HOW DOES THE GRACE OF GOD SAVE?

"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hathappeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world" (Titus 2:11,12).

God's grace has been one of the most misunderstoodand misapplied words in the Bible. If one did not have a doctrine to protect and support, the popular conclusions that are drawn from this world would never appear. Neither the definition of the word "grace" nor thecontext where it appears suggests that God saves without any effort on man's part. But if one condition isadmitted as essential to salvation, by all logic and scripture, all conditions of salvation that are taught in theword of God are essential to be saved by grace.

Grace means unearned favor, unmerited kindness,unearned blessings. God gives grace, but man mustreceive it. Grace is not an irresistible force that man cannot reject or receive at his own will. Otherwise, man could not be responsible for not receiving the grace ofGod, and if all men did not receive God's grace, Hewould certainly be a respecter of persons. But the Biblesays He is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10;34, 35;Rom. 2:17). If man is accountable to God for receivingor rejecting His grace, man must do something to receive it.

Many of the most prominent denominations of ourday teach that the grace of God is a gift that comes toman without his consent and without any effort on hispart. Conversely, any sort of works by man would be a rejection of God's grace. The very idea that works and grace can be in the same system of salvation is obnoxious to many theologians. It is totally incompatiblewith their concept of God's scheme of redemption. However, the word of God clearly teaches that the verynature of sin, grace, the authority of Christ, repentance and remission of sins makes it impossible for grace to exist apart from law and obedience. He who denies the necessity of obedience to divine law to receive the grace of God is ignorant of both law and grace.

It is said that works nullify the grace of God. The ideacomes in part from Romans 4:4: "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but ofdebt." The context of Romans 4 shows that the "works" are works of merit by which one earns salvation, andwhereby he might boast. Merit works are not possiblewhere grace reigns, but works in "receiving the grace ofGod" are absolutely essential for grace to work in theheart and life of anyone.

God's grace provides that which man cannot supplyfor himself in view of his salvation from sin. Let the mind of this scribe be understood on this point. Man islost because he has sinned. Sin carries the penalty ofdeath (James 1:14, 15), and that sentence of God haspassed upon all men because all have sinned (Romans5:12). How can one extricate himself from this sentence of death? Only pardon from God will make him freefrom sin and release him from death and separationfrom God.

If man, who is guilty of sin, must die as the penalty for his sins, he would die away from God and be lost forall of eternity. He can do no works that will earn him the forgiveness of one single sin. That is the reason salvation is "not of works, lest any man should boast." Forgiveness is an act of mercy, which results from God's great love. But He is just as well as merciful. His word must be kept. When He pronounced death as the penalty for sin, it must stand because God does not lie andHis word is always sure. Since man is to die because ofhis sin, and he cannot develop a system by which he canwork his way out of sin; and if God's justice must bekept, how will man be saved from his sins? Justicedemands that he die for any sin he has committed. Onlymercy and grace can provide a way for man to change

and be forgiven of his sins, and thereby be justifiedbefore God.

God's grace must provide the way to be saved fromsins. It will cost a life, because the penalty for sin isdeath. Only one who has lived a perfect life without sin could be such a sacrifice, who would die and not be apartfrom God in his death. Isaiah 53 tells of the death ofChrist and its purpose. God provided what man couldnot provide to make possible his forgiveness of sins: a perfect sacrifice. This would satisfy His justice andalso his mercy toward sinful man.

This grace is explained in these words of the HolySpirit: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lowerthan the angels for the suffering of death, crowned withglory and honour; that he by the grace of God shouldtaste death for every man" (Heb. 2:9). The blood shed byChrist is called the grace of God for every man. The blood of Christ is the only sacrifice that could take awaysins, and man himself could not provide it (Heb. 9:22; 10:4). For as much as the grace of God provided thedeath of Christ for every man, why is it that every man is not saved? There would be no sensible answer if therewere no conditions to receiving the grace of God.

The grace of God also provides the revelation of Hissacrifice for sins, and the conditions upon which it may be appropriated to man. This grace of God provides Hiswill which man alone could not obtain. "And now,brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word ofhis grace, which is able to build you up, and to giveyou an inheritance among all them which aresanctified" (Acts 20:32). "For the grace of God thatbringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teachingus that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, weshould live soberly, righteously, and godly, in thispresent world" (Titus 2:11, 12). The grace of God teaches!

God's grace provides what man could not provide: aperfect sacrifice and the revelation of His will by which this sacrifice may be applied to man in order to receiveremission of sins. It does not mean that grace is withoutany kind of effort on man's part. Man must receiveGod's grace, whatever that implies. Man is not to re-ceive the grace of God in vain (2 Cor. 6:1). This indicatessome effort on man's part to "receive" the grace of God.There are at least three things implied in receiving thegrace of God:

1. Man is called by God's grace. The apostle Paulsaid: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from himthat called you into the grace of Christ unto anothergospel" (Gal. 1:6). Verse 15: "But it pleased God, whoseparated me from my mother's womb, and called me byhis grace." What is the calling? Whatever it is, it iscalled the "grace of God."

We are called by the gospel of Christ, and it is thegospel that revealed God's grace. " Whereunto he calledyou by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of ourLord Jesus Christ" (II Thess. 2:14). "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, apeculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises ofhim who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (I Pet. 2:9).

(Continued on page 4)

THE WARNOCK-DEASON EXCHANGE

In this issue you will find an article by Jim Deason ofColumbia, Tennessee in which he takes exception to theposition taken by Weldon E. Warnock in his questioncolumn of November, 1985. We ask the readers to weigh carefully what each had to say on the always explosiveissue of divorce and remarriage. The spirit in which eachwrote is commendable and illustrative of the attitude which should be maintained when differences must be expressed.

A number have asked me if I agree with the positiontaken by brother Warnock in his November column.With his answer on the question of whether or not the guilty party in a divorce (guilty by reason of fornication)can scripturally remarry, I am in complete agreement.He said "no" and I would have to say the same thing.However, with the latter part of his response I do havesome difference. He brought up a case in which divorce occurred which was not for fornication, then stated thatshould the one putting the other away remarry, the other party could then put the husband away "in purpose of heart" and be free to remarry. This involves thenotion of mental putting away after the fact of actualdivorce and termination of anything that might even resemble a marriage.

It is my conviction that there are only three classes ofpeople who have a right to marry: (1) those who havenever been married: (2) those whose companions aredead; and (3) those who have put away a companion forthe cause of fornication. It appears to me that anyattempt to find authority for anyone else to marry,must trade on the silence of the scriptures. I realize thatbrother Warnock's illustration involves fornication but it is after the fact of divorce and not before. It is verydifficult for me to see how this is not in reality the"waiting game" for one waits until the other sins and then claims scriptural cause. I am also made to wonderif we may have the "mental divorce" then why not at the other end of the marriage have a "mental marriage" before the fact of social and legal requirements being met. Indeed, is this not the very thing claimed by thosewho insist that two people may cohabit as long as theyhave a "meaningful relationship" and plan to get married anyhow?

Marriage is so lightly treated in our society. We mustmake room for all that God allows on the subject and then stop right there. We must recognize the one exception the Lord made and we must not leave the door openfor any more. With this sentiment, I am sure Brother Warnock, agrees. I am fully aware that many good andable brethren do not share the view I have expressed here. That is between them and the Lord. I certainly donot feel obligated to count heads on any issue beforehaving my say. I have no better friend on earth thanWeldon Warnock. We are as close as brothers could be,not to be family related. We have played together,laughed together, wept together, traveled together and anticipate many more such experiences in life. But I feelstrongly on this subject and don't want one singlereader to have the impression that the editor of thispaper accepts the position mentioned above.

