ON BEING HUMAN

From the Denver Post Oct. 15, 1980, came thisAssociated Press Article regarding the $50,000 bribe which was accepted by Michael Myers. Audio andvideo tapes were made of meetings in which secretagents posed as aides to a bogus Arab sheik who waswilling to pay the former congressman for favors.Myers was convicted of bribery and conspiracy and was expelled from Congress. The attitude of many ofhis constituents amazes me.

"He did take the money, but that doesn't bother me," said bartender Rich Francolino. " ... if someone offered you $50,000, it would be awful hard to refuse too. I can't blame Ozzie (Myers) for being human."

Doesn't that take the cake? These days, every formof sin, crime, and ungodliness is flippantly excusedwith the line, "That's just being human!" When folkslet their tempers fly away and they tear up things,relationships, and feelings, who can blame them?They're just being human. But God's word still exhorts us to: "Be ye angry and sin not. . ." (Eph.4:26). It is natural to be angry at times, and evenneedful. But that is no excuse for sin.

People fulfill their fleshly lusts with no regard forGod, others, or even themselves beyond immediate gratifications. But we are reminded, "They're justbeing human." But our God says, ". . .abstain fromfleshly lusts, which war against the soul. . ." (1 Peter2:11).

The past few decades have produced a generation ofcovenant breakers. It is no longer the norm for a man'sword to be his bond. Even within the church we find more and more examples of undependability. While it is human to err, and sometimes, to forget, Christiansshould strive to keep their word. Jesus said, "Let yourcommunication be, Yea, yea; nay, nay: for whatsoeveris more than these cometh of evil..." (Matt. 5:37).

What the bartender called "being human," the Lordcalls "walking after the flesh" (Romans 8:1-9). Whilemost of our fellowmen may not blame us for such, let's be reminded that "...he that judgeth me is the Lord"(1 Cor. 4:4).

AND THEY WERE RIGHT

Eternity magazine (Jan. 1981) quoted the opening sentence in the New York Times story: "Atlantic City— In a campaign to stop a huge increase in crime that hasfollowed the legalization of casino gambling here, 112 persons were indicted today on burglary, theft, and narcotics charges." Eternity commented: "Before casino gambling was opened in 1978, opponents, including all the churches and many civic groups, argued that legalization would create a huge increase incrime, especially burglary, theft and narcotics."

They were right.

Gambling interests are continuing to capitalize onthe attitude that legalized gambling can provide fundswhich will relieve the growing tax burden. Yet, theliabilities of such vices always exceed the benefits.

Thomas Dewey said: "It is fundamentally immoralto encourage the belief by the people as a whole ingambling as a source of revenue. . .The entire historyof legalized gambling in this country and abroadshows that it has brought nothing but poverty, crimeand corruption, demoralization of moral and ethicalstandards, and ultimately a lower living standard and misery for all the people.''

Our Lord said, a corrupt tree can bring forth nothingbut corrupt fruit (Matt. 7:17,18).

PREMILLENNIALISM IN THE PHILIPPINES

In the late fall of 1980, Robert Boyd of Louisville,Kentucky and another American premillennial preacher visited Mindanao in the Philippines and succeeded in convincing a few preachers of their doctrine. With funding from premillennial churchesin the United States, they now have radio programson six stations, all in Mindanao, with the bulk of theireffort zeroed in on Davao City, the large and principalcity on the east coast of that large island. With theexception of one program in Davao City on which anative Filipino preaches their doctrine, the other programs are taped segments of "Words of Life", onwhich Robert Boyd preaches and which is now heard in several parts of this country and in someforeign lands.

There is evidence that this speculative false doctrineis having effect on some young, untaught preachersand some congregations made up of babes in Christwhich congregations lack adequate leadership and regular teaching. One congregation in Davao Citywhich had a building of its own, has defected to thiserror. Juanito P. Balbin, a preacher whom I haveknown now for over 10 years, lives in Davao City. He isan able preacher and a first rate debater. In 1971 whenI first visited the Philippines, the late and lamentedRomulo B. Agduma told me that brother Balbin wasthen the ablest young debater in Mindanao. A fewyears ago brother Balbin lost all his support. But henever did quit preaching. Sustaining his growingfamily the best he could, he continued to preach astime and opportunity afforded. A sister in Louisville,Kentucky has supplied him with enough funds for himto preach on the same radio station the native premillennial preacher is on, in fact, immediately afterthis man, Gesulga. He has been exposing the error ofthis system.

As a result of this, a debate was set between Balbinand Gesulga which was scheduled for October 24. Twopropositions were arranged and the plans called for 10hours of debate on that one day. Robert Boydpromised to return to the Philippines for some lecturesand to assist Gesulga in the debate. It is strange thatthe premillennial brethren in the Louisville area havebecome so sweet-spirited that they would not touch adebate there with a ten foot pole. But this man can go10,000 miles to encourage a native Filipino preacher todo what he himself would not condescend to attempt.

When some of us learned of this development, and read the appeals for teaching materials to help counteract this invading system of error, it was thought that it would be helpful to the cause andespecially a moral boost to brother Balbin if one of uscould go and not only help him before and during thedebate but also stay long enough to do some additional teaching in that area to help equipbrethren to resist this error. Ben Shropshire, DudleyRoss Spears and the writer all considered going butcould not handle the scheduling problems on suchshort notice with other commitments already made.

J.T. Smith of Miami, Florida agreed to go providedthe brethren there desired his presence. They weremost anxious for him to come and by the time you readthis his trip should have been completed. J.T. Smith and the writer made a trip together to the Philippinesin 1971 during which time J.T. debated the Filipino, Lacuata, on church benevolence and the sponsoringchurch. That debate did much good and the effects of itare still being felt in that country. It was put in printand widely circulated over that country resulting in anumber of preachers leaving liberalism and embracingthe truth. Because of his good work in this regard andother favorable impressions he created during ourmonth-long stay, he is highly respected among thosebrethren. He planned to moderate in the debate forbrother Balbin, has prepared a series of charts whichwill be made available to those attending the debate,and was to present a series of lectures on Premillennialism the week before the debate and then again the week after. As soon as we can we will carryhis report of the trip and its results.

Readers of this paper will recall that last year wecarried an exchange in this paper concerning a reportissued by two brethren who were critical of the work inthose islands and many of the men being supported topreach there. While the report was principally aimed atcurtailing excessive support and stopping support ofunworthy men, the effects have been much more extensive. In fact, there has been a serious curtailmentof support for men throughout the Philippines, a number of whom are tried and true. With their means of support cut off, they have had to spend the bulk oftheir time doing whatever they could to provide fortheir families. A number of these men had been able to establish several congregations and divided theirtime visiting each of them as often as possible toground these babes in the truth, hold training classesto help develop leaders and generally prepare them tostand alone. But now, many of these congregations are left without adequate teaching and are prime targets for premillennial wolves and other false teachers to make havoc of these flocks. It is indeed a critical time in several places in the Philippines andespecially in Mindanao where the brunt of this battle must be fought.

We are certainly not in favor of American churchessupporting any unworthy man anywhere. We are alsofully convinced that everywhere congregations areplanted in any country that they should be taught tobe self-sufficient as soon as possible. Many good menin the Philippines have embraced the truth at great personal sacrifice. Some gave up much greaterfinancial support in order to preach the gospel. Theirwork has been successful beyond imagination in manyinstances. I have a growing file of letters from oldermen who have been tested for years and who havedone outstanding work for the Lord who now havebeen cut off by supporting churches and in somecases with direct reference being made to the criticalreport which we printed and reviewed last year in thispaper. This is not being written in order to stir an old controversy but to simply report on some of the results.Much time, money and effort have been spent byAmerican brethren and native people to build thecause in the island nation. We urge brethren here whohave been supporting men there to think before dumping all those men in the same basket and assuming that they are all unworthy. Have youconsidered what is to become of congregations consisting of babes in Christ who have been established and nourished by the very men you havebeen supporting? Is that not why you supported them?

For my part, I do not believe that developing churches in that nation should be abandoned to false teachers who come with their smooth words and fair speeches to impose the yoke of sectarian bondageon unsuspecting babes. It is urgent now that faithfulmen have the necessary help to resist this threat and tohelp stabilize these churches. By all means, investigate men supported. Gather the best information youcan. Weigh it objectively. Require regular and fullreports. But don't judge all men by the ungodly conduct of the few. Brother Smith is to be commended for being willing to go and help at a critical time and so is the North Miami Ave. church for standing behind him and encouraging him in thiseffort. We anxiously await his report.

