Volume XXXIII February 1992 Number 2

Born Again Into The Kingdom

The church is the people who are "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiarpeople; that ye should shew forth the praises of himwho hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2: 9). The kingdom includes onlythose who are "delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of hisdear Son" (Col. 1: 13). One enters the kingdom by the birth of water and of the Spirit and not by a physicalbirth (John 3: 5).

Among religious people it is almost universally accepted that one must be "born again" in order to enterthe kingdom of heaven. It is the means by which onegets into the kingdom of God. Nicodemus came toJesus by night and acknowledged him to be a greatteacher from God. Jesus came directly to the point bysaying unto him, "... Verily, verily, I say unto thee,Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3: 3). That is explicit! He furthersaid, "... Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a manbe born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter intothe kingdom of God" (vs. 5). This language is plain and to the point. The word "Except" is used in both versesand it allows no alternative if one enters into the kingdom of God. He MUST be "born again" or "born ofwater and the Spirit" in order to SEE or ENTER intothe kingdom of God.

The context of John 3: 3-13 shows that Jesus was speaking of entering the kingdom of God upon thisearth, and Nicodemus so understood that. He did not

understand the nature of the birth of water and the Spirit, but he understood that Jesus was talkingabout entering the kingdom here upon earth whileman lives. Jesus distinguished this from a physicalbirth and that is what confused Nicodemus.

One must be born again to enter the kingdom. "Notby works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus

3: 5). "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but ofincorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth andabideth for ever" (1 Pet. 1: 23).

The inspired John said that Jesus came to his ownand they received him not, but as many as receivedhim, to them he gave power to become the sons of God ... "Which were born, but of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1: 12-13).Jesus spoke of ONE birth, not two. One birth of water and the Spirit, not a physical birth.

Other expressions in the New Testament help usunderstand the significance of the birth of water and the Spirit into the kingdom of God. The germ of life isin the seed. Jesus said,... "the words that I speak untoyou, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6: 63).Peter said, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed,but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever" (1 pet. 1: 23). The seed is the wordof God (Luke 8: 11). "Of his own will begat he us withthe word of truth, that we should be a kind offirstfruits of his creatures" (James 1: 18). Paul said tothe Corinthians, "... I have begotten you through thegospel" (1 Cor. 4: 15).

There are parallel passages to John 3: 3-5 which make the meaning clear. Christ loved the church andgave himself for it, 'That he might sanctify andcleanse it with the washing of water by the word"(Eph. 5: 26). That statement is equal to "birth of waterand of the Spirit. " In the New Testament there is nocleansing or sanctifying by washing of water except by baptism of a penitent believer.

Another is Titus 3: 5, "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according tohis mercy he saved us, by the washing ofregeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. " The washing of regeneration is

the washing of rebirth. The renewing of the Holy Spirit isthe effect of the work of the Spirit through the word. "Be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by therenewing of your mind... " (Rom. 12: 2). The renewingof the mind comes from the teaching of the Spirit by theword. Stating it plainly: "He that believeth and is baptized shallbe saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"(Mark 16: 16). The word is the work of the Spirit which produces faith (Rom. 10: 17), and baptism is the onlywashing of water authorized in the New Testament forcleansing anyone. "And now why tarriest thou? arise, andbe baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the nameof the Lord" (Acts 22: 16).The new birth which inducts one into the kingdom of Godis exactly the same as that which brings one to be addedto the church. It all occurs in the same way and bringsthe individual to the same place in relation to Christ and the remission of sins (Acts 2: 38, 47; 16: 31-34; Rom. 6:3-6; Col. 2: 12, 13). These conditions reconcile one to Godthrough Christ in one body (Eph. 2: 15, 16). We get intoone body by baptism as directed by one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13). Since there is only one Spirit, one baptism and one body (Eph. 4: 3, 4), the only way to get into that one bodyis by baptism as directed by that one Spirit through theword of God. That equals "he that believeth and is baptized" (Mark 16: 16), and "born again of water andof the Spirit" (John 3: 5).

Rules, Patterns And Women's Role InThe Church

For sometime now the institutional brethren have been facing increasing difficulty among themselves overwoman's role in the church. There have been instances in which women have spoken to mixed audiences of menand women. Randy Mayeaux of Dallas, Texas was present, on one such occasion and reported that the woman who spoke was "dynamite. " He thought it was great.More and more articles are appearing in journals advocating an enlarged role for women in the churchesincluding, leading public prayers, making announcements, serving at the Lord's Table, and teaching where men are present.

The November-December, 1991 issue of IMAGEcontains an article from Edyth Lane of Wynne, Arkansas in which she argues for such an enlarged role,though her article stopped short of directly advocatingthat women fill the pulpit. Several things in her articleidentify the mind-set out of which this contention grows.She said:

"Many Christians have been unsettled by recentquestions abut male and female roles. Some define theseroles by appealing to instructions in Scripture that wereaddressed to first century people who lived in a societyvery different from our own. Then they have used these definitions to set down rules and patterns for thispresent age. I think it is time to take a look at the natureof Christianity and try to come to a more reasonableapproach. "

Later she wrote:

"If we are obliged to fill differing roles, it is a result ofadapting to the world we live in, not because God demands it. "

Again:

"We have come down to the 1990s with a lot of cultural and ecclesiastical baggage. There are some long-standing traditions in churches of Christ, some relating toparticipation in Sunday-school teaching, presiding overand serving communion, public prayers, and makingannouncements. Unwritten law says that only malesare allowed to participate in these activities; but wemust all agree that these restrictions really are traditional, for we do not get these rituals from Scripture. "

She closed by saying:

"I hope this situation will change. I believe it canchange only when we become really spiritual, when we

learn true humility and mutual love and respect inseeking to serve Christ out of a pure heart. May God grant it to be so, and soon. In our rapidly changing world,it will be a matter of necessity. "

Several things emerge from these excerpts, whichseem to summarize the gist of her article. First, shedecries the idea of a pattern drawn from Scripture. Theassumption is that the Scriptures which address thissubject do not establish a rule, or pattern but must beunderstood in the light of cultural circumstances. Thisis another case of arguing that the church must continually change with the times and that the word of God doesnot constitute a binding pattern for action.

While it is true that Christians have to adjust to thecircumstances which surround them, it is not true thatthe issue of the role of men and women in congregationsis to be determined on that basis. Paul admonished "Let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing"(Phil. 3: 16). Paul's prohibition against the wives of theprophets speaking in the assembly was consistent alsowith what the law had said. "Let your women keepsilence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto themto speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law" (1 Cor. 14: 34). Therefore, theprinciple upon which Paul worked here was of widerscope than a mere cultural environment. The teachingof Paul under the gospel was rooted in the same fundamental principle as that which pertained under the law.Paul went back to the beginning when he dealt with thisrelationship in 1 Tim. 2: 11-15. He said "Let the womanlearn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man,but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, thenEve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman beingdeceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding sheshall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity with sobriety. "

In 1 Cor. 11: 3 Paul argued from an unchangingorder of things when he said "But I would have youknow, that the head of every man is Christ; and thehead of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ isGod. " There is a chain of authority here which mustalways be kept intact. It is from this same base thatthe instruction flows that the wife is to be "subject toher husband" for her husband is the "head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church" (Eph. 5: 23).

None of this instruction gives any man the right to besmug, arrogant, self-righteous or insensitive to thedignity and feelings of women. They have too often beenmade the object of sarcastic barbs thinly disguised ashumor. I have seen some of the sisters cringe at thoughtless things said in classes and sermons. Such ought not to be. But that does not change the fact that God, in Hisword, made no provision for women to exercise leadership roles in the church. Godly women have never had any problem about this because they respect the authority of the Scriptures. With them, this is not a matter of"cultural baggage, " mere tradition to be altered by changing times.

The Feminist Movement has attempted to create agreater awareness of injustices toward women and set in motion the means to rectify these injustices. But ithas also developed a strident spirit and placed a chip onthe shoulder of many women, including some Christians, which tempts some to disregard what the Bibleteaches about the roles of both men and women.

Personally, it is gratifying to me to find more and more articles written by more conservative-minded writers among the institutional brethren stressing the need for respecting the pattern and crying out againstthe "liberals" among them. They almost sound like "antis" and some of them have even been called by thatodious name! But let none of us become too smug. Thereare straws in the wind which indicate that we shall not be immune to this problem. One of the surest ways to get flogged by an increasing number of sisters (and not a fewbrethren) is to teach exactly what the Bible says on thissubject and then warn against any departure from it. Iknow of some churches considered rather conservative which have had problems in this area already and theend is not yet. For that reason we are thinking ofpreparing a special edition of this paper for July which will address a woman's role in the church.

