Volume 22 August, 1981 Number 8

PRAYING AND SINGING TO JESUS (2)

This is part two of a reply to an article by the sametitle as this one by brother Hoyt H. Houchen, whichappeared in the February, 1981 issue of Searching The Scriptures. For a better understanding of this article I suggest that you read again part one which appearedin the last issue of this paper.

I consider brother Houchen an honorable man whom I love and respect. I am not making any personalattack upon him, and I trust all will understand this. I simply do not agree with his article on the matter ofpraying to Jesus in this present age. He believesChristians should pray and sing to Jesus as well as tothe Father in Heaven. I do not believe that Christians may scripturally pray to Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ Indispensable To Prayer

I do not understand why one would want to pray toJesus instead of the Father because not one word uttered to the Father is acceptable without Christ. Heis in every prayer of any kind that is uttered to theFather. It is by virtue of his blood that we have openedunto us "a new and living way" that we may haveboldness to enter into the holiest (Heb. 10:19, 20).

But now tell us, if we pray directly to Jesus, whatpart does the Father have in that prayer? and whatpart does the Holy Spirit have? Who is the mediator?the high priest and advocate through whom we go inprayer to Jesus Christ? This will not be an easy question to answer while holding the "praying toJesus" view.

The Blood of Jesus Christ

A blood sacrifice is required by God in order to beable to come unto Him. Every prayer uttered to theFather must recognize Christ and the work he did andcontinues to do to make prayer possible.

The Father recognizes Christ as God (Heb. 1:8). Godsent His Son into the world "that he by the grace ofGod should taste death for every man" (Heb. 2:9). Theblood of Christ accomplished all that God intended. Bythe blood of Christ we are justified (Rom. 5:9);redeemed: received the remission of sins (Eph. 1:7; Col.1:14; Rev. 5:9); obtained peace (Col. 1:20; Eph. 2:13,14); sanctified (Heb. 10:10, 12, 13; 13:12); cleansedfrom sin (1 John 1:7); purchased us (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet.1:19); reconciled us unto God (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21, 22;2 Cor. 5:18, 19). All this is essential before we can prayunto God. To deny it is to deny the power of the blood of Christ. Christ died that he might offer his blood ashigh priest for our sins (Heb. 9:7, 12, 14), and appear inheaven in the presence of God for us (Heb. 9:24, 25).

Christ As High Priest

The function of an high priest: "For every high priesttaken from among men is ordained FOR MEN inTHINGS PERTAINING TO GOD, that he may offergifts and sacrifices for sins" (Heb. 5:1).

God appointed the high priest, not man (Heb. 5:4-6).The priesthood being changed, "there is made of necessity a change also of the law" and Christ will continue as high priest because he "hath an unchangeable priesthood" (Heb. 7:12, 24). As highpriest Christ makes intercession to God for us (Heb.7:25). He has gone into heaven, "now to appear in thepresence of God for us" (Heb. 9:24).

With all this information before us regarding thenecessity and function of an high priest, being"ordained FOR MEN in things pertaining to God,"how can we pray to Jesus who IS the high priest? Ifthere

must be a high priest (Jesus Christ) between men andthe Father in heaven, why would there not be a necessity for an high priest between men and the SonJesus Christ in heaven? Those advocating praying toJesus have an impossible problem, seeing that in thepriesthood of Christ He is a priest for ever, and has anunchangeable priesthood.

Christ As Mediator

A mediator is one who stands between two partieswho are alienated and reconciles them. He must be able to relate to both parties. "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, andhath given to us the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor.5:18).

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon says of mediator: "one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or to form acompact, or for ratifying a covenant; a medium ofcommunication, arbitrator. . . i.e. every mediator,whoever acts as mediator, does not belong to oneparty but to two or more, Gal. iii.20." (p. 401).

The law of Moses was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator, that is, by Moses. "Now a mediator isnot a mediator of one, but God is one" (Gal. 3:19, 20).

We know that a mediator presupposes at least twoparties. He acts not as one of the parties, but betweenthem to communicate or arbitrate the difficultybetween them, God speaks to man through His SonJesus Christ (Heb. 1:1, 2). Jesus says the words hespeaks are from the Father (John 14:10). He furthersays that "whatsoever I speak therefore, even as theFather said unto me, so I speak. (John 12:49, 50).

Now if God speaks today ONLY through His SonJesus Christ, and by no other means, why should wethink that we can speak to the Father without themediator He selected?

Revelation is God speaking to man; prayer is manspeaking to God. Prayer and revelation have a strongresemblance in their involvement of Christ between the Father and man. In both directions there must be a mediator, and Christ is that mediator, selected by God.

The matter of prayer and a mediator is very explicitin the New Testament. 1 Timothy 2:1-4 exhorts thatsupplication, prayers, intercessions, and giving ofthanks, be made for all men. Verse 5: "For there is one God. . ." The ONE GOD of 1 Timothy 2:5 is the sameGOD of Galatians 3:20.

"For there is ONE GOD, and ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN, the man CHRIST JESUS." As God speaks to men THROUGH this MEDIATOR, men have no recourse but to speak tothe ONE GOD THROUGH this mediator, CHRIST JESUS, whom God has chosen.

The one and only mediator between God and men isthe MAN Christ Jesus; "who gave himself a ransomfor all, to be testified in due time" (vs.6). Christ is the

PROOF TEXTS EXAMINED

I would like to pay my respects to the proof textsoffered as authority for praying to Jesus by brother Houchen. There are others I have read, but I do not believe they constitute prayers in the sense we usethem under the New Testament dispensation today. Itis necessary to understand what we mean by the term"prayer."

Young's Analytical Concordance lists eleven different words or combination of words in the New Testament that are translated "prayer" or "pray."The combination of all these terms may be defined as"the expressions of the heart addressed to a SupremeBeing." Statements made to Christ while he was uponearth, or conversations between Christ and others after ascending to the Father, do not constitute prayers of the nature we are discussing. If so, we havea body of evidence from apostles, Jews, Gentiles, goodmen, evil men, demons, etc., which are recorded as having conversations with Christ. I know of no onewho would classify all these as "prayers" to Jesus.

John 20:28: Thomas addressed Christ, "My Lord and my God." If this is an example of praying toJesus, why is not the statement of Judas Iscariot aprayer? When he came with the mob to arrest him, hesaid to Jesus, "Hail, master" (Matt. 26:49). I do notbelieve either statements addressed to Christ were prayers. One was a statement of recognition and theother a statement of betrayal.
Peter told Christ to depart from him. Was that aprayer? "When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down atJesus' knees, saying. Depart from me; for I am a sinfulman, O Lord" (Luke 5:8). There were many, manystatements like these by the apostles and others whenJesus was present and talked with them. That is not prayer. These were two-way conversations betweenChrist and those who talked with him.

Acts 7:59: This records the "prayer" of Stephen as he was being stoned to death by the Jews. He said,"Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." There are specialmiraculous circumstances surrounding this scene thatmake it an unusual setting for the statement made byStephen. If I were in the same situation as Stephen was 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 have noevidence that this was ever repeated in history, especially in Biblical history.

Brother Houchen quotes from Albert Barnes onActs 7:59: "And this shows that it is right to worship the Lord Jesus, and pray to him. For if Stephen wasinspired, it settles the question. The example of an inspired man in such circumstances is a safe and correct example..,"

First, inspiration did not govern the CONDUCT ofthe man. Peter was inspired, but Paul rebuked him to the face because "he walked not uprightly according tothe truth of the gospel" and "he was to be blamed" (Gal. 2:11, 14). Inspired men were only infallible whenthey spoke for the Lord.

Second, where is the evidence that Stephen was inspired? "Being full of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 6:5)does not mean that he was inspired. We are to be"filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18), but that does notmean that we are to be inspired.

Third, Stephen's "circumstances" were very unlike any since that time. This unusual setting cannotestablish an example of praying to Jesus today.

