SPEAKING THE TRUTH IN LOVE

".. .But speaking the truth in love, may grow up intohim in all things, which is the head, even Christ. . ."(Eph. 4:15). The setting and context of this verse indicates that the "speaking in love" concerns the doctrineof Christ which provides the "Unity of the Spirit" and opposes that state of being carried about with "everywind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunningcraftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." Thisspeaking in love also concerns the edifying of the body;the putting off of the old man and putting on of the newman. It involves the speech to "neither give place to thedevil" (vs. 27).

What does Paul mean by the expression: "speakingthe truth in love"? Does he mean that there can be no plain, condemning of sin; no language of rebuke shouldbe used? Does he mean that "name calling" shouldnever be used? How shall we determine what the apostle meant by the expression?

Before we look into the scriptures to determine whatthis expression means, perhaps it is in order to inquirehow one tells when another is not "speaking the truth inlove." What standard do men use to decide this? What do those who condemn one for not speaking in lovemean by "speaking in love"? I think that some of themmean those who speak "boldly" are not speaking inlove. Others mean that strong words of condemnationare not words spoken in love; some mean that when a brother's name is used in connection with a false doctrine or practice, it is not "speaking in love." Just howdo we determine when one is "speaking the truth in love"? Since the apostle Paul was the instrument of theHoly Spirit to pen these words, let us observe how hespoke and we will learn what it means.

It meant to speak boldly the word of God. "Great is my boldness of speech toward you. . . (2 Cor. 7:4). It means to use plainness of speech. "Seeing then that wehave such hope, we use great plainness of speech" (2Cor. 3:12). It includes rude (unskilled, unpolished) speech. "But though I be rude in speech. . ." (2 Cor. 11:6). It means to make manifest or to reveal. "That I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak" (Col. 4:4). Itmeans to speak to please God and not men. "But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel,even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, whichtrieth our hearts" (1 Thess. 2:4). "For do I now persuademen, or God? or do I seek to please men? for ifI yetpleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ" (Gal.1:10). It means to speak the truth without fear. "Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision,Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace" (Acts18:9). It means to speak to put another to shame. " "Ispeak to your shame..." (1 Cor. 6:5). It means to speak the truth and only the truth. "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak thetruth in Christ and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles infaith and verity" (1 Tim. 2:7)."

It means to speak sound doctrine. "But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine . . . Sound speech, that cannot be condemned . . . (Titus2:1, 8). It means not to speak in the enticing words of man's wis-dom. "And my speech and my preachingwas not with enticing words of man's wisdom ..." (1 Cor. 2:4). It means to reprove the works of darkness. "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works ofdarkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph. 5:11). It means to rebuke with all authority, sharply, and before all. "These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority" (Titus, 2:15). "This witnessis true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they maybe sound in the faith" (Titus 1:13). "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear" (1 Tim. 5:20). It means the calling of names. "Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme" (1Tim. 1:20). "For Demas hath forsaken

me, having loved this present world. . ." (2 Tim. 4:10)."Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil:, theLord reward him according to his works" (2 Tim. 4:14)."But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away thedeputy from the faith. Then Saul, (who also is called Paul) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,and said, O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou childof the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thounot cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?" (Acts13:8-10).

What all "speaking the truth is love" means, it certainly includes speaking boldly, plainly, making manifest, speaking to please God rather than men, to speakwithout fear, to speak to shame evil doers, speakingonly the truth, to speak sound doctrine, to reprove withall authority, sharply and before all, and calling namesof those in sin.

Most of those who criticize for speaking boldly and plainly, think of the love as applying to that tenderemotion toward the individual to whom the preaching isdone. They view it as "loving sinners" so as not to hurttheir feelings and expose their error too sharply. Thereal meaning of "speaking the truth in love" is to havethat love for Christ, for the truth, for the lost souls ofmen to hold nothing back that would be profitable forthem. True love does not rejoice in iniquity, but doesrejoice in the truth (1 Cor. 13:6). I must love men so as to make them know the truth.

"WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?"

Not long ago I received a notice in the mail of a "Medical Evangelism Seminar" to be conducted January 3 and 4 in Dallas, Texas. The advertisingmakes it plain that the medical "missions" being conducted by liberal brethren are viewed as an evangelisticoutreach. It also showed that churches are involved in sending and supporting doctors, nurses and technicians.

Before someone even asks, let me make it clear that Iam not opposed to sick people receiving medical attention in this country or around the world. They that are sick need a physician. But it is not the mission of thechurch, for which our Lord gave his blood, to build andmaintain hospitals, clinics, nor to support doctors andnurses in the practice of medicine anywhere. This practice grows out of the social gospel concept that thechurch must minister to "the whole man." Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world" (Jno. 18:36). Paulsaid "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit"(Rom. 14:17).

That Christians have a right to build roads, dig wells,help people with soil conservation, engage in gainfulemployment, operate gymnasiums for physical fitness,teach school, run day-care centers, or practice medicineis not in dispute. What is in question here is the role ofthe church as a collective body to underwrite such activities. This is an extension of the same concept set inmotion in Japan, Germany and Italy after World War IIwhen efforts were made to convert people with pasta,rice and clothing. The only power God has given us touse in saving the lost is the gospel of Christ. That aloneis the "power of God unto salvation" (Rom. 1:16). Theuse of anything else betrays a lack of confidence in the power of the gospel. The New Testament is silent as to such activities in the methods used by the apostles ofour Lord, even though one of the traveling companionsand co-laborers with Paul was Luke, the beloved physician. If he set up medical clinics in Philippi, Thessalonica or Corinth in order to reach people with the gospel, then the New Testament says nothing about it.

Back to the advertising of the Dallas seminar, muchmay be learned from the program arrangement. Oneman was to discuss "Current Happenings in MedicalEvangelism." Another was to discuss "How MedicalPractice and Evangelism Fit Together." Reports were to be heard from Nigerian Christian Hospital, Cap Haitien Clinic, Haiti, Clinica Christiana, Guatemala, Belize,Ghana, Chamala Mission Hospital in Tanzania (givenby the elders of the Springtown, Texas church) and other works. One was to speak on "Involving theChurch in Your Mission." There were to be group meetings to discuss how colleges could help prepare medicaldoctors, nurses, dentists, lab and medical techniciansand other medical professionals for such mission work.One was to speak on "Psychological Testing." One session was to be devoted to "How Three Churches Are Involved." The closing session was aptly entitled"Where Do We Go From Here?" Indeed, where?

According to the New Testament, local churches are to support the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), edify themselves(Eph. 4:16) and relieve their needy members (1 Tim.5:16; Acts 6:1-6). From that simple and noble work,brethren have gone far afield in building every conceivable kind of institution standing between the churchesand the field of work. There have been missionary societies, church supported colleges, relief societies for children, old folks and unwed mothers, and now for many years in foreign fields, hospitals and clinics all fundedby churches. When N.B. Hardeman, in 1947, said the church support of orphan homes and colleges stand orfall together, in an attempt to get churches to accept theprinciple of church support for the colleges, I am sure hehad no idea what tall oaks would grow from such littleacorns. Trends, once established, are hard to reverse, oreven slow down.

A few of the men are still living who planted theseacorns of error three decades ago. Some of them are nowstanding in a forest of tall trees with a hatchet trying toundo what they have set in motion. It will not work.Let's get back to basics. Let the church be the church.Let it do the work God gave it and be content therewith.Let us all be careful about the trends we set. "They havesown the wind; they shall reap the whirlwind."

COMMITTEES

QUESTION: I've heard a lot about churches without elders appointing committees to carry out certain responsibilities. For example, I know of one church that has appointed a preacher-selection committee with it'schairman. Is this scriptural?

ANSWER: A church cannot function properly unlesssomeone (or ones) is delegated to act on behalf of thechurch. When a benevolent need arose in the Jerusalem church, the apostles called the church together and toldthem to select seven men "whom we may appoint overthis business" (Acts 6:1-3). These seven servants coordinated the work and saw that distribution was made to the needy widows.

When a benevolent situation arises today, somebrethren would have to be chosen (assuming the church is not fully organized with elders and deacons) to lookinto the matter and make some evaluations and suggestions to the church. Then these men could be authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to alleviate theproblem. These men might be called the "benevolentcommittee."

There is nothing wrong in calling those who act forthe church a "committee." Webster defines the word, "a body of persons delegated to consider, investigate, take action on, or report on some matter." Hence, a "committee" in the church is a body of men who have beendelegated or authorized by the congregation to consider, investigate, report and to take action. There is nousurpation of authority or no arbitrary function. Thecommittee acts by delegation of the church.

