IMITATORS

Men are better monkeys than monkeys. We begiaping our ancestors and others who are around us almost from the moment we are born. Patterns of speech, vocabularies, facial expressions, mannerisms and even the style of our walk, are pretty much thproduct of our copy-catting. We never really getover this tendency to imitate others. It is doubtfulthat many of us undertake any "new" activity ointerest without at least a little imitation, however muted and sub-conscious, of those experienced therein. This is in no way a criticism. It is an observation. And we do well to acknowledge the powerful tendency to imitate and make this valuable technique of learning and developing more useful. Its power in the moral realm needs to be realized for obviousreasons.

Imitation has been said to be the greatest flatteryone human being can accord another. But it is not flattery; it is the sincerest of compliments. Words may be spoken freely and emptily containing intoxicating flattery and praise, but imitation . . . this is something else. Somebody thinks enough of you twant to be like you, and they are copying you iorder to accomplish it! No words need be spokehere. He who professes to love the Lord may bdoubted, but he who imitates and follows removes all questions.

Children usually begin by making mother and daddy their heroes, and we often see parents reflected in their children as much by speech and manner as by looks. My infant son now reminds me of how my daughters used to (and still do) copy their mother. They always preferred an old dress of hers to a new one of their own. They identified with her when they wore her clothes and the delight they ex-Dressed made it unnecessary to say, "Mother, wlove you and want to be like you." T hat little fellow now scares me by the influence he permits me to have in his life, and it is most sobering wheduring the course of a common day a point of imitation is so obvious as to be specified. God help me,for I shall directly influence his temperament, attitude, character and essence of manhood. This is the burden of all parents, and we do well to prayerfullytremble and exercise care to be fit examples.

What is so clearly seen in small children still lives on in us in a subtler but no less real measure all our days. We are both examples to and imitators of one another. This may not always be a conscious action,but imitators we are. This accounts for fads in clothing and discernible characteristics of various groups and movements. The closer and more sympathetic people are to one another, the more likeone another they become, for their social modes have by a ociation been more or less absorbed from one another. Suits are commonly worn by men, nobecause each one has independently and in isolation selected the modern conventional suit from all the styles in history as the most becoming and comfortable to mankind. We sorta copied, didn't we? Perhaps we did not deliberately copy any certain person, but still we copied even if it was "folks in general." And who would ever think that the rebellious segment of our generation's youth chose,without regard to one another or the hair styles of their contemporaries, long and shaggy hair? Because it is pretty? Feels good? Manly? No. Mostly copy-cats . . . and most of them do not even know they are copy-cats.

Let me repeat that this is not an indictment against imitating others. But do let us be conscious of the fact that we are all imitators of others to varying degrees and with varying degrees of awareness about the copying we do. But it does raise the question as to who we imitate, and why. The answer to this question can tell you a great deal about your personal character and the direction in which your life is headed.

We tend to imitate most those from whom we would most like to have approval, and those whoimpress us and thereby somewhat idealize what wewould like to be. This is why it is so important as to who our "heroes" are, and why it is such an index to our character. We cannot admire the profane and ungodly in their sin, vainly attempting to minimizetheir wrongs because we "like" them, without being profoundly affected. Check the moral and spiritual fiber, to the extent you are able to discern it, of thepeople you most "look up to." Doesn't that tell yousomething about yourself? And what effect does their weakness have on you, that is, do you makeallowances for them or rather earnestly long forthem to make a penitent correction. Why we admire is about as important as who.

Paul urged a deliberate and conscious imitation of good men in the right: "Be imitators of me. just as I also am of Christ" (I Cor. 11:1, NASV). The same point and principle is made over and again (I Cor. 4:16; Eph. 5:11; II Thess. 3:7) and one of the great values of sacred history is to supply us with an acquaintance with genuinely great and winsome men.It is hard to imagine anyone really coming to know Jonathan, for example, without loving and admiring him. And it rubs off. The admiration affects us for the good. And what of Job? Or Nehemiah? Or Esther or Ruth? And what of the humble, faithful, and genuinely good people of our own generation who serve the living God above all other considerations ?

As an example to others and an imitator of others, both of which you are, exercise the greatest care of which you are capable. God forbid that because someone thought enough of you and paid you thehigh compliment of shaping their life a little afteryours, that they were morally or spiritually injured thereby. Make it redound to the eternal good of that one who thinks so much of you as to become more like you. As an imitator, set your eyes on those who will strengthen and make you better, and as your chief exemplar enthrone in your heart our Lord Jesus and become more like him.

THE KETCHERSIDE DOCTRINE

In the February i ue of Searching The ScripturesI wrote the first of what was to be three articles dealing with Carl Ketcherside's abuse and misuseof figures of relationship a Christian sustains to God. My doctor brought to a halt my work in this direction and I had to shelve my original intention.I shall not try to continue a review or examination of the figures he abused in that exchange with Robert Turner in the late evening of January 25, 1972in the University church building in Tampa, Florida. The exchange of positions on "fellowship" andrelated subjects between Ketcherside and Turner was further discussed by a panel consisting of Ferrell Jenkins and Harry Pickup, Jr. in addition toKetcherside and Turner. (This entire exchange together with questions and answers from the floor is available on tape from Phillips Publications.

An attempt to continue the series from last February would not be very fruitful because of the interval of several months between the first article and one that would appear now as a continuation of the original theme. Instead I shall give some attention to another gross error Ketcherside uses in his deception all over this nation.

I do not profess to know the heart of any person or to understand his motives except by his fruits or his words which plainly tell of his motives. But Ibelieve it is so apparent that I need not argue the point that Carl Ketcherside's misuse of scripturalfigures and terms has been used to justify his teaching and practice of joining forces with all forms of theological perverts and misfits in a yoke of "fellowship." He vehemently denies that he is a part ofany splinter, wing, movement or segment of religious thought, yet he seeks ways and means of "joining them in fellowship" and attempts to justifyit by the word of God.

I wish to restate my personal attitude toward Carl W. Ketcherside for the benefit of new readers. As I stated in the February, 1972 article, he has pleasant disposition and a congenial personality.From all I have seen of him he is a kind and pleasant man; a neat and dignified gentleman. All of this,however, is not enough to establish scriptural fellowship with him in the work of the Lord. Many mehave these desirable qualities who are far frombeing servants of Christ who are led by the Spirit.