The worship to Jesus is not the real question. Theissue is PRAYING to Jesus without mediator, highpriest or advocate. The Lord's supper is worship, butthat does not mean that we worship the Father and theHoly Spirit by remembering them when we eat anddrink the bread and the fruit of the vine on the Lord's day.

Matthew 28:9: "And they came and took hold ofhis feet, and worshipped him." "Praying and singing are acts of worship; therefore, we are authorized topray and sing to Jesus." This is brother Houchen's argument. I cannot see the logic that taking hold of thefeet of Jesus and worshipping him has anything to dowith praying and singing to Jesus as "acts of wor- ship." Are we to understand from "worshipping"Jesus that "praying and singing to Jesus" are alwaysimplied? This passage does not establish praying toJesus by any stretch of the imagination.
In Matthew 15:25 the woman of Canaan came "and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me." Now sinceshe worshipped him, she must have sung and prayed toJesus. I don't believe it!

2 Corinthians 12:8: This verse has Christ in the 3rd person, not the person addressed. Paul had relatedto the Corinthians several things, among which washis "thorn in the flesh." He had besought the Lordthrice, that it might depart from him. Since this was a matter of history, how much time elapsed between hisrequest to the Lord, and Paul's statement that he would glory in his infirmities that the power of Christmay rest upon him we do not know. Paul's "prayer" tothe "Lord" was answered directly in WORDS. If thisis an example of praying to Jesus, it is also an exampleof Jesus replying directly to us in his own WORDS.That which proves too much, proves nothing!

Both Stephen and Paul "saw" Christ before theyspoke to him. I think we had better wait until we "see him personally" before we begin to address him in prayer.

5. Revelation 5:9, 11, 12: This refers to singing praiseto the Lamb in the heavenly scene by the four beastsand four and twenty elders and the angels. The NewTestament teaches that we may sing and make melodyin our hearts to the Lord, but it does not authorize

praying to Jesus. The Book of Revelation is a book of symbols and often statements and actions are depicted that are not literal and real actions that we should do today. This passage does not prove praying to Jesus.

Revelation 22:20: "Even so, come, Lord Jesus." These are the words of the Holy Spirit, not the words of a man praying. This is hardly an example for us to pray to Jesus today.
John 14:14: This is said to be a command from Jesus to sing and pray to him. But verses 13 and 14 say to "ASK IN MY NAME." If the expression, "I will do it" means the prayer is to be addressed to Jesus, then explain verse 26 of the same chapter: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom THE FATHER WILL SEND IN MY NAME. . ." and John

15:26: "But when the Comforter is come, whom I WILL SEND UNTO YOU FROM THE FATHER..."

In John 16:15 Jesus said: "All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you." He told of his leaving and their sorrow, and his return and their joy which no man could take from them. In verse 23 he said: "And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full." I understand that the context of this statement concerns his going away and returning to them. But before they had "asked nothing in my name." Now they were to "ask the father in my name" and He would give it to them.

Acts 2:21: "Calling upon the name of the Lord" is here used to prove praying and singing to Jesus. This verse is from Joel 2:32 and is found in Romans 10:1321; Acts 9:14; 22:16. The last passage could not mean prayer because Saul had been praying for three days. The expression means obedience to the gospel. So also do 1 Corinthians 1:2 and 2 Timothy 2:22. I am surprised that these verses were used to prove praying to Jesus.
Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16: These verses refer to singing to the Lord, but they offer no proof that we may pray to Jesus Christ. To the contrary, both passages teach that we are to pray to the Father by or in the name of Christ.

I pray to our Father in heaven, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that brethren will not press this issue to the dividing of brethren. Praying to Jesus needs far more study than is evidenced by those who are advocating the practice. The nature of deity and the nature of prayer require a sacrifice of blood for remission of sins, an high priest, a mediator and Jesus Christ is all of that. There is no question in anyone's mind that we all can pray to the Father in the name of Christ. But all these things are lacking when we try to pray to Jesus because there is no one to be mediator in the light of 1 Timothy 2:5, 6. Think on these things!

"WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY NOT TO?"

Is the silence of God permissive or prohibitive?When the word of God says nothing regarding apractice, are we authorized to act? Or does his silencemean that he does not want us to act? Are we to assume that God expressly stated all he wanted us toknow so that we might do all he wanted done?

The Question Viewed Historically

It is my conviction from what I have read of theReformation Movement that it foundered over this very issue. When Martin Luther revolted against theabuses of Roman Catholicism, the question arose asto just exactly what practices were to be retained inchurch organization, worship and doctrine. He took the position that whatever was not expressly forbidden was permitted in doctrine and practice. This was the basis for the continuation of infant baptism and church membership plus a host of otherpractices which Lutheranism holds in common with Catholicism.

The Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, while more concerned with politics and moral reform than Luther,yet enunciated an entirely different premise on whichto build. He argued that we may retain in divine service only what is authorized. It is reported thatwhen the two reformers met to discuss their respective views that Luther commented "you have a different spirit than we do." Indeed, these two views are poles apart. While we would not endorse allthat Zwingli taught or permitted (for he was not faithful to his own preaching), we do believe thathe was correct in his view of the basis of authority forreligious practices.

In the nobly inspired efforts to restore pure,apostolic Christianity, these two opposite views wereto play a great part. The plea to "speak where theBible speaks and remain silent where the Bible issilent" was powerful and struck the structure of denominationalism like a thunderbolt. The slogan gavepopular expression to the injunction of Peter, "if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Pet.4:11). Infant baptism, relating experiences as evidenceof pardon, the clergy system, synods, councils,presbyteries, and a host of other cherished practicesfell before this two-edged sword.

The cry for greater organization than a local churchthrough which to evangelize, edify or relieve the needywas to strain this principle to the breaking point with many. Some insisted they still believed it was valid but placed an entirely different meaning on it. When themissionary society fever reached a national level andopposition was mounted, the promoters asked "wheredoes the Bible say not to?" When instrumental musicbegan to spread and the opposition asked where theoracles of God authorized it, they were confronted withwhat came to be regarded as the question to end all questions: "Where does the Bible say not to?" Choirs,fairs, ice cream socials, rummage sales, ad infinitum,all came to be defended by the one question "wheredoes the Bible say not to?"

The Current Scene

The survivors of the wars over missionary societies,instrumental music and other relics of denominationalism have once more run aground overthe issue of what constitutes scriptural authority. Sponsoring churches, church supported camps,schools, relief societies, kitchens, fellowship halls,"family life centers" (complete with gymnasiums), diet clubs, puppet shows, ad naseum, all are defended with the question "where does the Bible saynot to?"

Which Approach Is Right?

Is the silence of God permissive or prohibitive? Itdoes not take a Solomon to understand what the word of God teaches along this line. Even in the Old Testament God warned "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminishought from it, that ye may keep the commandments ofthe Lord your God which I command you" (Deut. 4:2). They were not to read between the lines (the silence ofGod) but to be content with what was stated on theline. John wrote "Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God" (2Jno. 9). Paul said that we are not to think above orbeyond "that which is written" (1 Cor. 4:6). "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2 Thes. 2:15).

Divine authority is expressed in one of three ways:

(1) direct statement or command; (2) approvedapostolic example; and (3) necessary conclusion. Thesethree means of expressing what God appoints may begiven in either general or specific terms. When God hasleft something general we dare not demand a specific.When he has specified we dare not generalize. In recentyears a number of well known brethren have ruled outapproved apostolic examples and necessaryconclusions as valid means by which divine authorityis expressed. The limiting of the Lord's Supper to thefirst day of the week (Acts 20:7) rests upon recognition of an approved apostolic example. The frequency of itsobservance on that day rests upon a necessaryconclusion from the language of the passage. We donot bind a method of "going" to preach the gospelsince the Lord gave the command in general terms. Hesaid "go" without any specification as to how to go.He authorized us to "teach" without restricting us to one specific method of imparting instruction. Hespecified the elements to be used in the Lord's Supper, and by

example, the day on which it is to be done. He specified

what is to be taught (the gospel) after we "go." He

specified the act of baptism (burial) but not where the

water is pooled (river, pond, lake, baptistery). He

specified "singing" in praise. He specified what is to be

sung (psalms, hymns and spiritual songs). He specified

where the melody is to be made (in the heart).