With this issue we bring to a close for the present thediscussion of the issue of "praying to Jesus" in so faras this paper is concerned. We have had letters andarticles from a number of brethren about this matter and think it necessary to state our intention regarding it. Both H.E. Phillips and Hoyt Houchenare mature, experienced preachers and writers. Bothhave been on the battle line for truth and right for all of their adult lives. They are personal friends. Both arefriends of the editor. It is my judgment that theyhave brought before our readers the strongest efforton their respective views of the subject under discussion that can be found. Both views have been adequately and fairly represented. To extend the matter and enlarge the number of articles touchingthis subject would tend to blow it out of proportionand neither the editor, nor brethren Phillips and Houchen believe this to be in the best interest of the cause. Each has researched his material carefully,presented it forcefully, been considerate and brotherlywith respect to the other and we believe that is enough to air the different views. I have consulted with both these brethren and they concur in

this judgment. We are not averse to controversy.There are divine principles by which honest andearnest men should be governed even in controversyand we believe these have been observed in this case. We thank both brethren for their contribution to the study and thought of us all. We ask you to readcarefully and thoughtfully the final articles by thesebrethren carried elsewhere in this issue.

The above title was the heading for an article in theParkersburg News, Sept. 9, 1981. The article went onto say that the Williamstown church of Christ wasgoing to build a building and a still to make alcohol tofuel its buses. They have received a $26,270.00 grantfrom the U. S. Department of Energy for this purpose.

II John 9, says, "Whosoever goeth onward andabideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: hethat abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son." In the past forty years I haveseen some of my brethren do so much that is beyondthe teaching of Christ that I thought I was beyond thepoint of being surprised at anything they would do,But I was shocked at hearing this on the news andlater reading it in the paper. Just how far can a congregation go without ceasing to be "of Christ"? I can't answer this for even in "Ole dead Sardis" there were a few names who had not defiled their garments(See Rev. 3:4).

I consider the act described above not only to beunscriptural but also unconstitutional. It seems to me that it is a violation of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Besides this, our nation was founded on the basis of separationof church and State.

The late Bro. J. D. Tant used to close most of his articles to religious papers with the words,"Brethren, we are drifting." Brethren, many have nowdrifted, run through the rapids, and are on the brink of the falls and are about ready to have our candlestickcompletely removed.

In the February, 1981 issue of Searching The Scriptures is an article penned by me and entitled, "PrayingAnd Singing To Jesus". My article affirms that the scriptures authorize us to pray and sing to Jesus, aswell as God the Father. H.E. Phillips believes that it iswrong to pray to Jesus, so he has written two articlesin reply to mine—one appearing in the July issue ofSearching The Scriptures and the other in the Augustissue. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond tohis two articles. Brother Phillips and I have been goodfriends for a number of years and our pleasant .associations of the past are recalled with pleasure.

I am willing for my first article to stand upon its ownmerit; for I set forth what I firmly believe the scriptures teach. Rather than examine my argumentsone by one, brother Phillips has chosen to state what he believes. Really, I am surprised at some things hedoes believe and the position that he takes.

A Clarification

First, I wish to make it very clear that I do not inany way approve of the disgusting repetitious "dearJesus" phrases which are uttered by Pentecostal groups and others, who are carried away by thecharismatic movement. My article simply declaresthat the scriptures authorize us to pray and sing toJesus. Whatever abuses may result from what is right is another matter.

And, it is true that generally brethren address theirprayers to God the Father. Under most circumstances,I do the same. I do believe that we are praying to Jesuswhen we sing such songs as "Jesus Keep Me Near The Cross". So, even though we address our prayers to Godthe Father most of the time, to deny that it is scriptural to address prayers to Jesus is an entirelydifferent thing.

No Parallel

At the outset of my article I observed that well-meaning brethren, who in their efforts to prove fromthe scriptures that we must pray to the Father ONLY,cite the several passages which mention praying toGod the Father but they ignore scriptures which havereference to praying to Jesus. They conclude that wemust address our prayers to the Father ONLY. This isthe method used by the Baptists when they attempt toprove faith ONLY. They list all of the passages whichteach faith, but they fail to recognize the other conditions of salvation. The two approaches are parallel.But brother Phillips thinks I made the same argumentas that made by members of the Christian Church;because when we have listed all of the verses in the New Testament which mention singing in worship,they charge us with concluding that we cannot useinstrumental music in worship. They would be correct if there were also examples of instrumental music inworship, but there are none. We do have examples of prayers addressed to Jesus, so he does not have aparallel between what I said and the argument madeby members of the Christian Church. There are examples of prayers to Jesus, but there are no examples of instrumental music. That is the difference, brother Phillips. So, my argument and that made by members of the Christian Church are far frombeing "exactly the same in form and fact", as he says.

The Nature of Christ

We worship Christ because He is God. But whilebrother Phillips agrees that Jesus is GOD, and should be worshipped, he denies that we can pray to Him.Hear him: "I affirm that songs of praise, exultationand adoration to Jesus, to the Father or to the HolySpirit are scriptural. But I affirm that praying toJesus or to the Holy Spirit is unscriptural and wrong."

We agree that there are three separate persons in theGodhead—God the Father, God the Son and God theHoly Spirit. They are not only coexistent, but they areCO-EQUAL. To understand this fact is basic to thisdiscussion. When Jesus descended to earth and became incarnate (Jno.l:14), He was not divested of any divinity or nature, thus He did not cease to beGOD. He was the eternal LOGOS (Jno. l:l) and continued to be God. He assumed a different role,becoming a servant and being made like man (Phil.2:6,7); but His nature was the same. God theFather and Christ the Son are different in role, but thesame in nature. This being the case, He is worthy ofthe same honor as the Father. "He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father that sent him" (Jno.5:22,23).

Prayer to Jesus

From the time that the wise men worshipped Himwho was laid in His humble manger at Bethlehem, men have worshipped at His feet. Many sought blessingsfrom His bountiful hand while He walked upon thisearth. Never did Jesus refuse homage upon the basisthat He was the improper object, nor did He forbidpetitions being made to Him. Men, and even an angel,did refuse such honor (Acts 10:25,26: 14:14,15; Rev.19:10). But Jesus is GOD, and men not only petitionedHim while He was upon this earth, but also after Hewent into heaven and became our mediator, high priestand advocate.

That worship of Jesus sometimes included petition,as well as adoration and exultation, is obvious. A leper came to Jesus and "worshipped him, saying, Lord, ifthou wilt, thou canst make me clean" (Matt. 8:2).Jairus "worshipped him, saying, My daughter is evennow dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live" (Matt.9:18). ". . .the mother of the sons ofZebedee, with her sons, worshipping him, and asking acertain thing of him" (Matt.20:20). The woman ofCanaan "came and worshipped him, saying, Lord, helpme" (Matt.l5:25). The father of the poor lunatic came"kneeling to him, and saying, Lord, have mercy on byson" (Matt.l7:14,15). Jesus was not only petitionedupon earth, but also after He ascended to heaven aswas clearly pointed out in my first article (Acts 7:59; 2Cor. 12:8,9; Rev. 5:9; 22:20). But brother Phillipscontends that he can praise, exalt and adore Jesus,but it is unscriptural and wrong to pray to Him. By hisconceding our right to worship, as far as I am concerned, he cannot logically deny our right to petition Him.

An Old View Revived

The homoosios (Geek word, "of the same substance), was generally believed by early Christians. The ideathat Jesus and the Father are of the same nature, andtherefore should be equally honored, was commonlybelieved until the fourth century A. D. when a disputearose about it. Arius began to teach that Christ issubordinate to the Father. Athanasius championed thecause of truth by opposing the view of Arius. TheNicene council met in 325 A. D. to settle the dispute. Itmerely confirmed what the scriptures already taughtupon this question. But false doctrines do not remaindormant. In the sixteenth century A. D., Faustus andLaelius (nephew and uncle) formulated and promotedthe view that Jesus was not equal with God, and therefore that He should be worshipped next to theFather. Upon this basis the defenders of Arianism andSocinianism deny the right to pray to Jesus. While brother Phillips does not hold to all the specific pointsof these doctrines, and I am not accusing him of such;nevertheless, his conclusion is the same—we are not topray to Jesus. We had thought this question had beensettled centuries ago.

The Position of Jesus

Jesus is said to have all authority in heaven and onearth (Matt.28:18); He is king and judge (I Cor.15:25,26; 2 Tim. 4:1), He is the searcher of hearts (Jno.

2:25 Rev. 2:23), He is the author of our salvation (Heb.2:10); He is our high priest (Heb.4:15); He is ourmediator (I Tim. 2:5) and He is our advocate (I Jno.2:1). Please notice all that is attributed to Him: omnipresence (Matt. 28:20), omnipotence (Matt. 28:18), omniscience (Col. 2:3), eternity (Jno. 1:1;8:58; Jno. 17:5), an equal share in honor with theFather (Jno.5:22,23), absolute oneness with the Father (Jno. 10(30) and a like claim upon the trust(Jno.l4:l), the father (Jno.l5:27) and the hope (ICor.l5:22) of humanity. He shared in the creation ofall things (Jno. 1:3). He is the preserver of the world(Col.l:17). He is Lord of lords and King of kings(Rev.l9:16), the brightness of the Father's glory and the very image of the Father's substance (Heb.l:3).