Brother Warnock is at perfect liberty to write hiscolumn as he sees fit. He has done an outstanding workwith it, in my judgment. It is not an easy assignment,requires much time and careful work. For all of that Iam most grateful and am sure that every thoughtfulreader shares that sentiment. None of those who write for this paper have to agree with this editor on everypoint to have his material published. But I have alwaysreserved the right to express my own convictions whenever I thought the question of sufficient importance todo so, and I believe this is one of those times. We ask readers to consider carefully what is said by both brethren Warnock and Deason. Meanwhile, we absolutelyMUST teach our children that marriage is for life andthat it is imperative that they make prudent choices ofcompanions who will help them to go to heaven. This isfar better than trying to unravel all the tangles intowhich people get their lives and over which brethren areapt to differ in trying to resolve them.

THANKS TO BRETHREN WATERS AND RADER

With this issue we conclude a three-part exchange between Robert Waters and Donnie Rader on the question of continuous cleansing. This is another "sticky"subject and one hotly contested in some areas. Bothhave written with restraint and respect for each otherand for the word of God. We believe such a study inprofitable. We also believe enough has been said aboutit for awhile. I have an article by Ken Green in which hesummarizes the various positions taken on this question. At the time he sent it, he did not know this exchange was in the works. I told him about it and we decided to wait until the exchange was over and then hisarticle will be published more or less as a summary ofviews. We have tried to give pertinent issues a hearingwithout becoming a one-issue paper. And we have tried to do it in a fair and responsible manner. We refuse togive space to character assaults and the venting ofpersonal bitterness. We make no apology for necessarymilitancy and for dealing with controversial topics asthe need arises.

(From page 2)

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye arecalled in one hope of your calling..." (Eph. 4:4). There isjust one calling. That is the gospel call of grace that willdeliver men from sin when they answer that calling. Itmeans that one must hear the gospel of Christ and obeyit. Remember, the word of God is His grace which brings salvation. The grace of God also is the sacrifice ofChrist by which man is forgiven of his sins, and thegospel is the power of God to save (Rom. 1:16) in that itcalls into this grace "to the obtaining of the glory of ourLord Jesus Christ" (II Thess. 2:14). II Timothy 1:9shows that this is a holy calling by which we are saved.The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom.1:16), but it must be heard and obeyed before it will savefrom sin.

2. Man must believe the gospel to be saved by grace. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8)."There-fore being justified by faith, we have peacewith God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whomalso we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God" (Rom.5:1,2). "There-fore it is of faith, that it might be bygrace. . ." (Rom. 4:16).

Faith depends upon hearing the gospel of Christ(Rom. 10:17). But hearing only will not avail anything.One must do the will of God to receive the blessingpromised. "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearersonly, deceiving your own selves" (James 1:22). Faith isan action on the part of man that comes as the result ofhearing the gospel of Christ. In this way the grace ofGod that teaches and calls may have its effect.

3. Man must work righteousness to receive thegrace of God. At this point most denominations rejectwhat the word of God says. The works of Romans 4 andTitus 3:5 are works of merit whereby man might boast,but there are works of faith that are conditions uponwhich the grace of God is received. "That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through right-eousness unto eternal life by JesusChrist our Lord (Rom. 5:21). "Then Peter opened hismouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is norespecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness is acceptedwith him" (Acts 10:34, 35).

During the days of the prophet Elisha, Ben-hadadking of Syria besieged Samaria. The vivid narrative of 1Kings 6 tells of the gross horror of the ensuing famine inwhich mothers boiled their own offspring (verse 28-29)and bird droppings were worth more than their weightin silver (verse 25). People were dying. It was a day ofterror; a day of nauseating repugnance; a day in which everything that was grim and ghastly and grisly couldbe seen by those still alive to see it; a day in which the smell of death permeated the nostrils of those still aliveto smell it.

In chapter 7:3 we are introduced to four lepers whoraised the question: " Why do we sit her (at the city gate until we die? Three choices faced them in verse 4—"We will enter the city, then the famine is in the city and weshall die there; and if we sit here, we die also. Nowtherefore come, and let us go over to the camp of theSyrians. If they spare us we shall live; and if they kill us,we shall but die." They had no choice. They would plead for mercy at the hands of the enemy.

The succeeding verses inform us of their starting discovery upon entrance to the Syrian camp. The Lord had given the pagans a brief exhibition of divine power causing such wide spread panic that the Syrians "fled for their life " (verse 7). The lepers, fully convinced that theywere dead men walking into the hands of the feared anddreaded enemy, stood in amazement. The camp wasdeserted— "for behold no one was there" (verse 5).Quickly they gorged themselves on the remaining foodwhile plundering the Syrian tents. And then it hit them—

"We are not doing right. This day is a day ofgood news, but we are keeping silent; if wewait until morning light, punishment willovertake us. Now therefore come, let us go and tell the king's household" (verse 9).

Awakened by a guilty conscience which saw themfeasting while their brethren famined, they proclaimed: "This is not right!" "This is not patriotic!" "What we are doing is not even humane!""We're eating and they are starving!" "THIS IS A DAY OF GOOD NEWS BUT WE ARE KEEPING SILENT!" Thus, fearing the consequences of silence,they made a resolute determination to "go" and "tell" the good news at once.

Brethren, think of the implications of the afore mentioned account in relation to the Gospel. And just whatis the Gospel? It is "the" GOOD NEWS. The good news that "God so loved the world that He gave His onlybegotten Son..." The good news that saw Jesus live, dieand arise triumphant over the grave. The good newsthat heard the angelic announcement— "He is not here, He has risen." It's the good news that answers the questions: "O death, where is your victory? Odeath, where is your sting"? The sting of death is sin,and the power of sin is the law, but thanks be to God,who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 15:55-57). It's the good news that heard the Master say: "In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world." It's the good news that heard John the Baptizer proclaim: "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" It's the good news announced byPeter on Pentecost and later by such preachers as Pauland Phillip as they travel abroad telling the old, oldstory. And it's the good news of Luke 2:10—"I bring you good news of great joy which shall be for all the people;for today in the city of David there has been born aSavior, who is Christ the Lord."

Has there ever been any better "news" Has there everbeen a more meaningful message to "tell" Indeed thefour lepers had good news to announce, but our news isfar more valuable, more precious and the implication ofour information is far greater than just the relief ofphysical hurt and hunger. We announce to the worldHim who is the "Bread of Life," the "Great Physician,"and the Savior of all mankind.

Hence it becomes our supreme duty, our ultimateobligation and responsibility to WAKE THE WORLD AND TELL THE PEOPLE. We can ill afford to hold our peace any longer.

"This is a day of good news, but we are keeping silent. .." The question is—Why?

(Note: The title and major points of this material comefrom the files of my good friend, Bill Fairchild, of Crane,Texas. Together we share the grave concern that ourgreatest failure in the church today is a failure to do the one thing we must do—teach and tell the good news of Jesus. Next month: Our Challenge.)

This is the third and final part of this discussion on

the matter of forgiveness of sin as it pertains to the

faithful child of God. It will be of much help if you will

have the previous articles before you for reference as

you study.

As Christians and preachers of the gospel we are metalmost daily with denominational error. It grieves us tosee our good friends take extreme positions on Biblematters. We take a stand against these false doctrines,but sometimes our stand is too far in the opposite direction. That is exactly why some of my previous articlescharged Donnie with holding an extreme position (thatevery sin results in death). He has not responded to thecharge. The truth is in the middle and that is where weshould meet and stand united.

In dealing with his article we shall use his headingswhich will be in parentheses. "Things He Didn't An-swer" (See Exchange #2 for his questions)

1. Donnie said, "Our brother didn't tell us which sins separate from God and which do not. I think brotherWaters will agree that this is the issue." No, I do notagree that this is the issue. I stated the issue in my firstarticle in discussing the extreme positions. The issue is:DOES THE CHILD OF GOD FALL FROM GRACE EVERY TIME HE SINS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE SIN WAS COMMITTED INADVERTENTLY OR IN IGNORANCE, AND REGARDLESS OF THE ATTITUDE. He says yes, I say no. Inmy second article I said it is a question of " . . .attitude—what will he do about it when he learns of it." Brother Rader seems to take some comfort in the fact that I haven't answered his question the way he expectsme to (and I will not). If I had been told that he had beenbeating his wife and I asked him, "Have you quit beating you wife?", I'd expect him to say "yes", if he had.But if he was innocent of the charge he would not answer as I expected, If he said, "I have never beat mywife", that would answer my question and I would not ask it again. The point is that all questions can't beanswered with a "yes" or "no". Furthermore, I'm innocent of the charge, and I have answered the question.Now it's time for him to quit asking this foolish andirrelevant question. It only clouds the issue.
2. I do not totally agree with what he said I believe.Nevertheless, he wants to know why one who commitscertain sins in ignorance (instrument, etc.) does nothave as much confidence as I do. They may have asmuch confidence as I do but I fail to see that, that hasanything to do with the issue. A lot of people have

confidence who have not obeyed the gospel, but it is tono avail.