He was specific as to the organization through whichthe work of the church is done. That is the local church with its bishops and deacons (Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1). Hetaught by both direct statement and example that Christians are to assemble to accommodate a number of scriptural objectives, but did not specify the placewhere such gathering occurs. Aids and expedientsmust be just that—aids and expedients. They must notintroduce a different act from that authorized. Theysimply assist in carrying out what God authorized.

The silence of God is not permissive—it is prohibitive. Consider the matter of the priesthood of Christ. Heb. 8:4 says "For if he were on earth, heshould not be a priest." Why could Jesus not be apriest on earth? God had specified the tribe of Levifrom which all priests, according to the law, were to come. "For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evidence that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood" (Heb. 7:13-14).Why could he not be a priest according to the law?Because the silence of God did not permit it. Thesilence of God prohibited it. The statement "of which tribe (Judah) Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood" forever settled the matter. Since God wassilent concerning priests from the tribe of Judah, andsince he had authorized only those of the tribe of Levi,it could then be argued that the silence of God prohibited priests of the tribe of Judah. An exceptionwas not even made for the Son of God.

My friends, the question all of us should raise touching any practice under study is "What saith thescriptures?" We must assume that God knew what hewanted us to do and that he has expressed his will inunderstandable terms. Once we begin to trade on thesilence of God in the scriptures we have opened a gatethrough which human wisdom may ultimately supplant the wisdom of the Almighty to our owneverlasting ruin.

Much has been written and spoken on this passage.The efforts of some brethren to wrest this passage willsoon equal (if not already), similar efforts to distort Jas.

1:27. By the time some among us get through insertingeverything into these two verses which the Holy Spiritsaw fit to leave out, the verses are almost as long as theletters themselves! These frantic and unscholarlyattempts to get the church into Gal. 6:10 and church-supported human institutions into Jas. 1:27 are reminiscent of efforts put forth by digressive brethren inthe past to get Missionary Societies into the great commission, and instrumental music into passages authorizing us to sing. The sad thing is that someamong us now are too young to remember the formerefforts, or haven't taken the time to learn about them.

But, faithful and able men have also written and spoken effectively about these and other passages of Scripture in their proper context. This humble effort isnot just to show v. 10 in its relation to other verses inGalatians 6, but the entire sixth chapter in its relationto the rest of the book. Though some of Paul's efforts topersuade the Galatian brethren may overlap, or be repeated more than once, I will attempt to list them bychapters for simplicity's sake.

Chapter One

Paul's first effort to persuade the Galatians was onthe authenticity of his apostleship (v. 1). He emphasizesthis again in the second chapter (vv. 1-9). This factalone should have offset all the efforts of false teachers to "bewitch" the Galatians, but then there have always been those who were not satisfied with apostolic authority, and who will perish "in the gainsaying of Core(Korah)" (Jude 11).

Next, Paul expresses amazement ("I marvel", v. 6), to get the attention of these deluded brethren. Jesus "marveled" at the faith of one (Mt. 8:10), and theunbelief of others (Mk. 6:6). When those who know theword of the Lord become utterly amazed at our conduct,it is time to examine ourselves to see if we are still "in the faith" (2 Cor. 13:5).

Further, Paul tries to dissuade the Galatians from following their present course by emphasizing thedanger of following men (1:7; 2:4, 5; 3:1; 4:17; 5:7-10,12 and 6:12, 13). This sobering fact is followed by reminding them that the wrath of God ("let him be accursed", vv. 8, 9), will be executed upon those whoteach or follow "another gospel", which is not reallyanother gospel but rather a perversion of the true.

Chapter 2

Besides his apostleship which we have already included in Chapter 1, Paul resorts to describing an incident wherein Peter was not faithful to his apostleship, thereby condemning the very thing beingpracticed by the Galatians (2:11-21). Breaking thispassage down, Paul shows that we are not justified bythe law (v. 16), that we condemn ourselves by an effortto "build again the things which I destroyed," and that we "frustrate the grace of God" by trying to find righteousness in the law of Moses (v. 21).

Chapter 3

Paul continues his effort to persuade the Galatians byreminding them that they had benefited by receiving theSpirit (v. 2), and also because others had received thesame Spirit "by the hearing of faith" (vv. 2-5). He alsotries to prevent their journey into apostasy by showing them that any suffering which they had done for thegospel's sake would now be in vain (v. 4). In v. 10, Paultries to impress the Galatian brethren further by calling their attention to the inconsistency of trying to followthe works of the law without accepting the curse of thelaw.

Then, the apostle endeavors to point out the identityof the true children of Abraham (vv. 8, 9; 14-29). If the fleshly Jew is to benefit from the promises made to Abraham, proper acceptance of the Gentiles as childrenof Abraham must be believed and practiced. By excluding the Gentiles, the Jews were excludingthemselves from the inheritance promised to Abraham's seed.

Next, Paul attempts what is probably his most difficult task—that of persuading the Jews that Godgave the law only as a temporary measure (vv. 19-25).The Jew, and those Gentiles influenced by them, wouldhardly accept the fact that they stood to gain more bythe termination of the law, than they would by its continuance.

Chapter Four

Now, Paul begins contrasting the qualities of bondageand freedom to bring the Galatians to their senses. Theyare shown that it is better to be a son than a servant (vv. 1-7); to be children of the freewoman rather thanchildren of the bondmaid (v. 22); to enjoy the freedomfound in the "Jerusalem which is above", instead ofbeing enslaved by the bondage "from the mount Sinai";to be among those "born of the Spirit" instead of being "born after the flesh" (v. 29).

Paul also resorts to a personal matter which should arrest the attention of these Galatian brethren in particular. He reminds them of his labors among them,their love for him, and the possibility that all his effortsmay be in vain (vv. 13-16, 19, 20). Surely, these sobering reminders ought to cause them to turn around, and come back to Christ.

Chapter Five

The subject of bondage and freedom is pursued intothe fifth chapter, and we find some new arguments introduced as well. One cannot just accept a favoritepractice or two from the law, and omit the rest (v. 3).

And, neither can we attempt to be justified by the lawwithout falling from grace and making Christ "of no effect" (vv. 4-6).

Paul now concludes Chapter Five by trying to persuade these Galatian brethren that the only way toovercome the "lust of the flesh" (v. 16), is to "walk inthe Spirit" (vv. 16-26). Those who practice the "worksof the flesh" forfeit their inheritance in God's kingdom

(v. 21), but if we escape the consequences of sin being"led of the Spirit" (v. 18), then we have also escapedfrom bondage under the law.

Chapter 6

Since others have very capably explored the contentsof this chapter, and the proper place of v. 10 in its context, I will spare the reader on this point. However,in keeping with my original purpose, I wish to point out what I see as an harmonious relationship betweenChapter Six as a whole, and Paul's previous efforts toconvince the Galatians of their folly.

For instance, when Paul exhorts us to "bear . . . oneanother's burdens" (v. 2), he emphasizes that by sodoing we "fulfill the law of Christ." Paul's entire effort in this letter has been to show the supremacy of the lawof Christ over the law of Moses. He has used (by mycount), some twenty different approaches to establishhis case. In Chapter Six, Paul shows that by pursuingthese various individual works (or not pursuing them, vv. 7-9), we fulfill the law of Christ. It would be impossible for Jew or Gentile to show the fulfillment ofChrist's law in their lives by appealing to the works ofthe law (of Moses).

Not only do brethren wrest verse 10 from its contextin Chapter 6 by trying to get church (collective) actionout of it, but they compound their error by practicallynullifying Paul's monumental effort to persuade the Galatian brethren that they should turn again to thelaw of Christ.