More could be given as to the position of our Lordand Saviour Jesus Christ. Jesus is our king. Are we tosuppose that citizens of the heavenly kingdom have noright to petition their king? Jesus is the head of the family, the church. Are the members of this great family not allowed to address their head? Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). He sitsand rules at the right hand of God above all rule,authority, power, and dominion and is above everyname that is named (Eph.l:21); but brother Phillipssays it is unscriptural and wrong to pray to Him.Frankly, I am embarrassed that this should even be amatter of dispute among brethren.

What Prayer Involves

Prayer consists of several elements: (a) praise andadoration, (b) thanksgiving, (c) confession of sins and

(d) petition. ALL of these elements are involved inprayer, and if one of them is permitted (praise) thenthat is PRAYER—the same as if one other (petition) isuttered. Brother Phillips does not seem to recognizethis. Webster defines the word "pray": (1) to makeentreaty or supplication (2) to address God withadoration, confession, supplication, or thanksgiving(Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 667). CharlesHodge states this clearly. "As prayer, in the Scripturalsense of the term, includes all converse with God eitherin the form of praise, thanksgiving, confession orpetition; all the ascriptions of glory to Him as well asall direct supplications addressed to Him, come underthis head" (Systematic Theology, Vol.3, p. 700-01).But the dictionaries and theologians do not have todefine prayer for us. When Jesus taught His disciplesto pray, "Hallowed be thy name," that was praise andexaltation. So, praise and exaltation to Jesus is anelement of prayer. I had stated that those who objectto songs or prayers specifically addressed to Jesus cansing or pray to one part of deity, but they cannot prayto another part. Brother Phillips wants to know thy itis not wrong to sing and pray to the Holy Spirit, and hewishes to know if I advocate praying to the HolySpirit. This poses no difficulty. It so happens thatbrother Phillips is doing what all of us do when wepraise the Holy Spirit. Praise is a part of prayer, so inthat sense he prays to the Holy Spirit when he praisesand adores Him. He is doing the same when he praises,exalts and adores the Father and the Son in song. He isactually doing what he thinks he cannot do.

A False Distinction

Brother Phillips believes there is a distinction between singing and praying. Hear him in his firstarticle: "One of the main pillars upon which this idea of praying to Jesus rests is that songs we sing—thegood old popular and well known songs—are prayersto Jesus. This is not true! There is a difference between praying and singing." There we have it. Weall agree that there are separate items of worshiprevealed in the New Testament: prayer, singing, the Lord's Supper, etc. He does not seem to recognize,however, that singing can be praying. Some songs areprayer songs. For instance, "Tarry With Me O MySaviour" is a prayer song. According to him, we canaddress Jesus WITH A TUNE, because singing isnot prayer. However, we cannot address Jesus WITHOUT A TUNE, because that would be prayingto Jesus and he

says that it is unscriptural and wrong to pray to Jesus.We would all agree that some prayers are not songs,and some songs are not prayers; but that a prayercannot be sung is absurd. One problem, though, issolved for brother Phillips. He can have that "little talk with Jesus" or he can "tell it to Jesus alone" if he sings to Jesus because he does not believe that singing is ever praying. According to his position, heis not praying; he is only singing. He can praise andadore Jesus if he SINGS. It is disappointing thatbrother Phillips would involve himself in that kind ofargumentation.

He attempts to show a difference between singing and praying by referring to Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16,17.He thinks Paul makes a distinction between singing tothe Lord (Jesus) in the first clause and praying to Godthe Father in the last clause (Eph.5:20). But this is unwarrantable; for to begin with, it is his assumptionthat this is the distinction that Paul makes. I do not believe that he correctly construes the verse. TheGreek term kurios, translated "Lord" in the first clause does not always refer to Jesus. It may designateeither God the Father or Jesus, depending at timesupon the context. For specific examples, the reader isreferred to Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, under kurios, p. 460. Furthermore, the distinction that brother Phillips makes in this verse isnot made by any critical commentary that I have checked. While commentators vary in some particulars, none of them make the distinction in thisverse that he does. And what is more, if this versewere the proof for the definite distinction betweensinging and praying that brother Phillips makes, thenit would contradict any other scripture which teachesthat singing and praying is ONE act, simultaneous.

Now let us consider a scripture which is the devastating blow to his contention.

Acts 16:25

"But about midnight Paul and Silas were prayingand singing hymns unto God, and the prisoners werelistening to them..." "Praying" is a present participleand "singing" is an imperfect verb. Lenski says that"the present participle and the imperfect verb expresssimultaneous action: their singing was praying".(Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, p. 672). This is the only interpretation that this grammatical construction will allow. Praying, they were singing. Itwas ONE act. A. T. Robertson comments: "Present middle participle and imperfect active indicative: Praying they were singing (simultaneously, blendingtogether petition and praise)" (Word Pictures in the N.T., Vol. 3, p. 259-60). Others express the same thing(Alford, Hackett, Ellicott etc.) There is no way forbrother Phillips to get around the force of this verse.It is irrefutable and it completely demolishes his argument that there is a distinction between singing and praying. He is wrong.

Incidentally, some of us are made to wonder abouthis comment on Jas. 5:13: "Is any among you afflicted! let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms". In his effort to prove his distinction between praying andsinging in this verse, we are made to wonder if he thinks it would be proper for us to pray when we aremerry and sing when we are afflicted (i. e. funerals, etc.).

The Lord's Supper

I do not agree with his illustration of the Lord's Supper—that it is an act of worship directed to asingle person exclusively. He only assumes it. TheLord's Supper commemorates the death of Jesus, butthat its observance is directed only to Jesus is gratuitous. When we partake of the Lord's Supper we acknowledge God's love (Rom.5:8), His grace (Heb.2:9) and His mercy (Tit.3:4-6). The Christian gratefully acknowledges all of these (Col.3:17). The Lord's Supper is one of the "all things"we do in the name of Jesus, giving thanks to God.Brother Phillips is wrong again.

Explanations of Examples Examined

Brother Phillips attempts to explain away the examples of prayers to Jesus in my first article,contending that they serve as no proof for us to prayto Jesus today.

His explanation of Stephen's prayer (Acts 7:59) isshocking indeed. "Lord Jesus receive my spirit". Hearbrother Phillips: "There are special miraculous circumstances surrounding this scene that make it an unusual setting for the statement made byStephen. If I were in the same situation as Stephenwas and saw what he saw, I suppose I would speak toJesus just as he did. But in the absence of this miraculous setting at any subsequent time, we haveno evidence that this was ever repeated in history,especially in Biblical history". So, he tries to dismissthis example upon the basis of its "special miraculouscircumstances". If this be true, I submit to you thatalmost every single case of conversion in the book ofActs would be invalid because, with few exceptions,they were surrounded by "special miraculous circumstances". I am really surprised that he would come up with this. What a loophole this would provide for those who would like to escape the force of Acts 2:38! Those conditions are surrounded by"miraculous circumstances. And, whether or not Stephen was inspired, does not alter the fact that it was a prayer to Jesus. He was a godly saint, aChristian, and he prayed to Jesus. He prayed to Jesuswho is our high priest and mediator, one who in heaven occupied the same position that He does now. I might also add that his petition was not accompanied by a tune, but yet it was a prayer—heprayed to Jesus.

He refers to Matt. 15:25 where the woman of Canaan came "and worshipped him, saying, Lord help me".Brother Phillips adds, "Now since she worshippedhim, she must have sung and prayed to Jesus. I don'tbelieve it". No one said she did sing to Jesus, brotherPhillips. She prayed to Jesus and she was not singing.She did what you say is wrong for us to do. Doesbrother Phillips think he is not praying to God the Father when he addresses Him, "Dear Father, help me"?

Then he comments on 2 Cor. 12:8 where Paul besought the Lord (Jesus) three times to remove histhorn in the flesh. Now hear his explanation. "If this is an example of praying to Jesus, it is also an example of Jesus replying directly to us in His own WORDS." I am shocked by this effort to explain this exampleaway. Because Jesus answered Paul directly with Hisown WORDS does not alter the fact that Paul prayedto Jesus. This fact is what bothers brother Phillips andhe cannot justifiably deny it. Paul prayed to Jesuswhich is an example of prayer to Jesus. According tobrother Phillips, no one can pray to Jesus because Heis our high priest and mediator. But Paul did andothers did, and these are valid examples. As to 2 Cor.12:8, let us not forget that revelation was not completed, nor was it in the cases of conversion; butwhatever miraculous circumstances circumscribed them, they still nevertheless serve as examples.Brother Phillips should know better than to offer thiskind of explanation.