1. Again, how much confidence one may have is beside the point. My brother's problem is that all he cansee is SPECIFIC repentance and SPECIFIC confessionof KNOWN sin, and a "worded" confession. He therefore, believes that, as he said, "one would be condemneduntil that repentance, confession and prayer wasmade", under all circumstances. Apparently he doesnot believe in a general confession of all sin.
2. My answer was in the first paragraph under"walking in the light". He completely ignored it. Myanswer to no. two applies here.
3. I'm not going to say none of those he mentionedwere separated from God because it is probable thatsome were. But the fact that God made an example outof someone by causing physical death doesn't necessarily mean they will be eternally lost, does it? Aaron waskilled because of sin, and Moses didn't get to enterCanaan because of the same sin. Are they eternally lost(Mk. 9:4)? His question regarding his examples was,"Did none of these have an humble attitude?". Perhapssome did, but I know of no one who says that humility isall that is essential in every case.
4. I Jn. 1:7 tells us that those who "walk in the light"are cleansed of "all sin".

"THE ARTICLE" Can One Live Perfectly?

Donnie wants proof that some are saying that one canlive perfectly. Well I have it: Keith Sharp of Mena, Ark.Sharp very definitely took the position that man can live without sinning. (And there is no misrepresentationbecause that is what perfection is. If living without sinisn't the same as perfection then the Lord wasn't perfect).

I have in my possession a recording of a sermonpreached by Keith in Tucson, Arizona. The gist of thesermon was the same as the discussion we had in the meeting. The following are quotes from that sermon: "Ican know what sin is and I can avoid it! IT IS POSSIBLE !" "How can I live without sin? Luke 6:40... I justhave to do what Jesus did. Brother and sister, if I'll hide the word of God in my heart and always appeal to it intemptation, and if I will always go to my father inprayer for the strength that I need, I'LL OVERCOME SIN. Yes, I CAN DO IT. It is within man."

Specific Confession

In the previous discussion, Donnie asked me to namesome who have taught that each individual sin must bespecifically confessed. I did that, but now he says noneof them believe that. Well maybe they don't now, butsurely they believed what they said when they said it.Then he said I misrepresented them all. Perhaps theythink so, if so, such was unintentional.

I understand what Donnie's position is. He believesthat if a Christian has been telling lies he doesn't haveto confess that he had lied to Joe, and Tom, about thisand that—just that he had told lies. Thus, such thingsas lying, cheating, stealing, breaking man's laws,worry, and all sins (and there are many), must be specifi

cally confessed. He doesn't believe in asking forgive

ness for categories of sin such as sins of omission, "se

cret faults", etc. He tells us there is to be, on the part of

the Christian, "repentance and confession of what one is

guilty". I think one of our problems is simply a matter

of semantics. Writers on both sides of this issue have

been guilty of not making themselves clear.

We both believe that specific instances of sin we commit must be specifically repented of and confessed whenwe become aware of them (Acts 8:22). But Donniedoesn't believe in a general confession which is bothworded (Mt. 6:11-14), and is a manner of life (1 Jn. 1:9).He thinks each one of the sins, such as mentioned in theabove paragraph, must always be specifically named.But that is nothing but Donnie's opinion. He hasn't proved it.This doctrine of his, that every sin automatically brings death, leaves faithful Christians with doubts,and the "babe" hopeless. It gets worse when he teachesthat you have got to know about a sin and confess it.His doctrine does not take care of hypothetical examples, such as the example of the preacher we gave inexchange #2. Remember, he said if this happened tosuch a man he would go to hell! Look again at the question and his answer to it. How can any of us haveany security if we believe that? Few have been as boldas Donnie in answering such a question. They usuallysay, "I'll leave that in the hands of God", which is acop-out. But Donnie and several others who do not understand nor believe in continual cleansing, have decided that all sin just automatically results in death.(Every passage they use is taken out of context andmisapplied). They do not allow God to judge. I believethe man would be saved because he did not turn his back on God and he was not walking in darkness. Such belief is necessary to our confidence because of the realpossibility of dying under such circumstances.

Some Things to which Rader wasSupposed to Respond

1. I said," 1 Jn. 1:9 is a general confession as opposedto a general denial of sin (not necessarily a wordedconfession)...". Take it in context.
2. I made the statement that, ". . . repentance andconfession are a practice of the Christian." He did notreply.
3. I made the statement that Calvinists teach that it is impossible for a child of God to fall but that heteaches it is inevitable. In his answer to this he merelyaccused me of teaching "the possibility of sinlessness".However, I do not accept the things he takes for granted which necessitate his conclusion. He assumesthat every time a Christian sins he falls. I believe that a person can become a Christian and live a long useful lifein God's service without ever falling from grace. He willsin and does sin, but his "walk" or manner of life doesn'tchange.
4. I asked, does one who is walking in the light not need to confess anything, (as the brother I quoted said).Wasn't that the problem the Pharisee had (Lk. 18)?
5. I accused him of building a straw man regarding"one sin" and "how many sins". He responded, but

misrepresented what I actually said.

1. On Gal. 6:1 I said, "Donnie teaches that a faultcauses one to fall from grace", and that his conclusionwas that "the word 'restore' has reference to fellowship—that fellowship is lost when one is overtaken in a fault". Note his contradictory response and how he changed horses in the middle of the stream. He accused me of confusing "faults" with "sin". I'll let the reader decide who is confused.
2. I asked," Is it true that if we always fall from grace when we sin then sinlessness is essential to security (orat least thinking that we are sinless)?".
3. I made the statement, "We are forgiven of sins aswe confess, or 'if we confess' in the sense that we are forgiven 'as we forgive our debtors" (Mt. 6:11-14). Hemade no response.
4. I said, "1 Jn. 1:7 does teach that the blood iscontinuously applied to those who 'walk in the light".He previously denied it but made no reply this time.
5. In my conclusion I showed that the gospelpreacher would be too scared to open his mouth to teachif he really believed what Donnie claims he believes. Hemade no response.
6. Donnie also did not respond to my use of Rom. 8:1-4.

"My Questions"

Donnie says I didn't answer his questions. I'll let the reader decide if I did or didn't. Certainly I responded to each of them.

"More Questions"

1. There is no "if" about it; he sins and if he is walkingin the light he repents and confesses specific instancesof sin as he becomes aware of them, makes generalconfessions, and asks forgiveness of "secret faults".Thus he is cleansed (continuously) of "all sin".
2. We don't know who "all the saved" are, but weknow who we can fellowship. When a brother sins wetell him about it. If he is impenitent we cannot fellowship him.
3. It may be possible, but I wouldn't dare try it because a Christian (one who walks in the light), is to"avoid every appearance of evil".
4. Whatever God decides in each particular case, AsI have said before, such questions are irrelevant andprejudicial.

"ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE MATTERS"

Are sins of omission relative or absolute? Can we obtain perfection in the things we are to do, or be? Somesay no, but then they say such isn't sin. In G.O.T. Mag.,3-7-85. Herschel Patton said, "Some of us have used the word 'sin' in referring to weakness and failures, involving abilities, opportunities, situations, etc., ..." . Theidea he was teaching is a doctrine of men. No scripture!Concerning the "one talent man" (abilities), the Biblesays, "Cast the unprofitable servant into outer darkness". You can call it absolute or relative or whatever you want to, but our failures or our missing of the markon anything that we are commanded to do, not do, or be,is sin! Why, failure to use one's abilities is apparently a sin a Christian "can't commit". But some seem to think that one can get by committing this kind of sin. Theydeny that some transgressions are sin, but it is simplyan effort to get some semblance of security out of ahopeless doctrine.