As we approach the end of this review, I wish tomake some final observations, admonitions and appeals to the Baptists who read this both now and inyears to come.

"Now It Is Different"

Many good Baptist people don't realize that they arein an institution which admits that it does not teach and practice that which was true in the days of theinspired apostles and early church when it was as theLord ordered it. From page 22 of "The StandardManual for Baptist Churches" by Edward T. Hiscox,D.D., I quote:

"It is most likely that in the Apostolic age whenthere was but 'one Lord, one faith, and one baptism,' and no differing denominations existed, the baptism ofa convert by that very act constituted him a member ofthe church, and at once endowed him with all the rightsand privileges of full membership. In that sense, 'baptism was the door into the church.' Now, it is different; and while the churches are desirous of receiving members, they are wary and cautious that they do not receive unworthy persons. The churchestherefore have candidates come before them, make their statement, give their 'experience,' and then their reception is decided by a vote of the members. Andwhile they cannot become members without baptism,yet it is the vote of the body which admits them intoits fellowship on receiving baptism."

Yes, there was in the apostolic age "one Lord, onefaith, and one baptism" and there was also "one body"which was the church (Eph. 1:22, 23; 4:4, 5). That being true, they are correct in concluding that "no differingdenominations existed." But the Baptist Church is adenomination and admits it. It does not claim to be the one body, including all the saved of the earth today(Acts 2:47).

It is true that in the beginning baptism made onea member of the church and was "the door into the church." Baptism was into Christ (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27),and to be in Christ was to be in his body which was thechurch. Having admitted that which was true in thedays of the apostles, they then say "Now, it is different." Who made it different? Answer: Baptistsand others who are unwilling to believe and followthe teaching of the scriptures! They admit that thebaptism which they practice, which is designed only toput one into the Baptist denomination—preceded by an "experience" and "vote of the members"—is different

from that which was practiced under the guidance of inspired men. My Baptist friend, how can you remainin a denomination which admits that it has changedthe doctrine and practice taught in the will of Christ?

Pertinent Paragraphs on Campbell, Baptism, Etc. "No intelligent Christian can object to the end whichMr. Campbell proposed to accomplish. The union of alltrue Christians on the Apostolic foundation, is anobject most devoutly to be wished. All good men prayfor it." (J. B. Jeter, Campbellism Examined, page 22)."If either Thomas Campbell or his son, or bothacting in concert, organized a church of the rightkind of material, and on the right faith and foundation,then they acted in harmony with the word of God, andno man has the least right to open his mouth in opposition; for a church thus constituted would benone other than a church of Christ." (J. H. Milburn,Origin of Campbellism, page 10.) (Both Jeter andMilburn were Baptists.)"One cannot follow Christ, or obey him withoutgoing down into the water of baptism. And the statement is here ventured that no service of a believer is acceptable to Christ until this first public declarative act is performed." (Dr. J. E. Cobb, New Manual for Baptist Churches, 1941, page 39.) Referring to being baptized on account of the remission of sins, J. W. Wilmarth said: "This interpretation was doubtless suggested, and is nowdefended, on purely dogmatic grounds. It is fearedthat if we give to EIS its natural and obvious meaning,undue importance will be ascribed to baptism, the atonement will be undervalued, and the work of theHoly Spirit disparaged. Especially it is asserted thathere is the vital issue between Baptists and Campbellites. We are gravely told that if we render EIS inActs 2:38 IN ORDER TO, we give up the battle, andmust forthwith become Campbellites; whereas if wetranslate it ON ACCOUNT OF, or IN TOKEN OF, itwill yet be possible for us to remain Baptists."Such methods of interpretation are unworthy ofChristian scholars . . . And as to Campbellism, thatspecter which haunts many good men and terrifiesthem into a good deal of bad interpretation, shall wegain any thing by maintaining a false translation and allowing the Campbellites to be champions of the true,with the world's scholarship on their side, as againstus? . . . The truth will suffer nothing by giving EIS itstrue signification. When the Campbellites translate INORDER TO in Acts 2:38, they translate correctly. Is atranslation false because the Campbellites endorse it?"(Baptist Quarterly, July 1877, pages 304-305)."If you knew that you were going to the judgmenttomorrow, and your salvation depended upon yourbeing baptized as Christ was, and as he has commanded you to be, you would be at a moment's loss; you would, this day, be 'buried with him by baptism'; you would be 'planted in the likeness of his death'; and yet you will not obey. Are you not, then,rebels against Christ, and consequently exposed to hiswrath? Do not fail to do it—do not refuse to do it—and still hope to be saved, for you have no right to hope forsalvation. Your

flagrant and inexcusable neglect of divine law declaresyou the enemy of Christ . . . 'He that believeth and isbaptized shall be saved'." (J. R. Graves, Relations of Baptism and Salvation, 1881, pages 54-56).

On Church Succession

Many Baptists feel that they must trace an unbroken line of Baptist churches back to the Lordand the apostles in order to prove that they are right.In contrast, we of the churches of Christ have been more interested in identity than succession. The Word of God is the seed of the kingdom (Luke 8:11).When planted in the hearts of honest men and women, it will always produce exactly what the Lord intended—Christians and churches of Christ. We then have to simply live and worship as He directs, and by so doing we can be right regardless ofwhat people may or may not have done in the past.

On this point, consider the following quotationsfrom prominent Baptist historians:

"If every church of Christ were today to become apostate, it would be possible and right for any truebelievers to organize tomorrow another church on theapostolic model of faith and practice, and that churchwould have the only apostolic succession worth having—a succession of faith in the Lord Christ andobedience to him." (Henry C. Vedder)

"Pure doctrine, as it is found uncorrupted in theword of God, is the only unbroken line of successionwhich can be traced in Christianity. God never confided his truth to the personal succession of any body of men; man was not to be trusted with the custody of the precious charge, but the King of thetruth has always kept the keys of the truth in his own hand. The true church of Christ has ever been that which has stood upon his person and work," (ThomasArmitage)

YOUTH CHOIRS

Gospel preachers through the years have read topeople the passages in the Book that authorized thekind of music God wants His people to render untoHim. Eph. 5:19 has been read many, many times. Thisverse says, "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and makingmelody in your heart to the Lord;" Another verse thathas been read or quoted is Col. 3:16 which reads, "Letthe word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms andhymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in yourhearts to the Lord." These are but two of the several passages that could be given from the will of the Lordauthorizing the music that is to be rendered unto His name.

As people begin to drift away from the respect forthe Divine authority of God's word that they should have, one need not be surprised at anything that isintroduced into the service of God. Candles, counting of beads, praying to Mary, the mourners bench,salvation by faith only are but a few of the practicesnot taught in the will of God.

I am of the conviction that many of my brethren donot really know why we do not use instrumental musicin the worship unto God. It may be that they havenever really stopped to examine the Bible and to see for themselves what the New Testament teaches alongthis line. They know that we do not use it today. Manyof them have never seen an instrument in the house when brethren meet to worship. It may be that evensome preachers among churches of Christ could notgive a good reason as to why the instrument is absent. In fact, it is altogether possible that even some preachers among churches of Christ will even engagein vain worship directed unto the Lord with denominational churches as they play upon suchinstruments. I do know of a preacher that attendedthe services of a denominational church and when I asked him if he sang with the instrument in that service he would not answer. All he would tell me was that he didn't do anything contrary to the word ofGod. If one thinks that instrumental music is authorized in the word of God, to sing with suchwould not, in his mind, be doing anything contrary toGod's word. If the preacher did not sing with the instrument, I know of no reason why he would notwant to just say that he didn't sing with the instrument unless it would be that he did not want to offend some member of a denominational church.

I am certain that if the elders of many churches ofChrist were to announce to the congregation nextLord's Day that they had re-studied the word of God,that they had come to the conclusion that there wasnot anything wrong with having instrumental music inworship, there would be many that would not knowany more than the elders and would not lift their voicein opposition to what the elders planned to do.