Revelation 5:9,11,12 is symbolical, but it does notcontradict the fact that Jesus is an object of prayer. If He were not , there would certainly have been noprayer addressed to Him, even in a symbolical setting.That which is unscriptural and wrong would notappear in any setting, symbolical or otherwise.

As to his comments on Jno.l4:14, for lack of space, I simply refer the reader back to my original article andthe comments upon its grammatical construction.

Brother Phillips thinks the one making the statement in Rev.22:20, "Even so, come, Lord Jesus"was made by the Holy Spirit, and not the words of aman praying. Again, this is only his assumption. Ihave many commentaries in my library on the book ofRevelation, and there is not one that I have examinedthat takes the position that he does. Nearly all say itwas John (a few say it could be the seven churches) andthese include such books as those by Barnes, Lenski,Beckworth, Homer Hailey, Hendriksen, Hinds,McGuiggan, Summers and Earle. These are but a few,and none agree with brother Phillips. The context shows clearly that it was John who made the statement, and it is a prayer.

More Examples

In Acts 1:24, when the apostles were assembled toselect one to take the place of Judas, "they prayed, and said, Thou Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men,show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen. That this is a prayer to Jesus is made most clear fromthe fact that the selection of the twelve apostles wasthe prerogative of Christ. The apostles were selectedby Jesus and they were known as the apostles of JesusChrist, and not God the Father. Also, Jesus does knowthe hearts of all men (Rev.2:23). This is strong evidence that the prayer was addressed to Jesus. This is attested to by such scholars as Barnes, Lenski, Hackett, Alford and Bengel. They agree that the apostles invoked Jesus as Lord.

Paul addressed the church at Corinth, "with all thatcall upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in everyplace" (I Cor. 1:2). It is plain here that prayer isreferred to, and the prayer is to Christ. Saints invokeHim. Albert Barnes comments: "The expression 'to call upon the name', to invoke the name, impliesworship and prayer; and proves, (1) That the LordJesus is an object of worship and (2) That one characteristic of the early Christians, by which theywere known and distinguished, was their calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus, or their worship to him.That it implies worship, see note on Acts 7:59; andthat the early Christians called on Christ by prayer,and were distinguished by that. . ." (I Corinthians, p.3). J. W. Shepherd, who edited the commentary on Romans by David Lipscomb, comments on this verse: "To call upon is to invoke his aid. To callupon the name of Jesus Christ is to invoke his aid asthe Christ, the Messiah predicted by the prophets,and is our almighty and sovereign possessor andruler" (I Corinthians, p. 21). Language could not beplainer that prayer to Jesus is taught, and I have notfound a commentary which states otherwise. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown observe on this versethat, "the worship due to God is here attributed toJesus" (Critical and Explanatory Commentary, Vol.2,

p. 263). Socinians render the phrase passively "all that are called by the name of Jesus Christ". But "theverb followed by an accusative case, usually, if notconstantly, is used, in its active signification, to callupon, to invoke" (Richard Watson, TheologicalInstitutes, Vol. 1, p. 601). So, not only is the position of brother Phillips, that it is wrong to pray to Jesus,contrary to the scriptures; but scholarship testifiesagainst it.

Paul prayed conjointly with the Father in behalf ofthe Thessalonians. "Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father. . .comfort your heartsand establish them in every good work and word" (2Thess.2:16,17). "Both are the one object of prayer, areto the apostle divine; for Divinity alone is the livingobject of adoration" (John Eadie, Commentary on theGreek Text of Thessalonians, p. 298). The honor of theSon is not less than that of the Father. The reader mayalso refer to Leon Morris (Tyndale series, Thessalonians, p. 139).

I Tim. 1:12 is another example of prayer to Jesus. "Ithank him that enabled me, even Christ Jesus ourLord, for that he counted me faithful. . ." Paul expresses his gratitude to Christ, and thanksgiving isan element of prayer, as we have shown.

Early martyrs died with prayers to Jesus on theirlips, and from the time of Stephen their voices span thechasm of the centuries.

Conclusion

Someone has taken the time to count sixty-one songswhich we would consider "prayer songs" in the "Sacred Selections" song book. They are addresseddirectly to Jesus, the doubtful one not counted. Theseare considered the "classics" which brethren have sung for years. They are dear to us, not only becausewe love to sing them, but they express the truth whichwe believe is taught in the word of God. God forbidthat a few brethren would "put the scissors" to "My Jesus As Thou Wilt", "I Need Thee Every Hour","Jesus Keep Me Near The Cross", "Tarry With Me O

Page 9

My Saviour" and many more. We rue the day when theattempt is made to remove such songs from our worship.

I have examined the two main arguments whichbrother Phillips makes in his two articles: (1) Thatthere is a distinction between singing and praying (article 1) and (2) that we cannot pray to Jesus because He is our high priest, mediator and advocate(article 2). That Jesus has made it possible for us topray to the Father is one thing, but to deny that wecan address Him in prayer is an entirely different matter. I pray to Jesus because He is GOD, and withThomas, I address Him as my Lord and my God.

My reply is written with love and kindness. Myattack is upon the position of brother Phillips, and not upon him personally. I have no animosity in my hearttoward him whatsoever. I simply disagree with him. Ido agree, however, that this issue should not bepressed to the dividing of brethren. By mutual agreement, this will be my last reply in this exchange.May we ever desire the truth, and may we alwaysmanifest a spirit of love and kindness toward oneanother is my prayer.

In this issue of Searching The Scriptures brother Hoyt Houchen has A Reply To H. E. Phillips regarding the issue of "Praying And Singing To Jesus." I would suggest that the reader get the February, 1981 issue of this paper and read brother Houchen's first article on this subject, and then myarticles of reply in the July and August issues. By reading these first you will have a better understanding of the two articles in this issue.

Brother Houchen and I are brethren and good friends of long standing. Our discussion of this issue isnot to be construed as personal attacks upon eachother. I love and respect him. I think he is wrong onthe subject of praying to Jesus, and he obviouslythinks I am wrong. I shall press the point as long as Iam convinced that I have the truth of God.

In this article I shall try to respond to him, section by section. Both time and space prohibit a close reviewof his article as I would like to do. I received his article several days later than I should, due to no fault ofbrother Houchen, but to the slow U.S. mail.

A CLARIFICATION

Brother Houchen does not approve of the Pentecostal type praying to Jesus. Well, as far as I amconcerned it is not the "abuse of how it is done," butthe fact that it is done. He also says that generallybrethren address their prayers to God the Father, and"Under most circumstances, I do the same." We wonder why the partiality is shown between the Father and the Son Jesus Christ in the matter of prayer.

NO PARALLEL

My response was made to what brother Houchensaid in his first article, not to what he says in this lastone. In the first he said nothing about passages thatauthorize praying to Jesus when a comparison wasmade to Baptist doctrine. But he knows that the Christian Church attempts to prove instrumental music in worship by citing verses from .both the Oldand New Testaments. There is a parallel, even thoughbrother Houchen does not see it.

THE NATURE OF CHRIST

It is superfluous for me to go over my material onthe Deity of Christ. I spent about half of the firstarticle on the divine nature of Christ. I understand byhis context that by "CO-EQUAL" he means the natureof the Father and the Son, not their relationship toeach other.

PRAYER TO JESUS

Until we can arrive at some accepted definition of"prayer" as it is used in the New Testament, we will never come to an understanding of the truth.

Prayer is worship, but all worship is not prayer. Donot assume that prayer is included every time the HolySpirit used the word "worship." Adoration andexaltation do not always imply prayer, and prayer isnot always adoration and exaltation. Hence, when wefind Jesus being adored or exalted, do not jump to theconclusion that it necessarily implies prayer. It doesn't!

All of the references cited in this section of peoplecoming to Jesus with requests while he was in the fleshdo not prove authority to pray to Jesus now. Readunder the sub-head: "Proof Texts Examined" in the August issue.

AN OLD VIEW REVIVED

I resent the implication of his little historical essayabout Arius, Athanasius, Faustus and Laelius. Eventhough he says that I do not hold to "all the specificpoints of these doctrines. . .", I am charged with whathe says are the consequences of "Arianism and Socinianism" to "deny the right to pray to Jesus."Does he really believe that the doctrine of Arianismand Socianianism had to do with the denial of the rightto pray to Jesus? I vehemently deny any convictionsor conclusions to anything akin to Arianism. Read myarticles in the July and August issues. The truth of thematter is, the "Old View" went farther back than Arius. The Pharisees and Sadducees did not admit Christ to be the Son of God. They charged him withblasphemy because he said he was the Son of God.

THE POSITION OF JESUS

Read my July and August articles for my belief inthe position of Christ in the whole scheme of redemption.

Lest someone should think there is some point in theargument that the citizens of the kingdom have a rightto petition their King, thus we have the right to prayto Jesus, I want to suggest a question or two which will present some problems with his arguments.