In the selection of a preacher, the whole church cannot get on the phone and inquire as to what preacher isavailable and interested in locating with them. Thiswork must be done by agents for the church. Two orthree brethren may be chosen to make an investigation,and even authorized to invite a man to come for a "tryout." To have a chairman among the group is simply tocoordinate its function. The group might be called the"Preacher-selection committee." The church would make the decision as to whether it wanted the preacherto come and work with them.

Many times churches in a building program appoint a"building committee." Men are selected who have experience in finances and building construction. They worktoward finalizing the blueprints for the building, contact contractors, receive bids and seek bank financing.

Final approval would be the responsibility of the church

in a business meeting.

Whenever a committee's job has finished and the

need fulfilled, then the committee is to dissolve. A com

mittee does not (and it must not) take the place of

elders. Men cannot be appointed as a committee to rule

and oversee the church. A committee acts for the

church and is amenable to the wishes of the church.

Sometimes elders, at their discretion, select a com

mittee to expedite a work. The committee would con

duct itself the same way in this situation as it would

where there are no elders. The only difference here is the

committee would report back to the elders instead of

the congregation.

Delegation of responsibility is needed for a variety of

things in the church, and whether the groups given

assignments are called "committees" or not, they cer

tainly function as such.

Leaving God's Presence

QUESTION: The Bible teaches that God is omnipresent, that is, He is every where (Psa. 139:7-12; Jer. 23:2324). Yet, we read that Cain went out from the presence ofthe Lord" (Gen. 4:16). How could Cain go out of God'spresence if He is everywhere?

ANSWER: Cain did not leave God's presence in thesense that he went beyond His jurisdiction or awareness. Rather, Cain was rejected by God because of hissin, and he went out, separated himself, from God'sprotection and heavenly blessings.

When God was chastising Israel by the Syrian king,Hazael, He preserved them by His grace from annihilation, "and would not destroy them from his presence asyet" (2 Kings 13:23). Ultimately, however, the Assryians conquered Israel and took people captive, removing them from God's sight (2 Kings 17:18). Being removed from God's sight (presence) was rejection byGod, losing His protection, and standing defenselessagainst their enemies.

Later, God cast Judah out from His presence (2 Kings24:20), allowing the Babylonians to take them captive.This was called, "removing them out of His sight" (2Kings 24:3).

Jehovah will punish the disobedient with "everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. ..." (2Thess. 1:9). This is not only banishment from His immediate presence, but a rejection by God of His blessedness, glory and honor in an eternal fellowship.

Hence, Cain's leaving God's presence is his separation from God's fellowship and His providential care. John

W. Haley takes a different view. He states that the"presence of the Lord" from which Adam hid himself,and Cain and Jonah fled, was the "visible and specialmanifestation of God to them at the time; or else itdenotes the place where that manifestation was made"

(Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, p. 58).

ISAIAH SAW IN THE TEMPLEWHO TO TRUST

"In the year of King Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord...with the train of his robe filling the temple." (Isa. 6:1).When Isaiah "saw the Lord" the stage was set for theentire book of Isaiah. Within Chapter 6 there are someof the most powerful lessons for today that could befound anywhere. This was the turning point in the life ofIsaiah when he was called from his comfortable surroundings of the palace to the white-hot heat of a spokesman for the eternal God to a wicked and rebellious people.

Uzziah was, next to David and Solomon, the mostpowerful of the Judian Kings. He had ruled for 52 yearswhen he died, giving the troubled nation a breath ofsecurity amidst turmoil. In his 52 years he had been blessed as a successful warrior and been given manyvictories. He had built a great war machine. He waspopular and well thought of by the nation. Yet, amidsthis domestic popularity and military strength, the lengthening shadow of Assyria fell over this small Judaic nation. The mighty and dreadful Assyrian giantwas about to flex it's muscles and overrun Jerusalem. But, as long as the rulership of Uzziah kept Judah at peace with herself and the Egyptians remained a faithful ally, Assyria might be held off.

Yet now for Isaiah, a righteous young man, it wastime for a call to a deeper level of commitment than heheld prior to Uzziah's death. There were lessons to learnfor Isaiah and for us as well.

I. Isaiah had to learn who to trust.

It has often been said, "show who you put your trustin and you will reveal the face of your God." V. 1, "I sawthe Lord sitting on the throne." God wanted Isaiah tosee that even though his personal friend and his objectof national stability was dead, the THRONE WASNOT EMPTY. God is sitting on the throne... that God is still in control! Isaiah had to have the foundation that if Jerusalem was to survive the terrible cruelty of theAssyrians, that the real power was in the king on thethrone in Heaven and not in the king on the throne inJerusalem. Isaiah needed to see the correct object of histrust.

Do not we of today's world need to see the Lord "high and lifted up" or "lofty and exalted" in order to know that our own existence as well as our own success comes from Him and not our own programs, pep, and propaganda? The spiritual growth of individuals and congregations does not come from OUR programs of trainingor gospel meetings, or buildings, bulletins and budgets,but from the eternal God. Our feverish activities are NOT TO BE THE OBJECT of our trust! If we think we can get the work off the ground by jumping highenough, the only thing we will get is tired or burned out.

There was an entire political party in Jerusalem thatsaid their survival was found in the alliances with Egypt or Babylon. 30:1-2: "Woe to the rebellious children . . . who make alliances . . . who proceed down toEgypt without consulting me, to take refuge in thesafety of Pharaoh and to seek shelter in the shadow ofEgypt." Again in 31:1: "Woe to those who go down toEgypt for help and rely on horses, and trust in chariots,because they are many in horsemen, because they arevery strong, BUT THEY DO NOT LOOK TO THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL NOR DO THEY SEEK THE LORD!" Isaiah could feel what he preached: "On whomdo you trust," because he had learned his lesson as well.Both we and Isaiah need to remove our eyes fromWHAT WE CAN SEE, and focus on WHAT WECAN'T SEE! In II Cor. 4:18: ". . . we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are notseen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal." If we trust in the "seen world" we are in trouble. If we trust in our husbands or wives, or in our children, and then marriage problems occur or the children turn out to be unfaithful,we are left with an empty throne. If we trust in ourability to teach the class or preach the sermon and theneverything doesn't turn out successfully in our resources, be they talent or money, one day the throne willbe empty.

We must see the unseen throne of God and His greatness, "lofty and exalted." Only then will we never havean empty throne but an eternal, all powerful, loving,glorious God who is the object of our total trust. There is no "back up plan" in case He isn't able to take care ofus. It is just HIS GLORY that we look upon.

QUESTIONING THE POPE'S AUTHORITY

The foundation of Roman Catholicism is the contention that the pope is a successor of the apostle Peter andthe Vicar of Christ on earth. If that be true (and that's abig IF), it would be reasonable to believe that the pope isinfallible in matters of doctrine and has absolute authority over the Catholic Church. That is what Catholics are supposed to believe without question or reservation. But do they?

As I write this (Dec. 2, 1985), a special synod ofbishops is assembled in Vatican City to "assess theimpact of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council(1962-65)." According to news reports, there is muchdiscussion, disagreement and rebellion in the CatholicChurch, even among the bishops and between them andthe pope.

Speaking of news, as usual, the news media is covering the actions and decisions of the assembly of bishops. The NBC television network had a special report last week on the synod. In addition to all of this, National Geographic of December 1985 has 56 pages ofbeautiful color on Vatican City and its treasures. Thiscauses us to feel that our efforts are a drop in the ocean,but we must continue to speak out against this false yet powerful system.

The NBC report focused on the serious and increasingshortage of priests in the United States. They attributed that primarily to celibacy and the life-style demanded for priests. If they would only accept the teaching of the Bible they would understand that allChristians—both men and women—are priests (I Peter2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6).

The following quotations by the Associated Press inVatican City will give us a fair representation of thesubject under consideration:

"Canadian bishops, adding their voices to Austrian and Japanese prelates, suggested that a way be foundto allow divorced and remarried Roman Catholics to receive communion.

" 'I feel a tremendous sympathy for persons in thatsituation and I would certainly like to be able to reachout to them and come to their aid,' said archbishop James Martin Hayes of Halifax.

"The church does not recognize divorce, and Catholics who marry again without an annulment are excluded from communion.

" 'What I am asking for is that either the synod or another group look at the theological principles involved there and see if the discipline we now have reallyinterprets in the best way for the good of the personsconcerned and especially the rights of the persons concerned,' Hayes told a news conference

"Hayes spoke a day after prelates from Austria and Japan suggested to the extraordinary synod of bishopsthat divorced and remarried Catholics be allowed to participate fully in the church."