Regarding "absolute" matters Donnie said, "in thesewe must be perfect." (I wonder, is teaching the Bibleabsolute? Must we be right on everything we teach?).But regarding' 'relative" matters he said, we never keepthem perfectly, we always fall short. But the truth ofthe matter is that SIN IS SIN whether absolute or relative and we fall short in both areas. Therefore Donnie's position is wrong, and continual cleansing is without a satisfactory alternative.

Conclusion

As I expressed in my first article I believe this issue to be important to the confidence and security of individual Christians. Nevertheless, I plead that brethrentreat it as a matter of opinion. As long as our beliefs onvital matters are the same, and our practices remain thesame, let us work and worship together in peace andharmony and treat one another fairly.

Although faithful Christians do not sin "all the time",as some brethren have wrongly affirmed, we do sin.Such sins, of the one who walks in the light, are not actsof faithfulness (sin being associated with darkness), buthis life is a life of faithfulness and God approves of hislife. We should and can avoid any sin that we are"tempted" to commit, (1 Cor. 10:13), but brethren, wecommit sins without there being a temptation at all.That is, we commit sin ignorantly and especially inadvertently. Thus, for even the faithful Christian to haveconfidence and security there is ever present the need tobe continuously cleansed by the blood of Christ. ThankGod (for His mercy and grace), that "if we walk in thelight". . . "the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us of all sin."

As brother Waters has pointed out, this is the finalinstallment in this exchange. I urge the readers to readand reread all three installments. While the very mention of this subject is an immediate "turn off" to some, Ibelieve that it is time for brethren to carefully study theissue with an open mind. I appreciate the kindness thatbrother Waters has shown in this discussion. Though Idisagree with him, I have no ill feelings toward him orany that may agree with him.

Still Wondering

Our brother has been given ample opportunity to dealforthrightly with the issue at hand. However, we are still wondering about a few matters.

1. We are still wondering WHAT SIN(S) DOES NOTSEPARATE FROM GOD? He had refused to directlyanswer that question. 2. Since he says (a) that some sinsseparate and some do not, (b) the blood is continuouslyapplied and (c) one is not condemned until he demonstrates that he is not going to repent, I'm still wondering about the one who commits adultery in weakness orignorantly worships with the instrument; why does henot have the same true assurance that he claims to have? 3. I'm still wondering how he can ridicule myteaching saying that it is "hopeless" since he claims tobelieve that there is some kind of repentance and confession that is essential. If that be true, he has no moreconfidence than he believes the rest of us have, for if one sins he would stand condemned until that repentance and confession is made. 4. I'm still wondering if he doesn't believe that a past life of righteousness givesfuture forgiveness. He told us that the preacher whohad been righteous for 40 years would be forgiven ofthat sin he committed (and didn't repent or confess) justbefore he died. 5. He told us that the thing that reallymattered is the attitude of the one who sinned. Well, I'm still wondering about the Christian who may be ignorant of the right attitude as well as the preacher (40 years righteous) who commits a sin (in attitude) and then dies before repentance and confession? His doctrine concerning the attitude is simply the old denominational doctrine (that sincerity is all that matters) thatis applied only to Christians. 6. We are still wonderingabout the homosexual who doesn't know that his practice is wrong. If some sins of ignorance do not separate,why will it not work for him?

Extremes

Brother Waters says it is an extreme to believe that every sin separates from God. Well, I believe Rom. 6:23and Jas. 1:15 which teach that the result of sin is death. If that is extreme, then so be it! I still would like toknow which sins do not separate.

It seems from the three articles and his booklet (alsoentitled The Security of The Believer) that our brother arrives at what he believes to be the truth byposing what he believes to be two extremes and then assumes that the truth is between them. Brother Waters, I find the truth by first going to the N.T. andthen anything to the right or left of that I label as beingextreme. I do not know what is extreme until I first know the truth. He has had a lot to say about truth always being between extremes. He then poses hisextremes and concludes that the middle is the truth. I have presented the following chart to show that hismethod of arriving at "truth" would have us accepting all that is in the middle column. Why not?Are not those things in the right and left columns extreme? Is not "truth" between extremes?

Eight Examples

In my first article (Jan., p. 9) I cited eight examplesshowing that one sin is all that it takes to separate onefrom God. Those included sins of weakness, ignoranceand inadvertence. Brother Waters' response concerningwhether they were separated from God was that' 'it is probable that some were." He doesn't know. Yet, Peter" stood condemned" (Gal. 2:11, ASV) and Simon was "in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity" and would perish if he didn't repent (Acts 8:20-23). He saidthat physical death wasn't proof that they were lost. That, however, contradicts his argument about Abraham lying and living (as proof that he wasn't separated) whereas Ananias and Sapphira lied and died (asproof that they were separated) (Booklet, p. 10).

What Sins Are Covered in 1 Jno. 1:7?

I asked him why 1 Jno. 1:7 included sins of ignorance, weakness and inadvertence (as far as sinsthat do not put us out of the light), but doesn't include all sins. His response was, "1 Jn. 1:7 tells us that thosewho 'walk in the light' are cleansed of 'all sin.' " That would mean then that presumptuous and willful sinsdo not put us out of the light. Is that what you believe brother

Waters?

Who Is Teaching Perfection?

I had asked him who are the several prominent menwho say that one can live perfect. He replied by accusing Keith Sharp of teaching "that a man can live without sinning." I have talked to Keith and he denies thathe took such a position.

Concerning brother Sharp's sermon in Tucson,brother Waters has again misrepresented what wassaid. The title of the sermon was "Yes We DO, But Do We Have To?" Again the point was that though we do sin, the Christian does not have to sin. I have a copy ofthe sermon and have listened to it several times. If brother Sharp made anything clear in that sermon itwas the fact that he does not believe nor teach that the Christian lives a perfect (flawless) life. If any readerwould like to hear the sermon, just send me a blankcassette tape (60 min.) and postage and I will send you acopy. It will speak for itself.

Interesting

I found it interesting that brother Waters said, "Weboth believe that specific instances of sin we commitmust be specifically repented of and confessed when we become aware of them (Acts 8:22)." I do not believethat. While I believe that one must confess his "sins" (1Jno. 1:9), I do not believe one has to specifically confessevery instance of sin. I find that interesting because heis the one who chides me about specific confession andthen says he believes one must confess "specific instances" of known sin. If a man is guilty of lying, musthe specifically confess every instance of lying? Look outbrother Waters, you're going to meet yourself coming back!

Another interesting matter was that he stated thatthe preacher who was faithful for 40 years and thensinned inadvertently or ignorantly and then died beforehe was aware of it and could repent and confess "wouldbe saved because he did not turn his back on God..." I say that's interesting because I wonder then about theman who commits adultery in ignorance (not knowingthe Bible teaching on divorce and remarriage) or maybein weakness—has he turned his back on God? Otherwise, he is trying to do right. Would he be saved if hedied without becoming aware of his sin and repentingand confessing? What about the man who ignorantlyworships with the instrument—has he completelyturned his back on God? Would he be saved?

My Four Questions to Waters

1. I asked him if there are any conditions for forgiveness if a Christian sins. His answer indicates that he believes that there are. If so, then when one sins hestands condemned until those conditions are met. That,friend, is the very thing that he ridicules me for believing and calls it a "hopeless doctrine". If one does notstand condemned until those conditions are met, then they are not conditions for forgiveness.
2. I asked him if we should fellowship all the saved.He said, "We don't know who 'all the saved' are, but we know who we can fellowship." That would mean that

there are some who are saved that he excludes from fellowship. God fellowships them, but Waters doesn't.Can we fellowship all whom we know to be saved? Doeshe fellowship those who according to him are withouthope and hold to a "hopeless doctrine"? His answer tomy fourth question indicates that there are some whouse the instrument that are saved. Can we fellowshipthem?