Carl Ketcherside's arguments on a number ofviews that are peculiar to him would produce disobedience to the gospel of Christ. This would makehim a false teacher and unworthy of the fellowshipof the saints (II John 9, 10). There must be some line of separation between obedience and disobedience, but it is hard to find that line when one hears or reads what Carl Ketcherside teaches. No matter what subject he may discuss, his true position bleeds through the colorful speeches and written pages. This position is the universal fellowship oall who have been baptized into Christ, regardless of their involvement in denominational error and spiritual corruption. Even the unimmersed who believe in Christ are considered his brethren in prospect.His teaching on the subject has forced him to extend the right hand of fellowship to his "brother inprospect" in the embryonic state. He does not want to accept the consequences of his position, but where else can he go?

KETCHERSIDE'S MISUSE OF THE WORD LOVE

Carl Ketcherside's idea of fellowship is baseupon a false concept of love. His use of the word is very similar, if not identical, to the denominationalconcept of the Methodists, Episcopalians, and thevery ultra liberals of the religious world. Unitarianism teaches that love will not allow people to suffer eternally for crimes committed during a short lifetime upon earth. To them love is the healing ointment that binds together all theological differences and allows each group to maintain its own characteristics while claiming to be a part of the redeemed.

Car l uses the term "love" frequently in his speeches and writings. Certainly there is nothing wrong with using this word often with meaningGod is love. The entire New Testament is based uponGod's love for man. Christ requires his disciples to love one another and to love their enemies. It is not his use of the term "love" to which I offer objection,but to the meaning he necessar ily attaches to theword as he uses it. The major difference between the denominational concept and Ketcherside's use is that he veneers the word with his characteristic phraseology of applying it to the "heirs of the restoration."

The doctrine of Christ sets forth an entirely different view of love. We could raise the questions: How far will love go in allowing people to be dividedon doctrinal issues and yet claim identity witChrist ? What is the nature of love that makes it different from other characteristics of God such as justice and righteousness? What is required of love as is taught in the Bible?

Carl's appeal to love as a basis of fellowship withGod and fellowship with the "fragment groups of the restoration" is deceptive, misleading, denominational, and completely false from both the Biblical point of view and the simple human application olove as we understand it in the English languageThis is the reason why he has been successful to a degree in deceiving many, and in dividing so manchurches across the land and alienating so manbrethren from each other and from God. One cannot believe this doctrine and be obedient to Christ and have hope of eternal life.

WHAT THE LOVE OF GOD REQUIRES

A lawyer once asked Jesus the following question as he tempted him: "Master, which is the greatcommandment in the law ? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. T his is the first and great commandment. The second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matt. 22:36-39).

The one question with which I am concerned inthis study is what does man's love for God require of him? We know that man must love God with all his heart, all his soul, all his strength, and all his mind (Luke 10:27), but what does all this mean?

My love for God requires three things of me that even Carl Ketcherside would not deny, I don't think. First, I must love His Son Jesus Christ above allothers upon earth (Matt. 10:37). This love for Christ is shown by obedience to his commandments (John 14:15,24). In light of these verses, how can I claim to love God and not love His Son by obeying his sayings ?

If one should teach another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9), or bring another doctrine (II John 9, 10), how could I embrace him in his error and still claim I love Christ? This will not be answered by saying thatone must have perfect and complete knowledge toobey all the will of Christ. We are to grow in theknowledge of the Lord, and no man can justly claim to have complete and perfect knowledge of the will of God. This is a long way from saying that the lack of complete knowledge is equal to Christ approving disobedience to his revealed will.

Second, I must love the word of God. II Thessalonians 2:10-12 tells of the destiny of those who believe a lie because they had not the love of the truth. We are to exhort one another to love and to do good works (Heb. 10:24). John 15:10 says: "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, andabide in his love." Again, "But, whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked" (I John 2:5,6). "And this is love, that we walk after his commandments" (II John 6).

The word of God must be loved before one can scr ipturally claim to love God. T he word of thetruth will not allow men to walk in their own ways and still claim fellowship with God and those who love His word and obey it.

Third, I must love the children of God. This would be my brethren in the Lord by virtue of obedience to the word of Christ. If one does not walk in this truth, he is not subject to the same God Iserve. John 13:34,35 teaches that we are to loveone another as he loved us, and by this love all men would know that we are his disciples. But we must remember that love for God requires love for thetruth. And love for the truth requires obedience to it.

Carl Ketcherside's views on this subject and his misuse of the word "love" is responsible for manybelieving that love for the person will allow for the lack of love and respect for the word of God by notobeying it. Those who use instruments of music inworship can not do it by the authority of God's word. But Car l says "fellowship" them anyway! "T hey are the sons of God, and my brothers." There is noground for having fellowship with those who do not love and obey the truth.

T his is just one of the things wrong with theideas from the pen and speeches of Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett that have caused so many troubled churches and individuals where they havespread this doctrine which has no foundation in the word of God.

I have said what I believe to be truth and in the spirit that I believe is required of the Lord. Nextmonth I have more to say about love as it is defined and used by the Holy Spir it.

"NO DEAD ISSUE — No. 2"

T his is the second in a ser ies on the above title. The first dealt with an article by brother Gus Nichols. Brother Nichols advocated the support of orphahomes under boards of directors from church treasur ies. He used the old "home argument" in tr yingto sustain his position. You may read his article inlast month's paper. The article this month is bybrother Ruel Lemmons and is entirely different. It forcefully condemns the support of orphan homes under a board of directors. I shall have very littlcomment on the article because I believe brother Lemmons spoke with Bible authority in practically every thing he wrote. I want to make it crystal clear that I have nothing personally against either of these brethren. I know them both and have no "ax to grind" with either man. However, I also want to make itclear that a vast contradiction exists between these men who are supposedly standing together. In a third article I plan to discuss the difference between these two articles. I have a personal letter from brother Lemmons saying he has never opposed orphan homes