"Archbishop Karl Berg of Salzburg, called for 'moreunderstanding' for Catholics who are divorced and remarry.

"Berg suggested that 'perhaps after a period of penance they might be readmitted to the sacraments'."

"A recent poll of American Catholics conducted bythe New York Times and CBS News showed 73 percentfavor the acceptance of remarriage.

"At a closing session of a 1980 bishops' synod on the family, Pope John Paul II said divorced Catholics whomarry outside the church 'can and ought to participatein the life' of the church but cannot receive communion unless they abstain from sexual relations.

"The Austrian prelate also touched on the issue of theVatican's teaching on birth control. Berg questioned the teaching, which bars artificial contraception, or wasasking that it be better explained."

"Bishop Malone (James W. Malone of Youngstown,Ohio) said he was encouraged with the synod, the dominant theme of which appeared to be 'universal support for Vatican II; universal agreement that the council wasand remains a great gift of God to the church.'

"That assessment, Bishop Malone said, 'seems to be coupled with realistic recognition of the many questionsand problems that we have 20 years after the Council'."

In view of what has been reported, the principle pointof this article is: If Catholics truly believe what theyteach about the authority of the pope, why don't theyask him for the facts about these controversial matters and then accept what he says? If the system operateslike they teach that it should, there should never be anycontroversy or questions as to what Catholics are tobelieve and practice.

Have you noticed that in all the reports about thesynod of bishops, as well as all such meetings, not oneword is said about any reference to or concern for whatthe Bible teaches? Remember, the Catholic Churchteaches that it is responsible for giving the Bible to theworld. Why then don't they at least check to see what itteaches about priests, bishops, birth control, divorce and remarriage, etc.?

True Christians accept Christ alone as the head of thechurch and understand that he governs and guides Hispeople today through His written will, the New Testament. Without any synods, councils or controversy,they know now what to believe and practice and the same will be true next year and for as long as the churchis on the earth! They do not merely claim to accept Hisauthority, but they demonstrate that they do by havingno creed but Christ and no book but the Bible.

We plead with our Catholic friends to turn from thatsystem of confusion and inconsistency and come into the true body of Christ where He has all authority. Theapostles never one time questioned that, and when there was any doubt about what was right they wereconcerned only with learning and following that which was the will of the Lord. That will stand the test of time,and guide the people of God unto all good works (2Timothy 3:16, 17).

The Jan. issue contained an article entitled "The Security of the Believer" which was written by me andwas reviewed by Donnie Rader. If you have not readthem please do so before continuing. Elsewhere in thisissue is a response to this article. Please study it alongwith this one. In dealing with his review I shall use theheadings as he used them.

WHAT IS THE ISSUE": I must take exception tothe wording of some of what Donnie says the issue isnot. He said, "This issue is not a question of security orconfidence". The Christian should have confidence but the question is does he when he should? My reason forwriting is the fact that the confidence of many Christians has been shaken due to the teachings of certainpreachers over the last few years.

Then brother Radar said, "The question is notwhether or not the Christian can live perfect. Neither ofus believe that he can." Even though he admits that a Christian cannot live perfectly (several prominent men of his persuasion are saying one can), his doctrine necessitates that one do so to have confidence and security.You see, he believes that every sin, without qualification, causes God to sever his grace and fellowship, leaving one to walk in darkness. So according to him, if oneis in the light he is perfect, in the sense of sinlessness.Therefore, if one has confidence and security he mustbelieve that he is sinless. Thankfully though, they donot practice this doctrine. For example, when theypreach a funeral for a faithful Christian they assure thefamily and friends that their loved one has gone to a better place, regardless of the real possibility that the deceased may have inadvertently sinned and died before wording any kind of confession. Another example is that they wait until a brother refuses to repent, ratherthan withdraw fellowship from him as soon as his sinbecomes known. I wonder if it is alright to practicesomething the Bible doesn't teach.

Note that my brother didn't deny holding an extreme position. Brother Rader, isn't truth always betweenextremes? He concluded this section by saying, "Thecharge that brother Waters makes . . . is no different than the charge made by Calvinists . . ." Calvinists teach apostasy is impossible; the Bible teaches that it ispossible, but Radar teaches that it is inevitable. Incidentally, in the Woods-Nunnery debate that was mentioned, Woods responded by saying that the positionthat Nunnery was making fun of was "bald legalism".Woods holds the position that I do.

CONFIDENCE, HOPE AND SECURITY: Underthis heading brother Rader makes his first of a numberof quotes of things I have written elsewhere. I thought he was supposed to review my article, not everything Ihave ever written on this subject. I would like to replyto everything, especially the quotes he took out of context, but unfortunately space will not allow me to do soat this time.

Donnie implies that I believe a Christian may continue in sin, or practice sin, because I have said that thecleansing of 1 Jn. 1:7 is "continuously applied." But what he apparently failed to notice is that I have consistently taught that the one who has the blood continuously applied is faithful and diligent—a true Christian.

Next he wrote, "However he believes that confessionis a general acknowledgement that we are not free ofsin." Well that's only partly true. I taught that 1 Jn. 1:9is a general confession as opposed to a general denial ofsin (not necessarily a worded confession), but in thesame sentence I made it clear that there is a "specific"confession of known sin (Acts 8). More than that, theChristian should ask forgiveness for sins of which he isunaware (Psa. 19:12). Continual repentance, confession,and prayer on the part of a faithful Christian is essentialif he is to "walk in the light". It is something that theChristian does while in the light. My brother's problem is that he thinks repentance and confession of sin issomething the Christian does while out of the light.(Really though, and who is not "in the light" is not aChristian, since he would not be Christ-like). Rather,repentance and confession are a practice of the Christian. One brother wrote, " If he is walking in the light, heis not guilty of sin and does not NEED to confessanything" (J.L.Z.). How far from the truth! The Pharisee in the parable in Luke 18 didn't think he needed to confess anything but look what happened to him. Thiswill continue to seem contradictory to men like Raderuntil they accept that "walk in the light" doesn't mean "sinless living".

My friend next said, "If he thinks that any kind ofrepentance, confession and prayer is essential then hehas no more confidence than the rest of us have, for ifone sins, he stands condemned until that general repentance, confession and prayer is made." No, that's not what I believe. That's what you teach, unless youthink all sins have to be specifically confessed. Which isit, brother Rader?

WALKING IN THE LIGHT: Note how our brother dealt with this section. He quoted from my article andbooklet in the first paragraph, but that was about it.Then, rather than deal objectively with what was saidhe built a straw man. He wants to know "what sin does not separate one from God", and, "If one sin doesn't separate one from God, then just how many does it take?" I say he built a straw man because I have neversaid there is a sin, or particular deed, that will notseparate one from God, nor have I said that one sin willnot do it. His question, "just how many does it take?",is not the issue with Calvinists nor with our discussion. With Calvinists it is not a question of how many, butwill any do it. And as far as we are concerned it is not aquestion of how many, but attitude—what will he doabout it when he learns of it.

In using Gal. 6:1 Donnie teaches that "a fault" causesone to fall from grace. He has concluded that the word"restore" has reference to fellowship—that fellowship islost when one is overtaken in a fault. (We've alreadyseen that he doesn't practice this idea). His exegesis ofthe passage is that if you have a fault you are lost. But ifthat is true it is most unfortunate for all of us. What about you brother Rader, do you have a fault? We whoare spiritual are to seek to correct the faults of brethren.The fault may be one that has resulted in spiritual deathor it might not.

The next point I think worthy of reply is his statement, "Brother Waters suggests in his article and in hisbooklet that to deny his position is to contend for perfection." Is it not true that if we always fall from gracewhen we sin then sinlessness is essential to security (orat least thinking that we are sinless)? In view of thistheory, we deny our sins if we express confidence ofsalvation.

BLOOD CONTINUOUSLY APPLIED: In myfirst article I said, "The text teaches that one who walksin the light has the blood continuously applied."Brother Rader said, "The text doesn't say that." Wellthen, if my statement was wrong, then one who walks inthe light does not have the blood continuously applied.He said, "That's an assumption of Robert Waters." Well I'll let the reader decide who is doing the assuming.Here it is: "But if we walk in the light... the blood ... cleanseth..."

Yes, the blood cleanseth as we confess; the confessionbeing a part of the "walk". But the word "cleanseth" of1 Jn. 1:7 is continuous. Vincent said, "The cleansing ispresent and continuous." But, of course verse nine givesa condition, which is that we confess our sins. We are forgiven of sins as we confess, or "if we confess", in thesame sense that we are forgiven "as we forgive ourdebtors" (Mt. 6:11-14). The context of verse nine indicates that this confession is in opposition to denying sinin our lives (or thinking that we are "without sin").Specific confession of known sin is of course taught inActs 8.