I am bothered considerably by the assertion of the Arkansas sister who said the situation, which she attributes to cultural baggage and tradition, can only change "when we become really spiritual, when we learn true humility and mutual love and respect in seeking toserve Christ out of a pure heart. " If words mean anything, those who insist on the Scriptural limitationsupon women are not "really spiritual, " do not have "truehumility" and lack "mutual love. " And this loving conclusion is intended to melt our hearts to penitence so we will discard this unnecessary baggage and tradition andopen the way for female leadership roles in the church.Oh yes, and don't forget, this change is essential in orderto "serve Christ out of a pure heart. " I suggest that it isentirely possible to be "really spiritual, " possess "truehumility, " manifest "mutual love" and serve Christ "outof a pure heart" while walking by the same rule andrespecting what the Bible says about the roles of womenin the churches.

Other Observations

It is prophesied of Jesus in Isaiah 9: 6: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the governmentshall be upon his shoulders: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. " Such designations and praisewere never given to a mere man. This verse has reference to the Immanuel, "God is with us" (Isa. 7: 14). Inclear language, the inspired prophet identifies Jesusand describes what He is. He is "Mighty God" thus "thechild to be born is identified with the Godhead, both indeity and power. He is equal with God... The titleEverlasting Father or 'Eternal Father' clearly places thechild outside the pale of created begins; as God, He iseternal" (Homer Hailey, A Commentary on Isaiah,

p. 1034).

A mere man could not perform miracles, but Jesus did (Jno. 20: 30, 31). Some contend that since Jesus gave up His divine power, the Holy Spirit enabled Him to workmiracles. They refer to Matthew 12: 28 as a proof text.Jesus said to the Pharisees, "But if I by the Spirit of Godcast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come uponyou. " In the first place, it is assumed that Jesus wasreferring to the Holy Spirit in His statement. The footnote of the ASV on this verse offers the alternate "in" the Spirit of God. But let us notice the parallel passage,Luke 11: 20, "But if I by the finger of God cast out demons... " In the book of Exodus is recorded the account of the ten plagues which were inflicted upon the Egyptians.The magicians of Egypt could duplicate the first two, but they were unable to accomplish the third (the lice). Thenthey said: "This is the finger of God" (Ex. 8: 19). What didthey mean? They were simply saying, "this is the powerof God. " In Matthew 12: 27, 28, Jesus was contrastingGod's power with that of Beelzebub (prince of demons,see vs. 24). It is a mere assumption, and out of harmonywith what the Bible teaches about the nature of Christ,to suppose that He gave up His divine power and couldonly perform miracles because the Holy Spirit enabled Him to do so. The power of Jesus was inherent, not derived (Jno. 5; 21, 26; 10: 17, 18). As to the miraclesof Jesus: "They differ from the miracles of prophetsand apostles in that, instead of being answers to prayer, granted by a Higher Power, they manifestlyflow from the majestic Life resident in the Worker" (H.

P. Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord, p. 158). Jesuswas Himself God and His divine power distinguished Him from an ordinary man.

When Jesus was in Caperhaum and it was told thathe was in the house, four men carrying a man sick of thepalsy, broke up the roof and let down the bed where theman lay. Mark 2: 5 reads, "And Jesus seeing their faithsaith unto the sick of palsy, Son, thy sins are forgiventhee. " But some of the scribes sitting there were reasoning in their hearts and asked, "Why doth this man thusspeak? he blasphemeth: who can forgive sins but one,even God?" (vs. 7). Jesus said in verses 10, 11: "But thatye may know that the Son of Man hath authority onearth to forgive sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy), Isay unto thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thyhouse. " The scribes were right in that only God can forgive sins, but they failed to recognize Jesus as God.They would not admit that the miracles of Christ attested to His divinity. Please note that only God canforgive sins. Jesus forgave sins; therefore, He was GOD.It was the scribes, not Jesus who were guilty of blasphemy because they did not accept Him as being Godand even spoke against Him.

Jesus said in John 5: 21, "For as the Father raiseththe dead and giveth them life, even so the Son also givethlife to whom he will. " Here Jesus attests that He possesses the same power through the Father. He raised those dead in sin to life (Jno. 5: 25) and He raisedLazarus from the dead (Jno. 11: 43, 44), the widow's son (Lk. 7: 14, 15) and the daughter of Jairus (Mk. 5: 41, 42). A man (only a man and no more) could not have such power, the power to give either spiritual lifeor physical life. Jesus was a man, but He was alsomore than a man. He was GOD.

Jesus declared in John 10: 30, "I and the Fatherare one. " Jesus and God the Father are separateentities, but they are one, as in indicated in verses 28and 29. For example, both can give eternal life. Theyare one in purpose, both possessing the divine nature.The God-head is composed of three distinct personalities: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,but one God.

To Martha, Jesus said in John 11: 25, "I am theresurrection, and the life... " Here again we see thatJesus had the power to produce eternal life for those who would believe in Him.

Jesus could read the minds of others (Jno. 2: 25).This is not true of just a man, and only a man.

Jesus declared His deity in John 5: 58, "BeforeAbra-ham was born, I am. " William Hendricksen observes the error of the Jews as he comments: "Theysaw only the historical manifestation, not the eternal Person; only the human, not the divine. Jesus, therefore, reaffirms his eternal, timeless, absolute essence" (The Gospel of John, ch. 8, p. 66). BecauseJesus declared Himself to be deity is the reason the Jewstook up stones to cast at Him (vs. 59). They would not have done so had Jesus claimed to be no more than justa man. They accused Him of blasphemy because theydid not believe He was divine. Prior to verse 58 Jesus had said to them, "except ye believe that I am he, yeshall die in your sins" (vs. 24). Literally, Jesus wassaying, "except ye believe that I am" (the word "he" is initalics). B. F. Westcort says of the expression, "that Iam, " "not simply 'that I am the Messiah, ' such as your imagination has drawn for you;

but far more than this, that I am, that in me is the spring of life and light and strength; that I present to you the invisible majesty of God; that I unite in virtue of myessential Being the seen and the unseen, the finite and the infinite" (op. cit. p. 131). Both passages affirm thatChrist was God.

Never has it been said to a mere man, "Thou art theChrist, the Son of the living God. " But Peter said this toJesus. God spoke from heaven at the baptism of His Son (Matt. 3: 17) and at the transfiguration of His Son (Matt.

17: 5), in both instances declaring: This is my belovedSon, in whom I am well pleased. " At the transformationscene the expression "Hear ye him" is added. H. Leo Boles observes that "the term 'Son' is applied to the Messiah (Psalm 2: 7; Isa. 42: 1), not merely in reference to his official character, but more especially tohis divine nature" (op. cit. p. 93).

No mere man taught as Jesus did (Matt. 7: 28, 29;Jno. 7: 46).

Let us not be deceived into believing that Jesus wasonly a man (just a man) while He was here on earth. Hewas God manifested in the flesh. "Many other signstherefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples,which are not written in this book: but these are written,that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son ofGod; and that believing ye may have life in his name"(Jno. 20: 30, 31).

One who was only a man and nothing more than a man could not atone for sin. Jesus not only did this, butHe was the mediator between God and man. He was the only one who could fill this role. He represented God to man and He represented man to God. Indeed, He wasGod-Man. He was the incarnation of God. We must remember also that our Lord was man as well as God. As man, He was touched with the feelings of our infirmities... one that hath been in all points tempted as we are" (Heb. 4: 15). What a glorious example for us to follow (1Pet. 2: 21-23)!

One has said: "The divinity of Christ is in solution inthe Bible as salt is in sea water. " On the memorial of William Ewart Gladstone in Howarden Church, England, is the following inscription taken from his own words:

"All I think, all I write, All I am, is basedon the divinity of Christ, the central hope ofour poor wayward world. "

I pray that these articles have made some contribution to the important study of the nature of Christ.

Some Suggested Reading

Campbell, John L. The Bible Under Fire. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1928.Kellems, Jesse. The Deity of Jesus. Joplin: College

Press, reprint, n. d.Liddon, H. P. The Divinity of our Lord and SaviourJesus Christ. Minneapolis: Klock and Klock, re

print. n. d.Smith, Wilbur. The Supernaturalness of Christ.

Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.Vos, Geerhardus. The Self Disclosure of

Jesus.

(Continued on bottom of next page)

Marriage, The Bond And Adultery

One of the problems in the divorce and remarriagediscussions is the use of terms associated with the topic.If one uses the term "marriage" or "adultery" to meanone thing while another uses it in an entirely differentway, obviously, the two have different starting pointsand will reach diverse conclusions. This same principleis true with other terms like divorce, bond or fornication.

Marriage And The Bond

I am convinced that a clear concept of the distinctionof the marriage and the bond erases many of theproblems and questions raised in a discussion of divorce and remarriage.

Brother Bassett confuses the two by presentingmarriage and the bond as one and the same thing (Bassett, pp. 59-60). He must make them the same to fithis doctrine, for he argues that if the couple are nolonger married, they are no longer bound (Bassett, p. 60).

1. There is a difference in the marriage and the bond. This is obvious from the fact that the woman in Rom. 7: 2-3 is bound to her first husband even though she is married to another man.
2. Defining marriage and the bond. Marriage is a relationship entered into by agreementand ratified by compliance with civil law. The bond is a covenant with God that joins one to his mate. The"law of her husband" (Rom. 7: 2) refers to the bond or the"law which binds the wife to her husband" (G. Kittel,Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament, Vol. IV,

P. 1070).

3. It is possible to be bound to one and marriedto another. That is certainly the case in Rom. 7: 2-3.The woman in the text was "bound by the law to herhusband" even though she was "married to another man. " This is what makes the second marriage adulterous.

(Continued from previous page)

Nutley: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.,

1953. Warfield, Benjamin B.: The Person of Christ. " The

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,

James Orr, General Editor, Vol. IV, pp. 2338-2348.The Lord of Glory. Grand Rapids: Guardian Press,

reprint.

Adultery

1. Defining adultery. Bassett tells us that when a couple "commit adultery" (as in Matt. 5: 32; 19: 9), it refers to the act of divorce and remarriage and not to unlawful sexual activity.

"Notice that Jesus used two verbs, 'divorces' and 'marries, ' and said the result of these two ACTIONS is the commission of adultery... The very fact that theadultery Jesus talked about was the result of the two-foldaction of divorcing and marrying argues that he was not talking about adultery in the sense of sexual activitylater on in the marriage itself" (Bassett, pp. 68-69).

We are told that even if "adultery" refers to the sexualactivity, the sexual activity in the second marriage couldnot be adultery because adultery (as defined by Webster)refers to sexual activity with someone other than one'swife or husband (Bassett, p. 71). "Further, when onedivorces and marries another, he is married to thatperson" (Bassett, p. 71). Jerry ridicules the idea of an "adulterous marriage. " He claims that this is a contradiction of terms. If it is adultery, it is not a marriage. If it isa marriage, it is not adultery (Bassett, pp. 71-72).

First, Bassett has again confused the marriage andthe bond. Rom. 7: 2-3 demonstrates that they are not the same. This text shows that what makes the second marriage adulterous is when one is still bound to aprevious mate. It so happens that in this text the woman was marriage to another man. Yet, she was called an adulteress. A thing that brother Bassett says cannot be.

With this, Matt. 19: 9 will agree. A man who divorceshis wife and marries another commits adultery. If Bassett is right, how could he commit adultery? He is nolonger married to the first woman. He is married to thesecond. So, if he is married, how can he commit adultery?

Secondly, to define adultery as being the two acts ofdivorce and remarriage will not work. In John 8: 4 theJews brought a woman to Jesus saying, "Teacher, thiswoman was caught in adultery, in the very act. " I wonder,did they catch her in the act of divorcing her husband andmarrying another? Or did they catch her in the very actof sexual intercourse?

Furthermore, Jesus warned about the man who wouldlook upon a woman to lust after her, saying he hascommitted adultery already with her in his heart (Matt.

5: 28). Was this man fantasizing about divorcing andremarrying "with her" or committing a sexual act? InMatt. 5: 32, the one who is put away (thus not guilty ofunlawful divorce) commits adultery when she remarries.

The Old Testament usage of the term "adultery"harmonizes with those cited above from the New. Consider Ezek. 16: 15, 16, 25, 26, 32; Jer. 3: 8-9; Prov. 6: 20

35.

By the way, speaking of adultery, Jerry informs usthat the woman of Matt. 5: 32a doesn't really commitadultery. It is just that "her husband made it appear soby his action in divorcing her" (Bassett, p. 34). Thus, sheis just stigmatized.

2. Continuous adultery? Based upon the definitionthat Bassett has given for adultery, he argues that it isnot a continuous act (i. e. living in adultery), but itrefers to the one-time act of divorce and the one-time act of remarriage (Bassett, pp. 68-70).

The conclusion that Bassett and others who argue ashe does are trying to reach is obvious. "Indeed, they mustrepent of their sin in divorcing and remarrying. However, there is nothing in the words of Jesus to be servedby then dissolving another marriage. Rather, let themdemonstrate their repentance by faithfully maintainingtheir marriage" (Bassett, p. 78).

First, Col. 3: 5-7 clearly shows that one can "live inadultery. " Verse 5 enumerates some sins which must beput to death. Among them is the sin of fornication. Then, verse 7 says that the Colossians had one time "lived inthem. " They had lived in fornication; the very thing thatBassett says cannot be done.

Rom. 7: 2-3 shows that a woman who marries another man would be called an adulteress as long asher first husband lives. Indeed, people can and do live in adultery!

Secondly, the word translated "committeth adultery"in Matt. 19: 9 is in the present tense in the Greek.Bassett says, "Generally speaking, the present tense does indicate continuous action" (p. 69). He then citesabout four references where this is not the case. However, concerning the text under dispute, Leonard Latkovksy, Professor of Classical Languages, Bellarmine College, Louisville, KY comments, "And the present tense form of the Greek form moichatai = commits adultery means 'continuous action at any time, " i. e. as long as the condition of the second marriage continues to exist" (written statement to Gene Frost). Ido not base my conclusion on the tense of the Greek alone. But, what Mr. Latkovksy says harmonizes withCol. 3: 5-7 and Rom. 7: 2-3.

In the next article we will look at 1 Cor. 7: 15.

Was Wine Always Fermented?

QUESTION: Does "wine" mean "wine" or other kind of juice? I believe you should look up "juice" to seewhat juice means. And, what are wine bottles? Why could they not use old wine bottles when they madenew wine?

ANSWER: Yes, wine means "wine" but wine was not always fermented in the Bible. The context determineswhether it is fermented or unfermented. For example,Isaiah calls the juice of the grape "wine" while it is stillin the cluster. Hear him: "Thus saith the Lord, As thenew wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroyit not; for a blessing is in it" (Isa. 65: 8). Solomon wrote,"So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy pressesshall burst out with new wine" (Prov. 3: 10). Here thejuice is spoken of as "wine" when it is squeezed out by thepresses. Obviously, in the preceding texts, the wine isunfermented.

"Wine" is used biblically in a generic sense withoutthe word denoting whether it is sweet or alcoholic. Theword "cider" is a good illustration. It is generic and can mean that the substance is either sweet or hard. If we say, "He got drunk on cider, " the conclusion would bethat it was hard or fermented. Cider is the juice of fruit (as apples) and wine is the juice of fruits (as grapes), andmany times fermented. In our current vernacular, winemeans "fermented juice, " but this is not always true inthe Bible, as already shown. As to "juice" that the queristasks me to look up, it is "the liquid part of a fruit orvegetable" (Webster), so juice can fit the definition ofwine as heretofore described.

In reference to wine bottles, Jesus said, "Neither domen put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break,and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles and both are preserved" (Matt. 9: 17). Notice that Jesus said it was winebefore it was put into the bottles, even before fermentation started to take place.

Today, "bottles" refer to glass or plastic containerswhich the common people did not use in the time ofChrist. The word translated "bottles" is askos, which means a "leather bag, esp. wine-skin" (Arndt-Gingrich,

p. 116). A wineskin was a goatskin that was removed from the animal without slitting the skin. After it wastanned and the hair cut close to the skin, it was turned

Page 8

inside out. The neck opening was used as the mouth ofthe container and the other openings at the feet and tailwere closed with cords.