1. I asked if a Christian can lie as Abraham did and not be separated. He said, "It may be possible..." Keepin mind that Abraham deliberately told a lie (Gen. 12:3;20:5; 26:7). Also remember that Rev. 21:8 says "allliars" will have their part in the lake of fire.
2. I asked him if a man who ignorantly worships withthe instrument is guilty of a sin that separates or is thata sin that doesn't separate. His answer: "Whatever God decides in each particular case." He doesn't know! Apparently some who ignorantly use the instrument aresaved and some are lost. If some are saved, why not all?What makes the difference?

Absolute and Relative

Brother Waters responded to my explanation of absolute and relative matters by asking, "Are sins of omission relative or absolute?" One can sin by violatingeither absolute or relative commands. However, thepoint I was making was that a lack of perfection (lack offlawlessness) is not necessarily sin. That was also thevery point that Herschel Patton was making in thequotation that brother Waters gave. Sin is a transgression of the law (1 Jno. 3:4), but the law is not transgressed necessarily just because there is still room forgrowth (in patience, knowledge, temperance, etc.). Ifthat is not true, then we all just live in constant sin;there would never be a moment we are not sinning. Yet,brother Waters stated in his last paragraph that Christians do not sin "all the time".

I believe that all transgression is sin. The point is thata lack of flawlessness is not necessarily a transgression.Apparently brother Waters doesn't see a difference inthings absolute and relative. He asked if teaching wasabsolute. Our knowledge of the word, ability to teach itand our use of our opportunities fall into the relativerealm.

Brother Waters said that since we fall short in both areas, this idea of continual cleansing is the only satisfactory alternative. Suppose one falls short in the matter of worship (either uses the instrument or takes theLord's supper on Saturday); will "continual cleansing"give him confidence? I still wonder about the homosexual who falls short in his knowledge of what is sin.

Opinion

Our brother pleaded in his conclusion for brethren totreat this as a "matter of opinion". He contrasted it to"vital matters". Brother Waters, why have you saidand written so much about a subject that to you is not a matter of faith and isn't vital? However, he believesthat we must accept his position, which has "no satisfactory alternative," or we will be holding a "doctrine ofmen" that is a "hopeless doctrine." Friends, that's confusing!

Summary

1. What Robert Waters has said: (a) He has told us that some sins (of ignorance, inadvertence and weak-ness) do not separate from God. (b) He believes that the blood is continuously applied, (c) He said that itwas not a question of how many sins one committed,but the attitude of the transgressor, (d) He thinks theconfes-sion of 1 Jno. 1:9 is simply an acknowledgementthat we do sin. (e) He has stated that one isn't condemned until he demonstrates that he is not goingto repent, (f) He has charged that to believe as I dowould mean one would have to live perfect in order to be saved and thus he has no confidence.
2. What Donnie Rader has said: (a) I have pointedout that the issue is not a matter of confidence, hopeand security, or specific confession of every instance ofsin or whether a Christian can or must live perfect.The issue is whether or not there are some sins that do not separate, (b) I have repeatedly asked what sin(s)does not separate, (c) I have shown that 1 Jno. 1:9 says we must confess our "sins" (that of which we areguilty) and not merely the fact that we do sin. (d) I haveasked about the one who commits adultery in weakness, or lies, or ignorantly worships with theinstrument—if these are sins that do not separate, (e)I've noted that if he believes any conditions must bemet, then he has no more confidence than he attributes to me. (f) I have demonstrated that what Iteach does not require "per-fection".

WHAT WE NEED

"And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grantunto thy servants that with all boldness they mayspeak they word" (Acts 4:29).

"Praying always with all prayer and supplication inthe Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; and for me, thatutterance may be given unto me, that I may open mymouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, For which I am an ambassador in bonds: thattherein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak" (Eph.6:18-20).

The disciples in Jerusalem did not pray that persecution might cease, but that they might preach the wordwith boldness. Paul did not ask the saints in Ephesus topray for his release from imprisonment or for the preservation of his life. He requested that they pray that he might teach boldly the gospel of Christ.

Have you ever heard of anyone praying for persecution? The following article from the "Baptist Bulletin"may interest you:

"Ethiopian Christians are praying that the persecution by the present Marxist government will continue.According to Open Doors News Service, the persecution of Lt. Colonel Mengistu Hile Mariam's governmenthas brought about unparalleled growth in the Ethiopian church.

"The government is closing many of the evangelical churches, so we are being forced to meet in secret,' an Ethiopian Christian told Dan Wooding of Open DoorsNews Service. 'We already have a thriving undergroundchurch and it is growing at an incredible rate. We are praying that the government here continues with itspersecution and closures because it is resulting in a much stronger church and much more dedicated christians.'

"Wooding reported that hundreds of Ethiopian Christians have been imprisoned by the government, evenwhile overseas Christians pour famine aid into the country."

I've heard some suggest that while we pray for religious tolerance and freedom, what we really need maywell be something quite to the contrary.

Alarms have been sounded concerning the possibilitythat churches which refuse to ordain women as elders or preachers, and which refuse to accept into their fellowship practicing adulterers and homosexuals may oneday be subject to such great financial liability thatownership of church property will become a thing of thepast. It may even develop that such "bigoted" and "discriminatory" policies will become unlawful, inwhich case, our public meetings and use of the mediawill be eliminated.

While none of us, I suppose, would pray for suchsituations, it might be just what we need! Like thereligious groups in Ethiopia which have found it necessary to go underground and are "growing at an incredible rate," the Lord's church in this land would undoubtedly fare better in an environment in which we had nodoubt that we are strangers and pilgrims.

Problems and divisions over what can be done in the church building would no longer occupy our attention.There would be no church buildings. Church support of"our institutions" would not need to be debated, forthere would be no institutions. I seriously doubt thatsupporting fun and games from the church treasurywould divide us. Folks are not likely to risk their necks,meeting secretly, for a game of basketball.

All we would have left would be the church, the faithful, who would stand in the face of all opposition and persecution. I submit that that remnant would be a mighty force in this land.

Might it be that we would also pray, "Lord, keep thepersecution coming. Just give thy servants boldness tospeak as we ought to speak."?

NO CRAVING FOR WORSHIP

Fifty years ago Batsell Baxter told the story of anelder many years before who lived several miles fromthe town where the church met. He missed worship oneDecember Sunday when it was cold and misty and theunpaved roads muddy. But on Monday the preachermet the man in town. "The mist was still falling, theweather was colder, and the roads mudder. He explained to the preacher that he could not come to churchSunday because the weather and roads were too bad.But he could come to town on Monday because he wasout of tobacco and had to have it."

Like the elder, some other members of the church can do without communion with the Lord when circumstances make it inconvenient and feel no pang of conscience. But let something turn up that they reallycrave and the mud could hardly get too deep to keepthem away. Appetites are cultivated and the reasonmost churches have an attendance problem is thatmany members have not cultivated a taste for spiritualthings. They want their religion in small doses and theyhad as soon skip the worship altogether if the "mist and mud" are a little too heavy.

* * * ** * * * * *"STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN"

One of the prerogatives of older preachers is to giveadvice to younger preachers. I appreciate this and havealways tried to profit by it, even when I was young. Thecounsel of those who have already trod the road I walkcan bolster my spirits, strengthen my resolve, and improve my service to God and man. Of course, some bitsof advice are more helpful than others and one has to beselective. The following item is from an old article "ToYoung Preachers" by Fred Dennis.

"Stay out of the kitchen! The sisters will appreciatethat. They will get the meals and wash the dishes. It isnot meant for you to leave the word of God to servetables. Give yourself continually to the ministry of theword and prayer. You can help your own wife in yourown kitchen. But do not be too friendly with the women.Be discreet. Give the enemy no room to talk about you."

This may be more curious than helpful, but then itmay be right on course for all I know. Besides being in a sister's way in the kitchen, a visiting preacher might beprone to be meddlesome there. Then, too, brother Dennis may have known some unlicensed romancesthat bloomed while a preacher cumbered himself aboutmuch serving in another man's kitchen. Anyway, apreacher would do well to avoid being "too friendly"with the women in or out of the kitchen and to confine his zeal for housework to his own wife in his own kitchen.