He says, "Christ is our King." So he is! But is Christthe ONLY King? Does this heavenly kingdom haveANOTHER King? If not, why does brother Houchenadmit: "And, it is true that generally brethren addresstheir prayers to God the Father. Under most circumstances, I do the same." If citizens have theright to petition their King (Christ), why not petitionhim all the time? unless, of course, he is a subordinateKing who may be petitioned some of the time, butmost of the time another is petitioned and the King isleft out?

The same is true of the figure of Christ being thehead of the family, the church. If members of this greatfamily are to address the head, Christ should be addressed as "Father" because the New Testament teaches that the husband and father is the head of the wife and children. If we address "Our Father, whichart in heaven," and then address Christ who is the"Son of God" now in heaven at the right hand of the Father, we either have TWO heads of the family, or weare addressing one who is not the head of the family.Which is it? Brother Houchen, are you being driven toPolytheism?

These are not my problems. These are problems ofthose who strain at figures of relationship to establish a point that can not be established any other way. Ibelieve that Christ is the King of the kingdom and thehead of the church. The Bible plainly says so. Butthese relationships do not call for all human activity toexist between deity and humanity in the figures.

But if these activities are justified in the figures ofChrist's relationship to us, please explain why theKing (Christ) should not reply directly to the citizenswho petition him? What head of a family would continually hear his family call unto him and neverreply to them?

WHAT PRAYER INVOLVES

Brother Houchen attempts to define prayer to support his proposition of praying to Jesus today. I donot believe he understands the difference between "prayer," "worship," "praise," and "adoration." He makes these words equal so that when one prays, he ispraising; when he worships, he is praying; when hesings, he is praying; when he prays, he is singing, and so on and on. He says of me, "Praise is a part of prayer,so in that sense he prays to the Holy Spirit when hepraises and adores Him. He is doing the same when hepraises, exalts and adores the Father and the Son insong. He is actually doing what he thinks he cannotdo."

Brother Houchen, I know the difference betweenSINGING and PRAYING. The two actions are as different as "repenting" and being "baptized."

A FALSE DISTINCTION

Brother Houchen seems astonished that I believe there is a distinction between singing and praying. Itnever dawned upon me that I would have to try toteach a gospel preacher the difference between "singing" and "praying."

He says, "Some songs are prayer songs." Yes, Iknow that some songs are "prayer songs." Some are"patriotic songs," some are "love songs," and some are "battle (war) songs," but such distinctions do notmake them scriptural. Songs that do not teach the truth are not spiritual songs that can be sung in worship. To argue that "singing can be praying" is like arguing that "singing can be dancing." I can produce definitions of the word "sing" that include dancing. Brother Houchen, will you accept the position that singing can be dancing, and that it isscriptural to sing (and dance) to the Lord?

He says he has one problem solved for me: "He canhave a 'little talk with Jesus' or he can 'tell it to Jesus alone' if he sings to Jesus because he does not believethat singing is ever praying. According to his position,he is not praying; he only singing." Now, Hoyt, youknow very well that you are not stating my position asit appeared in my July article. You are stating the veryopposite to what I said. (p. 447) Please do not charge me with the consequences of your own logic.

I hope brother Houchen remembers his exegesis of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16,17 a little later inthis reply to him. Please remember that he is makingthe point that we cannot be sure about whether theGreek term kurios, which is translated "Lord," refersto Jesus or the Father. I agree that the word for Lordmust be determined by the context as to whom it mayrefer. Both Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16,17 show by the context that the term refers to JesusChrist.

ACTS 16:25

Now we come to the "devastating blow" to mycontention. The passage is Acts 16:25! He gave us alittle Greek grammar lesson and some comments fromLen-ski, A. T. Robertson and some other commentators of reputation, and then he concludes:"There is no way for brother Phillips to get around the force of this verse. It is irrefutable and it completelydemolishes his argument that there is a distinctionbetween singing and prayer. He is wrong."

Please notice what brother Houchen is trying toprove me wrong about: ".. .completely demolishes hisargument that there is a distinction between singingand prayer." That is what this argument is all about, and don't forget it! Well, I do not think that even Acts 16:25 will prove that there is NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN SINGING AND PRAYER. Watch his "devastating blow" disintegrate before his eyes. He wonders why I citedJames 5:13 in my previous articles. I did so to showthat the scriptures made a distinction between singingand praying.

I will not rest my case upon what fallible men say, nomatter how great their reputation. Every scholar hequotes will teach some error which he will not accept.What I am saying is that the scholarly men we read,we do so with discernment because we know they areusually influenced by denominational error.

Lenski is one scholar he quotes. In the same chapterof Acts, 16:31-33, he uses Greek grammar to prove thatsalvation is at once, a gift from God, and as soon as thejailor believed and accepted the Lord, he was saved.Lenski says of verse 33: "The jailor and his family werebaptized in the ordinary way by an application ofwater in the name of the Triune God. The quantity ofwater present is wholly immaterial." I know brother Houchen does not accept his own scholar on thisexegesis of Acts 16:31-33. I cite this to simply showthat neither of us really accept as final proof any wordof uninspired man.

I will make three observations of Acts 16:25 in this present study. First, I checked 14 translations (I haveseveral more) and all of them translated the verse using both words (prayed, and sang praises) as actionsby Paul and Silas.

The best Greek scholars in the world combined their knowledge of the original Greek language and theEnglish language and came up with the best "carryacross" from the original meaning to the exact meaning in the English. Their scholarship was on the line and I trust them to be more accurate with their

translation than a scholar who comments on a verse

with a doctrinal beam in his eye.

Second, whatever Paul and Silas were doing uponthis occasion, it was done to GOD. If they, "praying,hymned praises," they did so to God, not to Christ. Irealize, however, brother Houchen is trying to provethat there is no distinction between singing and prayer.

Third, other passages in the New Testament that clearly distinguish between praying and singing leaveno doubt for either commentators or translators. When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray (Luke11:1-4), he did not give them a music lesson; he taughtthem to pray. We can well establish the clear distinction between praying and singing.

THE LORD'S SUPPER He does not agree with my illustration of the Lord's Supper, and waves it off as if I had said nothing. Thetruth is, brother Houchen you cannot answer it, and Ithink you did the best thing in leaving it alone. Mypoint in the illustration of the Lord's Supper was toshow that when we do what the New Testament teaches us to do in partaking of the Lord's Supper, we can ONLY remember the "broken body" and the"shed blood" of Christ (Matt. 26:26,28; I Cor. 10:16;11:24,25). Read my July article, page 447.

EXPLANATIONS OF EXAMPLES EXAMINED

Brother Houchen comes again to Stephen's"prayer" as he was dying. He said nothing new thatdeserves a reply. Stephen SAW Jesus in heaven; PaulSAW Jesus near Damascus. Both talked to Christ and He talked to them personally. If this is an example ofpraying to Jesus, it is also an example of SEEINGChrist when we talk to him and expecting him toaudibly address us personally when we talk to him.That which proves too much, proves nothing.

In the third paragraph of this section he said thewoman of Canaan worshipped Jesus but did not sing.The reason I used this illustration was because he argued that she worshipped Jesus, and worship includes prayer; and to pray to him was the same assinging. That was the point of his "devastating blow"from Acts 16:25. Go back and read it, Now he said:"No one said she did sing to Jesus, brother Phillips."She prayed to Jesus and she was not singing. The legsof the lame are unequal.

AS to 2 Corinthians 12:8 brother Houchen has already committed himself to the fact the we cannot determine whether kurios refers to the Father or to Christ. Since this is true, I could just as accurately saythat Paul besought the Lord God, the Father, toremove the thorn from his flesh. Read again my articles on this subject.

He parades a list of men who have written commentaries and announces my demise because none of them agree with me. Brother Houchen, I havenever sought to agree with men, living or dead. Ihave labored to be in harmony with divine truth, andthe rest I discard.

MORE EXAMPLES

The reference to Act. 1:24 is the record of an apostlebeing chosen by Christ in fulfillment of prophecy. Onecould no more draw authority for a general practicefrom Acts 1:24 than the specific appearance of Christto Saul as he journeyed to Damascus should becomegeneral authority for Christ to personally appear tomen who are to be saved.

The reference to 1 Corinthians 1:2 has no reference to praying to Jesus. It has to do with obeying the Lord—doing his will (Rom. 10:13). This is the fulfillment of Joel 2:32 and refers to all that is authorized for the remission of sins (Acts 22:16).

I can make a better case for praying to "father Abraham" than is here made for praying to Jesus.When a certain rich man died and lifted up his eyes intorments, he saw a certain beggar named Lazarus, whohad died and was carried to the bosom of Abraham; hecried and said, "Father Abraham, have mercy onme . . ." (Luke 16:24). Then in verse 27 we read:"Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thouwouldest send him to my father's house ..." Shall we take this plain example of prayer to Abraham andexhort brethren to pray to him? No, certainly not! Thisis no more an example of prayer today than are thosepassages cited by brother Houchen.