Ralph Earle wrote, "When grape juice ('new wine') isplaced in a wineskin, it soon begins to ferment. But the new leather wineskin will stretch as the volume of the fermenting increases. If, on the other hand, fresh grape juice is put into a used wineskin which has alreadystretched, the fermentation will cause the skin to burst, and both wine and wineskin will be lost" (Word Meanings of the New Testament, p. 33).

Sometimes Jesus' turning the water into wine atCana (John 2; 1-11) is used as justification for drinkingalcoholic beverages. But that had to be sweet wine,unfermented juice. Would the Lord tell us that wine is amocker (Prov. 20: 1), to look not upon the wine when it isred, which biteth like a serpent and stingeth like anadder (Prov. 23: 31-32), and then provide that kind ofwine at a wedding feast? Would he furnish strong drinkwhen he said, "Woe unto him that giveth his neighbordrink" (Hab. 2: 15)? Absolutely not! Those who like to"take a little nip" can find no solace in the teachings ofJesus.

To The Editor Of TheGospel Advocate — An Open LetterTo Furman Kearley

Dear Brother Kearley,

I was perplexed at your November, 1991 editorial in which you praised and thanked the 4000 congrega-tionswhich participated in the "One Nation Under God" Campaign.

First, you said it was a success because it has stirredour minds to remember the Great Commission. I suppose one could say the same about the Boston/Crossroads Movement, the Missionary Society, and the Billy Graham Campaigns. But we don't need these or the "O.

N. U. G. " Campaign to be reminded of our duty.Second, you said the campaign did more to unite the "fiercely independent" churches of Christ throughout the nation. "I believe the Bible teaches congregationalautonomy and that each is to be independent from the

other. " The Sycamore church and the contributingcongregations are practicing the opposite of what you

say you believe. When the contributing congregations joined the campaign, they delegated a portion of the oversight of their work and resources tothe Sycamore elders. God has limited the oversight ofelders to "the flock which is among you" (1 Pet. 5; 2; Acts

20: 28). What ever pertains to the local flock (its work,resources, worship, edification, discipline), is what they oversee.

What would have been readily recognized as a societyhad the overseers of the campaign identified themselvesseparate from the church was obscured by the fact thatthey assumed the title of "elders" in both roles. To callthemselves elders in both the role of overseeing a localchurch and overseeing a multi-church or churchhood project is deceptive, whether intentional or not. Theywere already overseeing the local work at Sycamore. Butwhen they took control of a National Campaign through which all other churches function, they assumed a dualrole and become more than local elders. To refer to themselves as "elders" in a role God never gave elders(overseeing a churchhood function) is a misnomer. Whenthe scope of their oversight became larger than a localchurch they overstepped God's boundaries for oversight.They corrupted the organization of the church and havedeveloped a "brotherhood" (churchhood) oversight. Thisis the point at which they sinned, and so did the contributing churches. Regardless of anyone's sincerity, we can only know them by their fruit.

Third, you said the benefit of the campaign was relatedto unity and brotherhood. "Tragically, a sense of fragmentation has been running throughout our brotherhood for a number of years. " Yet you said the4000 contributing churches comprised only 33% of all congregations. So which is the fragment, your 33%, or the67% that did not participate in this corruption of theorganization of the church?

Continuing your quote: "Some have been movingtoward liberalism, while others have moved toward... legalism. The focus of too many has beenupon agitation, argumentation, and hostility. " Brother Kearley, were you agitating, argumentative,hostile, and being legalistic when you opposed the Boston/Crossroads Movement in the pages of the GospelAdvocate? What is legalism except insisting that we doall things according to the pattern?

Fourth, you called the campaign a "positive effort. " Is it positive to violate the limitations God has placed onthe scope of elders? No, a person is being positive whenhe is moving along the lines of scriptural authority, not when he disregards God's will and involves a sizablesegment of God's people in error.

The Herald of Truth has split the brotherhood twice. The "O. N. U. G. " Campaign not only maintains adivision over the sponsoring church but has divided some institutional brethren who have spoken and written against it. Is this positive? Is this expedient?

Fifth, you said "visible results demonstrate success. " But they don't demonstrate that the "Sponsor-ing Church" concept is scriptural. Again, one could say the same about the Boston/Crossroads Movement, the Missionary Society, and the Billy Graham campaigns.

You told us that more than 250 baptisms have beenreported. Since $10, 000, 000 was the amount needed,that figures to approximate $40, 000 per baptism. Wecan do better than this in gospel meetings for a lot lessthan $40, 000! Many of the responses may have obeyedanyway as a result of some of the local churches conducting their gospel meetings in conjunction with the campaign. I suspect 4000 congregations could each conducta gospel meeting and have as many baptisms without having to corrupt the organization of the church. Further, $10, 000, 000 will support 357 American preachers for a WHOLE YEAR (at an average of $28, 000annually). Surely each of them could convert one personin a year's time! That's more than 250 even if theyconvert a minimum of one per year. The "O. N. U. G. "Campaign was not expedient even from a financialpoint of view.

Brother F. B. Shepherd said, "There is absolutely no precept or example in the Holy Scripture for the existence of any organization, federation, or society which embraces more or less than one local congregation through which to perform the work of the Lord in the furtheranceof the gospel" (GOSPEL ADVOCATE, 2/25/32).

Foy E. Wallace, Jr. said, "For one church to help another church bear its own burdens,therefore, has scriptural precedent. But for onechurch to solicit funds from other churches for general dis-tribution in other fields or places, thus becoming the treasury for other churches, is quite a differ-ent question. Such procedure makes a sort of society out of the elders of a local church, and for such there is not scriptural precedent or example" (GOSPEL ADVOCATE, 5/14/31).

F. B. Syrgley said, "The agency system of collect-ing funds from many churches, even if it is done under some eldership, is without authority, ties churches together and has a tendency to destroy the initiative and independence of the local church... The greatest objection to the whole scheme is that it is not in the New Testament" (GOSPEL ADVOCATE, 11/1/34).

Numerous and similar quotes can be produced from H. Leo Boles and several others, all from the pagesof the ADVOCATE. It was known as the "Old Reliable. " But what must be said of the Advocate, brother Kearley, now that you are teaching that all congregations may do evangelistic work under the oversight of one centralized eldership? Does this notmake them a "churchhood" eldership? You saychurches of Christ are "fiercely inde-pendent" and you believe they should be. But there is a vast differencebetween what you preach and in what you praise andpractice. It is similar to the Southern Baptists who claim to be fiercely independent while promoting theSouthern Baptist Convention. You be-moan that somehave been moving toward liberalism. Brother Kearley,"thou art the man. "For the sake of truth above all else,

Dick Blackford

The Love Of God —Romans 8 (No. 7)God For Us — More Than Conquerors —Vs. 31-39

"What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he notwith him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God thatjustifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even atthe right hand of God, who also maketh interces-sion for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine,or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, Forthy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accountedas sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, norangels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor thingspresent, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth,nor any other creature, shall be able to separate usfrom the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus ourLord. "

The final lesson in this series brings us to what may well be called the golden text of the whole chapter.Indeed these verses are climactic. After setting forth the love of God as manifested in the various things identified in this chapter, and after recapitulating the wholescheme of redemption (vs. 28-30), Paul steps out uponthe stage before all mankind and challenges the wholeworld to fault the love of God or the security such lovehas provided for the faithful. God has left no stoneunturned. Come what may, His love has provided uswith a sufficiency that enables us to be "more than conquerors"!

God For Us

When Paul raises the question, "What shall we thensay to these things?, " he has in view the "all things" (v.28) as well as the whole scheme of redemption recapitulated (vs. 29-30). In view of the love of God and itssufficiency so clearly made manifest, what in all theworld, in heaven above, or hell below, can possiblymilitate against the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose? No enemy can possibly militate against the fulfillrnent of God's eternal purpose? No enemy can possiblyset at naught God's eternal purpose, design, and ultimate glorification of His saints. With God on our side,victory is assured! God who went so far as to sacrifice Hisown Son has not and will not leave one thing undone inour behalf.

It should be remembered just here, however, thatnothing that God has ever done, is doing, or will do infringes upon the volition of man. Man's power to choose right or wrong, accept or reject what God hasprovided, is ever present, and, therefore, in the finalanalysis man must bear the blame for any failure. Forthis very reason man must give an account of himselfunto God (Rom. 2: 6-11; 2 Cor. 5: 10).