1 Jn. 1:7 does teach that the blood is continuouslyapplied to those who "walk in the light". That is what itsays. Of course confession is essential to that walk, but so is repentance, forgiveness, love, etc.

SPECIFIC CONFESSION: Now he wants to know who teaches that each individual sin must be confessed specifically. I wish he hadn't asked that because I would rather not call names and give quotes of anyonewho can't respond. But since he asked I feel obligated toanswer. Of course writers have been careful not to come right out and say "all sins must be specifically confessed", nevertheless, it is apparently believed andtaught. You judge from the following quotes (emphasismine): 1) Marshall Patton—"When in public prayer we pray 'Forgive us our sin,' such presupposes repentance on the part of each individual of what he is guilty. Public prayer is no place to identify each individual's private sin." (GOT, July 4, 85, p. 401. John Welch— "When a man does not confess his sin,the guilt of it is still with him and he is walking indarkness." (F&F's, Jan. 81,;.10). Donnie Rader— implied it when, in ridiculing a Calvinist who asked,"Can a person be in error on simply one point of Bibledoctrine and still go to heaven?", he said, "Doesn't that sound like some of our brethren today?" Rader implied that he believed any "one point" must be specifically confessed. If "one point" of Bible doctrinethen every sin (F&F's, Jan. 81, p. 30). James Zachary—The consequence of sin is spiritual death...The only way to avoid such a consequence is to dosomething about that particular sin . . ." (TheEpistle, May 85). "When I commit a sin, I have done anunrighteous act. That makes me unrighteous . . . Aslong as I have the guilt of that sin, I am walking in darkness. The moment I repent, pray and confessThe Lord forgives me and I once again walk in thelight. To be in 'darkness' is to have sinned and not yet confessed." (Know the Truth, May 5, 85;published by C of C, Winchester Rd., Memphis, TN).Mike Willis—"I believe that any time a Christian commits a sin, he stands condemned (Gal. 2:14) or hedies spiritually (Gen. 3). In order to be forgiven of that sin, he must repent of his sin, confess it, and pray forforgiveness from the Lord." (GOT, June 6, 85, p. 368).(Mike now denies believing what he said).

Brother Rader, if you believe in confessing categoriesof sin, what if you did not know of or forgot to specifically confess a certain category? Or do you believe a general confession such as, "forgive me of all past sins",will suffice in such cases.

QUESTIONS (asked by Rader): 1. "Why will yourposition not work on the pious unimmersed?" Answer:The "Pious unimmersed" have not had the blood of Christ applied and thus are not walking in the light. 2."What about the homosexual who doesn't know he is wrong, is he in fellowship with God?" Answer: It would be rare indeed that a Christian not know that such was wrong. Our society in general has come to look upon this sin as a great sin. If we were to judge according tohuman standards and reasoning we would have to say,"that man is definitely in darkness", but we are not thejudge. Judgments on hypothetical examples that involve ourselves are necessary (to an extent), to our having confidence. But whether the individual in the "whatif" case is in fellowship with God or not in God's business. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US. Churches no doubt have fellowshipped sexually immoral persons,but if a church is aware of it, it must withdraw fellowship. So really, the question, and others like it, are irrelevant and prejudicial. 3. "What sin (give some examples) can a child of God commit and not be separated?" Answer: A child of God is not permitted tocommit any sin willingly. But we all sin as my brother has admitted.

RADER'S CONCLUSION: He concludes with a quotation of Ezek. 33:12, but why I do not know. All that Iwish to say about it is to ask you to read the wholeparagraph and any commentary (if you choose), and youwill readily see that it lends no support to that which brother Radar is advocating.

QUESTIONS FOR BROTHER RADER: 1. Is a thing sin if the one guilty is ignorant of it (consider Lev.5:17)? 2. If a man who had been preaching the gospeland serving God faithfully for 40 years inadvertently orignorantly sins and dies before he becomes aware of itand before any confession can be worded, would he go tohell in every instance? You can answer this one becauseit may happen to you. 3. Is it not true that "sins ofomission", (failure to do, Jas. 4:17), is sin just as sins ofcommission? If yes, then if I must be without sin towalk in the light and in fellowship with God, that meansthat I must always do everything I know to do that isgood. Do you?

Conclusion

If I believed the way brother Rader believes I wouldbe too scared to open my mouth to teach even afterdiligent study. You see, if he is teaching error on evenone Bible subject, regardless of what it is, he is separated from God and would be eternally lost if he diedwhile teaching it. I once showed a preacher an error thathe made in a sermon, thinking that it might help him tosee that there was no security in his position. But hesaid, "that was just unfortunate". It was unfortunatealright. But what is more unfortunate is the fact thatbrethren are denying their sins rather than confessingthem.

If the reader has difficulty understanding what this isall about you can go to Luke 18:9-14 where the Lordsummed it up in one short parable. There was a Phariseewho was self-righteous and who denied his sins and there was a tax collector who said, "God be merciful tome a sinner!". Clearly we can see that there is a wrongattitude and a right one here. And surely the lesson isthat after we have been diligent in our service to him, weare not perfect or sinless (Ecc. 7:20; 1 Ki. 8:46; Prv. 20:9; Psa. 143:2; 2 Chron. 6:36; Rom. 3:9-19; Jas. 3:2,8). butsinners in need of mercy for sins aside from what we areable to recognize and specifically confess.

Brethren, don't lose sight of the fact that we who "do not walk according to the flesh, but according to thespirit", have been made "free from the law of sin anddeath" by "the law of the spirit of life" (see Scheme ofRedemption, by Wharton pp. 17-23, on Rom. 8:1-4).

I appreciate the good attitude with which brotherWaters is carrying on this discussion. When such is thecase, the discussion can only be profitable.

Things He Didn't Answer

1. Our brother didn't tell us which sins separate fromGod and which do not. I think brother Waters will agreethat this is the issue. I asked him about the man who may be guilty of lying, adultery or worshiping with the instrument. Do these sins separate from God? Hedidn't tell us. I'm asking again, brother Waters, please tell us what sin(s) does not separate from God?
2. Since he believes that (a) some sins do not separate, (b) the blood is continuously applied, and (c) one isnot condemned until he demonstrates that he will not repent—then what about the one who commits adulteryin weakness or ignorantly worships with the instrument, why do they not have the same confidence thatyou have? I've asked that before. Why didn't he deal with it?
3. Though he made reference to it, he really didn't address the point that he has no more confidence thanhe claims we have if he believes any kind of repentance,confession and prayer is essential, for one would becondemned until that repentance, confession andprayer was made.
4. He didn't really answer the question that I askedabout how many sins it takes to separate from God. Ifone sin committed in ignorance or inadvertence doesn'tseparate then would two, three, four? Just how many?He didn't tell us.
5. He didn't deal with the eight examples of one sin (some of ignorance, weakness and inadvertence) separating from God.
6. I asked him why 1 Jno. 1:7 included sins of ignorance, weakness and inadvertence (as far as sins that donot put us out of the light) but doesn't include all sins.He didn't tell us.

I plead with our brother to deal with these points aswell as those that I shall make in this article.

The Article

What I teach gives no reason for a lack of confidenceas brother Waters tried to indicate. I have alreadyshown that his teaching doesn't provide any more confidence. Even if some sins do not separate, we still wouldhave no more security because we would need a list of allthe sins that do and don't separate, a perfect knowledge of that list and a perfect knowledge of self.

Brother Waters, just who are the several prominentmen who say one can live perfect? We would like proofof his statement.

Our brother said, "So according to him, if one is in the light he is perfect, in the sense of sinlessness." Whileone is in the light he is without sin, just as one who risesfrom baptism is sinless at that point, though he is not and will never be perfect (there are many virtues inwhich he can continue to grow, for example love, knowledge, patience and self control). However, he will sin (1Jno. 1:8) which is a step out of the light (1 Jno. 1:5). TheChristian who asks for forgiveness is then in the lightand is sinless at that point. If not, the prayer was ineffective.

He said that I would preach the funeral of a man andgive assurance to the family not knowing if he died witha sin of inadvertence unconfessed. Thus he says I don'tpractice what I preach. Brother Waters, do you preachfunerals and give assurance to the families? If so, doyou know for sure that they didn't commit a willful sin that was unconfessed. Do you know that any sin theydid commit and didn't confess was one of inadvertence? Do you know that they didn't sin in attitude and didn't confess it? Then concerning a church withdrawing fellowship, there is a difference in the point at which a church withdraws from one and the point at which he isseparated from God. Withdrawal is the last step, not the first.

