THE EFFECTS OF RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY

Respect for authority is the exact equivalent ofrespect for God. He who thinks he respects authority but does not believe in God, or professes to believe in God but despises law, declares therein acrass ignorance. God is the source of all authorityand even human authorities are ultimately dependent upon him for their right to exercise rule. It is impo ible to genuinely respect God without respecting to an equal degree all legitimate authority. It is impo ible to respect legitimate authority withoutrespecting God, for authority is dependent upoGod and without him all authority ceases to be legitimate and is but the arbitrary exercise of power by men. Based upon such a recognition of God as the source, and the posse ion of humility to accept the fact by submi ive compliance, respect necessarily requires and reflects an enlightenment of understanding and personal character. The effects are most wholesome and discernible.

All laws immediately become important. They are not regarded for their own individual merit. They are not dependent upon their "relevance" to current notions or needs. They are important because they are the law. The son who admires and respects his father does not await an explanation for everythinghe is told to do. He does not have to lose an argument before he admits that he should do what he has been told. Commensurate with his respect for his father, a requirement is important because it is a requirement. How much more is this true in a man's relationship to the God whose wisdom and laws he acknowledges beforehand to be perfect? All of his words are wise and his statutes just, good and necessary

Non-essential commands cease to exist. Denominationalism despises certain commandments (baptism for the remi ion of sins, for example). Unableto deny that baptism is commanded (Acts 10:48) weak smile and shrugged shoulder often accompanies the common dodge, "It's a command; but it's a non-essential command"; "You don't have to do it!" Not even a spoiled child could speak to indulgent, permi ive parents like that and be said by the excuse-making parents to respect them. This is rather the essence of impudence, the robes of pietyto the contrary notwithstanding. Any denial of thnecessity of the law is a denial and affront against him from whom the law came in the first placeGenuine respect does not play this self-deludinggame; it esteems that there is no such thing as a non-essential word or command from God. He is God! Therefore what he says is right, good, important and necessary

Obedience is another effect. Obedience inheres in the very nature of respect. Respect for authorityconsists, in part, of the humility that submits, anthat is what obedience is. Thus the person who disobeys cannot correctly argue that he respects God. He may admire, but he does not respect. He has rather arrogated his own will and declared his independence. Respect submits in dutiful deference even on points that are personally unpleasant.

Character and self-discipline are produced. When a man obeys God out of a deep conviction and profound respect, purity of life in body and mind results. Helearns to drive and restrain himself by a deliberate determination to obey the law. He has become, ithe process, the kind of person with strength ocharacter that it would have been impo ible to become without respect for authority. This respect has in fact permitted God to remake and conform himinto something according to the divine will. SeeRomans 12:1,2 and Col. 3:10. In a word, he reallybecomes somebody!

Eternal rewards should also be mentioned amongthe effects of respect. The riches of heaven are for those who keep his commandments, who are good

Page 2 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

and faithful ser vants that did what their duty was to do (Rev. 22:14; Matt. 25:21; Luke 17:10). However, our interest in this article is upon the present practical effects in the life of a person, though theeternal reward is real and is the ultimate goal,being the dwelling place of the God whom we respect and love.

Respect for authority makes all the difference.It is the difference between purity and depravity,character and di ipation, obedience and rebellion, peace of heart and anguish of soul, life and deathand heaven and hell. Truly the believer, the selfless soul who is willing to conform himself in respectful submission to the divine will, has the best of twoworlds — the world that now is, and the world that isto come.

Page 3

Some people will listen to the word of God — to a degree. When Paul was defending himself in Jerusalem, he recited the story of his life. His Jewish audience listened patiently as he told of his Jewish origin, his education in the very center of Judaism,Jerusalem, his zeal for the law of Moses, his persistent persecution of Christians — yes, even of his amazing conversion to Christ. But then he made one big mistake — he mentioned that Christ had now sent him forth "unto the Gentiles" (Acts 22:21).That did it! The very mention of the name "Gentiles" closed the doors of those Jewish minds. It "turned them off" immediately. Whatever listeningthey had done earlier was now wasted. Luke states,"They gave him audience unto this word . . ." (Acts22:22). The New American Standard renders the passage, "T hey listened to him up to this statement. . . ." Then they began to declare Paul unfit to live on the earth!

UP TO A POINT

Several groups are mentioned in the book of Acts who were willing to listen to the gospel of Christ —up to a point! (1) The Jews mentioned above were willing to listen until the preacher made favorablemention of a group of people they hated — the Gentiles. Their prejudice was blinding; they would hear no more. (2) The Athenians in Acts 17:32 were quiteinterested in hearing Paul's discourse — up to apoint! When he began to advocate a certain doctrine which they did not believe— the resurrection of the dead, the curtain was down for many of them. Theyhad heard all they wanted to hear. (3) T he Jews in Acts 7 listened to a long discourse by Stephen on the development of God's purposes in Abraham's posterity — up to a point. But when Stephen made theapplication of his lesson to them personally, accusing them of being sinners, their ears were suddenlyclosed and their hearts were filled with rage (Acts 7:54).

PRIDE AND PREJUDICE

Two things accounted for much of the attitude of the people above: (1) pride, or their great vanityover fleshly birth and traditions; and (2) prejudice, or resentment of any teaching contrary to whatthey already believed. Many ears have been closed to the gospel in modern times by the same unreasonable conditions. This is manifested by people yet inthe world and also by some within the body of Christ.