He asserts that "early martyrs died with prayers toJesus on their lips. . ." I just cannot accept hispersonal statement on this assumption. We are lookingfor Bible proof.

CONCLUSION

In the July issue, page 447, I stated that one of themain reasons for this position of praying to Jesus wasto save some of the songs we have cherished through the years, written by denominational men and women.Brother Houchen now makes the emotional appeal forthe preservation of several "old favorites." This is pretty good evidence that saving the songs plays amajor part in trying to find authority to pray to Jesus.

I do not think brother Houchen effectively replied tomy articles. First, he did not address himself to thepoint I made in the context I gave on the deity ofJesus. Second, he totally ignored some, and scarcelymentioned other arguments I made. In the July articleI had a bit to say about the nature and relationship of deity. He virtually ignored this. His examination of Ephesians 5:18-21 and Colossians 3:16,17 is verydisappointing. To my section: "All Three Persons ofDeity Involved In Prayer," he said nothing about it. He garbled his attempt to say something about theLord's Supper; he missed my point altogether.

The first half of my article in August was given tothe indispensable place of Christ in our prayers to theFather. He hardly mentioned this portion of my article. I think I know why.

I have written in love and have tried to be kind and respectful. I consider brother Houchen a brother and afriend. I believe he is very wrong on this issue of praying to Jesus. But whatever either of us may say, the final judgment will be made by the word of God.We all must answer to God by Christ and his word inthat great day. What we believe and practice willdetermine our eternal destiny.

I pray that brethren will study this issue and striveto know and practice the truth. We should not press amatter like this to the point of division while we aretrying to learn what the word of God teaches. This will be all I will say on the subject for awhile. A bookletwill probably appear from my pen at some later date.

ANY PLACE WILL DO

The pioneer preachers of the Restoration movementwere not finicky about where they preached. Any placepeople could be gathered would do. School houses wereoften available and frequently used. But when J. A.Clark went to Harrison County, Texas, a few yearsbefore the Civil War, the school houses were all closedto him because he opposed denominationalism.

A wealthy planter named Edwards learned of thepreacher's plight and offered the use of a building onhis plantation. The structure originally had served as aschool, but having been abandoned for such use, it nowsheltered farm animals. When told the use being madeof the building, Clark said, "Well, Mr. Edwards, mySavior was born in a stable, and I am not ashamed topreach in one." (F. D. Srgyley, Biographies and Sermons, pp. 83-84.)

The place was cleared of all appearances of a stableand cleaned up, as best it could be in short order andClark held a gospel meeting there. Several personslearned the truth and were baptized, among whomwere the planter's wife and young son.

Thousands were converted under similar circumstances in the last century and many churcheshad their beginning in such humble surroundings.The pioneer preachers like Clark were primarily menof the message; the place and condition of its delivery were relatively unimportant. These men, like the ancient Sidonians of whom the Lord spoke, may riseup in judgment against some today who will hardlypreach any place, unless they are guaranteed a comfortable salary and a congenial setting.

"Shall we be carried to the skies on flowery beds ofease, while others fight to win the prize and sailthrough bloody seas?"

We continue our study of what it means to be saved,believing that we can appreciate salvation from sin tothe extent that we understand what is involved in the transaction.

Having discussed in a previous article things thatGod has done for man that man could not do for himself—propitiation for sin (Rom. 3:25); reconciliation to himself (Col. 1:21); and redemption(Eph. 1:7)—I shall now discuss man's part in the planof salvation, and the various terms used by inspiredwriters that help us to appreciate to a greater extentwhat is involved in being saved.

Salvation

Prior to his ascension to heaven, to take his seat atthe right hand of God, Jesus gave to his apostles whatis known as the great commission. Mark recorded it inthe following words, "Go ye into all the world, andpreach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he thatdisbelieveth shall be condemned" (Mark 16:15,16).

Here we have the word, saved, used to designate theresult of believing and being baptized. It was pointedout in an earlier article that in its general sense, to besaved means to be delivered from impending danger,as we might say of one who has recovered from acritical illness, or who was rescued from a burningbuilding, or from drowning, that his or her life wassaved.

In giving the great commission with conditions ofsalvation, Jesus was not, however, speaking of beingsaved from physical death. He was speaking ofsalvation from the guilt of sin and its punishment.Paul, in reminding the Thessalonians of their salvation, said that they had been "delivered from thewrath that is to come" (1 Thess. 1:10). Peter told thoseto whom he wrote that they had "escaped from thecorruption that is in the world by lust" (2 Peter 1:4).

Remission of Sins.

In the second chapter of Acts is recorded the firstsermon preached under the great commission. In thatsermon, Peter, speaking under the influence of theHoly Spirit, preached about Christ,—how he died, roseagain, and ascended to heaven, where he will reignuntil his enemies are made the footstool of his feet (Acts 2:22-35).

The result of Peter's sermon, and his appealto them to recognize Jesus as their Lord and Christ, was that his audience was pricked in their hearts andcried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do? AndPeter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto theremission of your sins..." (Acts 2:37,38).

Here we have the expression, remission of sins.What Jesus called salvation in the great commission, Peter, his inspired spokesman, called remission of sinsin the first sermon preached under that commission. While the words, save, and remission do not have thesame etymological meaning, they do have reference tothe same transaction, each giving us some aspect ofwhat occurs when one obeys the gospel.

The word, remit, means to send away. When weremit money we send it away, presumably for goodsreceived, or services rendered. Thus the expression,remission of sins, means that sins are sent away. Oneof the aspects of the new and better covenant foretoldby the prophet Jeremiah was that, "their sins will Iremember no more" (Jer. 31:34. Heb. 8:12). Just as thesins of the Israelites were symbolically sent away intothe wilderness with the scapegoat (Lev. 16:21, 22), soalso when one is saved from sin, those sins are remitted—sent away into the wilderness of God's forget-fullness, never to return.

Forgiveness of Sins

Still another expression that helps us to understandwhat it means to be saved, is found in the words ofPaul in Eph. 1:7. "In whom we have redemptionthrough his blood, the forgiveness of our sins, according to the riches of his grace." Thus we are told that in being saved our sins are forgiven.

What does it mean to be forgiven? One of the definitions given by the dictionary is, "To cease toblame, or feel resentment against some one." If youhave ever forgiven someone of a wrong done to you,you don't need the dictionary to tell you what it meansto forgive.

But there is a point that we need to recognize aboutforgiveness. It takes place in the mind of the one whodoes the forgiving. It is not some feeling of elation thattakes place in the person forgiven, although he mayrejoice when he knows he is forgiven. That is a basicmistake of those who rely on their feelings as evidencethat their sins have been forgiven. They will pat themselves over the heart, and say, I know I amforgiven because I feel it here. That is no evidence atall. The only way that one can know he has beenforgiven of a wrong is for the forgiving party tocommunicate the fact of forgiveness to the forgivenparty.

Let me illustrate. Someone does you some wrongthat hurts you deeply. But he comes to you andacknowledges the wrong and asks for your forgiveness.Now, where did that forgiveness take place? Was it some better-felt-than-told sensation that he experienced? No, it took place in your mind, didn't it?And what was it that took place in your mind? Was itnot a change of mind,—a difference in your feelingtoward that person? Where you had previouslyharbored feelings of malice, and perhaps even revenge,all

those feelings dissolved when you forgave, and you now feel kindly toward him.

And just so, when God forgives us of our sins, all hisformer feelings of disapproval and anger and grief aredissolved, and in their place are feelings of approvaland favor.

Made Free From Sin

Another aspect of salvation is suggested by Paul inRomans 6:17,18. "But thanks be to God, that whereasye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from theheart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered; and being made free from sin, ye becameservants of righteousness."

Thus Paul tells us that in being saved, we are madefree from sin. It will be recalled that it was pointed outin an earlier article under this heading that sin enslaves. Jesus said, "Whosoever committeth sin is abondservant of sin" (John 8:34). The natural desire ofanyone who is in bondage is to gain freedom. Prisonersbreak out of jail to be free. Prisoners of war have oftenspent months digging tunnels and have risked their lives in a bid for freedom. Salvation is freedom from the bondservice that holds every sinner a prisoner. It istrue freedom. Jesus said, "If therefore the Son shallmake you free, ye shall be free indeed" (John 8:36).

Justified

To the Romans Paul wrote, "For he that hath died isjustified from sin" (Rom. 6:7). Again, "Being thereforejustified by faith, we have peace with God through ourLord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1). Thus to be saved meansto be justified from sin.