He says that I teach that apostasy is inevitable. I doteach that all sin separates (Jas. 1:15). That doesn'tmean that when we sin (1 Jno. 1:8) we will becomewholesale apostates and be the man of Heb. 6. I'm confused on how he uses the term "apostasy". I generally use it to mean a complete abandonment of the faith.However, if he means that I teach that the Christian will sin (1 Jno. 1:8) and that sin will separate him fromGod and he denies that such is inevitable, then he is theone that affirms the possibility of sinlessness.

He denies that his teaching that the blood was “continuously applied" means that a Christian may continue in sin without separation. If the Christian who sins ignorantly or inadvertently is not cleansed as longas he may ignorantly or inadvertently sin, then theblood is not continuously applied.

He says that I believe that repentance and confessionare done outside the light. If the brother who has sinned is still in the light, then why does he need to repent andconfess? Is sin equated with darkness or light in theN.T.? What about the faith, repentance and confessionon the part of the alien sinner, are those done outsidethe light, or is he already in the light as he meets theconditions in God's law of pardon?

Our brother denies that he believes that one stands condemned until a general repentance, confession andprayer is made. Then why does he claim to teach thatrepentance and confession are essential? If one doesn'tstand condemned until he repents and confesses, thenthese are not essential to forgiveness. I wonder if hedoesn't believe that one's past life give future forgiveness. Consider his question about the preacher whofaithfully served God for 40 years then inadvertently or ignorantly sinned and died before confession. BrotherWaters, do you think that his 40 years of righteousnessgranted him forgiveness of these ignorant and inadvertent sins? Suppose the things were turned around andfor 40 years he had been a wicked sinner and then theday before he died he was baptized. Do the 40 years ofsin mean his baptism is of no avail? Why not, if 40 yearsof righteousness means that those sins were of no avail?

He said, "I have never said there is a sin, or particulardeed, that will not separate one from God, nor have Isaid that one sin will not do it." He has told us that some sins do not separate (See Searching The Scriptures,Jan., 86; The Expository Review, Aug. 83; his booklet,The Security of the Believer, pp. 8,10,11,12,13,14,16,18).

We are told that it isn't a question of how many sins,but attitude. Suppose the man is ignorant of the right attitude and sins, is he separated? According to him,one sin in attitude will separate one from God. Now Iwonder even more about that preacher who served Godfor 40 years and then commits one sin (wrong attitude).Does his 40 years of righteousness take care of that sin?

In his reference to Gal. 6:1 he confuses "faults" as we normally use the term today and "sin" as it is used inthe passage. He said that the fault may result in spiritual death or it may not. If it doesn't separate from God,then why does he need to be restored?

He says that in 1 Jno. 1:7 that "cleanseth" is continuous. While that is true, it is only as frequent as weconfess (1 Jno. 1:9).

I had asked for the names of men who taught that we must specifically confess every instance of sin asbrother Waters said some taught. None of the men quoted believe that. He misrepresented every one ofthem! None of the quotes say what I was asking and heknew it as evidenced in his statement just previous tothe quotes.

He asked about confessing categories of sin and whatif one forgot to confess a certain category. I pointed outin my first article that 1 Jno. 1:9 says we must confessour sins (of what we are guilty). That doesn't mean every specific instance of sin. If he is guilty of lying,though he may not remember every instance, he mustconfess that he is guilty of lying.

My Questions

1. He didn't answer the question. If some sins don't separate, then why doesn't that work on the pious unimmersed?
2. It seems that he had trouble answering about thehomosexual. He said he would judge from human standards that the homosexual is in darkness. Why? If somesins of ignorance do not separate from God, why will itnot work here? He said it would be a rare situation for a Christian not to know it was wrong. Well, tell us aboutthat rare case.
3. He didn't answer this question either. I know you believe that a child of God cannot willfully sin, but I wasasking for some examples of those sins that do notseparate. Surely, surely you can just name a few.

More Questions

1. If a Christian sins, are there any conditions forforgiveness? 2. Should we fellowship all the saved? 3. Is it possible for a Christian to lie (as Abraham did) andnot be separated from God? 4. Is the man who ignorantly worships with the instrument guilty of a sin thatseparates him from God or is that a sin that doesn'tseparate?

Questions For Me

1. Yes (1 Tim. 1:12-16). 2. Yes, so far as the word ofGod teaches (the old prophet—1 Kings 13; Ezek. 33:12).What is the likelihood of a faithful servant of 40 yearsnot knowing that he had sinned? 3. Yes. (Matt. 25:31-46).

Absolute And Relative Matters

It will help in this issue if we better understand thatnot all of God's requirements are of the same nature.There are some areas that are absolute. In these we must be perfect. There is no room for growth. One iseither guilty of adultery or lying or he is not. In this area we can attain unto God's perfect law. There are otherareas that are relative. Our obedience to these commands is determined upon our time, opportunity and abilities. There are varying degrees of patience and knowledge. These commands we never keep perfectly.We always fall short of perfection. But, that lack ofperfection is not necessarily sin. The key is a "diligent"effort (2 Pet. 1:5). (For more study on this see Marshall

E. Patton's excellent articles in Searching The Scriptures, Sept., 74 and Jan., 79).

Constantly Sinning?

Underlying this idea that some sins do not separate isthe concept that the Christian constantly sins. That's why some have to believe some sins don't separate, forif all sin did separate we would be hopeless because we sin all the time. Where is the passage that shows thatthe Christian is in and out of sin regularly? Oh, I knowhe will and does sin (1 Jno. 1:8), but that doesn't say that he can't help but sin every hour of the day. I justdon't believe we are all that sinful; do you? If we are, weare a sorry and hopeless bunch! I realize that we all willand do sin, but lack of perfection is not sin. Neither isevery misunderstanding a sin (Rom. 14).

WIND AND CLOUD WATCHERS

Nothing keeps people from the Bread Of Life morethan neglect or procrastination. There may be a few isolated cases of people neglecting to eat food, becauseof being too involved in something or because of someemotional or psychological problem. Most people, however, do not look for excuses for not eating to sustain physical life. It is in the spiritual realm, involving theBread Of Life, that the problem is mountainous.

Failure to do because of neglect and procrastination,and the consequences, are figuratively pictured in Eccles. 11:1-6. "Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thoushalt find it after many days." The imagery seems to bethat of merchants sending forth their ships with goodsand return ladened with great profit. There could neverbe profits if the ships stayed in the harbor. They mustventure forth. The next verse is an exhortation to benevolence, "give to seven and also to eight" (fully andthen some) without regard for what results or consequences may follow your action. The one who acts-ventures forth-gives, being unhampered by fears ofwhat might happen (over which he has no control) is theone who prospers—"receive bread back after manydays". Perhaps this divine principle is the basis for thepopular adage "nothing ventured, nothing gained".

Threats

There will always be hazards or possible happeningsin any endeavor. It may rain or hail on your sown seedor it may not. The tree will be where it falls and there isnothing you can do about it. One thing is certain, if onenever cuts wood because the tree may fall where itshouldn't, damaging some thing or person, he will neverhave lumber with which to build or wood for warmth in winter. If the farmer fails to plant because he fears itmight rain too much, not rain, hail on tender sprouts,enemy sow tares or set fire to his field, he will neverreap. The one who allows these unforeseen things, thatcould or may happen, to keep him from duty-from venturing forth-is the one who "observeth the wind andregardest the clouds" who never sows or reaps (vs. 4). A man can no more know about these "might happen" things than he can know about the way of the spirit(wind), unseen things, or the growth of the embryo inthe womb (vs. 5). Man's duty, in view of all this, is to"sow thy seed in the morning and in the evening withhold not thy hand" without being influenced by "mightbe" things that you cannot know (vs. 6).

Spiritual Wind and Cloud Watching

We have far too many wind and cloud watchers in the church when it comes to doing those things that constitute feeding upon the Bread of Life." As a consequence,many starve and never reap eternal life. These are the"fearful" of Rev. 21:8 who will "have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone". Theyfailed to do God's bidding because they feared whatmen might say or do, or what the results might be ifthey acted.

The need for PERSONAL EVANGELISM is urgentfor every child of God (Jno. 9:4-5); Matt. 28:19; Mk.16:15; 2 Tim. 4:2), but with many it never gets donebecause "they might resent my efforts," "offend me," "Imight be criticized," "conditions might be better lateron," "I'm too busy now," etc.