— Neither has Ward Hogland. He also says he hasnever opposed colleges — Neither has Ward Hog-land ! But what brother Lemmons failed to tell in his letter is that he does OPPOSE the church donatingto orphan homes and colleges under boards of directors — So does Ward Hogland. So brother Lemmons needs to clear the air. There is one thing aboutbrother Lemmons article which needs to be corrected. It is implied that an eldership may engage in abrotherhood benevolent program. This is entirelywithout Bible foundation. The Bible allows elders in a local congregation to ONLY take care of thebenevolence at the congregation where they are elders. They have no right or authority to engagein general benevolence or in trying to do the benevolent work of other congregations (see Acts 6 andActs 11). Just because it is scriptural for elders to oversee the benevolent work of their home congregation does not give them the author ity to collect money for a brotherhood work! Now read and enjothis fine article by brother Lemmons:

BENEVOLENCE AND EDUCATION

Recent months have seen a revival of the effort to seek church support of "our" colleges, and to "putthe college in the budget of every church." This i ue seems to be like the liquor i ue; you can put itdown, but it will come up at the next election. It is not difficult to expose, but because of the personal interest of a minority in a purely personal project the i ue keeps coming up. Unless it is opposed as often as it comes up, it will ultimately win out

We wish here to write about only one angle to theproblem: the existence of a Board of Trustees. This board is inevitably universal. Our brethren have always preached that any organization larger than the local church and smaller than the church universal is an unscriptural church organization. This is the basis on which they have opposed the missionary society and the other "boards" of the Christian church. Now, a college board, or an orphan homboard for that matter, is larger than the local church and it is smaller than the church universal. Is it, oris it not, an unscriptural "church arrangement"?

Usually when the "board" question is mentioned church leaders reply with a non-committal "Well,I have thought about that and there are two sides to the question." Are there, really? Or is this just another way of refusing to face up to really determining whether these boards are scriptural arrangements through which the church can do its work or not. We have never met anyone who wouldseriously attempt to justify the existence of these boards by the scriptures. The only attempt has been to divorce the works being done under boards from the work of the church. We simply cannot see howchurches could then be obligated to support a work which is not their work.

We surely have no objection to the existence of a Bible college. And we have no objection to its being operated under a board. Any private enterprise has a right to be operated in this way. And we call these "private colleges." If this designation be true, theupon what scriptural grounds can they appeal tchurches for support? Unless a church can support a work that is not its own, through a board which is larger than the local congregation and smaller than the church universal, then colleges are not eligiblfor church treasury funds. Individuals can, anshould, support them, as they would support anyother educational enterprise.

This is the reason why we have opposed the operation of children's homes under boards rather than elderships. We believe that caring for orphans is a work of the church, and should be supported bythe church. If it can be done under a board with church support, then let us first apologize to thChristian church for opposition to boards, and establish boards under which we can do all charity work,mi ionary work, retirement work, educational work,hospital work, and a dozen other works. By now, we are used to the old bromide, "He is opposed to orphans homes." That is an untruth. We are opposed to boards, interposed between the church and its work. First let us establish that a work of the church; then let that work be done by the church through and under its elders. This we believe to be safe.

It seems to be the most difficult thing in the world to get brethren to really face this board i ue andresolve it. They seem to want it this way and theyintend to have it this way. We who have alwaysattempted to speak where the Bible speaks and be

Page 6

silent where the Bible is silent should be willing tostudy this board i ue and resolve it. It is wholly po ible that we have overlooked something, anthat our opposition to boards is not legitimate. Wwould be happy to be shown our error. Just address yourself to the task of proving by the Scriptures that boards are a scriptural arrangement through whicthe church can do its work. If this can be proven, all opposition to the arrangement will cease, and, as an added serendipity, we will, after we have apologizedto the Christian church for a century of opposition to them, find ourselves much nearer union with them. These boards are either scriptural or unscriptural; right or wrong. We ought to be able to decide which.It is not right to ignore the i ue because it is the basis of much contention. Let's settle down to the task of settling it once and for all. This is a relatively simple i ue, and it ought to be resolved.

If it be resolved that such boards are legitimate,then opposition to church support of colleges on this point at least would be settled. There would beother i ues to solve, but if we could solve this one it would be a start. And if it be determined that such boards are not to be interposed between the church and its work, then we would di olve the boards we have and put the work these separate corporations are doing back under the elders of thechurch. Reuel Lemmons, Firm Foundation March 21, 1972

The Bible warns of the deadly effects of hatred. Jesus taught us to love our enemies, not hate them(Matt. 5:43,44). Paul said that before his conversion, he and others were "hateful, and hating onanother" (Titus 3:3). John tells us that if we hateour brethren we are walking in darkness rather than light (I John 2:9-11). He even says that hatred is a form of murder. Hear him, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that nomurderer hath eternal life abiding in him" (I John 3:15).

In his book "None Of These Diseases," Dr. S. I.McMillen makes the following comment concerninghatred. Study it carefully

"The moment I start hating a man, I become his slave. I can't enjoy my work any more because heeven controls my thoughts. My resentments produce too many stress hormones in my body and I become fatigued after only a few hours of work. The work I formerly enjoyed is now drudgery. Even vacations cease to give me pleasure. It may be a luxurious car that I drive along a lake fr inged with the autumnalbeauty of maple, oak and birch. As far as my experience of pleasure is concerned, I might as well be driving a wagon in mud and rain.

"The man I hate hounds me wherever I go. can't escape his tyrannical grasp on my mind. Whenthe waiter serves me porterhouse steak with French fries, asparagus, crisp salad, and strawberry shortcake smothered with ice cream, it might as well bestale bread and water. My teeth chew the food and I swallow it, but the man I hate will not permit me to enjoy it.

"King Solomon must have had a similar experience, for he wrote: "Better a dish of vegetables,with love, than the best beef served with hatred" (Prov. 15:17, Moffatt)

"The man I hate may be many miles from mbedroom; but more cruel than any slave driver, hwhips my thoughts into such a frenzy that my innerspring mattress becomes a rack of torture. Thelowliest of the serfs can sleep, but not I. I really must acknowledge the fact that I am a slave toevery man on whom I pour the vials of my wrath."

A few weeks ago I preached in a series of gospel meetings for the church in Sumter, S.C. The congregation is composed primarily of men who are stationed at Shaw AFB, and their families. Althoughsmall in number (about fifty members), I founthem to be zealous, well informed, and dedicated to the cause of Christ. They had one practice which I found rather unique and interesting, and the reason why I'm writing this.