But the song service among churches of Christ canbecome unscriptural in more ways than by havinginstrumental music in the service. Gospel preachershave pointed out through the years that the word of God taught that the church was to sing. They used,and correctly so, such passages as Col. 3:16 and Eph.

5:19 to show that the church when she assembled was to sing. Further, gospel preachers have showedthat it was an addition to the word of God for the church to have choruses and choirs to sing for thechurch. And they have condemned in no uncertainterms the denominational churches for having theirchoruses and choirs with their robes. Many churchesof Christ have digressed so far as to become guilty ofthe very thing that the denominations have been condemned for having in the past.

One of the biggest churches in the state of Texas, theSouth Fifth and Highland church of Christ in Abilene,Texas, the church that is responsible for much of thedivision that exists in the church of Christ today, has a"youth chorus" which sings "for the church." One might not need to go all the way to Texas to find such.Could one look right around here and find a church ofChrist that has a "choir?" (1) I have seen a choirpracticing. (2) I have seen in the bulletin of a churchthat they have a "youth chorus" and that they havepresented a program presented over the radio by achurch choir. (3) The program was introduced andconcluded by saying that it was the "church of Christ choir."

Now all of this is too much evidence to deny that some have a choir.

We can see the ground work that has been laid in the past for choirs. For years several of the collegesoperated by the brethren have sent their chorus intodifferent communities to present programs to thechurch of Christ and these choruses have used the meeting houses of the brethren. Nearly every orphanhome in the brotherhood has started themselves a chorus and these choruses have traveled and put onprograms, using the meeting houses of the brethren.Now with this ground work being done in the yearspast, why would one not think of each church havingher own choir?

Someone might say, "Well, they do not presentprograms to the Sunday morning worship service,and they do not appear in robes, so therefore it is allright." No person to my knowledge has made thischarge yet. I predict that the time will come when thischarge can be made. However, I raise this question,What would be wrong with such if they did? If it isright for a church of Christ to have a choir, what would be wrong with it putting on robes and presenting aprogram on Sunday morning?

Remember brethren, the ground work is now beinglaid for this very thing. The choir will present programs for a while. Some person will suggest that weinvite the choir over to present a program on Wednesday night or Thursday night at which timewe usually have our mid-week Bible Study. This will get to be the accepted thing. Then watch it! The choirwill start presenting programs before the services of a gospel meeting on a certain night, and then the firstthing one knows it will be performing on Sundaynight for one or two numbers. As time continues, thechoir will sing all the songs on Sunday night, every now and then. Then the time will come that it will be done all the time on Sunday night. With its footthis far in the door, people will have lost all respect for Bible authority and someone will suggest that itsing on Sunday morning and thus the church of Christ will have a full fledged choir and then theywill buy the robes for them to wear when they sing. Itwas slow, it was gradual; but remember brethren, thatis the very way that digression and apostasy works.

Liberal brethren do not want the masses in churches of Christ to see the trail they are trying to lead themdown. First the movement says church support ofbenevolent societies. Then they cry for the sponsoringchurch type of congregational cooperation. Those onthe bandwagon shout for church support of colleges,then comes the youth camps, with ball diamonds,swimming pools, and what have you. Choirs follow andwho knows what will be next? At this rapid rate theinstrument can not be far off, and it may be nearerthan any of us would think. In fact, some churches ofChrist already have the instrument in their buildingsfor very special programs. You had better watch mybrethren, the liberals have a train coming and you will either purchase your ticket and get on or be run overby the train. The choice is yours. Which will it be?

All of this brings rest to some. Those who are members of man made churches, will no longer becondemned for having a choir. You have been joinedby some of my liberal brethren. The day will come when the choirs of churches of Christ and choirs of some of the denominational bodies will sing togetherin some kind of program on Easter or Christmas. Themembers of the denominational churches know this is so. Brethren, if you doubt it, just wait. You will see it.

THE PRIESTHOOD ANDTHE LORD'S CHURCH

In our two previous articles of this series, we haveshown that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-daySaints (Mormons) projects an image of a Biblefollowing, morally strict people who live happy, family-oriented lives. We exposed this image as a mask ofhypocrisy, a facade to deceive and attract people totheir organization. Mormons in Utah are not happierthan people of other communities, and statistics of thesocial problems in Utah prove that Mormonism doesnot make morally superior people. Their religion isfounded upon a rejection of the all-sufficiency of theBible, as well as an irreverent and humanistic view ofGod. Jesus said of false prophets, "Ye shall know themby their fruits" (Matt. 7:16). The fruits of Mormonismexpose an organization which is man-made, and whichfollows a doctrine of man. In this article, we will examine two areas of Mormon doctrine which are fundamental to their theology.

THE PRIESTHOOD

Mormonism was established with the teaching thatGod revived the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoodson earth, through Joseph Smith, the founder of theMormon Church. Latter-day Saints "lay hands" on young boys, making them priests after Aaron (deacons). And young men can be made priests after Melchizedek (elders). A study of the Hebrew lettershows how far this is from the truth of God. Concerning the Aaronic priesthood, the Law of Mosesrequired all priests to be born of the tribe of Levi (Heb.7:11-14). Jesus, born of the tribe of Judah, could nothave been an Aaronic priest. Certainly a 12 year old Gentile boy cannot hold the Levitical priesthood. Furthermore, Hebrews 7:11-12 teaches that the priesthood was changed with the abrogation of the Lawof Moses. Since we know the Law of Moses is no longer in effect (Heb. 8:6-7), there can be no questionthat the Levitical priesthood has been forever abolished.The Hebrew writer affirms that Jesus is the only

Page l3

high priest after Melchizedek. This is not an earthlypriesthood (Heb. 8:4). Jesus' priesthood is joined to thefact that He is the author of eternal salvation (Heb.5:9-10). And whereas the old Levitical priesthood hadmany priests, all imperfect, who offered sacrifices forsins continually, Jesus was made a priest forever, was given an unchangeable priesthood, and offered onesacrifice (Himself) for all sins in all ages (Heb. 7:20-28).The Mormon Church belittles our great high priest byteaching that any man can hold the same position. Again, we see that the Mormon Church is not theorganization which is pictured as the Bible believing, fundamentalist religion. Behind its mask is a sectwhich teaches for doctrine the commandments of men.

THE RESTORED CHURCH

The Mormon Church claims to be the restored church of Jesus Christ. However, very little of theirtheology is the same as Christ's gospel. Concerning the establishment of the Lord's church, Jesus said, "I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18). But the Book of Mormon teaches that the church of Christ existed a century before the birth of Jesus (Mosiah 18:17). TheBook of Mormon has people living 73 years beforeChrist, who were called Christians. The Bible teachesthat "disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (Acts 11:26), around 44AD. The organization of the Mormon Church is completelyforeign to the New Testament pattern. Latter-daySaints are led by a President, his two counselors,and twelve living apostles. Mormons look to theirPresident as a prophet of God and the final authorityin religious matters. This displays a lack of regardfor the authority of God's inerrant and perfect law ofliberty, the New Testament. These apostles never witnessed Christ's earthy ministry, a requisite of apostleship (Acts 1:21-23), and therefore are false apostles. Mormons are divided into regional Stakesand local Wards. Each Stake is overseen by a StakePresident and two counselors, and each Ward is directed by one Bishop and two counselors, all chosenby the headquarters of the Mormon Church. This man-made form of organization has no scriptural basis. It isin direct contradiction to the autonomous and independent congregational organization authorizedby the New Testament. The truth is that Mormonism has not restored anything. They have created another man-made religion.