* * * * * * * * * *

THE INFLUENCE OF A BAD EXAMPLE

Illustrating the power of a preacher's influence, EarlWest recalled an event in the life of Robert and James Alexander Haldane, Scottish ministers who Robert Richardson says gave Alexander Campbell his first impulse as a reformer. The Haldane brothers made a journey in their youth with Dr. James Macknight, author ofthe celebrated commentary on the Apostolic Epistles,and another learned cleric in the Church of Scotland.

"Crossing over from the border of Scotland, Mack-night insisted that they continue their journey, eventhough it was the Lord's day... The Haldane boys hadbeen reared to go to church; and as they traveled along through the country, listening to the church bells callthem to worship, they felt ashamed not to go. But Macknight warned them against such 'frigid' teachings and beliefs. This incident weighed heavily on theirminds, and after they grew up there was no writer thatthey regarded as a more dangerous corrupter of thetruths of the gospel than Dr. Macknight. . . RobertHaldane... often said that Macknight neither 'intellectually knew, nor experimentally felt,' the things he wrote... Macknight's failure to measure up to a standard of religion which was generally very rigidly followedin that day led him to lose all influence over those youngmen."

His impious attitude caused the Haldanes in maturity to shun Macknight's scholarly writings, which theymight have found profitable. But they saw him as theirreligious churchman they remembered rather than theerudite expositor he was generally presumed to be.Whether they were wise in this is for another to judge,but it is a fact nonetheless that by one ill-conceived act,the eminent scholar closed the minds of two young men to any good he otherwise might have done them. Nopreacher can expect his words to be respected, no matter how wise they are, when people have doubts about his life. A good example rests in both words and ways (1Tim. 4:12).

In the November issue of STS brother Weldon Warnock wrote an article entitled, "MAY THEGUILTY PARTY REMARRY?" In most of the article brother Warnock did his usual excellent job. However,with part of what he said I want to take exception. Let itbe said that I have no personal vendetta nor ax to grindwith brother Warnock. He has been a friend of myfamily for many years and I count him as such. He can fiddle at my fireside anytime he chooses. I do not consider him a false teacher, but I do believe he is wrong onthis point.

That with which I take exception is found in thefourth paragraph of his article (I encourage the readerto go back and read his entire article), a part of which Iquote here: "But someone asks: "What about a woman who is PUT AWAY (DIVORCED) by a man simplybecause the man no longer wanted to be married? Fornication is not involved and the woman repeatedly triedto prevent the divorce to no avail. After a couple yearsthe man marries another woman. Is the 'put away' woman then free to marry?' SHE CERTAINLY IS, ifshe PUTS AWAY her husband for fornication. She would have to do this before God IN PURPOSE OF HEART since the divorce has already taken place, legally speaking" (emphasis mine—jhd).

I realize that brother Warnock is dealing with a hardquestion, emotionally speaking. But you will noticethat he has given no scriptural reasoning for sayingthat the woman in his example could remarry? As a matter of fact, while dealing with scripture, brotherWarnock had already answered the question in his example in the previous paragraph. He said, "Hence, inMatt. 19:9 Jesus is saying that ALL (emphasis his—jhd) put away persons who remarry are committingadultery. If a person IS PUT AWAY (this emphasismine—jhd. Notice the similarity between this and brother Warnock's example.) for incompatibility andhe/she remarries, that person is committing adultery."It seems to me that brother Warnock has really answered his own question in two different ways and I like his answer from scripture better.

I think the real nuts-and-bolts issue of this disagreement is the definition of "divorce." Brother Warnock uses the term with two different meanings in his illustration: 1) The first time, when the man is divorcing thewoman, he is talking of a legal (civil) divorce; 2) Thesecond time, when the woman is divorcing the man, heuses the term in the sense of a mental act. The scriptures do not so equivocate, wherever the terms "divorce" or "put away" are used in reference to a marriage they have a singular meaning. A divorce is a divorce inwhatever society one may be. When one has been divorced they can't turn around and divorce the personthat has already divorced them as brother Warnock indicates. A person is either the one being divorced orthe one doing the divorcing, he/she can't be both at thesame time. I would like brother Warnock to give a single definition of the word "divorce" and apply it to bothpersons in his example. It would be interesting.

Brother Warnock's position with regard to his example implies at least two things: 1) There can be no realdivorce unless scriptural grounds are present; 2) One cannot be divorced (put away) unless they mentallyagree to it.

First of all, if there can be no real divorce unlessscriptural grounds are present, why did Jesus say,"Whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT for immorality..." (Matt. 19:9)? The very fact that the exceptive clauseis found in Matt. 19:9 is proof that two people canactually be divorced for unscriptural reasons but, nevertheless, they are divorced.

In the second place, what passage teaches that inorder for one to actually be divorced they must agree toit? What passage allows them to reserve themselvesmentally from a divorce, claim to still be married, andnot be "really" divorced? One may indeed sin againsthis wife by divorcing her with unscriptural causeagainst her will but, nevertheless, is it not still a divorce? I know this has hard and unpleasant consequences. It is similar to being shoved off a cliff, theremay be no justifiable reason and you may not haveagreed to it but the consequences are still the same.Such are merely the facts. Perhaps most of our troublesin the divorce realm are but penalties for failing torecognize the seriousness of the marriage institutionand making the proper preparation for it.

In closing let me say that, although brother Warnock surely doesn't uphold what has come to be called the"waiting game," that is exactly what his position allows. It is exactly what the woman in his example did,motive notwithstanding. I agree with brother Warnock's own words found elsewhere in his article, Ibelieve they are in harmony with what the scripture teaches and I am content to leave the matter with that. He said, "Hence, in Matt. 19:9 Jesus is saying that ALLput away persons who remarry are committing adultery," and again, "But whatever procedure, only theparty who has put his/her mate away for fornicationmay scripturally remarry."

"DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE" RESPONSE

Before I get into my answer to brother Jim Deason's article, I want to say that his kind remarks about meare, indeed, mutual. I appreciate his work of faith andlabor of love through the years.

Brother Deason said I had given no scriptural reasoning for saying that the woman who had been divorced,although she did not want a divorce, had a right toremarry when her husband remarried. Well, read thearticle again and decide for yourself. Jesus said that a person may remarry if his/her mate is guilty of fornication (Mt. 19:9). That sounds like Scripture to me.

We are too restrictive on this issue when we do not allow what Jesus made so definite, viz., that fornication(sexual immorality) gives the innocent party the rightto remarry. Notice Mt. 10:11 in this connection. "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her." Let us observe: First, theman puts away his wife. Second, he marries another.Third, he commits adultery AGAINST HER. Theremay be days, weeks, months or years between the putting away and the marrying another, but when themarriage takes place, the man commits adulteryagainst his put away companion. Jesus says she mayremarry because of this sin. I believe that settles thematter!

There was nothing stated, nor implied, in myNovember article about a "waiting game." Certainly, ifboth parties wanted the divorce, and later one of themcommits adultery, the other person could not use fornication as a reason for remarriage. But the woman in myillustration is not playing the "waiting game." She ispleading, hoping, praying and patiently trying to win her husband back. They are still bound in God's sight,although divorced. But her wishes are not realized asher husband marries another woman. She is then free from the bond to marry again.

Brother Deason says she may not, scripturally, remarry because her husband put her away. But in myarticle I specifically stated that the innocent woman puts her husband away, before God, for adultery. Shecannot do it, legally, in the civil court, because herhusband had already exhausted that route by a loosedivorce law. She has no legal adjudication, but she doeshave a moral, scriptural choice.

I cannot accept the position that the law of God in this matter is regulated by and contingent upon thecivil laws of fallible man. The woman I used for illustration (typical of many situations today) is trapped, according to brother Deason's position, by human precepts and judgments. What if the husband simplyabandoned his wife, no divorce, and two years later hecommitted adultery? Could she divorce him for fornication and remarry? I do not see a dime's worth of difference in this and what I wrote in the November issue of STS.