Paul raises other questions, the answers to which continue to emphasize the all-sufficiency of God's love inmaking possible our eternal salvation. "Who can lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" Again, "Who is hethat condemneth?" The Judaizing teachers made accusations against and condemned Gentile Christians because they failed to keep the covenant of circumcisionand other ordinances of the law of Moses. Since such ordinances were no part of the New Covenant, madeeffective by the sacrifice of Christ, such accusations and condemnations went for naught. When God justifies,that justification stands in spite of all the accusations ofmen to the contrary. Christ who sacrificed His life, whoever makes intercession for us, and by whose authorityall things must be done (Col. 3: 17) supersedes any andall men who would accuse and condemn. This affords all Christians comfort and consolation in the face of all foes.

The Love of Christ

The answer to Paul's final question is the ultimate in assurance. "Who shall separate us from the love ofChrist? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, orfamine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?"

Before looking carefully at Paul's answer, a point ofcontroversy needs attention. Does the "love of Christ"refer to His love for us, or does it refer to our love forHim? The difficulty lies in the fact that the expression"love of Christ, " of its self, can be understood either way.However, I am persuaded that in light of its context andin the light of all else revealed, it must be understood torefer to the love of Christ for us. Here Paul personifiesthose things that try the faith of men and shows thatthere is no enemy that can break the bond of Christ's love for us. While our love may fail, His never does.

Practically all Calvinist hold that the expressionrefers to our love for Christ, and based upon that conceptthey seek to strengthen a fundamental tenet of their doctrine, namely, the eternal security of saints, or whichis the same, the impossibility of apostasy. That Calvinism is in error in this matter is evident from the factual experience of those whose love does fail (Cf. Matt. 24: 12),the warnings against the danger of falling from grace (Heb. 3: 12; 1 Cor. 10: 12), the examples of those who didfall (Acts 1: 25; 1 Cor. 10: 8; Gal. 5: 4), and in view ofman's accountability (Rom. 2: 6; 2 Cor. 5: 10).

However, not all who say the "Love of Christ" refersto our love for Him are Calvinists, nor do they use these verses so as to infringe upon man's volition. From their viewpoint, the general idea is that if one's love is strongenough, none of the things mentioned will turn that lovefrom Christ.

In reply, I would say that Paul did not mention any"if. " He boldly affirmed unconditionally the "love ofChrist. " It is always present—now and forevermore,come what may! Furthermore, it seems to me to bealtogether incongruous for Paul to spend practically the whole chapter on the love of God, Christ, and the HolySpirit for us, and then come to the climax of that themeand suddenly change to the love of the Christian forChrist. Besides this, the things mentioned by Paul asbeing unable to separate one from the "love of Christ"are the very experiences that often, yea, many timesover, do cause Christians to fail in their love for Christ. In the midst of such they frequently become weary,discouraged, yield to despair, and separate themselvesfrom Christ, concluding that God has forsaken or forgotten them. Jesus said, ""And because iniquity shallabound, the love of many shall wax cold" (Matt. 24: 12).Even Paul quotes from Psalm 44: 22, "For thy sake weare killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep forthe slaughter, " which is in the context of people thinkingthat God had forsaken them because of their misfortunes. Paul's point is that such people were wrong andso are we, if and when we think God has turned His backon us during such trying experiences. His love is alwaysthere! We may forsake Him, but He never will forsake us(Heb. 13: 5).

More Than Conquerors

In the last verse of this chapter Paul burst forth in thesong of victory: "Nay, in all these things we are morethan conquerors through him that loved us... " Thus,Paul continues his theme of Christ's love for us. This love has made possible our triumph over all foes. Noticethe victory comes through Christ. Apart from Him thereis no hope. No wonder Paul said, "I can do all thingsthrough Christ which strengtheneth me" (Phil. 4: 13).

Paul's deep convictions are expressed further as heenumerates those things which are often hostile to theChildren of God, but which can never break the bond ofheaven's love for us. How apropos the song:

"The cross that He gave may be heavy,

But it ne'er out-weighs His grace;

The storms that I feared may surround me,

But it ne'er excludes His face.

The cross is not greater than His grace,

The storm cannot hide His blessed face;

I am satisfied to know That with Jesus here below,

I can conquer every foe. "

Review Of A CRI Statement

A reader of STS has written regarding a radio program called "The Bible Answer Man, " sponsored by the "Christian Research Institute" of San Juan Capistrano,California. She relates: "on almost every show someonecalls in with questions about the Church of Christ... Theposition of the Christian Research Institute is that theChurch of Christ is heretical... CRI position on baptismis that it is not necessary and certainly not required forsalvation. "

She has forwarded a statement that this organization sends out on the "Church of Christ. " It is this reader's desire that some sort of debate or exchange with thisorganization be attempted. Brother Adams has askedme to review their statement. We will see that the CRI gets a copy of this review. If they are disposed to defendthe truth and integrity of their statement in a publicforum, this writer or a host of others, will gladly accommodate them. If readers would care to obtain a copy ofthe 7 page statement, CRTs address is P. O. Box 500, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693-0600.

There is much in their thesis with which we would take no objection. The brief history of the Restorationmovement is generally accurate. They claim, however,that "These churches stem from the "Restoration" movement... begun by (among others) Thomas andAlexander Campbell... " I would not expect them toaccept a piori our insistence on this matter. But for the record, let it be stated that we do not consider theCampbells, or any mere man, the originators of ourfaith. We look upon these men as talented teachers ofthe Scriptures. We applaud their efforts to be done withunauthorized denominational organizations and unscriptural practices and to simply speak as the oracles ofGod. As A. C. Grider used to say, "Show me somethingthat I believe or practice that originated with Campbelland I'll give it up. "

The statement says, "Basic to 'Restoration' theol-ogy is the call to return to 'New TestamentChris-tianity', the beliefs and practices of the first cen-tury Christian church as documented inthe New Testament. Only by rejecting everythingnot spe-cifically found in the New Testament, it was rea-soned, could true Christian unity be achieved. "

I doubt that any representative man from any of thevarious branches and sub-branches of the "Restoration movement, " that are enumerated in the statement,would maintain that everything must be specifically

found in the New Testament. The Scriptures giveau-thority for many things in a general rather than aspecific manner.

The essay goes on to say that the Campbells, BartonStone and other such leaders of the "Restoration" taught"that it was best to preach and teach about Godand Christ without reference to words like 'Trinity'. " It is somewhat reluctantly admitted that theCampbells were "roughly trinitarian, " whatever that is supposed to mean, but it is asserted that "Stone,however, flatly rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, and denied that Jesus was God. " Then, "In the DOC (Disciples of Christ, K. G. ) and a small number of the COC (Churches of Christ, K. G. ) and NACC churches (North American Christian Convention), there is still a tendency to avoid references to the Trinity, although most churches inthe latter two branches today accept the Trinityin substance if not in word"

It seems that Mr. Robert Bowman, Jr., who preparedthis statement is making an effort to be fair whileattempting to cast some shadow of doubt regarding what we of the churches of Christ believe about the nature of Jesus. The point that he apparently misses isthe desire among us to call Bible things by Bible names.Personally, I have no strong objection to the term 'Trinity, " for I believe it describes a biblical concept of God.But I prefer the Scriptural term, "Godhead. "

The assertion that Stone denied the deity of our Lordis news to me. I am not a Restoration historian, but inthe nominal reading I have done in that field I have notcome across such. Neither have I found any documentation for it. But if true, then I believe he was wrong. Myfaith in Jesus as "my Lord and my God" (John 20: 28)would not be shaken in the least by such a revelation.

A bit further we read, "... the members of the Restoration churches are a prime target of the Jehovah's Witnesses because of their weakness on the Trinity. " Such is an outrageous and ludicrousstatement. Probably more debates have been held bypreachers of the church of Christ with oneness Pentecostals on this subject than any other religious group. Asmany or more sermons have been preached by us whosimply prefer to be called gospel preachers against thisheresy of the Jehovah's Witnesses and in declaration of the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit asany religious group anywhere.

We are then advised that, "on the basis that theyare not mentioned in the New Testament, most ofthe COC reject the use of musical instruments inchurch services. " Such is an oversimplification. Thefact is that we oppose such because there is absolutely noindication in the N. T. that they are sanctioned by theLord. The basis of our objection is quite fundamental:Shall we limit our religious service and our worship tothat which the Lord has clearly revealed to us?; or shallwe do what we want to do?

