaos has no capacity for orderliness.Intelligence could not possibly have sprung from senseless, non-intelligent matter. Reason was not born from gases and chemicals with no capacity forlogic. While these facts should be self-evident, many"intelligent" persons deny them in an effort to deny the work of an intelligent, orderly, reasoning, life-giving God who made the world and all that is in it.

Life comes only from a life-source; whateverproduces life must have the capacity of life withinitself. Seeing human life with its myriad qualities ofpersonality (reason, will, emotion, aesthetic sense,etc.), which distinguish it from all other forms of life,how can one logically believe that these came fromnon-living, non-personal sources?

And what source is sufficient to explain man's innate sense of morality? Does the plant or animalkingdom teach us right from wrong or even thatconcept? As morality is a part of our essential nature, it had to come directly from whatever caused us toexist, for something cannot come from nothing. Our "cause," then, had to possess the same characteristics imparted to us.

Seeing these exist: order, intelligence, reason, life,morality; and seeing that all exist together in everyhuman being, what source can be looked to as anadequate explanation? The only logical answer is thatof a Personality with the same attributes and withthe power to make us after His own image: thatPersonality and Creator we know as the God of theBible.

SEND NEWS ITEMS TO WILSON ADAMS

Beginning with the April issue this column will be writteneach month by: Wilson Adams, 317 Trinkle Avenue, N. E.,Roanoke, VA 24012. Send all news items to him. If he is not on your bulletin or newsletter mailing list, please add him to your list. Others are interested in the work whereyou live and would be edified by knowing of your progress.Wilson Adams preaches for the Georgia Avenue Church inRoanoke, Virginia and is the son of the editor. We appreciate his help with the paper and look forward to thenews columns he will submit each month.

NEW CONGREGATION IN ELIZABETHTOWN, KENTUCKYTERRY GREEN, Elizabethtown, KY — A new work for the Lord has begun in Elizabethtown. We will be temporarilymeeting in the building of the Opportunity Workshop on CollegeStreet. This is within two minutes of I-65. Exit on the Hodgenville/Western Kentucky Parkway off-ramp. Take "By-PassNorth" (Exit 136). Exit on Hwy. 62 and go left to the first light,which is College St. Turn left and you will find the building oneblock on the right. We meet at 9:30 and 10:30 AM and 6 PM onSundays and at 7:30 PM Wednesdays. If you plan to visit theLincoln Jamboree, or should just be passing through, encourage the work by your presence. If any help is needed call me at 3589459 or Ron Jackson at 737-8379.

NEW CONGREGATION IN FULTON, KENTUCKY ALFRED E. SHANNON, 315 East State Line, Fulton, KY — A small group of sound Christians is meeting in our home atthe above address in Fulton. On Sundays we meet at 10 and 11AM

and 7 PM. On Wednesdays we meet at 7:00 PM. If you arevisiting in this area we welcome you to worship with us. Tellfriends and relatives in this area about us. If we can serve you,feel free to call us at 901-479-3969.

INFORMATION SOUGHT ON CHURCHES IN NEW

JERSEY BOB AND DOT PRICE, 5004 Smith Farm Rd., Virginia Beach,VA 23455 — We are seeking to locate a sound congregation in theBridgeton, Salem, Malaga, Shilow or Millville area of New Jersey.Also in the Middtown, New York area. If any reader knows offaithful brethren meeting in any of these places or nearby, pleasecontact us at the above address.

PREACHER MOVING JOE F. NELSON, P.O. Box 2092, Pascagoula, MS 39567 — I willfinish my work here this spring when school is out. Since cominghere several have obeyed the gospel and several have beenrestored to their first love. If any working congregation isinterested in my services they may reach me at the above address.

WIDOWS OF TWO FILIPINO PREACHERS NEED HELP

Within the past few months the work in Mindanao, Philippines has suffered heavy loss in the deaths of two giants inthe faith. I speak of Ruben C. Notarte and of Romulo B. Agduma.Brother Notarte's illness accumulated a number of medical bills which the family is struggling to pay off in installments. Times are very hard now for sister Notarte. It should also be noted that Ramona Agduma, the widow of Romulo B. Agduma, is now besetwith similar debts occasioned by the funeral expenses for her latehusband. Both of these widows are determined to continue their own work of teaching the word of God to women and children.

Their maturity and experience in this work and as faithful Page 18

companions to such outstanding men well equip them for doingmuch good. These families have stretched themselves beyond measure time and time again in helping the needy among their Filipino brethren and in extending the most gracious hospitalitytoward American brethren who have visited that nation. Manybrethren in this country have had a strong interest in the workover there for many years and we are confident that we have butto let it be known of the plight of these godly sisters to see thatthe need is met. You may write them as follows: Mrs. Ruben C.Notarte, Bansalan, Davao del Sur 9503, Republic of the Philippines; and Mrs. Ramona S. Agduma, Kidapawan, North Cotabato 9323, Republic of the Philippines. (Editor).