All followers of the Lord know that VISITING those in need (sick, bereaved, fainting) is a must if we pleasethe Lord. In fact, doing this or not doing is a determining factor in our eternal destiny (Matt. 25:32-45; Jas.1:27; 2:15-16; 1 Jno. 3:17-18; Rom. 12:10, 13-15). If oneis not doing this, he is not partaking of the sustainingBread of Life. Why are you not constantly engaged inthis activity? Is it not because "the time is not right"for you? You are too busy with other things? You assume that others will supply enough? You fear theymight not appreciate your effort or some might criticize? Because of such cloud and wind watching the workis not done and reaping is made impossible.

PERSONAL EDIFICATION or spiritual growth is amatter of constantly feeding upon the Bread of Life.The necessity of this is emphasized in such passages as1 Pet. 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:18, 2 Tim. 2:15; Heb. 5:12; 10:24-25.How many times have you promised yourself-made a resolution-to start reading the Bible more; to begin going to Bible classes; to stop forsaking the assembling ofsaints; to spend more time in prayer; to make greatersacrifices for and in the Lord's work? Why did you notcarry through with these noble resolutions and why are you not now engaged in such personal edification? Morethan likely you have been, and are, cloud and windwatching—looking for the "right time". Right now you don't like the teacher, preacher, or some of the brethren,so you are waiting until things are more to your liking.Too, maybe you are so involved in your work, sports,and other entanglements that you just don't have time. Maybe, later on, there won't be so many demands onyour time, then you say, "I will launch forth". Such casting about for excuses for not "sowing thy seed inthe morning and withholding not thy hand in the evening" means you never get done what is necessary and,therefore, can never reap eternal life.

It is this folly of being wind and cloud watchers thatkeep many people from obeying the gospel and confessing their sins. Instead of obeying the Lord or confessingsins as soon as convicted, many begin to look for, orenvision, what others may say or do, the things theymay have to give up, or a more convenient season.Usually they end up never obeying.

As each new generation arises, young people must betaught and older ones reminded of great Biblical truths.Not only so but special care must be taken to APPLYthose truths properly. Sometimes in great zeal to accelerate growth and to excite brethren to stronger commitment and more enthusiastic spirituality, Christians failto test activities by the Word of God and lose sight ofprinciples clearly taught by the apostles.

No concept is more important to efforts to avoid theever-present tendency toward denominationalismamong brethren than a clear view of God's pattern forthe organization of brethren functioning collectively asthe church of Christ. No organizational issue lies closerto the heart of potential compromise of New TestamentChristianity than the issue of church cooperation. Can churches cooperate with one another. If so, in what andhow can they cooperate?

Some in influential positions in churches at thepresent time have no firsthand experience with specific issues which divided brethren in churches of Christ twenty-five or thirty years ago. Some of them have notstudied those issues nor the history of apostasy anddivisions caused by misunderstandings concerning cooperation authorized in the Scriptures. As a result, I seewhat I believe to be compromises and I greatly fear thatthose compromises will increase in number setting dangerous precedents. The brethren's intentions are goodbut we are responsible to realize what we are doingwhen we open doors which lead to apostasy. Our greatest problem may be that we are unwittingly leavingimpressions upon younger untaught babes in Christwho may march right on off into institutionalism because they cannot see the difference (if there is any)between what we are practicing and what liberal brethren have done all along!

Some Current Concerns

I travel much each year both in my work as a preacherof the gospel and in my secular work as an educator. Ialso live in a large city in which there are many congregations which oppose institutionalizing the church.Many brethren are aggressively working to overcomelethargy and to help the kingdom to grow. I have become aware, however, of some recent activities which cause me to be concerned. Two examples should besufficient to raise the issue and hopefully to cause someto remember and think.

This last year the needs among Ethiopian Christiansbecame widely known among brethren in America. Institutional churches supported the needy in Ethiopia through sponsoring churches in Louisiana and California. Some of our brethren in congregations which do not support human institutions suggested that we shouldsend aid through those sponsoring churches because ofthe special political difficulties of getting aid into thecountry. One brother who preaches even suggested thatthe church where he worships should send through adenominational church organization which was gathering up funds. Certainly a church in America can senddirectly to a needy church(es) in Ethiopia. Some inTampa and elsewhere did. We NEED not DO NOTHING. We MUST not, however, violate New Testament authority and compromise Truth!

I am concerned also about some brethren in metropolitan areas using language which indicates that theyview their lectureship programs, gospel meetings, and singings which attract large audiences as "city-wide" or"area-wide" worship services in which churches cometogether with "sister congregations" to be edified. There is no problem with a church inviting Christiansother than the members of that local congregation toworship with it as INDIVIDUALLY they have opportunity, but it is another thing for elders to arrangeworship and/or work for many CONGREGATIONS.Would there be a difference in principle in doing thatwhen they meet at the same time in the same buildingand when they do not? The next step, of course, wouldbe for two sets of elders to jointly plan these meetings.The distinction between a church planning and executing its own work or worship and a church deliberatelyplanning and executing a program for all the churchesin its area must be clear in our minds, in what we say,and in what actually happens. Again, it is time for us to go all the way back and review the pattern so that we don't unwittingly get carried away and violate theLord's will. It is certainly in that spirit that these wordsare penned.

Biblical Church Cooperation

The purpose of this article is not to argue at lengththe question of church cooperation. Our purpose is primarily to encourage caution and study before we engage in questionable activities in the name of positive,aggressive, active, enthusiastic effort to cause thechurch to grow. Some essentials on church cooperationwould perhaps be helpful here, nonetheless:

1. God planned the church before the earth wasformed (Ephesians 3:8-11).
2. The church must conform itself to God's plan (Hiswill and purposes) and subject itself to Christ in all things (Ephesians 5:24).
3. God's will is stated in the Word inspired by theHoly Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:9-13) and that Word, revealed in the New Testament, is the pattern or blueprintfor all things pertaining to the church (Hebrews 8:5; 1 Corinthians 4:14-17; 14:33-34, 37; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
4. The pattern provides for no organization throughwhich the universal church can function.
5. The pattern does not provide for any collectivelarger than the local congregation for church activity.
6. The pattern provides only for functioning in local

churches and for the appointment of elders in each church who oversee the work and watch for the souls of the saints who compose that church (Acts 14:23); Hebrews 13:17; Philippians 1:1).

1. The elders are to take heed to the local church in which they have been made bishops and their oversightis limited to that congregation (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2).
2. Nowhere in the Scripture is there authorization forone church to serve as the sponsoring church through which other churches act.
3. When two or more New Testament congregationssupported the same preacher out in the field, each sentits contribution for support directly to him (2 Corinthians 11:8; Philippians 1:5; 4:15-17).
4. When another church sent to a church in need, itsent its own contribution by its own messengers to theelders of the receiving church who oversaw distributionof it (Acts 11:27-30; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; Romans15:25-26; 2 Corinthians 8, 9).

CONCLUSION: NO PASSAGE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AUTHORIZES TWO OR MORE LOCAL CHURCHES TO FUNCTION TOGETHER AS COLLECTIVE BODIES MERGING OVERSIGHT OR MEMBERSHIP TO DO ANYTHING (WORK OR WORSHIP)! NOR DID ANY CHURCH PLAN OR EXECUTE THE WORK OF OTHER CHURCHES! INVOLVED IN THIS IS THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE NATURE OF CONGREGATIONAL INDEPENDENCE AND AUTONOMY. CONCERN ABOUT IT MUST NOT BE NEGLECTED!

The late Bruce McConkie, in a fireside satellite transmission, made the following critical remarks about the Bible.

The Bible of the Old World has come to us from the manuscripts of antiquity—manuscripts which passed through the hands of uninspired men whochanged many parts to suit their own doctrinalideas. Deletions were common, and, as it now stands, many plain and precious portions andmany covenants of the Lord have been lost. As aconsequence, those who rely upon it alone stumbleand are confused and divide themselves amongchurches, all based on this or that interpretation ofthe Bible. (Ensign, December 1985, p. 55).

While no one will deny the existence of denominational and sectarian division among thosewho rely on the Bible alone, to charge the Bible asthe culprit responsible for such a bad situation is lessthan honest. It is not the Bible that causes the divisions,but works of men—just about as human as the Mormon"scriptures" (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.) The Bible alone willproduce unity—it is only the admixture of human interpretations and alleged revelations that produce division.