Some societies through the years have had no legalratification of marriage and no recognition of divorce.McClintock and Strong state: "In Congo and Angola... .' they use no peculiar ceremonies in marriage, norscarce trouble themselves for consent of friends' " (Vol.5, p. 805). Many other examples are given of variouspeoples. Also, compare pp. 799-800 in regard to marriage and divorce among the Romans. Marriage wasmade wholly by consent and commitment among manyof the ancient peoples and divorce occurred by cancelling the agreement and commitment. Reckon if an innocent mate was told by his/her marriage partner, "I disown you, I divorce you," that the innocent person wouldhave had no recourse, ever, because he/she was beaten to the phrase? Brother Deason said, "I think the realnuts-and-bolts issue of this disagreement is the definition of 'divorce.' " Let us notice in the Bible that under the term "divorce" there are included separations ofmarried persons which are unlike one another. First,there are separations of persons (divorces) who remainbound together in the sight of God, although not boundin the sight of men. Secondly, there are separations ofpersons (divorces) who become loosed before God aswell as before men. Both of these are plainly taught inMt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:10-12; Lk. 16:18; Rom. 7:2-3; 1Cor. 7:10-17, 39). Obviously, the Bible teaches that Godrecognizes all divorces, but He does not sanction all divorces, just like He recognizes all marriages, but Hedoes not sanction all marriages.

The Scriptures teach a husband and wife are bound toeach other until death do they part (Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:2;1 Cor. 7:39). The word "bound" (deo) means "put underobligation, sc. of law, duty, etc." (Thayer, p. 131). However, to this law is an exception that Jesus made in Mt.5:32, 19:9. The exception is "fornication." Hence, if amarriage partner is guilty of sexual immorality, theinnocent party may put away the guilty one and remarry. Fornication does not automatically dissolve themarriage bond, but it is a lawful reason for divorce andremarriage when reconciliation is impossible or unfeasible.

If the position that no put away person can remarry,regardless of the circumstances, then it follows: (1) IfJohn divorces Jane and John dies one day later, Janecan never marry again. (2) If Bill secretly flies to LasVegas with his secretary, gets a "quickie" divorce andmarriage, his wife, Sue, has to remain single because shehas been put away. The consequences of such a positionshow its fallacy and untenableness.

In conclusion, let me reiterate that the innocent partyin a divorce is not determined by who gets it, or when it is gotten, but rather on WHAT GROUNDS—whether sexual immorality has been committed by one or theother. Only fornication frees the innocent party tomarry again.

MAY CHURCHES OF CHRIST SUPPORT HUMAN INSTITUTIONS? — II

WHAT IS THE FUSS ABOUT?

Since so much strife, division and heartache have

come among God's people over the relationship of

churches of Christ to human institutions of various

kinds we give attention to some of these matters. It is

ridiculous to charge any Christian with being opposed

to caring for widows and orphans or preaching the gos

pel. I have been preaching for over fifty years and have

never met the person who opposed caring for the father

less and widows in their affliction as well as all other

poor and sick of earth who are worthy of charity. Some,

I understand, have said I was "anti" helping widows,

orphans, but those who know me best know this is a

false report. I have never made a big display of what

charity I have done. God knows about it and the af

flicted widows and perhaps a few orphans know: I have

never known a person who was the responsibility of the

congregation which I served to go without the necessi

ties of life.

What I personally practice and the amount of money

or goods that I may give to the poor has nothing what

ever to do with what God has taught each local congre

gation to do and has forbidden it to do. I have never

known a Christian who opposed gospel preaching but I

know thousands who oppose church subsidized preach

ing societies. 1 have never known many persons who

opposed schools operated by Christians and in which

the Bible is taught daily. I have known thousands,

however, who oppose church donations to such schools.

It is sometimes difficult for people to distinguish be

tween what the Bible teaches and what some people

practice because they do not study the Bible. Certainly

all should strive diligently to do everything God says

and only that. The fact remains, however, that if a

person does nothing God says that disobedience does

not change the fact that God has said do it.

For years we have been hearing that all the fussamong brethren is over how the work God has commanded is to be done. This is simply not true! The whole issue turns on the matter of who is to do what God commanded! This necessarily involves the question ofwhether or not merely making a donation to a humaninstitution is the action God commanded a local church to perform. The question to be settled is whether a localchurch shall do the work God commands it to do or surrender its God-appointed obligation to somebodyelse. And then, while professing to obey God, may thatchurch donate from its treasury to a service institutionwhich was self-created and is self-controlled? May itsupport an institution completely independent of everylocal church on earth as regards its managements butwhich depends upon subsidies from local churches tostay in business? This is the issue.

It should be further observed that we are not opposing the moral right of any group of men, saints and/orsinners, to operate any legitimate business. Whetherthe institution dispenses food, clothing, shelter, nursing service, books, or courses of study in Bible alonewith reading, writing and arithmetic, has nothing whatever to do with the scriptural right of local churches tounderwrite the financial involvements to these independent, strictly human, institutions. Since no congregation bought or built them, since no local church owns orcontrols them, what right do these man-made operations have to call upon churches of the Lord JesusChrist to pay their bills for them? This is the issue. Weare interested in discussing no other in this connection.

What is Scriptural and Right?

When each local congregation relieves the needy forwhom God has made that congregation responsible it isdoing God's will. This is no more or no less than God'swill. This is obedience to God. Scriptures teaching thisshow that when it was able to do so each local church relieved it own needy members; and when a sister congregation had members which it could not relieve, then churches with the ability made contribution to it. Scriptures teaching that each local congregation relieved itsown needy members when it had the financial resourcesto do so follow: Acts 2:45— "and they sold their possessions and

goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need."

Acts 4:34-35— "For neither was there among themany that lacked: for as many as werepossessors of lands or houses soldthem, and brought the prices of thethings that were sold and laid themat the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto each, according asany one had need."

Acts 6:1—6 "Now in these days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying,there arose a murmuring of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected inthe daily ministration. And the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, it isnot fit that we should forsake the

word of God, and serve tables. Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good report,full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will continue steadfastly in prayer, and in the ministry ofthe word. And the saying pleased themultitude: and they chose Stephen, . . . and Philip, and Pro-chorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas . . . whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid theirhands upon them."

1 Tim. 5:16— "If any man or woman that believeth hath widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be burdened; that it mayrelieve them that are widows indeed."

Scriptures teaching that one congregation contributed tothe needy members of a sister congregation:

Rom. 15:25,26— "... but now, I say, I go unto Jerusalem,ministering unto the saints. For it hath been the good pleasure of Macedoniaand Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem."

1 Cor. 16:1-4— "Now concerning the collection forthe saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye.Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, ashe may prosper, that no collections bemade when I come. And when I arrive, whomsoever ye shall approve, them will I send with letters to carry yourbounty unto Jerusalem: and if it be meetfor me to go also, they shall go withme."

When each congregation pays wages to a teacher of theword of God it is doing God's will. This is obedience toGod. Scriptures teaching this follow:

2 Cor. 11:8,9— "I robbed other churches, takingwages of them that I might minister unto you; and when I was presentwith you and was in want, I was not aburden on any man; for the brethren,when they came from Macedonia, supplied the measure of my want."

1 Cor. 9:11-14— "If we sowed unto you spiritualthings, is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal things? . . . even sodid the Lord ordain that they proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel."

(To be continued)

I was pleasantly surprised to read on the front page ofthe Firm Foundation (Sept. 25,1984) an article entitled,"Confusion and a Crisis of Faith." The author, Richard Guill, writes his concern for some of the things he isseeing some of his brethren practice. To say that such isa crisis of faith is probably an understatement. Everyone in every place should be alarmed at some of thethings the brethren are practicing. They are doingmany things without divine authority. They have forsaken the old paths, the good way to walk. They nolonger "... endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, havingitching ears; And they shall turn away their ears fromthe truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (II Tim. 3:3-4).