At the beginning of each service, the song leader would call the names of all members who were not present and tell why. Yes, believe it or not, that's right. I was impressed. Some were sick, some onduty, etc., but it seemed that all had a reason forbeing absent. I just thought that if such were practiced in most congregations there would not be time for the rest of the service! And then you would have a number offended because their names were called. Of course they would be those who could and should have been present. I have learned that those whocould and should but didn't are the ones who do most of the complaining anyway.

But why not name those who are absent? The faithful will appreciate it, for they want others to know why they are absent; and the unfaithful need to be reproved, rebuked and exhorted.

An editorial in the Vatican newspaper recently acknowledged that "Pope Paul VI was being criticized by priests and laymen, but contended that he was ultimately responsible only to God." The article was unusual in its admission that the present deep dissent exists, a fact which has long been disregarded by the Vatican.

Referring to protests against pontifical decisions, the editorial said, "The Pope must suffer from such lack of understanding, but this does not induce him to change his conduct in the pastoral leadership ofthe church." The editorial also declared, "The last word regarding the leadership of the church, theuniversal pastor (the Pope) receives from his conscience as successor of Peter, as center of unity and charity, as custodian of truth." They stated that his mandate came from Jesus.

This is further evidence that millions of Catholics, including many in the Roman hierarchy, no longer believe in the infallibility of the pope. If they did,there would be no rebellion nor criticism of his decisions. A word from him would settle such controversies as what to eat_, birth control and celibacy,and obviate the councils and conventions wherein they endeavor to ascertain truth.

Beyond doubt, the doctrine of the papacy is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the world. There is absolutely no evidence in the New Testament that Peter occupied such a position, or that the apostles were to have successors. The church is built uponChrist (Matt. 16:18; I Cor. 3:11; I Peter 2:6-8). Christ is the only head of the only church he ever built, and he has all authority (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:22,23).

If there is ever an appropriate time for me to use the sword of the Spirit, it is when an attack is made upon it. Such was done in an article "The Book Almost Nobody Reads" by Frederick Buechner in theSeptember Reader's Digest. Ironically, he was writing in defense of the Bible. One reason why so many people don't read the Bible is that they have thesame attitude toward it which he expressed in his article. For example, consider the following statement:

"In short, one way to describe the Bible, written by many different hands over a period of 3000 years and more, would be to say that it is a disorderly collection of 60-odd books which are often tedious, barbaric, obscure and teeming with contradictions andinconsistencies. It is a swarming compost of a book, an Irish stew of poetry and propaganda, law andlegalism, myth and murk, history and hysteria."

With friends like that, the Bible doesn't need any enemies! After making a statement like that, hegoes ahead to recommend it, and much of what hesays is good.

T he Bible either came from God or it did not. If it did not, there is no profit in reading and obeying it. If it did, then it is not filled with "contradictions and inconsistencies" for God is not the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:33). The "contradictions" in the Bible stem from ignorance or unbelief on the part of the reader.

WITH FRIENDS LIKE HIM — WHO NEEDS ENEMIES?

Recently I received a copy of MISSION magazinewhich contained an article by Neal Buffaloe entitled "Frauds, Fools and Freedom" in which he took some very unusual positions for a "Christian" (?). Now for those who may not know who Neal Buffaloe is, he is an elder in the College church of Christ in Conway, Arkansas and a Biology teacher (who believes in Theistic Evolution) at State College of Arkansas located in Conway. The article has a very heavyaroma of Ketcherside's doctrine on fellowship. In this article, I want to examine several of the statements of brother Buffaloe.

In the first few paragraphs he relates the story of a young lady who is a Christian coming to him to talk about her fiancé, who was a Catholic, about the doctrine of Transubstantiation. She was wanting some good Bible arguments in favor of truth.Brother Buffaloe said I asked her, "Let me ask yousomething, Joyce. Do you really think Landon's present views on Transubstantiation are all that important?" I thought her reply was a good one. Butbrother Buffaloe simply brushed it aside ... well,see for yourself what was said. "Why I hadn't thought about that," she answered taken abacksomewhat. "But it seems to me that if the Chur ch of Chr ist is the true church, and if it teaches what the Bible teaches, then Transubstantiation is a false doctrine. Landon doesn't see how he could come into the Church of Christ if he disagrees with its doctrines. And I don't either." Now I ask you,doesn't that sound like good logical, scriptural, teaching? But no, brother Buff aloe is not going to let itgo at that. He then proceeds to show why she should not worry about it. He begins with the same old line of argumentation that brethren have used forhundreds of years when they want to show their true colors in trying to "soft-soap" the scriptures. He said, "Do you mean a person cannot find salvation unless he acquiesces in every point with 'Church of Chr ist doctrine?'"

To this answer the young lady replied, "No, I'm sure we all disagree on some points. But it seems to me where we are unanimously agreed on some doctrine like this one, that makes it official, so to speak,and all I'm trying to find out is how to defend our doctrines."

Now it seems to me that this young lady was avery honest seeker for truth, but she certainly cameto the wrong person for help. For even according tohis own admission he said. "It was an honest cryfrom the heart. We talked on for some time, and I'm afraid I left the poor girl in a very confused state of mind." I sn't that pathetic that the devil has menwho pretend to be Christians, members of the bodyof Christ, in such influential places, positions enabling them to twist the minds of our young people ?

TITLE OF BUFFALOE'S ARTICLE

T he whole point of his article was found in thetitle. His point was that if people disagree on theBible, those who disagree with us are either fraudsor fools. Now, that may be the way many thinkabout those who disagree with them, but I know of very few people that have that attitude with honest searchers of truth who disagree. Thus, brother Buffaloe's idea is that since most people have this kind of an attitude about scriptures on which we disagree,the elders should have liberty to settle such matters of who will be taken into their fellowship.

BROTHER BUFFALOE'S METHODIST FRIEND

Brother Buffaloe said, "I have a good friend, Methodist, who maintains that baptism is like circumcision — it is a matter of the heart. Arguingfrom Romans 2:25-29 through Colo ians 2:11-12,he insists that literal immersion simply cannot beall that important. I think I can see fallacies in his argument, but who am I to insist that this man cannot possibly be right, or at least, sincere?" Now no one questions the man's sincerity, but he CANNOT po ibly be right if the Bible is true; for the doctrine espoused by the man is not in harmony with thBible's teaching. The Bible does teach that circumcision is spiritual and of the heart, but it does not teach that circumcision is baptism, but that circumcision (cutting off the body of sin) takes place when we are baptized. The very passages that the "Methodist friend" used to try to prove his point prove that spiritual circumcision comes about during baptis(also cf. Rom. 6:5-6).