The statement affirms in response to our opposition:"... at best it is fallacious (since it is based merelyon the silence of the New Testament) and at worstactually contrary to the New Testament. The apostle Paul specifically approved the use of 'Psalms' in church worship (1 Cor. 14: 26; cf. Eph.

5: 19; Col. 3: 16); and the word "psalm" in Greekgenerally means either instrumental music or singing accompanied by musical instruments. Admittedly, it can refer to non-instrumental singing as well, but there is no reason to restrict itsmeaning to exclude all use of instruments. "

I am not familiar with the practices of this CRI group,but I suspect that we would share opposition to anynumber of things "based merely on the silence of the New Testament. " I doubt that they would endorse pizza and coke as elements in the Communion, though, opposition would have to be based on "merely the silence ofthe New Testament. "

Those who argue for instrumental music on the basisof the Greek word for "psalm" or the verb "psallo" misuse the Greek lexicons without fail. This is no exception. The only source given is "Delling, Gerhard,hymnos, hymneo, psallo, psalmos, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. VIII, ed. Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972, pp. 489-503. The meaningof the word 'psalm' in classical, common, and biblical Greek. "

I have perused this source carefully and find no basisfor the claim that the word implies the use of instrumental music in the New Testament. In fact, it statesregarding psallo in Eph. 5: 19: "The literal sense byor with the playing of strings, ' still found in the LXX isnow employed figuratively" (p. 499). In a footnote onthe same page we read: "he ref. to stringed instrumentsin heavenly worship at Rev. 5: 8; 15: 2 need not meanthat such instruments might sometimes accompanythe singing at primitive Chr. worship. "

It is indeed strange that if these words necessarilyimply the use of musical instruments, the translatorsdo not know it, for there is not a standard translation ofthe N. T. that so renders them; the lexicographers do not know it, for they consistently render the words asused in the New Testament to mean "to sing"; and theearly Christians did not know it, for by common consent of church historians, such instruments were not used in church worship until at least the 7thcentury, being first introduced by Pope Vitalian I.

Other subjects touched upon briefly in the statementare water baptism, charismatic gifts; and eternal security. Of the first, strong objection is taken to our understanding that baptism is a condition of salvation. Thoseinterested are asked to write for material on the subject. We would simply encourage those interested in thetruth to read Mark 16: 15, 16; Acts 2: 37, 38; 22: 16; Rom. 6: 3, 4; Gal. 3: 26, 27; 1 Peter 3: 20, 21.

Of charismatic gifts and eternal security, the CRIstatement avers that these are not 'matters essential to the Christian faith. However, we stronglyoppose the extreme condemnation of the charismatic movement and of the doctrine of eternal security by some in the COC. " We believe the Bible speaks plainly regarding these issues and that ourcondemnation of the doctrines are based upon theoracles of God. Further discussion of these questionswould be welcomed.

"Make The Message Plain"

"... And the common people heard him gladly" (Mark

12: 37). In the above passage we learn that the common orordinary people heard Jesus gladly. This is not to saythat those who were not ordinary never heard Him for inthe preceding verses of the same chapter a certain scribeanswered Jesus so discreetly that Jesus told him he was"not far from the kingdom of God. " But in the main it wasthe common people who paid the most attention to whatJesus was saying. If they heard him "gladly" it is inferredthat they must have understood what Jesus was teaching. There is a song that includes the line "make the message clear and plain. " Nothing is more scripturalthan making the message of Truth clear and plain. I dowish some of my brethren who preach and teach wouldlearn this. Either the lessons are so shallow there is no spiritual food in them or they blast us to the moon and put us in orbit as we leave the building or lay down someperiodical with our minds literally reeling as we wonderwhat in the world the man was saying. Some preachers would do well to get more educationso as to be able to speak the English language (orwhatever the spoken language may be). Some use such bad grammar that a hearer of even ordinary education ismade to wince. On the other hand some who do have a good education are also unable to make the messageclear and plain. Really, brethren, is there not a happymedium somewhere in all this? Brethren who say "so and so is a good man but hepreaches over my head" ought not to be simply dismissedby telling them to "climb up. " Maybe there are notenough rungs on his intellectual ladder to do so. Maybewe should bring the message down to the understandinglevel of the common man as Jesus did. If this is done, youhave not hindered the man of greater ability or intellect.He can surely understand simple, down-to-earth preaching. But if we are treated to a discourse of unfamiliarwords and high sounding phrases, then usually thebiggest segment of the audience will not profit thereby.I say this because the most of the audiences are made upof ordinary people. Such preaching and teaching is use

less if not so presented that all can understand. Brethren, let us "make the message clear and plain!"

The Participation Principle

There is a maxim that circulates through secular organizations that 90% of the work is usually performed by 10% of the people. Personal observation has confirmed that this is generally true not only among the secular organizations of the world but also among most local churches as well. Most duties, ranging fromthe spiritual work of teaching to making the physicalpreparations necessary for the worship and work ofthe local congregation, rest upon the shoulders of a small minority. This is not good and wherever these conditions exist corrective changes are needed.

A Christian cannot grow spiritually where there isno development or exercise of his abilities. Therefore every congregation should have a program in placewhere each member's abilities are developed and used. It falls the responsibility of the leadership of the local church (evangelists, pastors, and teachers) toequip "the saints for the work of service, to the buildingup of the body of Christ" (Eph. 4: 11-12).

A local church cannot grow, it cannot even functionproperly, without every member of the body carrying his or her share of the work load. As we sometimes truthfully sing of the kingdom. "There is room, There's a place, There is work that we all can do. " The leaders inany given local church cannot and should not beexpected to perform all of the individual duties necessary to carrying out that church's overall program ofwork. The apostles and the Jerusalem church illustrate this in Acts 6: 2-4. The text says, "And the twelvesummoned the congregation of the disciples and said,'It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God inorder to serve tables. But select from among you,brethren, seven men of good reputation, full of theSpirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge ofthis task. But we will devote ourselves to prayer, andto the ministry of the word. "

This model church and its leaders observed priorities in their work. They demonstrate for us that, whileno good work should be neglected, there are thingsthat are to be deemed more urgent and important than others. Thus we see the apostles delegating work toothers; work which these men were able to do. Thelesson for us should be clear. While there are buildingsthat need cleaning and lawns that need mowing,surely elders and teachers should not have to spend valuable time doing janitorial and gardening services

while souls go untaught. Getting others involved wasthe only way the Jerusalem church could accomplish theamount of work that faced them; work that had to be done.Let me suggest some single things that I believe will helpus in getting people involved today.

The work that needs to be done within the local church should be identified clearly and job descriptions specified.The church needs a list of all the work to be done: mowing the yard, cleaning the building, preparation for the Lord's Supper, teaching Bible classes (in home as well as inregular Bible class hours), keeping the track rack, tapingof sermons and making copies available to those whorequest them, and many more. Further, they need to knowexactly what each job requires and what is expected ofsomeone who volunteers for a specific duty.

Training sessions need to be held regularly in thoseareas where they are needed. Bible class teachers need allthe help they can get in learning to teach more effectively.The talents of men wishing to take a public part inworship can and needs to be developed in men's trainingclasses. Even those doing tape work need to know how therecorders and duplicators operate as well as when and from where to order blank tapes. They may seem trivial to some but there are people who would love to be involvedbut don't know what to do and are too shy to step forwardand ask.

Finally, people need to be encouraged to take part.Some elders seem hesitant to delegate work to others. Insuch case, growth both as individuals and in the localchurch is obstructed and such leaders are defeating theirvery purpose for existence. People need to be challenged toparticipate rather than be spectators, to grow rather thanstagnate. Where there is no delegation of responsibilitymost of the work that a local church could accomplish,particularly in the area of evangelism, is left undone.However, when everyone is encouraged to participate and do their part then preachers are left to preach, teacherscan teach, elders can oversee the souls of all and men willbe brought closer to the Lord. This is true spiritual growth.In addition, evangelist efforts will increase with responsesto those efforts resulting in numerical growth. All of thisbecause people are motivated and mobilized to be a part ofthe work of God.

The challenge is always before us to reach a world lostin sin with the story of Jesus' love. How can we do thiseffectively, how can we do it at all, without using everyounce of talent which can be found in the body of Christ?To the end that we might all be more active in the work ofthe Lord, let us remember the words of the beloved apostlePaul to the Corinthians. "Therefore, my beloved brethren,be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work ofthe Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord"(1 Cor. 15: 58).