To be justified, according to the dictionary, means tobe declared guiltless; to be absolved of wrong. It is a legal term, and means that when one has been acquitted of a crime with which he was charged, he wasjustified. To be justified from sin, is therefore to bepronounced guiltless, with no sin charged against him.

Washed—Cleansed

When Ananias was sent to Saul of Tarsus in the cityof Damascus, following Christ's appearance to him onthe Damascus road, he said to Saul, "And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash awaythy sins. . ." (Acts 22:16). Peter said of certain ones, "But he that lacketh these things is blind. . .havingforgotten the cleansing from his old sins" (2 Peter 1:9).Thus, in being saved we are washed, or cleansed fromour sins.

There are two possible ways whereby a garment canbe clean. One way would be for it never to becomesoiled. The other, having become soiled, is washed, andthus becomes as clean as if it had never been soiled. (Cleaner, if you listen to some of the commercials of thesoap manufacturers.)

Likewise, there are two conceivable ways that mancan be clean from the defilement of sin. One would be to live a life of complete freedom from the practice ofsin. But since that has proved to be impossible for man, his only hope is to be washed and made clean.That washing is accomplished by the blood of Christwhich cleanseth us from all sin (1 John 1:7). When thuswashed man is as clean as if he had never committed

sin.

Made Righteous.

To the Romans Paul wrote, "For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, evenso through the obedience of the one shall the many bemade righteous" (Rom. 5:19). Thus, in being saved, weare made righteous.

Righteousness is defined by W. E. Vine as, Thecharacter or quality of being right or just. Paul definedrighteousness in Romans 4:6-8 where he said, "Even asDavid also pronounceth blessing upon the man untowhom God reckoneth righteousness apart from works,saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven,and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin." Thus Paul used the words of David to teach that the righteous man isthe man whose sins are forgiven.

There are two conceivable ways of being countedrighteous in the sight of God. One would be throughour own works of righteousness. But since our righteousness is in the sight of God as filthy rags (Isa.64:6), such righteousness would be impossible for manto attain. His only hope is thus through an imputedrighteousness. This is a righteousness that is revealedin the gospel (Romans 1:17). It is imputed to all thatbelieve in Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21,22, 4:22-24). Beingof faith it is thus bestowed by God's grace, and thusleaves man with no right to boast (Rom. 4:16, Eph.2:8,9).

Well, can the Christian who has experiencedsalvation, sing "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound,that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost, but nowam found; was blind but now I see."

Page 15

WHEN TWO WORLDS COLLIDE

It is indeed amazing to see the reaction of great menwhen there is a collision between their SCHOLARSHIP and THEOLOGY. Like the Catholic Priest I talked with years ago in Ft. Smith,Arkansas, they usually stick with their theology. Iasked this priest if he should find a contradictionbetween the Catholic church and the Bible which would he take? He paused about three seconds andreplied, "I would have to stick with the church." Thisis about par for course. It is appalling to see thereaction of great scholars like A.T. Robertson when acollision takes place between SCHOLARSHIP and THEOLOGY. I respect A. T. Robertson as a scholarand love to use his expertise as an aid in study of theBible; however, Robertson was a staunch Baptist andthis put him on a direct course of conflict with certainpassages on baptism. Certainly, there must be a greatstruggle within a man when he comments on such passages. This can be readily detected in their writings. In commenting on Acts 2:38 which says,"Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the nameof Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, he says, "Onewill decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not.My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paulor anyone in the New Testament taught baptism asessential to the remission of sins."

You will notice the hesitancy and somewhat reluctance in his comments. He uses such expressionsas "one will have to decide" and "My view is" then hegoes on to say "So I understand." Kind friend, theseare not the words of A. T. Robertson when he is SURE of a text! The problem is two worlds have collided andhe is caught in the middle. It bleeds my heart to seesuch a great scholar caught in this predicament. WhenAnanias told Saul to "arise and be baptized and washaway his sins" (Acts 22:16), please note his comment, "It is possible, as in Acts 2:38, to take these words asteaching baptismal remission or salvation by means ofbaptism, but to do so in my opinion is a complete subversion of Paul's vivid and picturesque language."He admits much more here than he did earlier. It seems that Acts 2:38 was still haunting him so headmits that in both cases REMISSION COULD BE BY BAPTISM. BUT he says, "It is my opinion" that this is not the meaning. Robertson's opinion was really his THEOLOGY.

Many Baptists do not know this but Robertson actually said, "It was possible for baptism to be essential to salvation." He goes on to say that it is hisopinion that such isn't the case, but this was precededby the possibility. Of course, Robertson's opinion is nobetter than mine or yours. He knew very well whatthe GREEK meant but there was that collision between his two worlds. A. T. Robertson doesn't use the words such as "it is my opinion", "I understand"one will have to decide" or "my view is" when he isSURE what the text means. He comes in LOUD and CLEAR. Kind friend, isn't it sad that great men can become so enamored by their THEOLOGY that itwill prevent a firm stand for the old Jerusalem gospel? Well, sometimes WORLDS do collide andwe must make a choice! Ref. (Word Pictures of theNew Testament PP 36 and 391).

The word "woe," in the Greek New Testament, ismade up of two diphthongs (a combination of twovowels in a single syllable)—ouai. It is defined: "Interjection of grief or of denunciation, "Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, pg. 461. "Interjection denoting pain or displeasure," A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament, Arndt and Gingrich, pg. 595. Hence, the word, as it occurs in the verses weshall observe, has to do with denunciation. "Woe" is asolemn denunciation of punishment; it implies thatgreat calamities of the most awful and severe natureare impending over the guilty. "Woe," then, stronglysuggests and expresses the wrath and displeasure ofGod.

WOE UNTO CHORAZIN AND BETHSAIDA. Chorazin and Bethsaida were small towns on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee near Capernaum(not much is known of Chorazin). Bethsaida was the town of Philip, Andrew, and Peter, (Jn. 1:44). Thesewere cities in which Jesus had been present and hadperformed miracles. "Woe unto thee Chorazin! woeunto thee, Bethsaida!," Jesus pronounces, "for if themighty works, which were done in you, had been donein Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes," (Matt. 11:21). Chorazin andBethsaida had more opportunity to believe in Jesusthan Tyre and Sidon. Therefore, the consequences oftheir rejection of Jesus shall be "greater," (vs. 22).

How about America! Americans enjoy the greatest religious freedoms and opportunities of, I suppose,anybody on earth. Notwithstanding, America has donemore to demoralize and spiritually abase the people ("heathen") of other nations than any country orpeople! If Jesus issued a scathing denunciation uponChorazin and Bethsaida for their wasted opportunitiesand advantages, how about America?

WOE UNTO THEM THAT CAUSE OFFENCE. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" (Matt. 18:7). "Offend"means to spiritually hinder or cause to sin, Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words, Vol. 3, pg. 129.One who causes one of God's children to sin or fall away, upon him the heaviest condemnations of God are pronounced (see vss. 2-6).

We need to, therefore, concernedly examine the wayswe influence others (teaching and example) and makesure we are not leading others astray (cf. I Cor. 8, 10, Rom. 14).

WOE UNTO YOU, YE BLIND GUIDES. It was inthe "chapter of denunciation" that Jesus enunciated,"Woe, unto you, ye blind guides" (Matt. 23:16). Jesusis addressing the spiritual leaders of the Jews, the scribes and Pharisees (vs. 15). Similarly, He addressedthe lawyers, "Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye havetaken away the key of knowledge. . ." (Lk. 11:52). Wehave many blind guides today who are misleadingpeople. They are like those of whom Paul wrote,"Desiring to be teachers of the law; understandingneither what they say, nor whereof they affirm" (ITim. 1:7). Thus, to spiritually mislead people is to incurthe severest wrath of God (cf. Jas. 3:1).

WOE UNTO THE RICH. "But woe unto you thatare rich!" Jesus exclaims, "for ye have received yourconsolation" (Lk. 6:24). The word "but" indicates to usthat Jesus is presenting a contrast. In verse twenty-three he instructs those persecuted for the Son ofman's sake to rejoice. In verse twenty-five Jesus describes the satisfied and those free of seriousness who are engaging in frivolity. Hence, when Jesuspronounced this woe on the rich he is referring to thosewho trust in their riches and experience the love ofmoney (cf. I Tim. 6:17, 6-11). In our affluent age wehave not a few who are looking to their riches (also toomany members of the church). This is what Jesusmeant when he said, ". . .How hardly shall they thathave riches enter into the kingdom of God" (Lk. 18:24, cf. 25).

WOE UNTO THOSE WHO LOVE THE UPPERMOST SEATS. Inevitably, when you havepeople, you are going to have competitiveness and self-elevation. To such a condition Jesus addressed himself: "Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love theuppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings inthe markets" (Lk. 11:43). Jesus, therefore, expresseshis disdain and strong displeasure for the spirit ofascendancy.