The work of the Mormon Church appears at first tobe mainly evangelistic. And the zeal of their missionaries cannot be denied. But beyond this mask, we find a multi-billion dollar business organization,with ownership in many major corporations in thiscountry. Where is the scripture which authorizes theNew Testament church to engage in secular business?The Mormon Church is also a social organization thatprovides recreation for their members and for the community. Their local Ward buildings are designedto function as a gymnasium, a theater, a restaurantand dance hall, as well as a place for worship. Thework Mormons are commanded to do in researching genealogies and being baptized on behalf of the dead was never the work of the New Testament church of Jesus Christ. Timothy was instructed to warn the Ephesians against giving heed to endless genealogies(1 Tim. 1:4). And the proxy baptisms of Mormonismare based on a misunderstanding of 1 Corinthians

15:29. Like the Roman Catholics, Mormons deny thefixed condition of the dead, believing that one who hasdied can still be saved by an act of one who is living.But the Bible teaches the fixed state of all dead (2 Cor.

10:5 and Lk. 16:26). And Romans 2:6 teaches that God,at Judgment Day, "will render to every man accordingto his deeds." The idea that one can be baptized in theplace of someone else is not only unscriptural, but isalso ridiculous.

These doctrines of the Mormon Church show that Mormonism is a religion which is based on ideas andteachings of men, rather than of God's Word. A moreexhaustive study would reveal many other falsedoctrines in Mormon teaching, and much more couldbe written on the subjects discussed in this series of articles. But that which we have dealt with is enoughto unmask Mormonism. The "Mr. Clean" image oftheir people is tainted with the ungodly and irreverentdoctrines of the Mormon Church. The worthy zeal ofmany Mormons is spent in vain, being a zeal without knowledge. Behind the mask, an idolatrousand hypocritical religion shines forth, denying thetruth of the inspired Word of God, and preying uponthe emotionally depressed and the naive. Mysincere prayer is that these fine people might see theerror which they follow, and turn to God, obeying thetrue gospel of Jesus Christ; for Jesus said, "Everyplant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted,shall be rooted up" (Matt. 15:13).

GENTLENESS: ITS NATURE

Jesus Christ was gentle. His manner was mild, hisconduct characterized by benignity and goodness.When Jesus came upon the Samaritan woman atJacob's well, his treatment of her was considerate andfitting. When he encountered the horrors and despicable events of the last hours he spent on theearth, he was still kind, gentle, respectful. And whilethere never was in him a disposition of compromise or toleration of ungodliness or iniquity, still, even during occasions of heated controversy and duress, his gentleness and amiableinclinations show through in his character. He was indeed a gentle man.

There is a great need for gentleness in our world. It isnot an easy habit to form, but it contributes greatly to any situation and flavors admirably everycircumstance. A wise man will always have it. It is a characteristic born of a clear understanding of what isgood, and a burning desire to steward carefully thatover which God has given us charge. Its absence will result in coarse and brusque treatments, a lack ofproper consideration of others, improper managementof difficult situations, and promotes a general state ofill will in almost all relationships.

Gentleness in persons brings peace, unity, harmony to all their dealings. It is productive of a lovingrelationship between the parents and between theparents and their children. It promotes a state of kind-heartedness among siblings in a family.Gentleness is a great asset to a friendship, for it is ever patient, forgiving, fair. And the person who spreads gentleness at the bank teller's cage, the grocery checker's stand, the dry cleaner's desk does a great turn for people everywhere, distributing amood that can be extended by others as it was generated in them. There never is a time or situationwhere gentleness is out of order.

Gentleness produces great good. Its fruit is seen inevery area where its seeds are sown. It enhances relationships, promotes good will, advances kindness,and amplifies the love and goodness of God. Gentleness in a mother causes her to express greatand abiding love. In a father it turns raw strength intocontrolled consideration. In a boss it will bringpatience and in the hired help dedication. The teacherwill learn by it and the student will teach it. And the sinner who sees it in the life of the Saviour is constrained to follow after him.

Gentleness is an attitude founded on love for good.It is a disposition not acquired by the pompous, theproud, the arrogant. The rowdy person will consider it to be a form of weakness and the person impressedwith his own profundity will likely consider it shallow.The pious Pharisee who flaunts and displays his own righteousness will have little gentleness, for it will notallow him his self-satisfaction. But he who loves good,that one who desires that everyone, including his enemies, be blessed, will be gentle, considerate,compassionate, merciful. His love for God and his lovefor good will cause him to seek the best interests of all concerned.

Sometimes I find it necessary to stop for a fewminutes and make an introspective examination. It isnot always easy, but every time I honestly do it I amable to see almost immediate improvement in my life.One of the areas where I almost always find a deficiency is in gentleness. It needs to be made a habit,but it is an extremely hard habit to form. Self-sufficiency rises up against it; so does pride; so doesself-righteousness. But I must press on. I must work at this great trait. It will do me good. It will not onlymake me a better person, but it will cause good inothers. Gentleness glorifies God in our lives.

Gentleness is kin to humility; it is kin to meekness.It is kin to mercy; it is kin to grace. But most of all, itis kin to love, for love causes it and love results from it.

As a rule, when the parable recorded in Luke 15:1132 is preached on the sermon deals with the youngerson of the parable—the one whom we call the prodigalson. On a few occasions, the elder brother or older sonis considered. In this article we shall briefly and inferentially consider the father of the parable. In the matter of typology, we realize that the younger sonrepresents sinners (contextually, the erring child ofGod), and the elder son stands for the scribes andPharisees. But how about the father of the parable—for whom does he stand? I submit, kindreader, that the father represents our heavenly Father.Just as we correctly deduce many lessons from the typology of the two sons we can also enjoy manytruths from the representation of the father:

ALL IS WELL BETWEEN GOD AND HIS PEOPLE. In the father/son relationship of the parablethere is an understood closeness and intimacy. There isemotion in the language, "A certain man had two sons," and "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I

Page 15

have is thine," vss. 11, 31. The heavenly Father loveshis children just as we physical fathers love our children, cf. Matt. 7:7-11. One forthcoming primarylesson which I believe is taught is the security of God's people. Just as we as physical parents would not arbitrarily and unjustly reject our children, neither will God reject his people. Observe that the youngerson left his father's care and protection (vss. 12, 13).Alas, herein lies the spiritual problem: God's peopleforsake him (2 Chron. 15:2; cf. I Sam. 12:22, Josh. 1:5,John 10:27-29).

GOD DESIRES TO SHOWER HIS LOVE AND BLESSINGS UPON HIS PEOPLE. The father of the parable desired to bless his sons as is indicated in hisstatements (vss. 22, 23, 31). The God of heaven also desires to bless his people and all men. God has madeprovision for us "in Christ" that we can enjoy all spiritual endowments and salvation (Eph. 1:3; 2 Tim.2:10). In Christ, we are complete or made full (Col. 2:10,ASV). God wants to bless us in this life and in the lifeto corned Pet. 3:12; Mk. 10:30; 2 Pet. 1:11). Of course,these rich blessings are conditional, as we have alreadyintimated (2 Pet. 1:5-10; 2 Pet. 3:9).

THE FATHER GRANTED THE REQUEST OF HIS SON. The language, "And he divided unto themhis living" (vs. 12), abounds with pathos and sorrow. Itwas a sorrowful occasion, no doubt, because the father, in his wisdom, certainly knew such was not the best forhis immature, reckless young son. Yet, he granted therequest. Friend, when we become obsessed with doing what we want to do regardless of our Father's will He will, if you please, grant our request though it is to ourdetriment (cf. 1 Sam. 8:5, 7, 19-22; Rom. 1:26, 28; Num.22:12, 15-35; 2 Thes. 2:10-12).

THE FATHER DID NOT OVERPOWER OR DESTROY THE FREEDOM OF HIS SON'S CHOICE (vss. 12-19). Some are dangerously mistaken about how God works. Reflective of such misunderstanding is the language and rationale: "If God did not want me to marry this man (or woman),he would prevent the marriage," and "If God does not want me the way I am, he would change me." Beloved, our heavenly Father does not destroy ourfreedom of choice!