For all your Bible and book needs call Religious Supply Center 1-800-626-5348

Time, Division, And Judgment

Solomon said, "Whoso keepeth the commandmentshall feel no evil thing: and a Wise man's heart discerneth both time and judgment. Because to everypurpose there is time and judgment, therefore the misery of man is great upon him" (Eccl. 8: 5, 6).

If this is good advice for those who would escape the wrath of an earthly king (vv. 2-4), how much more forthose who would escape the wrath of the King of kings(Rev. 6: 17; 19: 16)?

Brethren, the wrath of God is reserved for somebodybecause of division in the body of Christ, and time isgoing to be an important factor in this judgment. Thewise among us will discern "both time and judgment. "

Many mysteries of life are solved by the time element.Guilt or innocence with respect to a crime is determined by when the crime was committed, and where affectedparties were at that time.

A miracle of Jesus was confirmed because the healingtook place "at the seventh hour" (Jno. 4: 52, 53).

When Peter and the other apostles were accused ofbeing drunken, Peter neutralized that charge by saying,"For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it isbut the third hour of the day" (Acts 2: 15). The same logicmay not apply to the drinking habits of today's society, but it did back then.

When Paul was accused of sedition and other crimes,he countered those charges by pointing out "that thereare yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem forto worship" (Acts 24: 11).

The time element helps to establish the part whichthe Holy Spirit played in the circumstances surrounding the conversion of Cornelius. And, it helped to substantiate Peter's explanation of these events to hisJewish brethren. Luke said that the Holy Spirit fell onthose who heard the word "while Peter yet spake" (Acts

10: 44), and Peter later confirmed that the Holy Ghostfell on those Gentiles "as I began to speak" (Acts 11: 15).

This proved to Peter's Jewish brethren, and shouldprove to us, that the baptism of the Holy Spirit on thisoccasion was not commanded as a condition of salvation,but rather was given by God to prove that the Gentileswere subject to the same conditions of salvation as werethe Jews.

When Hezekiah invited Israel to unite with Judah in the observance of the passover feast, he reminded Israel

that they were the ones who were guilty of trespassing against God's commandments. Unity among God's people was desirable, but the time element would con-vict Israel as transgressors, and noamount of dialogue or compromise would change thatfact (2 Chron. 30: 6-12).

We have no trouble establishing the origins of Catholicism and Protestantism with respect to the departure from the faith spoken of by the apostle Paul (2 Thes.

2: 1-12; 1 Tim. 4: 1-6).

Brethren used to have no trouble proving that thoseidentified with the Christian Church (Or Disciples ofChrist), were the ones who caused division among the Lord's people over such issues as missionary societies(1849), mechanical instruments of music in worship(1859), and kindred practices which followed thereafter.

And, when we determine what has divided us in thiscentury, and when it was introduced and began to begenerally imposed as a wedge of division, we can determine the part division plays in time and judgment.

When the messengers invited the digressives of Israel to come to the passover feast, some 'laughed themto scorn, and mocked them. " Yet, some humbled themselves, and accepted the invitation (2 Chron. 30: 10, 11).Judah was also guilty in dereliction of duty, and Rehoboam was guilty of poor judgment when the kingdom originally divided, but such did not justifyJeroboam and those who followed him into digressionand division.

King Jesus will sort out all the matters of time andjudgment, and the part which division has played in the scheme of things, and will do so in righteousness.

Like we tell the alien sinner, "... behold, now is theaccepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation" (2Cor. 6: 2).

________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15

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

CORRECTION In the October issue of STS I wrote an editorial on the "One Nation Under God Campaign. " In it I said "Over 2, 000 churches of Christ (and a few denominational churches) have sent money to the Sycamore church. " I based this statement on a newspaper articlethat quoted Daniel Whitworth who was chairman of the Shoals areacampaign (Florence, AL Times Daily, Jan. 5, 1991). When questioned about the accuracy of my statement I called the campaign headquarters in Cookeville and spoke with brother Whitworth himself. Both stated that the reporter had misquoted Whitworth.Both denied that any denominational churches had contributed to thecampaign. —Donnie V. Rader

LARRY A. BUNCH, P. O. Box 461, Dawson, TX 76639-0461 — The work in Dawson is doing well. When we began in September, 1989 there were two men besides myself. Now, we have five. I baptized one80 year old man who had put off obeying all his life. We have a weeklycolumn in the Hubbard paper (Dawson section) and publish a weekly newsletter. We are planning a gospel meeting in February, 1992 with a black preacher (we have one black lady meeting with us). I have lost$450 a month support and my present amount is far below what isneeded.

RON HALBROOK, 654 Gray St., West Columbia, TX 77486 — OnOctober 301 had surgery to remove a non-malignant growth on one ofmy vocal cords. This was done by a new technique called micro-micro surgery which does not leave scar tissue as older methods have done.I was able to preach the first time after surgery on December 8. It wasshort, slow and subdued in delivery and I am trying to be patient withtherapy. All of this has reminded me of what a great privilege it is topreach the unsearchable riches of Christ (Eph. 3: 8)! Cards and callshave come from around the country. I wish to thank all by saying "Ithank my God upon every remembrance of you" (Phil. 1: 3)!

GARRETT-THRASHER DEBATES Two four night public debates on the subject of "free will" are scheduled for 1992 between Thomas N. Thrasher of Decatur, Alabama and Stephan M. Garrett of Wingate, North Carolina. The firstdebate is June 1-2, 4-5 in the building of the Winchester Road churchof Christ, Huntsville, Alabama. The second is August 3-4, 6-7 atNancy's Creek Primitive Baptist Church, Atlanta, Georgia. Sessionsbegin at 7: 00 p. m.

The propositions to be discussed are: (1) "The Scriptures teach thatGod had determined freely and unchangeably, all things that come to pass. " Garrett affirms, Thrasher denies. This will be the subject June1-2 and August 6-7. (2) "The Scriptures teach that God has given man the power of free choice or will with regard to his salvation. " Thrasher affirms, Garrett denies. This will be discussed on June 4-5and August 3-4.

Although this will be the first debate between these men, Mr.Thrasher has debated Mr. Garrett's father three times since 1970 on different propositions. Both men anticipate a gentlemanly discussionof these vital issues. If you desire additional information, writeThomas N. Thrasher, P. O. Box 1941, Decatur, AL 35602 or phone 205353-3085.

ASA MONROE PLYLER (1902-1991)On November 12, 1991 the spirit of AM. Plyler left the body in apeaceful way. After 89 years he fulfilled the appointment of Hebrews

9: 27.

Dad had preached the gospel in central and north Alabama for 71years. Though he lived near Jasper on the farm, he traveled overseveral counties preaching for the most part to the small churches inrural areas. His early travel in preaching was by walking, horsebackor train. However, in time he used and wore out the Model T and Model A Ford and several other cars in the work.

Good health and a clear mind continued until within two months of his death. At the hospital in Birmingham it was determined that hehad a brain tumor. Though surgery was a possibility, Dad judged it unwise and chose not to have it.

Brother Sewell Hall spoke at the funeral services and pointed outthat we had gathered to celebrate the passing of this one. Brother Hallpreached the word - challenging the audience to follow Jesus as Dadhad tried to do. The body was returned to the earth in the familycemetery on the farm adjoining the Valley View Church, where heworshipped when he was not away preaching. We are grateful to themany who encouraged and comforted him in the last days of his life.Leo B. Plyler 2245 Forestdale Blvd. Birmingham, AL 35214

NEW CONGREGATION REPORTED We have been informed that a new congregation is now meeting atDunbar, West Virginia on the west side of Charleston. Take theDunbar-Rexalana exit and turn left immediately after crossing the railroad tracks.

PREACHER NEEDED PRINCETON, WEST VIRGINIA — We are desperately in need ofa sound preacher in this small community. We have 12 Christiansmeeting. Our meeting place is free of debt. We can provide $700 amonth support plus moving expenses. We know of other congregations that might help support a preacher here. Contact Len Matlock(304-425-4627) or write to us at: 1013 Old Athens Road, Princeton,WV 24747.

Page 16 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA — The church here needs a preacher the latter part of February, 1992. The church has a nicethree-bedroom, two-bath house located next to the building. Thechurch is able to furnish the house, utilities and $1800 per month.Interested preachers may contact Rudy Cribb (704-537-6592; DonHonbarrier (704-825-5929) or Jim White (803-547-4291).