ALEXANDER CAMPBELL'S REASONING

In an effort to try to prove that his Methodist

friend might be right, he used the following line ofreasoning by Alexander Campbell. He said, "Anhow can I reconcile the inconsistency that, althoughthis person is a veritable model of Christ-likeness,he would not be invited to fill any pulpit in thebrotherhood? How do we manage to swallow thiskind of exclusivism while extending the hand of fellowship to every selfish, unloving, unChristlike baptized-for-the-remi ion-of-sins individual who darkens the door of any building that says 'Church of Christ' over that door?" To answer brother Buffaloe's question I would simply say that I do notknow of anyone who would be willing to extend thehand of fellowship to any unChristlike, unloving,selfish person. If, however, he had been baptized for the remi ion of sins, at least he would be a Christian whereas the person who is a Methodist is not a Christian, for he has not received the remission ofsins. If therefore, I came to know a person who was a Christian who had the kind of attitude that brother Buffaloe describes, I would try to teach him the truth on the points mentioned. If he would not listen I would be for withdrawing from him

Brother Buffaloe quoted Alexander Campbell'sLunenburg letter (or at least a part of it) in an effort to try to substantiate his point. Campbell said in the letter that if he could find a Baptist whose life more generally conformed to the requisitions of the Messiah, who was more spiritually minded thaone who had been immersed for the remission of sins, his approbation and love as a Christian would be for the former rather than the latter. The pointhat brother Buffaloe fails to recognize is the factthat BOTH he and Campbell are wrong.

MATTHEW 9:38-40

Brother Buffaloe said that "perhaps Campbell was thinking of still another of Jesus' expressions on the subject of exclusivism:" and cited Matthew 9:38-40. But, brother Buffaloe missed the point othis also. Chr ist was not saying that this per son was not a disciple of his, but those disciples whowere closely a ociated with Jesus said that he was not among them. However, Jesus made many disciples, even more than John according to John 4:1-2. But, to equate this person with a Methodist or Catholic, who has not accepted the gospel of Christ andbeen obedient to Christ's commands that he mightreceive the remission of sins, is foolish indeed. For,we know from the scriptures that a sinner could not perform such miracles. This is exactly what thPhar isees accused Jesus of being when he healethe blind man in John 9:31. And this is exactly whatthe man who had been blind said could not be so. "For we know that God heareth not sinners; but iany man be a worshipper of his, and doeth his will,him he heareth." So, not only does brother Buffaloe put his dependence in the wrong source of authority(what Alexander Campbell believed), but he alsofails to understand or else mis-applies the scriptures.

Now, on the basis of his understanding of Mark 9:38-39 and what Mr. Campbell said brother Buffaloe concludes, "If this was my Lord's attitude, hothen shall I say that my Methodist and Catholic friends are not his followers?" Well, of course he couldn't. For when you start out on a false premise,you wind up with a false conclusion.

NOW FOR THE FREEDOM

Brother Buffaloe concludes his article by talkinabout the elders and their right to rule in matters over which brethren may disagree. He says, "It seems to me that specific doctrinal problems can behandled by elders at the local level without resortingto the official party line approach. For example, I do not consider it inconsistent that I recognize mMethodist friend as a fellow Christian — if I did not do so, I could lay no claim to being one myself — while agreeing with my fellow elders that we must insist upon immersion for membership in the localcongregation." Now seeing is believing. However,it would have been very difficult for me to believethat a person who claims to be a Christian, an elder,and a preacher of the gospel, could have made such a statement. That is Baptist doctrine pure and simple. Not only has brother Buffaloe and his "fellow elders" gone beyond the doctrine of Christ in accepting one who has had water sprinkled on himand called that scr iptural baptism, but now thehave invented a purpose for baptism that God has not authorized. God never intended for baptism tobe a requirement for one who is a Christian to have to submit to in order to get into the local congregation. That is a perversion of the Scriptures. John said, "Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not inthe doctrine of Christ hath not God" (II John 9). The thing that really hurts is the fact that a man in brother Buffaloe's position could use his influence to do so much good for the cause of Christ. Instead, according to his own admi ion, they are more confused AFTER they discuss the Bible with him than they were BEFORE they came. So, with friends like that, the Lord doesn't need any enemies.

"And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this comes judgment; so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, not to bear sin, to those who eagerly await Him, for salvation" (Hebrews 9:27,28 NASB).

Hebrews begins almost with mention of thepriestly work of our Lord who "made purification ofsins" (1:3). Chapter two concludes with mentionagain of His priestly work, and encourages His people to come to Him for help (2:17,18). Chapter three begins by calling the readers to "consider Jesus, theHigh Priest of our confession" (3:1). Christ's priesthood is legitimate, having come through divine appointment (ch. 5). But it is "after the order of Melchizedek, and is based on the Lord's "power of an indestructible life" (ch. 7). The main point to bmade, however, is that Christ's priestly work takes place in heaven itself — the true sanctuary erected by the Lord and not man, and that this heavenlyservice is based on the better promises of a new covenant" (ch. 8).

"The first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuar y" (9:1), but our great priest offers in heaven a sacrifice able to take away sins. "Through His own blood, He entered the holplace once for all, having obtained eternal redemption" (9:12). This is the context of the beginninquotation of our article. Christ was offered "once,and will not be offered again. To make this point, ourauthor calls attention first to the general state of man, then to the specific case of Christ. Finally hespeaks of His second coming, under the figure of the high priest on the Day of Atonement.

LIFE. DEATH AND JUDGMENT

Each human being must live, die and be judgedFurthermore, he must live, die and be judged — in that order. And finally he must live, die and bjudged — but only once. The life once lived can never be repeated when ended by death. Death can nothappen but one time because life is not repeated. And judgment will happen only one time for each man because his life once lived needs but one judgment. What is true of mankind in general is true also of Christ, for He became in every regard as His brethren, excepting sin.