GOD HOLDS MAN RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DECISIONS AND CONSEQUENT CONDUCT. The younger son, as we have seen, was obviously determined to have his way (vs. 12). In fact, the language of verse seventeen is illustrative of such astate of obsession, "And when he came to himself. ..." Some have reasoned that since some are so clearly engulfed in sin surely God will not hold themresponsible. Not so! The rebellious, obstinate son was,from beginning to end, amenable and accountable.

GOD DOES NOT FORCE MAN TO REPENT. Just as the father did not interfere with his son's freedom of choice, it is very pronounced that he did not seek to force or coerce him to repent. The son had to make up his own mind (vss. 17-21). Friend, the direct operation of the HolySpirit (one of the foundation tenets of Calvinism) is irreconcilably opposed to this repre

sentation of God. God desires the repentance of all men butman must come to God—God does not overpower man with some irresistible external force or coercion (2 Cor.5:11,14-21).

THE FATHER EAGERLY RECEIVED HIS SON BACK (vss. 20-24, 32). My eyes become misty and alump forms in my throat every time I read or deal withthe return of the younger son and his father's warm reception. How moving and touching! Consider the eagerness and willingness of the father, "But when hewas yet a great way off, his father saw him, and hadcompassion and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissedhim," (vs. 20). Yes, indeed, there are many rich, opportune lessons from the representation of the father. Many of these lessons fly in the face of the teachings of denominationalism. To be sure, the wonderfulness and love of our heavenly Father is clearly accented.

We discuss here one meaning of the above word as it ispresented in the New Testament as a teaching, controlling part of man. When used thus it indicates inborn human decency.

Three Scriptures

In Romans 2:14-15 Paul speaks of a code of conductwhich Gentiles had and (commendably) followed. Theydid "by nature the things of the law". This is the naturalgoodness, the finer instincts, which God built into all human beings.

In Romans 1:26-27 the writer discusses some peoplewho "refused" (Verse 28) to follow the native propriety. We quote: "For this cause God gave them upunto vile passions: for their women changed the naturaluse into that which is against nature: and likewise alsothe men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burnedin their lust one toward another, men with men workingunseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due."

The same inspired stenographer of God in 1 Cor. ll:1415(a) asks a question which demands "Yes" as its answer: "Does not even nature itself teach you that if aman has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a womanhas long hair, it is a glory to her?"

Definitions

Dr. Samuel G. Green defined the word PHUSIS in other passages as indicating natural disposition, instinct, propensity, native qualities, and the like. But, in 1 Cor. 11:14 he says that it means, "long-established custom". We fail to see why. How could he tell? Why single out only the one statement? What makes the meaning change only there?

But authorities such as Vine, Berry, and the Zondervan Analytical give no such arbitrary exception.They hold to "nature" throughout.

In defining PHUSIS Dr. J. H. Thayer cites that veryverse. He concludes the "a" part of his definitions withthese comments:

nature i.e. natural sense, native conviction or knowledge, as opposed to what is learnedby instruction and accomplished by training,or prescribed by law: HE PHUSIS, "the nature -W," (i.e. the native sense of propriety) DIDASKEI TI, "teaches something - W", 1 Cor. 11:14; PHUSEIPOIEIN TA TOU NOMOU, "to do bynature the things of the law - W", — guidedby their natural sense of what is right and proper, Romans 2:14.

Natural

Romans 1:26 shows that before God "gave them up"the idolaters were not controlled by "passions of dishonor" (Margin of ASV and meaning of the Greekwords). Their "females" (literal meaning) changedwhat was "natural". This word, PHUSIKOS, was aderived form of our subject word, PHUSIS. The longerword, an adjective, meant "instinctive" according toDr. Strong, and "inborn" per Thayer. The Creator installed in men and women certain restraints and proprieties that they never should have stifled or rejected.

Use

The approved instinctive use of the female is contrasted with the perverted one which is not natural. The letters of the word for "use" (noun) resemble CHRESIS (pronounced "khray-sis"). The King James and American Standard Versions,approved by Berry, Hickie, and Green, translate it as"use". The New American Standard Bible renders it as "function". Aland says that it means "function (ofsexual intercourse)". Thayer calls it, "the sexual use of a woman. Ro. 1:26 sq." And Strong statesthat it indicates: "employment, i.e. (specially)sexual intercourse (as an occupation of the body): —use."

A Man's Hair

Some are claiming that the "dishonor" in 1 Cor.

11:14 means, merely, that a man appears strange if hisappearance is not in style (nature). But there the wordfor "dishonor" in 1 Cor. 11:14 means, merely, that aman appears strange if his appearance is not in style(nature). But there the word for "dishonor" is the veryone used in Romans 1:26. From this we can be sure that the good Lord strongly disapproves of a manwearing a pony-tail, or long hair hanging down hisback.

We should come to respect instinctive decency more.Our Master speaks highly of it in Romans 2:14. Hedisapproves of people violating it as described inRomans 1:26-27. And He endorses what it teaches in 1 Cor. 11:14-15.

ELDERS — ONCE QUALIFIED, ALWAYS QUALIFIED?

All of us understand that God has given a number ofqualifications for those who would desire the office ofan elder (1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1). Among thosequalifications given are instructions regarding theprospective elder's children. He is to be a man "having his children in subjection with all gravity" (1 Timothy3:4) [I believe all will agree that this qualificationwould be applicable while his children are still athome]; and "having faithful children not accused ofriot or unruly" (Titus 1:6).

I realize that the word "faithful" is believed by some to refer to their being "faithful to their parents." I donot agree with this conclusion because I do not know ofa time in the New Testament when the word "faithful" or "believing" (American Standard Version) is used, unless there is something in the context that soestablishes it as such, that it does not mean "faithfulto God." I do not believe there is anything in thecontext of the above cited passages that so warrants.

Now the problem. Oft-times when men are appointed to the eldership, while their children arestill at home and are Christians (and as far as anyone can determine are faithful to the Lord) the manhaving the other qualifications is appointed to theoffice of an elder. However, after the children aregrown and out on their own, they become unfaithful tothe Lord, and may even be accused of being riotousand unruly. The question then arises from a number ofsources, sometimes from the man himself, is this manstill qualified? Which brings me to my point of thisarticle.

If the man's name should now (after his children are grown and unfaithful) be placed before the congregation, would he be considered qualified? If not,why should he still be considered qualified after hisappointment under the same circumstances?

If there is something I have missed in the aboveargument, would someone please reply and show whereI have missed the point. Remember, we are not talkingabout his "ruling them" since they are no longer underhis roof and may even have families of their own. But since they are still his children and are unfaithful,would not he be lacking this qualification?

THE NEWS LETTER REPORTS

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

LECTURESHIPS AKRON, OH—The Thayer St. Lectures have been set for September 14-17. We invite each of you to arrange your scheduleso that you can be with us during this series of lectures. Subjectsand speakers are as follows:Shadows of Christ in the Old Testament—Ken Williams Communication—Don Bassett In The World, Not Of The World—Dale Smelser Influences—Dale Smelser Places of the Bible: Babylon—Lewis Willis Places of the Bible: Antioch—Bill CunninghamPlaces of the Bible: Jerusalem—Wayne Walker Singing (by the assembly)—Robert Welch Choices—Richard Greeson As in the past, we are urging our members to open their homes toout of town guests. If you plan to be with us overnight for what weexpect to be an outstanding program, please notify us in advance sothat we can make arrangements.