And so, I agree that we are (and have been) experiencing a crisis of faith. However, it should be noted that the author of the above article also wrote about confusion. He begins by writing, "Many of the Lord's people are ina state of confusion..." and later, he calls this "brotherhood confusion." But no one should be confused over the present state of many congregations. These problems did not just happen overnight. This is only theresult of what began thirty years ago over the "institutional question." It is the result of what happened overthe "instrumental music question" as well as the "missionary society question" many years ago. There was acrisis of faith, but no confusion. It simply came down tothe matter of respecting, or not respecting, scripturalauthority. Some were trying to stretch the scriptures inorder to justify their practice. One should keep in mindthat such an attitude did not lead them along "the old paths", but into a full-fledged denomination.

He also writes, "It is time for us to educate them as tothe work of the church, scriptural worship, respect forand how to establish scriptural authority, and a host ofother fundamental subjects." Such writing is very commendable, but again, one should not be confused onthese matters. I know of hundreds of brethren who were preaching, teaching, and writing on these very subjectsthirty years ago, but were ignored and "quarantined."They were interested in scriptural authority and concerned about the work and worship of the church. Theywere trying to educate the brethren on these matters,but no one would listen. Many of them are still preaching what they did back then.

One should not be confused to see some of the brethren who want to associate with, and look like, denominational preachers and churches. It is no great wonder that some are telling us that there are "Christians" invarious denominational churches. It is what some of the brethren want to preach and what some of the brethrenwant to hear. Scriptural authority and a divine patternno longer matter to them. Therefore, we can eliminateany confusion on these matters during this crisis offaith.

I would close, however, with a little confusion of my own. If we continue to see such "conservative-thinking"articles printed, I am confused as to which direction thewriters of the Firm Foundation are headed. Back to the Bible, I trust, on such matters as "the work of the church, scriptural worship, respect for and how to establish scriptural authority, and a host of other fundamental subjects."

YOU COULD HELP US

With very little effort, our readers could help usgreatly to increase our circulation. All it would takewould be for you to show your copy of STS to a friend(perhaps a member of the congregation you attend), orrelative and ask that person if he (or she) could afford $9a year in order to receive this paper each month. That isnot really hard, is it? We have a club rate of $7.50 a yearfor new subscriptions sent in clubs of four or more atone time. Why not send a gift subscription to a youngmarried couple (perhaps one of your children) and getthem started receiving good reading material in theirhome?

Send all News Items to: Connie W. Adams, P.O. Box 69, Brooks, KY 40109

DENVER NIEMEIER, 8220 West 82nd St., Indianapolis, IN 46278—Arrangements have been made for Traders Point to underwrite any expenses for four meetings a year to be held for churches that are unable to support such an effort. I would like to limit traveldistance to two days driving one way. If the brethren could provide lodging that would be fine, but if not, arrangements can still be made.Contact the elders at the address above.

VIVION ROAD LECTURES BILL JOHN, N.E. Vivion Road, Kansas City, MO 64118—PaulEarnhart, Ken Green and Jim Poppell will be the speakers June 23-26 in a lectureship at Vivion Road. The theme will be: "Applicable Messages For Today's Committed Christian."

9:30 A.M.—Philippians—The Joy of the Committed Life—Paul Earnhart.

10:15 A.M.—The More Excellent Way—Lessons on Love—Ken Green

11:00 A.M.—The Majesty, Power and Providence of God—Jim Poppell

7:00 P.M.—Congregational Singing 7:30 P.M.—Lessons From theLife of Christ—Paul Earnhart 8:15 P.M.—Winning the Victory—A study of Temptation—Ken Green

9:00 P.M.—Praying in Faith—Jim PoppellFor those wishing information regarding video tapes, audio tapes andhousing, please write to: Church of Christ, P.O. Box 28478, KansasCity, MO 64118 or call (816) 452-3684.

DON GIVENS, 411 Hebron Lane No. 3511, Honolulu, Hawaii 96815—If you, or some one you know is planning a trip to Hawaii, wewould love to have you worship with us at Waipahu on the island ofOahu. We average over a dozen visitors every Sunday from the mainland. Most tourists stay in hotels in Waikiki. The church building is 16miles from there. We are the only sound congregation here. The citybus to Waipahu will take one hour and 45 minutes each way. If yourent a car, allow yourself 45 minutes each way. Honolulu is a large cityof 800,000. From your hotel, take Freeway H-l west to exit 8 B(Waipahu exit). Take "Kam Hay" to first stoplight, then left onWaipahu Street. The building will be one mile on your left at 94-1233 Waipahu St. We meet on Sundays at 9 and 10 A.M. and 6 P.M. and onWednesdays at 7 P.M. Come see us in Hawaii.

Page 17

VERNON LOVE, P.O. Box 472, New Port Richey, FL 34291-0472— A new congregation has been recently founded in New Port Richey, Florida. This is one of the fastest growing areas in the state and needs a sound church. If you are retiring to Florida or planning to vacation, come and look this area over and worship with us. Wewill advertise the Bible correspondence course and contact all whoare interested in the truth. If you know of members in this area, let usknow and we will contact them. We are meeting in the Civic Clubin Sims Park in downtown New Port Richey. I am having to "maketents" for a living, but will be able to conduct home studies. Myhome address is 993 E. Lake Road, Tarpon Springs, FL 33489. Phone (813) 937-6867.

FRANK INGRAM, 1210 3rd St. SW, Cullman, AL 35055—I am interested in relocating sometime in 1986 in Florida. Referenceswill be gladly supplied. I am 60, married and have been preaching 38years. I am presently preaching on the radio six days a week. You maycall me at (205) 734-4708 (home) or 734-6380 (office).

SANTOS BASILIO, Fugu Sur, Tumanini, Isabelo, Philippines1312—We began the work here with one soul. In 1985, 34 were baptized into Christ for the remission of their sins. I have been workingwithout financial support from the USA. The brethren here supplyme only 150 pesos a month. I work as a tricycle driver (motorcycle with side-car—CWA) but I prefer to preach the gospel of Christ. Wemust work while it is day (Jno. 9:4).

J. B. GRINSTEAD

It is with sadness that we take note of the death of J. B. Grinstead, a faithful preacher of the gospel of Christ. He passed away whilevisiting in Virginia Beach, Virginia and was taken to eastern NorthCarolina for burial. His work of preaching took him to many placesthough his most recent work was in the Birmingham, Alabama area. The editor first became acquainted with him through his work ineastern North Carolina and Virginia. For several years he preachedin the Dayton, Ohio area. Much of his work was with strugglingchurches in hard places. Our deepest sympathy is extended to thefamily.

PREACHER NEEDED TRENTON, MISSOURI—The church in Trenton needs a full-time preacher of the gospel. Anyone interested please write us at Box 164,Trenton, MO or call Melvin Loveall at (816) 359-2882.

EDITORIAL LEFT-OVERSAS OTHERS SEE US

It might be helpful (though painful at times) to see ourselves asothers see us. A few years ago a preacher's wife viewed the rather loud get-ups some of the preachers wore during the Florida College lecturesand said they should change the name of that week to "The Parade ofthe Peacocks." Ouch!

TIES THAT BIND

Speaking of the Florida College lectures, we have missed very few years and always find it delightful to see so many old friends in oneplace. I seldom ever finish a conversation during that whole week. It isrefreshing to hear about the work in other places, exchange pleasantries about families, sing together, and hear able men discuss timelytopics. It is also a source of great joy to see decent looking and respectful acting students. They are learning much to equip them forlife and they are doing it in a wholesome setting where every teacher isa Christian and where 90% of their fellow students are also Christians. While no human enterprise is without flaw, we believe Florida Collegehas something worthwhile to offer to young people and urge parentswith high school students to give serious thought to sending theiryoung people there. I watched with interest as my younger son,Martin, and his wife, Joanie, greeted their own former school mates with exuberance during their first return for lectures. Good friends areneeded and there are blessed ties that bind. No place makes that moreevident than lecture week at Florida College.

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH BAPTISMS 102 RESTORATIONS 47 (Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)