But the books that Mormons claim are far superior tothe Bible have a rather sorry track record in regard towhat is produced. The claims that are made for it borderon bibliolatry. In the same speech, McConkie said,

On the other hand, the Bible of the New World,as I choose to designate the Book of Mormon, hasbeen preserved for us by a divine providence whichkept the ancient record in prophetic hands. Written by inspiration on plates of gold (which weremysteriously pirated away to heaven allegedly,DRS) it was hidden in the soil of Cumorah, to comeforth in modern times by angelic ministration andthen be translated by the gift and power of God.

After the translation, the voice of God, speakingfrom heaven to witnesses chosen beforehand byhim, declared two things—that the translationwas correct and that the book was true. We, ofcourse, believe the Bible as far as it has been translated correctly, but we place no such restriction on the Book of Mormon. And so it is that there has come into our hands a book that is as perfect, or near perfect, as mortal hands can make it. It is a divine book, a book like noneother ever written, translated, or published. (Ibid.)

While the Bible can stand the test of manuscript

examination and is overly proven to be true by archaeological findings, no such claims can be truly made forany Mormon document, claiming to be the word of God.The Bible has stood up much better than any otherdocument claiming to have been revealed from the Almighty. But the point here is that the Mormon bookshave done much more to cause division than the true and living word, the Bible.

Steven L. Shields, is a scholar and fifth-generationLatter Day Saint, of the Salt Lake City variety. Hisscholastic work has been focused on the history of thosewho followed the dreams and visions of Joseph Smith,Jr. He is editor of a paper called, "Restoration." He alsois author of an extremely accurate book on the historyof division among those who follow the Book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures. His book is called,Divergent Paths of the Restoration and is published byRestoration Research, P.O. Box 547, Bountiful, Utah84010. The book lists well over a hundred factions of Mormonism. His paper continues to update recent divisions among Mormon followers.

The major division in Mormonism is between the"Latter Day Saints" (commonly known as the Utah group) and the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ ofLatter Day Saints," with headquarters in Independence, Mo. I will not attempt to list all the differingfactions. The interested reader can purchase the bookand read personally the basic characteristics of eachfaction. It is of some use, however, to notice that thereis even one homosexual group listed among those of the diverging paths of what they call "the Restoration."This group was organized in 1972 in the Denver, Colorado area.

One of the most intriguing groups is called commonly, "the Strangites." James Jesse Strang came forward immediately after the death of Joseph Smith, Jr.with a letter in hand from the prophet personally whichnamed Strang as the next prophet and seer of thesaints. He even claimed that he had been shown plates,and when he translated them with the Urim and Thummim, of all things, they named Strang as the successorto Joseph. And, as if that were not enough, he claimed that an angel appeared to him on the very day Smith died, confirming his successorship. With such "incontrovertable" evidence (?) Strang led some of the Mormons away. It is amazing that some Mormons believedhis personal testimony of angelic visitations, hiddenplates and the letter Smith allegedly wrote, but othersrejected it. I have always wondered why they wouldreject Strang's story, but accept the one Joseph told. It is strange.

Another group, seldom heard from, are called Hedrickites. This is the small group that has title to the"Temple Lot" in Jackson County, Missouri, which had been designated by the prophet Smith as the preciseplace where the great temple was to be built. Notwithstanding the fact that the original prophecy of thisevent alleged that it would be accomplished forthwith,it still remains unfulfilled. Smith had claimed that God revealed to him that the temple would be completed inthe lifetime of those early saints. (Doc. & Cov. 84:2-5).

But alas, all those have gone to their reward with nofulfillment of this prophecy. The reason that the fulfillment is not likely to take place soon is that the Hedrickites do not have the money to build the temple, and willnot sell the deed to the property. But, they adamantlyclaim to be "a remnant of the Church of 1830, bearingthe same name, teaching the same doctrine, believingthe same truths, practicing the same virtues, holdingthe revelations as originally given and enjoying thesame spirit(.)" and deny they are a mere faction.

Some honest Mormon may be able to see the folly ofthe McConkie claim, but those wedded heart, body, souland pocketbook to Mormonism will likely never change.Honesty is rare among those who are deluded bydreams, visions and angelic visitations. An honest examination of the Bible and the Book of Mormon can produce only one thing. There is no comparison betweenthat which is demonstrably factual and true and thatwhich is patently false. Only those who have a strongdelusion will continue to make such baseless chargesagainst the Bible and hold on to that which, by theirown scholarship, is obviously the single and only instrument that has caused the rampant division amongthose claiming that the Holy Spirit has personallyshown them the truth about Smith and his books.

The next time you have the opportunity, ask the representatives of the LDS, RLDS, et. al. if, at the timethey got their "testimony" about the Book of Mormon,the Holy Spirit also revealed to them which faction ofMormonism they should join. It is important also toremember that this is the way the whole Mormon fantasy began. Smith went to a wooded area to find outwhich church to join, and the voice told him to join none,but to start his own. Surely, some Mormon should wantto know which branch of that one now to join—don'tyou think?

you will receive your share in return. When we rob God,we rob ourselves (Mal. 3:8-10). The first quotation wastried and proven in the land of Canaan; the second hasbeen vindicated by faithful children of God in our time,and will ultimately bear fruit in heaven (Mt. 6:20; Col.3:1-4).

But, Israel invariably departed from God in the midstof prosperity and plenty, supposing that such prosperity was of their own power (Dt. 8:17,18). So it is today.Some brethren will not even give the Lord their first-fruits, much less anything more.

Besides their first-fruits, which were already the Lord's, the Israelites gave tithes to the poor, dedicated things to the Lord, and divested themselves of sundryofferings and sacrifices. They could not duplicate the first-fruits and other offerings, by lumping them together (Lev. 27:26). Neither could they escape their responsibilities to the Lord or to man by hiding behind the years of release or the year of jubilee (Dt. 15:9). But,they still tried. And, so do we.

We are to present our bodies (Rom. 12:1), our spirits(lCor. 6:19, 20), our time (Col. 4:5, 6), and a portion of ourmaterial prosperity unto the Lord (1 Cor. 16:1, 2). Butwe rob God at every turn, keep for ourselves, and givemore to the world than we do unto the Lord. If we had authority to build jails for spiritual robbers, they wouldoutnumber our meeting houses.

Brethren could begin by offering the first-fruits of theweek unto God—the first day of the week. Assemblewith the saints as often as possible, as long as possible.This is the Lord's day. Then, arrange the other six daysto the glory of God in honest labor and doing good. Let even acceptable rest and relaxation be in proper proportion to other activities. Be not "lovers of pleasure morethan lovers of God" (2 Tim. 3:4).

Study your Bible, renew the inward man at every opportunity, and leave time for prayer and meditation.Assemblies of the church at the local place of worship,with other congregations in gospel meetings, and informal gatherings of saints in homes will afford opportunities to do this. Some will miss their assemblies on Sunday or Wednesday to attend a gospel meeting in the area, thus "killing two birds with one stone." Make surethe birds you kill are not the unfeathered kind, withoutwings. If some did not show up at home or at work anymore often than they do at the meetinghouse, theywould be guilty of desertion, or added to the rolls of themissing and runaways.

When we fail to "seek first the kingdom" we not onlyrob God, but we rob ourselves, and rob our families,friends and brethren of needed encouragement, and agood example which would point them to "the Lamb ofGod" (Jno. 1:29).

Send all News Hems to: Connie W. Adams, P.O. Box 69, Brooks, KY40109

J. T. SMITH TO EDIT TORCH

The December, 1985 issue of TORCH announced that J. T. SMITH would become the new editor of the magazine with the January, 1986 edition. We regret that health considerations have caused JAMES P.NEEDHAM to make this decision. Brother Needham is a hard working preacher who speaks and writes out of deep conviction and istotally fearless even in the most heated controversy. His work load foryears has been such as would have caused lesser men to collapse. Hehas not only edited, printed and published TORCH (along with thehelp of his good wife) but serves as an elder where he preaches, conducts a number of meetings a year and teaches a class at FLORIDACOLLEGE. His research, writing and speaking on Humanism has made a vital contribution to the fight against this Godless philosophy.He has plans to publish some books which he has not had time to writeand we look forward to the fruit of his work in that area. His book on PREACHERS AND PREACHING remains a classic in the field. We wish for him better health and success in his work for the Lord.

J. T. SMITH has been a long-time friend. For many years he haswritten a column for SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES which has contained much valuable material. He has been a writer who would write without having to be coaxed. We have worked together in meetings, debates, traveled to the Philippines together in 1971 and spentmany enjoyable hours together usually discussing the Lord's work. He is a tireless worker. He is one of the ablest debaters I know and does his homework carefully. He has notified me that he will not be able to continue his column in STS because of the added work editingTORCH will place on him. We regret this but certainly accept hisjudgment about it. We have every confidence that his work as editor ofTORCH will be well done and that it will be a fair, but militant, instrument for good under his direction. His wife, Brownie, will be anable assistant to him in this work. We wish for them good health andmany years of fruitful effort in publishing TORCH. Subscriptions toTORCH are $6 a year and may be sent to J. T. Smith, P.O. Box 698,Lake Jackson, Texas 77566.