There are other occurrences of "woe" that make for profitable study and application. For example, those who falsely swear are denounced and men about whomall speak well are the objects of God's severe wrath (Matt. 23:16; Lk. 6:26). Let us decidedly shun all sinfulsituations which encounter God's wrath and endeavor to obey his every command that we may incur hispleasure and approval and experience his rich blessings.

In our last article, we encouraged people to "AskYour Preacher" about Scriptural authority (book,chapter, and verse) for things that are being taught inthe religious world.

Were there different denominations in the days whenthe New Testament was written? What denomination was Paul, Peter, John, and the rest of the apostlesmembers of? I read in Mr. Edward T. Hiscox's Standard Manual for Baptist Churches on page 22,"It is most likely that in the apostolic age when there was but 'one Lord, one faith and one baptism' and no differing denominations existed, the baptism of aconvert by that very act constituted him a member ofthe church, and at once endowed him with all therights and privileges of full membership. In that sense, 'baptism was the door into the church'. Now it is different." (Bold letters mine for emphasis JTS). I still believe everything that is in the above paragraph except the last statement. I do not believe it is different. I still believe in the one Lord, one faith,and one baptism. I also still believe something elsethat is said in the above quotations from the Scripturesin Ephesians 4:3-4. There is not only "one Lord, onefaith, and one baptism," but there is also "one body"and that the "one body" is the church (Ephesians 1:2223). God has not changed His Word, man has.

There are a number of warnings in the Bible aboutman changing God's Word. It began in the Old Testament when God said, "Ye shall not add unto theword which I command you, neither shall ye diminishaught from it, that ye may keep the commandments ofthe Lord your God which I command you"(Deuteronomy 4:2). Also in the New Testament weread, "Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in theteaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in theteaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son"(II John 1:9).

It is obvious from Mr. Hiscox's statement that he and others have not heeded God's warning but have changed His Word. WOE UNTO THEM!

Page 17

THE NEWS LETTER REPORTS

". .. They rehearsed all that God had done with them .. ."—Acts 14:27 Send all News Items to: Wilson A dams, 317 Trinkle Ave., N.E., Roanoke, VA 24012

NEW CONGREGATIONS ORANGE CITY, FL—A new congregation has been started in Orange City. Ron McRay is preaching for this new work. The church meets at 105 Dogwood Avenue in Orange City. Interestedparties may contact Tom Lester at (904) 775-7845 for further information. Also contact us by mail at P.O. Box 1052, OrangeCity, FL 32763. If you know anyone living in the towns of OrangeCity, Lake Helen, Deltona, Enterprise, or DeBary who is interestedin the Lord's church please contact us with their names so we mayget in touch with them.

BOWLING GREEN, FL—In August, 1980 three families starteda new congregation in Bowling Green, FL and Vernon Love beganworking with them part time. In March, 1981 he was able to obtainthe necessary support and is now working full time. This is the firsttime the Lord's church has ever been in Bowling Green. We aremeeting at 514 N. Oak St. (Hwy. 17 N.): phone (813) 533-5718. If inthe area, worship with us.

MARKED TREE, AR—A new congregation began in Marked Tree last April by several members in the area. They are meeting at 13Elm St., Marked Tree, AR 72365. For further information you maycall 358-2542, or 358-2715.

GREENWOOD, SC—We have started a new sound congregation of the Lord's church in Greenwood, SC located at 1018 East 72 By-Pass. We started in November, 1980 with only five faithful Christians. We have had four restored and one baptism. We havearound 16 in attendance. Everett Ward, formerly of Weston, WV, isdoing the preaching. Greenwood is located in the western part ofSouth Carolina and is growing very fast. If anyone knows ofmembers moving near Greenwood, please contact Bro. Ward at 904 Coleman Dr., Greenwood, SC 29646. Or phone (803) 223-8232.

NEW LOCATION ELIZABETHTOWN, KY—The College View church of Christ isnow meeting at its new location at 611-A College St. and is directly across from the Community College here in Elizabethtown. Forfurther information call Terry Green at 737-5736 or Benny Dukesat 765-5019.

IRVEN LEE—For the last few years I have spent my full timepreaching work in gospel meetings, going into several states eachyear. The work has brought many blessings to me and to my wife,who has traveled with me. Beginning October 18, 1981, I am tosettle down again to do local work near Athens, AL with the Jennings Chapel church. I have known this community for aboutforty years, and I expect to have a very pleasant association withthe people there. I hope to have time to do more writing, and I shallplan to be in about six meetings a year. My new address, effectiveNovember 1st, will be Rt.2, Box 362-A, Toney, AL 35773. We will be on the Athens, AL telephone exchange.

STEVE GOFF—After three years at Kaysville, UT, I began preaching for the Matthew St. church in Bay City, TX at the first ofOctober. Our new address is P.O. Box 1522, Bay City, TX 77414.

OSBY WEAVER—After over a year with the brethren in LasVegas, NV, I began work on October 1st with the church at WestColumbia, TX.

DON R. HASTINGS, 111 S. 19th Ct., Dade City, FL 33525. Connie

W. Adams preached in a meeting for us in August. He preachedfaithfully and fervently from the Bible. While he was with us he asked that I write a field report to inform others of the successful work that is going on here. He said that such a report would be anencouragement to others, particularly to those laboring in difficultplaces. I very reluctantly agreed to do so for fear that some wouldmisjudge may motives for writing such a report. I know that God has given the increase and that it is the power of His word thatconvicts, and converts the sinner. We are only fallible messengersof the gospel.

In a little over four years that I have worked with the Lord's

church in Dade City, more that eighty souls have put on Christ in

baptism. It has been a thrilling experience to hear and see so many

confess their faith in Christ! God's word will produce fruit if people

will only take the time to understand it. Most of those who have

been converted were taught in home Bible studies. These studies

were set up by the brethren here. If the Lord's church is to grow, her

members MUST seek opportunities to teach others. Many of the

Christians meeting in Dade City have asked friends, relatives,

neighbors, fellow—employees, etc. If they would study the Bible

with them. In a surprising number of cases the answer was "yes."

In most of the home studies, the "Visualized Bible Study Series"by Jule Miller was used. This series of film strips is easy to use and iseffective. People enjoy watching, and hearing, God's plan of redemption unfolded. They are encouraged to ask questions, andusually do, while the film is being shown. If I am going with amember to visit someone who has not already agreed to see thefilm strips, I make the first visit a social one. It is important forpeople to get to know me, and for me to get to know them. I've heard it said, "A person does not care how much you know until theyknow how much you care." As we are coming to an end of the visit, Iask them if they would like to view the "Visualized Bible Study Series" and assure them that they will not be pressured into anything. If their answer is "yes" then a definite time for coming back is set up.

After the film strip is shown, I hand them a booklet which has thepictures shown in the film strip and the words on the record. Theyare encouraged to answer the questions in the back of the booklet. I tear out the answer sheet in the booklet and grade their answersmyself. Generally, one film strip is shown each week for five weeks.This gives them a week to read the booklet and answer thequestions. By the time one has seen the five film strips, read the booklets, and answered the questions, he or she has a fairly goodknowledge of the Bible.

The Dade City church continues to have a very promising future.We are located about 30 minutes north of Tampa just off Hwy. 301in the heart of Dade City. We extend a cordial and warm welcome toany who may visit with us.

MICK ROGACS, P.O. Box 204, Republic, MO 65738. As a gospelpreacher and former Catholic it is my desire to offer my preaching abilities to brethren who would like to hold gospel meetingsspecifically on the subject of Catholicism. Sermon topics covered are: Why I Left The Catholic Church? Catholic Tradition; Bible Authority verses Catholic Authority; Development of Catholic Apostacy; Infallibility; Purgatory; Apostolic Succession; and others. These lessons were specifically designed for the instruction of the Catholic prospect in recognizing Catholic error and the truth of the scriptures. They are also of value to Christians who wish tolearn more about Catholic error and its consequences. For information contact me at the above address, or call (417) 883-1338.

PREACHERS NEEDED LOGANSPORT, LA—The Stanley church of Christ in Logansport,LA is looking for a full time gospel preacher to work with us. Thehouse and full support are available. Anyone interested can call Jerry Gannon or Gene Arbuckle at (318) 697-5119.

Page 18

ROANOKE, VA—The church which meets at 1015 Georgia Avenuein Roanoke will be in need of a full time preacher after the first of theyear. Wilson Adams has labored here for over three years but will beHaving us soon. Attendance runs around 50 with a contribution of$350 to $400 per week. Some outside support would have to be obtained. Roanoke is a good size city with a metropolitanpopulation of 250,000 and is located in the beautiful ShenandoahValley of Virginia. If interested you may contact Lewis Sturm at

(703) 362-5225, or Larry Powell at (804) 237-3445.

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH BAPTISMS RESTORATIONS (Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)

154

92