But Christ's case involved more than the lifedeath and judgment of one ordinar y man. For inevery respect His was a representative case. He was standing in for others. He was the second Adammankind's second and last chance for salvation. As the Israelites and Philistines once sent representative warriors to battle, entrusting with those two men their respective destinies as a whole, so mankind is represented in the person of the Christ. What happens to Him will count for all His people

Jesus lived one life, and it was for all men. He was given a human body for that life; in it He prepared a human record perfectly acceptable to the Father.He came to do the will of God and, in that body, didit fully (10:1-9). Jesus died but one time, and thadeath was for all men. He was "offered once, to bear the sins of many" (9:28). Jesus was judged for that life, and that judgment was for all who would beHis. For Jesus, having died, "entered into heavenitself to appear in the presence of God for us" (9:24).

This figure is exceedingly rich. The Old Testament high priest entered the second tent with the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement. With this blood ofanimals he came before God — but always behind aveiling cloud of smoke (Lev. 16:11-13). Christ entered heaven itself — with His own life-offering — and directly "in the presence of God." It is no smallmatter to face God for judgment. When Christ was"judged," His life-sacrifice was examined by Hibefore whom "all things are open and laid bare" (4:13). Every thought and motive, every secret orpublic action, every word spoken — all was examined carefully by the Father. On this verdict wouldrest the final hope of ever y lost sinner. Our highpriest entered into God's presence to appear for us.

THE PEOPLE WAITING

Under the law, the people waited outside while the priests offered sacrifices on their behalf. When thepriest returned the people knew the offering habeen accepted. When Zacharias was delayed in thtemple by the appearance of Gabriel, "the peoplewere waiting, and were wondering at his delay"(Luke 1:21). Well might they be uneasy, for their relationship to God depended on the acceptable presentation of pleasing offerings.

If this anticipation accompanied ordinary offerings, it was enormously intensified on the great Dayof Atonement. One Jewish writing from before the time of Chr ist describes the waiting for the highpriest on that occasion.

Then all flesh hasted together

And fell upon their faces to the earth

To worship before the Most High

Before the Holy One of Israel.

And the sound of the song was heard

And over the multitude they made sweet

melody;

And all the people of the land cried In prayer

before the Merciful, Until he had finished the

service of the altar And His ordinances had

brought him nigh

unto Him.

The next lines describe the joy of the people whenthe high priest came safely out to tell the peoplthat they were forgiven by God.

Then he descended, and lifted up his hands

Upon the whole congregation of Israel; And the

ble ing of the Lord was upon his lips, And he

glor ified himself with the name of

the Lord.

And again they fell down, now to receive

The pardon of the Lord from him.

Our high priest has remained in the heavenlysanctuary to mediate perpetually for His people othe basis of His single offering. But He has sent a messenger ahead to His waiting people, telling themthat the offering was received by God! His people are "saved to the uttermost!" Jesus had said He would send this messenger (John 15:26) ; on the Dayof Pentecost the good news came (Acts 2:32-36):Remi ion of sins is fully guaranteed in Jesus' name! As another apostle would later write, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Jesus Christ!"

Jesus Himself will come out one day to His people. When He returns, it will not be for bearing sins again -— that happened already and will only happenonce. He will come "apart from sin," bringing theconsummated salvation which His sacrifice long agoprocured for His people. His people, meanwhile, are "eagerly awaiting" that glorious return (I Cor. 1:7;Phil. 3:20,21; I Thess. 1:10)

Are you covered by His perfect sacrifice ? Are you presently trusting this Savior's all-sufficient offeringfor sins? Are you faithfully obeying Him as you await His return? "Hallelujah, praise the Lord, salvation has been brought down!"

----------------o---------------

BATON ROUGE, LA. PERKINS RD. CHURCH REGAINS HER SENSES

George T. Eldridge

The great potential for Christ at Perkins Rd., the attitude of the Tolles, which is seen in their letter,and the crying need for a gospel preacher there influenced my wife and I to move to Baton Rouge bythe end of June, 1972. We fully know that no moneyhas been promised or indicated by any Christian orchurch for my wages, but we are going to Baton Rouge. I will do the work of a faithful proclaimerfor our Lord and Saviour in that city. The Perkins Rd. church is not able financially to contribute anything toward my wages yet, but I believe the brethren and churches will respond to my need for wagesand money to cover my moving expense.

The Building

The money collected presently by the Perkins Rd. Church pays the $255.36 monthly payment on her building, which only has a $6,300.00 remaining debt,the building utilities, and the cost for some teaching material. Two families (5 in attendance) are doing their best to handle these absolute costs.

The building is located in a growing section ofBaton Rouge. It will seat comfortably 160 to 17people and would conservatively have a replacement cost of $40,000 to $50,000. The building has 4 classrooms, the auditorium, an empty space for another cla room, an adequate preacher's study, and a nursery.

The Money Future

At least five years must pass before the church will even be close to what is called self-supporting.By God's help, much work, much prayer, and declaring "unto all the counsel of God," we will be self-sustaining and a tower of spiritual strength. Peace and fellowship does exist between this church and the church where brother Bill Crews preaches.

What Happened to the Perkins Rd. Church?

The Tolles descr ibed well the attitude seen in "certain actions" which started the church where Bill Crews works and slowly diminished a 70 plus attendance down to two families, now numberingfive in attendance!! Digesting such unscriptural "certain actions," weak pulpit preaching, unscriptural leadership, and the ideas of brother W. CarlKetcherside, where else could the Perkins Rd. Church go but to hobnobbing with the liberals ? The congregation also compromised truth, lost a few members to the new sound church and more to churches in error, and then had an attendance of about zero.

T he teaching of brother Ketcherside is manysided, but please read his own written word to an admirer of his at Perkins Road.