RETIRING FROM INDUSTRY TO PREACH

BILL L. BENGE, 87 Plass Road, Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 — I am retiring from industry with the intent to devote the rest of my lifeto full time teaching and preaching. Is there some small spot inthe vineyard that I might help? I will not require a salary but housing would be needed. If interested, write to the above addressor call 914-452-3268.

J. DANN WALKER, 16324 Lassen St., Sepulveda, California 91343 — After five back operations in 32 months, and because ofthe prayers of many saints and the grace of God, I have returnedto full time preaching. Thanks to all those who prayed for me.Now let us thank God for his answer. My family and I moved toSepulveda in September 1979 to work with the church which meetson Lassen Street. Since then we have had 12 baptisms, 10 restorations and 9 identifications. We are truly glad to be back towork for the Lord in preaching and give all praise and glory to him for the fruit borne. We are just minutes from L.A., so stopby and worship with us when in the area.

W.J. PENNINGTON, GOSPEL PREACHER

April 2, 1923 — January 28-1980BARRY M. PENNINGTON, P.O. Box 726, Pinehurst, Texas 77362 — My father, W.J. Pennington, passed away after a fourmonth struggle with cancer of the liver. He was working with theCloverleaf congregation and was buried just a few blocks from themeeting house. Dee Bowman directed congregational singing. Princeton Simons, a son in the gospel to my father, read the obituary, scriptures and made appropriate comments. Bill Fairchild spoke about a time to die from Ecclesiastes 3, andWarren King, a son-in-law, gave sobering admonitions. The opening and closing prayers were led by two brothers-in-law. The entire Pennington family has been overwhelmed with manyexpressions of kindness from a host of friends and brethren. Wewill all miss him. (Editor's note: We sorrow to see another gospelpreacher lay down his armor and extend our sympathies to sisterPennington and all the family.)

DATE SET FOR THAYER STREET LECTURES The elders at Thayer Street church in Akron, Ohio announce thattheir annual Fall Lectures will be conducted September 15-18.As in the past, evening services will begin at 7:30 on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday. Morning services begin at 9:30 on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Afternoon services begin at

1:30 on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. A list of speakers and subjects will be provided later.

LOREN T. STEPHENS, 710 Meadowbrook Drive, Seymour,Indiana 47274 — The church in Seymour meets not far from I-65,midway between Louisville and Indianapolis. Many travelers stopand worship with us. In the past three years the congregationhas continued to grow, with six baptisms, twenty-three restorations and twenty identified with us. We also had thirteen people to move away in this time. Average attendance has grownfrom 70 to 82 and the contribution has grown from $284 to $370.We have been able to reduce the outside support for the preacherby $50 a week. Perhaps the most important events to occur havebeen the completion in the organization of the congregation according to God's pattern. On October 7, 1978, three men wereappointed to the office of elders: Lester Cole, Robert Deweese andmyself. Then on Feb. 17, 1980 the following three men wereappointed as deacons: Max (Tony) Anderson, Herman Norris andLarry Renfroe. There is much rejoicing with these appointments.Men who have spoken in meetings here the past three yearsinclude Del Wininger, Johnie Edwards, Raymond Harris, James E.Cooper, James Hahn, Robert Crawley, Dave Lawson, Tom Stockton, Julian Snell and Jerry Parks. We invite all travelers on I-65 or U.S. 50 to stop and worship with us. We meet justsouth of U.S. 50, on the first road west of I-65. On Sundays webegin at 9:30 AM and 6 PM and Wednesdays at 7:30 PM.

PREACHERS NEEDED INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA — The Belmont Avenue church, a long established congregation in Indianapolis, Indiana, is looking for a full time preacher with at least one year's experience. Interested preachers please call 317-634-7252 or 317298-3081.

HOBART, INDIANA — WENDALL M. POWELL, P.O. Box 275, Hobart, IN — After almost 7 years with the good churchin Hobart, my family and I are moving to Savannah, TN. Our work here will end on June 3 and begin on or around June 10 withthe Savannah Heights congregation. The work in Hobart has beena very pleasant and rewarding one. The church is in excellent unitywith brotherly love and kindness prevailing. Any faithful gospelpreacher desiring to move to Northwest Indiana should contactBob Kelley (219-942-3455), one of the fine elders of the churchhere.

BERWYN, ILLINOIS — The congregation here is seeking amature, experienced gospel preacher to begin working with usabout June, 1980. The congregation has about 100 members andis self-supporting. Donald P. Ames is the present preacher but isgoing to help establish a new work. Those interested may call 312771-1715 in the evenings from 8 - 10 P.M.

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH

BAPTISMS 381 RESTORATIONS 116 (Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)