MIKE SCOTT, P.O. Box 53, Middletown, IN 47356—We have been working here since July 1982. The work is slow and hard,partly because the people of the community regard us as some kind of cult. We have about 25 members and have had one baptism and two resto-rations. It would help us greatly if some members could movehere and help create more impact in the community. Even one family would help.

MRS. W. C. SAWYER, 132 E. Mason Ave., Danville, KY 40422— Since October 25, 1985, Cecil has been bedfast with Guillian-Barre Syndrome. He is unable to get up or walk. This disease, which usuallyfollows a viral infection, destroys the linings of the nerves and causesparalysis. He will recover but Doctors say it could take from six months to a year. Recovery is very slow as the body must grow the nerve linings back before he can walk and use his arms and hands morefreely. He has received so many cards, letters and calls. We appreciateall the kindness and prayers and concern shown from friends far and near.

THOMAS HOGLAND, South "S" and Jenny Lind Sts., Ft. Smith,AR 72901—After about eight years with the Southside church inSulphur Springs, Texas, I will be working with the Park Hill church inFt. Smith. My first meeting for 1986 will be in Oklahoma City. Pleasenote my change of address and visit us when in western Arkansas.

MIKE HUGHES, P.O. Box 75, Joaquin, TX 75954—We havebeen working with the church here since September 1st and enjoy thework. Home studies and a Bible correspondence course are underway. Attendance had picked up from 42 to 55. We still lack about$700 a month in needed support which has hindered us from getting a tele

phone and other needed things. One time help would be appreciated,but we also need commitments on a regular basis. For references youmay contact: J. T. Smith (409) 265-2191; Eugene Britnell (501) 3758200; B. J. Thomas (318) 742-4557; Vernon Love (813) 937-6867.

FERNANDO P. VENEGAS, Casilla No. 122 C.C. 5500 Mendoza. Argentina, South America—In October I was in a meeting at"Moreno" in Buenos Aires in which 7 teenagers obeyed the gospel.Their faith was first planted in them by their parents. In a meetingwith the "Florida" congregation in Chile, one man obeyed the gospel.There are 25 faithful members at Moreno where Timoteo Guaymes isdoing good work. They are in a comfortable building. The men share teaching and preaching responsibilities. At Florida, Ivan Valdes andSergio Pino are working regularly. However, this year Ivan and familywill be moving to La Serena, Chile to start a new work, the first, in thenorthern part of the country. In Mendoza we recently baptized a man who had visited us often from Chile. Each time he came here we had good discussions and each time I gave him tracts to study when hewent back to Chile. We recently had a meeting with Tom Holley ofBuenos Aires. He did an overview of the book of Revelation which helped us all.

BRIGHTON, ENGLANDBONNY L. MELTON, 5643 Newberry Rd., Wayne, MI 48184— Brethren are seeking help in Brighton, England where a congregation has been meeting for over 95 years. Brighton is 55 miles south ofLondon, and has a city population of 150,00 and 200,000 with adjacent towns. The building is in an excellent central location, withinwalking distance from the city's core, several large shopping centers,bus terminals and the main train station. The church is small but with recent addition of several members, realizes the need for full-time workers. I have been personal friends with these brethren for manyyears. They have invited me and my family to work full-time withthem.

My wife Angela and I have just returned from a three week evaluation trip. We found an active concern toward evangelism and resolvingproblems, an eagerness to utilize the funds they have and a receptiveness to new converts and new found talents—put plainly, a willingnessto "beat the pavement." The churches in London and a congregation of30 in Bristol are growing. The church in Brighton has seen theirprogress and wishes to enjoy a similar steady growth.

For the past year, I have been working with Phil Morr in the Detroit, Michigan area. Phil spent several years in Australia and at least twoyears in England evangelizing London with much success. I plan toimplement the same efforts in Brighton. The door is open and I ask congregations or individuals who may wish to help to contact me.

EFRAIN F. PEREZ, Casilla 1317, Valparaiso, Chile, South America— In 1986 we are expecting Glenn Rogers of McAllen, Texas to come and work with us in March in special classes and gospel meetings in bothChile and Argentina. Brother Rogers has more than 40 years experience in the Lord's work with 30 years in the Spanish work. I presenteda preacher training class in three congregations in 1985.

REPORT FROM INDIA JOHN HUMPHRIES, 8705 Wooded Glen Rd., Louisville, KY 40220—Thanks to the Father and to you for prayers and support, TomMoody, David Watts and I safely completed nearly six weeks of Indiawork. We arrived home in fairly good health and believe much goodwas done. Tom and David were wonderful co-workers. To cover more territory and do more teaching, we split up at times. For example,David went alone to Kazipet where English was spoken while Tom andI preached in the Secunderabad area. Once I went to Guntar to studywith some denominational people who expressed interest in the NewTestament church and salvation. I studied with a number of Baptist

Page 17

preachers and leaders, taught and answered questions concerning the church of the Bible, baptism and other matters. A letter was waitingfor me here in the USA from one of the preachers in Gun tar requesting more information and asking me to return there for more teaching.

We preached in the remote village of Julapalem in Andhra Pradesh where there is a congregation of 25-30 Christians. When Tom Moody and I were there last year, we were told that we were the first whitemen in that village in fifty years. In the evenings several hundredgathered to hear us preach. Due to the help of a number of concernedindividuals here in the USA, many Bibles were given to poor saintsand we were able to help a number with medical attention and needs.Some typewriters and mimeograph machines were provided for gospelpreachers to print gospel messages for distribution. There is a greatneed for tracts and Bibles. It takes nearly a week's wages to buy aBible in India. Bibles cost about $2 in our money. Village Indians onlymake about 32-644 a day.

I don't know how much longer the door will be open to us in India.We plan, with the Lord's help, to continue going and preaching the gospel in Christ. I plan to go again in 1986 with Bill Beasley and JerryParks. Many slides of the work in India were made and I would be gladto show these to those interested in the work in India. We need the prayers and support of faithful brethren here at home to be able toaccomplish what needs to be done. We were thankful to see 14 baptized into Christ during the trip.

LESLIE MAYDELL, P.O. Box 12201, Rep. of South Africa—Sincethe first of the year, I have been allowed to make 10 minute talks eachMonday morning in our daughter's school where there are six teachers and 120 students. I have been teaching simple lessons on evidencesand the importance of God's word. Also I am going to a school forblack children and teaching on Wednesday and Fridays and alternate Mondays. Contacts here have resulted in studies with two teachers,one of whom translates for me. He obeyed the gospel three weeks ago.He has put me in touch with two other black schools and I am nowteaching at one on Tuesdays and the other on Thursdays.

When the trouble in the black suburb of Tembisa began hinderingme from going there on Sunday mornings, I began teaching at Brixtonin Johannesurg on Sunday morning and Wednesday evenings and several are now attending a special training class on Tuesday eveningstaught by Ray Votaw, Alan Hadfield and myself. Two strong families have recently moved to the Briston area, a factious brother has beenscripturally dealt with and I feel that much good can be accomplishedat Brixton. Now that troubles are settling down, my black brethren atTembisa are pleading with me to return to work with them again.Truly brethren, there is plenty of work here, but the laborers are few.

PREACHERS NEEDED

PAYETTE, IDAHO—DANNY F. THOMPSON, P.O. Box 791, Payette, ID 83661—Since I am to begin working May 1st, 1986 with the church at Blackfoot, Idaho, the church here in Payette will be looking for a faithful preacher of the gospel. The church is small, with about30, but is comprised of faithful. God-fearing brethren who are a joy towork with. The church can supply only limited support. Those interested should write to the church at: S. 9th and 2nd Ave. S., Payette, ID83661.

WEATHERFORD, TEXAS—The church here is in need of a gospel preacher. At present only partial support can be provided. Ifinter-ested, call Dr. Keith Roland at (817) 594-2077.

PREACHER AVAILABLE DAVID HAWTHORNE, 374 E. Tompkins, Columbus, OH 43202—Iam a young preacher 28 years old, married and with 2 children. I havebeen preaching on a part-time basis for two and a half years and ameager to work on a full time basis as soon as possible. References willbe gladly supplied. If interested, you may write me at the aboveaddress or call (614) 262-7376.