"When we arise above the artificial walls and

barriers and begin to love all of the brethren,

God can give us a whole new dimension of serv

ice and he will. We must simply ignore the divisiveness and factionalism of the past and

refuse to be trapped inside the narrow enclos

ures which men have built... A great door has

been opened to witness to Baptist folk, sin

cere, eager, and seeking!" E ven with brother Ketcherside's "speech of Ashdod" and having gone to "the plain of Ono," what conclusion is drawn from his writing? You don'tlove the brethren when you point out their rejection of Bible authority by their practices, for example, of instrumental music, centralized control, sponsoring church cooperation, churches buildingand maintaining man-made organizations, one container in the Lord's Supper, or Premillennialism.This admirer of brother Ketcherside and the two young preachers of Perkins Road, who were Ken R. Durham and Lynn McCauley, attended the A.C.C. lectures together and heard his unity speech, "Authority of the Word." He then wrote brother Ketcherside March 2, 1971 these words. "You really impressed Ken and Lynn. They have already been to see Max Goins at Calvary Christian Church and he invited Lynn to speak there on a Sunday evening.They are also swapping pulpits with two of the other ministers of churches of Christ in town. They were very impressed with the blackminister and he is going to swap out with one of them this month. When I told our 'double-trouble' team they were not letting any grass grow under their feet, Lynn said, 'We've got to put all this trivia aside and get on with it.' How about that?"The "double-trouble team" of Ken and Lynn hadthe right environment at Perkins Rd. to make certain no grass grew under their feet. The church was soft. She would tolerate error. She wanted unity at any price. Men of the stature of B. Hall Davis and Thomas Smitherman had left. These false teachers (Ken and Lynn) could view "make all things according to the pattern" as "trivia" (Heb. 8:5). Imagine so-called preachers calling the pattern for (1) music in the church, (2) church work, (3) church worship, (4) church fellowship, or (5) church cooperation as "trivia." The false teachers got on with their work and destroyed the church more, but the Perkins Road Church had asked for it!!!

The church kept going down and down before the Tolles awakened. When they did get scripturally aroused it was too late. The congregation was in shambles! The church now has seven in attendance,counting my wife and I.

The Perkins Rd. congregation is a classic example of what happens when softness is permitted, error is tolerated, truth is compromised, "chief men among the brethren" are not Bible leaders, pulpitpreaching is weak, immature men fill the pulpit, and unity at any price is desired. "Know ye not that alittle leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" I Cor. 5:6.

Church's Present Attitude

She will now '"hold fast the form of sound words .. . in faith and love which is in Chr ist Jesus" (II Tim. 1:13). We know we are small in number, but we want all faithful Christians coming to Baton Rouge to work with us. The lazy, the unconcerned, and the indifferent person should not want to come our way because we need workers to labour with us in filling our present building with saved sinners. Our location is easy to find: 1-10 & College Drive; 4270 Perkins Road; near Colonel Sanders; less than four minutes off 1-10.

The City

Baton Rouge is called the "Growth Center of the South." Her population is a growing 200,000. Shehas four main pillars to her economy: She (1) is the state capital of Louisiana, (2) is the center of one of the world's largest petrochemical areas, (3) is home of two large state universities: Louisiana State University and Southern University, and (4) has a major world port.

Industrial Complex. The petrochemical center ofthe South, the growing industrial development along the Mississippi River is based on petroleum, but itclaims chemicals, rubber, plastics, light and heavy metals and other products. At least 150 manufacturers employ 18,500 people.

Port of Baton Rouge. It is the seventh largest port in the nation. It is the farthest inland deepwater port on the Mississippi. It serves both deepwater and river transportation. Vessels from manycountries berth here.

Need

Brethren, pray for me. I need your financial assistance for my wages and to pay my moving expense (II Cor. 11:8; II Tim. 1:16-18). Also, tracts are needed. I know you will respond because we serve the same God, are guided by the same Bible, are interested in the lost souls of men, and want to go to Heaven together. Also, you answered the callwhen I authored an article about the new church in Monroe, Louisiana, which concerned H. Tom Swilley. I await your answer.

P. O. Box 52964 Lafayette, La. 70501

Parksdale church of Christ, 29111 Avenue 13 1/2,Madera, Calif. 93637 — We are in need of a full time preacher for the Parksdale congregation of Madera, California. Anyone interested please contact: DoyleWebster, 1500 W. 5th St., Madera, Calif. 93637,phone (209) 674-4369 or Burt Bridges, 28881 Avenue 13, Madera, Calif. 93637, Phone (209) 674-4288.

Herb Braswell, 1280 Dodson Way, Sparks, Nev.89431 — The church in Grass Valley, California, ilooking for a preacher to work with them on a fulltime basis. I have been preaching for the church there since the first of this year, driving over everyweekend from Reno, Nevada. T his Dec. 19th I plan on moving to Georgia, Lord willing. The men of thecongregation feel that it would be best for the Grass Valley church to have a full time preacher. This church is made up of about eight families, so thechurch is not able to supply full support for the preacher. The preacher who moves here will have to arrange to have most of his financial support provided by another church or churches. This church has a nice frame building that seats about one hundred people, and is nearly debt free. Any man thacould move to Grass Valley should contact Arthur Montgomery, Rt. 2, Box 2626, Auburn, Calif. 95603;phone (916) 885-7464; or Ray Clanton, 143 Walker Dr., Grass Valley, Calif. 95945. After Januar y 1,I will be available for full or part time preaching work in the Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, or Florida areas. My address is now, 1280 Dodson WaySparks, Nevada 89431; and after Dec. 19th, it willbe Rt. 1, Waco, Georgia 30182.

JACK FROST, SR. MEMORIAL FUND

Several years ago we began compiling stories of interesting, amusing, or unusual events in the lives of gospel preachers. Such a collection was the ambition of Jack Frost, Sr. He thoroughly enjoyed good story, especially the true situations of menwho labor in the gospel. Before he was able to execute his plan to collect and publish this compilationhe was carried from this life. Since then we, members of his family, have tried to bring this desire to fruition.

After many unavoidable and frustrating delays,the material has been collected and prepared for printing. However, as we weigh the cost of publication with the good the same amount of money coulddo in other areas, we have second thoughts. It is our decision now, as being that which would please him, to establish a memorial fund with Florida College to provide loan funds to young men desiring college education in their preparation to preach thegospel. This does not mean that the book project willbe abandoned. The material will appear as a column in the Gospel Guardian, and at a later date if there is a demand it then can be published under separate cover.

We take this opportunity to thank all who havcontributed "stories," and hope that the above arrangement is satisfactory

Florida College has opened an account for the "Jack Frost, Sr. Memorial Fund." We hope that this fund will be of benefit to many young men, enablingthem to further their education.

— T he family of Jack Frost, Sr.

B. G. Echols, 5 Marwood Drive, Poughkeepsie,New York 12601 — We recently had a young couple worship with us who have moved to Connecticut.

They are interested in contacting any brethren desirous of starting a sound church in that state. If you are interested or know of anyone who is, please contact me at the above address or phone: (914462-4788.