METAIRIE, LOUISIANA— The church meeting at 2000 Lake VillaDr. 70005 is looking for a preacher. We are self-supporting. You maycall or write: Jim Mayfield (504-454-1606) or Lynn Sanders (504-4095894).

FRANK CHUMLEY, 5327 South Tryon St., Charlotte, NC 28217 — I will be moving from the Charlotte, NC area the later part of Februaryto work with the Lyons Chapel church in Tompkinsville, Kentucky.My address will be: 2401 Center Point Road, Tompkinsville, KY42167.

FROM AROUND THE WORLD

INDIA —JOHN HUMPHRIES, 8705 Wooded Glen Rd.,Louisville, KY 40220 — Dwight Edwards and I returned safely from our six weeks effort of preaching the gospel in India. We had Bibleclass for 30 preachers in Shanthi Nagar near Hyderabad for about aweek. The classes were conducted during the day and we had preaching each night for the public. During the classes, Dwight and

T. George Fred (Indian preacher) went to some of the churches invarious districts while Wilfred and I went to Colombo, Sri Lanka forgospel work. Thus, we had two teams to cover more territory in thetime we had.

For the remainder of the time, we went to as many churches as wecould to teach and preach the gospel. We believe the brethren wereencouraged. 84 were baptized into Christ during these visits with thechurches. 38, 300 Telugu tracts were printed. These were tracts thatBill Beasley, others and I had written and had translated into theTelugu language. 817 Telugu Bibles were purchased and given to needy saints out in the village churches. Several Indian gospelpreachers had also written gospel songs for worship and so we printedover 400 Telugu song books for the brethren. We appreciate thesupport of those who have made it possible to do this work and ask forcontinued help to go again and continue the work we began 16 yearsago. This effort is important and, as we hope you can see, fruitful.

CHINA — Jeff Kingry's last report indicates that eight more havebeen baptized in Shenyang, China and four more in Hong Kong.

SPAIN — Efrain F. Perez reports another baptized at Badalonacongregation (Barcelona area) and also a restoration of an erringbrother. The church at Tenerife in the Canary Islands now has its own building. They now have 19 members. A brother who lives eight hoursfrom Barcelona plans to marry one of the young women from thecongregation there (he is a Christian) and they plan to begin acongregation meeting in their house in Cartagena-Murcia.

IRELAND — Two more have been baptized in Dublin. Steve Kearneybaptized them in the Irish Sea. Said he "When I got into the water tobaptize him, the water was so cold I thought my legs had died. Ofcourse, that is minor when one considers that two more souls have been added to the kingdom of God. " Efforts to teach from house to house continue.

HUNGARY — RICHARD COPELAND and JEFF ARCHER and

their families are working together in Budapest. They reportHungar-ian visitors at every service, with 12 one Sunday. Stable financial support is being supplied by the 77th St. Church in Birmingham, AL and the church in Temple Terrace, Florida. Theirgreatest success in obtaining studies has come through advertising inthe newspaper. At present they have many studies under way withothers waiting. Brother Copeland says "Budapest is a very worldlycity. Alcohol and pornography are everywhere. Divorce and familystrife are just as prevalent as in the U. S. That makes it ripe for the gospel — and for all religious perversions of the gospel. 'Everybody' is evangelizing here (or as one contact put it, 'proselytizing" here). "

BALTICS — Steve Wallace and Derek Chambers recently visited Lithuania and Latvia to teach the gospel. The greatest interest wasshown in Vilnius where they spent five days. They were graciouslyreceived by a family they had not known before and allowed to teachin their house. They set up a table on the street in Vilnius where about1, 000 people stopped to look at literature and talk. They handed outover 300 lessons in English, German and Lithuanian. While there aremany who speak English, Russian is widely used. Steve and Derek hope to be able to do more teaching here later. Their work in Germany is demanding but in addition to that, they have been able to open doorsin many other places.

SOUTH AFRICA — George Harris reports from Cape that two morehave been baptized there. They enrolled 12 more in the Bible correspondence course. They are getting more and more requests from blacks requesting Bible courses, but there is a need for more in thelanguage they use.

COSTA RICA — RUBEN AMADOR was in Costa Rica in Central America in December. There are five preachers working in the capitalcity of San Jose. There are two sound churches in San Jose, both small.A congregation meets in San Carlos (near the border with Nicaragua)and another in Sixaola (near the border with Panama).

CUBA — In January, Ruben Amador and Antonio Lira (from Venezuela) were to make a preaching trip to Havana, Cuba. We anxiouslyawait information about the results of this trip.

ARGENTINA — Carlos A. Capelli reports on his work in BuenosAires and other places in Argentina. Spiritual progress is reported atPuente Alto where three brethren take turns preaching and teaching.The church at La Cruz is slowly building a meetinghouse. Growth and spiritual progress can be seen. He also visited with brethren in Limache where two brethren help with the preaching. At Madrid Street church attendance ran 60-80 during a meeting, with goodsupport from brethren in the Santiago area. At Jose C. Paz congregation three were baptized recently. There is now a radio program outof Mercedes. The church in Mendoza is now in their new meeting house. They are now known as the Moreno Street church.

PHILIPPINES — Robert R. Gamiao reports growth in two congregations where he labors in the Cagayan Valley in northern Luzon. 18 were baptized in 1991. Recently in Tuguegarao a prominent denominational preacher and his wife were baptized. He is Mariano Vergela.

Dominador J. Neniel of Magpet, Cotabato reports two baptizedthere.

Roby L. Gumpad reports from Isabela Province that recent baptisms include two Seventh Day Adventists, a couple from a Pentecostal church and two couples who were Roman Catholic.

MEXICO — Steven Sarff sends word that a new congregation was tobe started in January in Delicias, Chih. with 15-20 members. A meeting is planned at the end of each month for the next 12 months.Any faithful brother who can speak Spanish and would like to help inthis effort is invited to contact Francisco Rivera/Privada del Ave. 11 PTE #509/Dehcias, Chih. / 33000 MEXICO.

EDITOR'S MEETING SCHEDULE — 1992

February — Bergen, Norway (16-21)

March — West Ave., San Antonio, Texas (1-6)

E. 10th St., Columbus, Indiana (16-22) Middlebourne, West Virginia (23-29)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17

April _ Westside, Warner Robins, Georgia (5-10)Northeast, Clearwater, Florida (19-24)

May — Brookmead, Johnson City, Tennessee (4-10) Conyers, Georgia (18-24)

June — Hardinsburg, Kentucky (May 30-June 5)Miller Ave. Lectures, San Jose, California (3rdweek)

Lakeport, California (June 28-July 1)

July — 2nd and Walnut, Paragould, Arkansas (18-24)

August — Imhoff Ave., Port Arthur, Texas (3-9)

September — Covington, Georgia (713) Danville, Indiana (20-25)

October — Antioch (Dickson County), Tennessee (4-9)Olney, Illinois (18-23)

November — Helton Dr., Florence, Alabama (1-6)White River, Greenwood, Indiana (15-20)

We hope to greet a number of our readers during the year in thecourse of these meetings.

ADDITION TO INDEX

The printer inadvertently omitted the index material for thecolumn written by H. E. Phillips. The index is incomplete without this.Our apologies to the readers and to brother Phillips. Please clip thisout and paste it in the December, 1991 issue.

THINK ON THESE THINGS — H. E. Phillips

Another Gospel ..................................................................... 97Building Up The Church ......................................................... 73Can We Attain Unity?............................................................. 289Define and Identify Fanaticism............................................... 121Gospel Must Be Taught, The .................................................Kingdom and the Church, The................................................ 409Menace of Multiple Marriages, The.......................................... 241Practice What You Preach...................................................... 169Problem With aLittle Leaven, The........................................... 457Promised Seed of Abraham, The ........................................... 553Purge Out the Old Leaven...................................................... 505Scriptural Baptism.................................................................. 25Sins of the Tongue................................................................ 337They Knew Not Why They Came Together.............................. 313Virgie Beatrice Phillips— 1898-1989...................................... 49What Does Baptism DO?.......................................................217What Jesus Says About His Words ........................................ 193What Will You Do with a Little Leaven..................................... 481When Thou Art Converted ..................................................... 265When was the Kingdom Established?..................................... 385

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH

BAPTISMS	89
RESTORATIONS	23
(Taken from bulletins and papersreceived by the editor)