LUFKIN, TX—There will be a lectureship in Lufkin, TX the dates of August 20-22. The schedule is as follows:

The Last Days—Promise and Peril—R. J. Stevens Thursday A.M.—The Last Days Friday A.M.—Days of PromiseSaturday P.M.—Days of Peril

The Atonement and the Abundant Life—Dee Bowman Thursday P.M.—As To Salvation Friday P.M.—As To Hearing Saturday P.M.—As To Prosperity

The Last Day—Rodney MillerThursday P.M.—The RaptureFriday P.M.—The TribulationSaturday A.M.—The Second Coming

Morning lectures will be at 11:00 A.M. and the evening lectures willbe at 7:30 and 8:30 P.M. The lectureship will take place at the Lufkin Civic Center. For travel information and housing accommodation contact Melvin Harrison at Rt, 5, Box 2180, Lufkin, TX 75901. Phone (713) 875-2485. For additional information call Timberland Drive church of Christ at (713) 6347110. Or write P.O. Box 724, Lufkin, TX 75901.

NEW CONGREGATION KAHOKA, MO—A new congregation was begun in Kahoka on March 29, 1981. On that day there were two baptized. Presently, weare renting the American Legion Building and we are the onlyfaithful group in town. For more information please contact

James Powell at P.O. Box 253, Kahoka, MO 63445. Or call (816) 7272663.

W. P. RISENER, 618 Curtis St., Blackfoot, ID 83221. Brethren, there is a faithful church meeting in Blackfoot, ID at 370 N. Shillings Ave., with services on Sunday at 10:00 and 11:00 A.M. and

6:30 P.M. Brother Frank Thompson of Wendell, ID greatly assistedthis church in coming out from under the influences of liberalismand standing for the truth. If you are in the area visit with us and we urgently request your prayers.

PREACHERS NEEDED DONIPHAN, MO—The Southside church of Christ which has been in existence for the past three years is looking for a full-time preacher. We are a small congregationwith attendance around 30, but we are strong and desirousof defending the truth. We are in the middle of a hot-bed ofliberalism. We can provide $500 per month support. We alsohave in this congregation four excellent song leaders andfour excellent

Bible teachers. Contact: Rex Holland, P.O. Box 220, Doniphan, MO 63935.

WISCONSIN RAPIDS, WI—The church that meets in Wisconsin Rapids, WI is actively seeking a gospel preacherwilling to come and work with us in spreading the Word incentral Wisconsin. The congregation, which numbers 35 members, will be able to only partially support a man in thiseffort. Wisconsin Rapids is located on the Wisconsin Riverapproximately 90 miles north of Madison, WI. For moreinformation write Matt Hennecke, 3632 Simonis St., Stevens Point, WI 54481, (715) 345-0552. Or Garth Frost,Rt. 1, Rudolph, WI 54475, (715) 435-3347.

PURCELL, OK—The church that meets at 407 Jackson St., in Purcell is looking for a preacher starting September 1.Partial support will be needed. If interested contact: Charles Waldo, Rt. 1, Box 80A, Purcell, OK 73080, (405) 5273538. Or Evertt Shackleford, Rt. 1, Box 546, Noble, OK 73068, (405) 872-3592.

JOHNSON CITY, TN—The Brookmead church in Johnson City is looking for a preacher to begin here July 1, 1982. Wenumber about 100 and are fully self supporting. Anyone interested can contact Olie Williamson, P.O. Box 29, Greenville, TN or phone (615) 638-6172.

SALISBURY, NC—The church meeting at Stokes— ferry and Earnhart Streets in Salisbury, NC is looking for a preacher. Please contact James H. Hand, Rt. 5, Box 347,Salisbury, NC 28144.

BAY CITY, MI—This congregation, which is two years old,is in need of a full-time preacher. The church here numbers 11adults with an average attendance of 20-25. Most of thepeople are young in the faith, yet they are full of potential.The congregation was started over differences that existedregarding institutionalism. They felt like they could no longerworship where they were and so a new congregation wasformed determined to "contend for the faith." If you are interested in helping the work here please contact Glen Erickson, 5861 Eleven Mile Road, Freeland, MI 48623. Others who know about the work here are: Art Adams, 2797 Russell St., Portage, IN 46368 and Ben Puterbaugh, 208 N.E.13th, Casey, IL 62420.

BARRY PENNINGTON, 25903 Hardin Store Rd., Pinehurst,TX 77362. The church here set records during the month of May.We conducted a gospel meeting with Jack Kirby of Las Cruces, NM.He did an excellent job and we baptized two young people. Within the past few weeks two additional families have identified with us.On Sunday, May 25, we set a new attendance record when 76 werepresent. Our contribution was over $500. Please pray for the workto continue to prosper. At the present we are having two classes in the homes of members on Tuesday and Thursday nights. We are studying Acts on Tuesday nights and 2 Corinthians on Thursdaynights.

JIM GABBARD, Second and B Streets, Brawley, CA 92227. I amwell into my fourth year with the very fine church here in Brawleybut by reason of the great distance from my children and grandchildren in KY I would like to move back within 500 to 600miles of Bowling Green. The church here has done a marvelous work.We are now helping substantially with the support of eight preachersin addition to my support. The four fine elders and the entire church are working in harmony. I can bring a substantial part of my support

Page 18

and could thus work with a church not able to fully support a man.Two references are Hoyt Houchen, 1297 Boston St., Aurora, CO80010, and A. C. Grider, 2137 Penhall Dr., Huntsville, AL 35811.

E. PAUL PRICE, 411 Pierce, Purcell, OK 73080. For four years Ihave lived and preached in Purcell, OK. During this time I havebeen aware of the need for a faithful church in Norman. Some two years ago I preached in a tent meeting there with an averageattendance of 30 to 40 each night. The University of Oklahoma is atNorman. I will complete my work here at Purcell by the latter partof August. It has been a good work with several baptized.Attendance last week at Purcell was 48 for Sunday morning. Canyou help me in the work at Norman? Please let me hear from you assoon as possible. Phone (405) 527-6615.

ALEX OGDEN, Rt. 2, Box 525, Rockwood, TN 37854. We wouldlike to inform the readers of STS about the congregation in Rock-wood. The Post Oak church has been meeting on Post Oak Rd. inRockwood for 23 years. We are a small group of about 30 members.Up until this time the congregation has not had a full-time preacher.On May 1st I began working with them and we are looking forwardto much spreading of truth in this area. Rockwood is located about45 miles west of Knoxville just off I-40. We welcome any who shouldbe traveling through the area. Please tell others about us. Directions: Take the Rockwood-Harriman exit and go south onHwy. 27 to the first red light in Rockwood. Turn left at the lightand at the second stop sign turn right. The building will be on theleft approximately 1/2 mile. Services are on Sunday at 10:00 and

11:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. Wednesday Bible Study is at 7:30 p.m.For more information call me at (615) 354-4099 or (615) 354-4435.

HERB BRASWELL, Rt. 2, Box 358-D, Cedar Bluff, VA 24609. We are helping in the support of my son Reid Braswell who is preaching in Bogota, Columbia, South America. Reid is in need of additional support as he is only receiving $375 per month. Brethren, if youcould help in any way contact Reid Braswell, P.O. Box 2489, Bogota, D.E., Columbia, South America. For a reference contactRoyce Chandler, 3915 Franklin Rd., Nashville, TN 37204. At present my wife and I are looking to move. If we could be of serviceto you please contact me at the above address.

RALPH WALKER, 714 Beach St., Cleveland, MS 38732. After enjoying five years of fellowship in Cleveland, MS with the saints that meet here, my family will be moving to Concord, NC the middlepart of August. With much sadness we take leave of the birthplace of both our daughters as well as some others who have matured along with us. We leave the church wholly unified andharmonious. The work of the kingdom in Cleveland has a brightfuture with over 65% of the people being under 30 years of age. The work is almost totally-self-supporting with 35-40 regular members.Cleveland has been a beautiful place for us to live. We anticipate goodthings in NC as we plan to take our place beside those Christians who arealready laboring there in Concord and throughout the state. Pray for us.

AN ENCOURAGING MEETING FROM THE PLAINFIELD CHURCH BULLETIN, Johnie Edwards reports—It was good to work again in a gospel meeting with the church in Pekin, IN. Bill Beasley is doing a good workthere. During the meeting there were 13 baptisms and 1 restoration.

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

296

107