Thomas Hogland, Central church of Christ, P.OBox 116, Charlotte, Tenn. 37036 — I have just moved from Dallas, Texas where I worked with the St. Augustine Drive church of Christ to begin laboringwith these fine brethren in Charlotte. I look forward to a prosperous and very enjoyable a ociation with this congregation. If you are in the Charlotte area,drop in and visit us.

While water baptism is one of the simplest subjects taught in the New Testament, it remains to be one of the most misunderstood and disputed Biblical subjects. There has been no small amount of controversyand disputation over the action of baptism, whether it is sprinkling, pouring or immersion and also over the purpose and design of water baptism. It shall not,however, be our burden in this article to consider these foregoing disputed aspects of water baptism,but rather an aspect that is characterized by an equalamount of disputation— whether or not baptism is necessary for the salvation of +.he alien sinner. Perhaps you have heard gospel preachers teach that water baptism is necessary for salvation but have not beenfully convinced because you believe that the objections to water baptism being essential are valid. It shall be our design in this article to consider some of these objections to water baptism being necessar yand see if they are worthy of our entertainment.

"WE ARE NOT SAVED BY WORKS AND BAPTISM IS A WORK"

Many contend that baptism cannot be necessary

for man's salvation because if it were, man would b

saved by works! Friends, I say kindly but candidl

that those who reason thus do not understand what

the New Testament teaches concerning works. Belov

ed, the New Testament does teach that we are not

saved by the works of the Old Law, Rom. 11:6

neither are we saved by our own works (works of our

own creation), Eph. 2:8,9, Tit. 3:5. But under which heading would water baptism be found? Certainly,none would contend that water baptism is an OldTestament work, and surely none would be so brazen as to argue that baptism is a work of man's creation! Hence, the simple conclusion would follow --Baptismis a work which almighty God himself has commanded. To this kind of work James referred, "Ye see then how that by works (works which God has ordained)a man is justified, and not by faith only." (Jas. 2:24)Those who contend that water baptism is unnecessary because it is a work, if they were consistent would teach that belief is also unnecessary because it to is a work, a work which God has commanded. (Jno. 6:29) Thus, the objection that baptism is un

necessary because it is a work isgroundle !

"BAPTISM IS NON-ESSENTIAL BECAUSE THE BLOOD OF CHRIST SAVES US AND NOT WATER"

Intelligent reader, those who teach that water bap

tism is necessary because the water saves you -are

teaching error! Nowhere does the word of God teach

that the encountered water when one is baptized

that the literal water encountered when one is bap

tized is capable of saving the sinner and neither do

gospel preachersteach such a fallaciousdoctrine.

Baptism is a commandment and water is simply theelement. (Acts 2:38, cf. 8:36) We now raise the question, when does one contact the benefits of the blood or the death of Christ? The apostle Paul answers the question as follows: "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death" (Rom. 6:4) Please observe the preceding verse, "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" (Rom. 6:3) Thus the objection that baptism cannot be necessary because the blood of Christ saves and not water, clouds the i ue. T he alien sinner when baptized is not saved by the water but by the blood or death of Christ, which hecontacts in water baptism. Hence, this objection onlyshows that water baptism is necessary because wemust contact the blood of Christ in order to be saved. Again, we know that it is in the act of water bap-tism that one contacts the saving blood of Christ be-cause of the following consideration: In Matthew 26: 28,Christ taught, "For this is my blood of the NeTestament, which is shed for many for the remi ion of sins." Now, observe the language of Peter anAnanias concerning one purpose of water baptism "Repent, and be baptized." Peter commands the Pentecostians, "ever y one of you in the name oJesus Christ for the remi ion of sins..." (Acts 2:3822:16) Jesus said that His blood was shed for theremission of sins; the miraculously guided Peter and Ananias taught that. water baptism is for the remi ion of sins, -thus, baptism is the act in which we contact the blood of Christ, the benefit being the

remi ion of sin.

"IF BAPTISM WERE FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, THEN EVERY TIME THE CHRISTIAN SINNED HE WOULD HAVE TO BE BAPTIZED."

Many who maintain that baptism is unnecessar y use the foregoing "logic". They deny that baptism is for the remi ion of sins, even in view of the plaiteaching of the New Testament to the contrary, endeavoring to disprove its essentiality. Friends, thesimple truth -of the matter is that baptism is for theforgiveness of the alien's sins and not the Christian's. I Jno. 1:7 explains how the Christian obtains the remi ion of sins, "For if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (See also verse 9)

"THE THIEF ON THE CROSS WAS NOT BAPTIZED AND YET HE WAS SAVED."

Many people today try to be saved as the thief on

the cross was. (Lk. 23:39-43) Beloved, I submit that

the thief to whom Christ said, "Today shalt thou be

with me in paradise", lived and died under the Old

Law (Law of Moses) under which system baptism was

not required. Also to be taken into consideration is

the fact that Christ had power on earth to forgive sins

as He chose (Lk. 5:24) because his Testament, law,

in which baptism is required was not in force while he

lived. (Mk. 16:15, 16, Heb. 9:16,17) Therefore, this

objection, like the other, is not valid.

"FOR CHRIST SENT ME NOT TO BAPTIZE BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL."

Those who use this passage thus are perverting anddistorting the teaching of Paul in this passage, I Cor.

1:17. They reason that Paul is saying that baptism is

unimportant because Christ sent him not to baptize

Friends, if this passage were understood as some

would have us to understand— Paul would be stating a

falsehood; because Christ did send him (apostles) to

baptize. (Matt. 28:19, Mk. 16:15,16 compare with

I Cor. 1:14-16) It is obvious, therefore, that those

who use this passage to teach the non-essentiality o

baptism are misconstruing it. Paul is simply saying

that Christ did not send him primarily to baptize but

to preach the gospel, the preaching of which involved

baptism. (See Acts 8:35 compare with verse 36 of the text)

Dear one, do not be deceived into thinking that

water baptism is not necessary to salvation. The five

foregoing objections to the essentiality of baptism are

the ones people most often use -but, friends, as you

have seen, they are not valid. Please consider the

teaching of the New Testament concerning baptism

being necessary, Mk. 16:15,16; Acts 2:38, 22:16

Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; Acts 8:35,36; I Pet. 3:20,21.