SOME EXAMPLES

It is not uncommon for members of various denominations to appear to be quite interested in gospel preaching — that is, until some mention is made of the particular name or the specific doctrine inwhich they take such pr ide, and about which thehave such strong prejudice. They listen, in other words, up to a point. A. religious neighbor may listen to the Bible teaching about the church and theplan of salvation with seeming interest until "one body . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism . . ." are mentioned (Eph. 4:4,5). Though the teaching is sound and scriptural, they may insist that they wantto hear no more of it. Another may listen gladly twhat is said about baptism until it is pointed outhat baptism is essential to salvation in Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3,4). Pride is one's present religious condition and prejudice against something that is contrary to present belief are hard obstacles for some people to overcome.

It is almost as common for members of the Lord's church to listen in the same way — only up to apoint. Some really like "brother Preacher" very fine

— until the day he gets up and begins teaching otheir own pet sins. After that they hear nothing hesays. Pride is closing their ears to the need of repentance.

Then there are those in the church who have embraced the liberal practices of institutionalism andcoordination of the work of many churches under a "sponsoring eldership." These people, so often, willisten to faithful brethren preach only up to a point.They willingly listen while he shows that there is no Bible authority for churches of the Lord to build and maintain a human institution to do the churches' work of gospel preaching. (Somehow they have theidea that this would be a "Mi ionary Society" like the Christian Church developed many years ago.)But when the same faithful brethren show that there is no Bible authority for churches of the Lord to build and maintain a human institution to do the churches' work of edification (schools, educational societies) or the churches' work of relieving theneedy (benevolent societies, "homes" or asylums), some will listen no further!

Such pride can be engendered by the "GREAT" things the "brotherhood" is doing that men will refuse to listen to calls for a return to the simple,New Testament pattern. Such prejudice can bestirred up against those who call for Bible authority("antis," "legalists." "hobbyists") that misguidedbrethren will absolutely close their ears to the truth.

THE ONLY SOLUTION

Only ONE THING will cause men to stop this "listening .. . up to a point." Only one thing wilimpel men to go all the way with truth. That thing is a genuine desire for and love for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. When onWANTS the truth — all of the truth, he will search for it. He will listen to what he hears — not gullibly,but critically — trying to determine whether it is the very truth of God's word. Paul preached to peoplein Berea who were ready to listen, and anxious to investigate the Scriptures to see if what they had

Page 4

been taught was the truth (Acts 17:11). They were not full of human pride and vicious prejudice. They were willing to hear Paul out. Nearly 3,000 on Pentecost laid aside pride and prejudice and "gladly received his word" (Acts 2:41). If they had stopped listening, the story would have been different.

How dangerous it is to the human soul for one not to receive "the LOVE OF THE TRUTH" II Thess. 2:10). Without real love for truth there is no way to be saved. It ought to be obvious that if one does not LOVE truth, he will not listen to it. And even if he condescends to listen, he will not believe andobey it.

The extent to which people will listen to the word of God will determine their eternal destiny. If they listen only "up to a point," they will be condemned in that great day of judgment, for only those who listen obediently will escape hell (II Thess. 1:7-9). If they listen "all the way," and then obey from the heart what they have heard, they will become servants of righteousness and have the hope of life eternal (Rom. 6:17,18; I Peter 1:3-5).

Just how willing are we to listen?

QUESTION: Please answer me if Isaiah 29 and Ezekiel 37:16-28 really have to do with the Book of Mormon? — A.O.M.

ANSWER: Concerning the prophecy of Isaiah 29,Latter Day Saints affirm "the coming forth of theBook of Mormon" to be the fulfillment. T heir line of reasoning is rather extended and involved. However, the primar y points may be summar ized as follows:

Verses 1 and 2: A comparison is drawn between "Ariel" (which they admit refers to Jerusalem) and another place which was to be unto God "as Ariel." Hence, they talk of an old and new Ariel. This newAr iel is further identified as "the land shadowing with wings" (Isa. 18:1), which is North and SouthAmerica.

Verse 4: The expression "and shalt speak out of the ground" refers to the Book of Mormon whichcontains a history of the new Ariel. This history was written on brass and golden plates found and translated by Joseph Smith.

Verses 11-14: The "book that is sealed" represents the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith copied some of the characters from the plates and had them submitted by Martin Harris to Professor Anthon ofNew York for translation. Anthon explained that he could not translate them, but might if he had theplates. When it was explained that "part of the plates were sealed," he replied "I cannot read a sealed book." Hence, the "learned" could not translate the plates, so it was left to the "unlear ned" to do, namely, Joseph Smith, which he did by use of divine instruments. Thus, was Isaiah's prophecy of"a marvelous work and a wonder" fulfilled.

In reply to the above, let it be pointed out thatMormonism is one of the most self contradictory systems of religion ever propagated. Their teaching on Isa. 29 is one good example.

Joseph Smith's "I nspir ed Tr anslation" makes

these verses refer conclusively and exclusively to

literal Jerusalem (I.T. Isa. 29:1-4). No other place

is mentioned or permitted according to this trans

lation. Yet, Mormonism depends upon the "new

Ariel" (the American continent) concept of this

passage. If the "Inspired Translation" be true, then

there is no way to make Isa. 29 apply to America,

the Mormon plates, the Book of Mormon, and the

people involved in its history. A choice must be made

between the two. Both cannot be correct.

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon affirms that

the Mormon plates were written in a language un

Page 5

known to any people on earth, hence, a means wasprepared for their interpretation (Mormon 9:32,34;I Neph. 1:2). Yet, Joseph Smith quotes Martin Harris as saying that Anthon of New York assured him "The translation was correct, more so than any hehad before seen translated from the Egyptian... He gave me a certificate certifying to the people oPalmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct" (P. of G.P., "J.S." 2:64, p.55). Question: How could Anthon give such a urance when the Book of Mormon says no one knewthe language? Why did Smith need the divine instruments for interpretation? Why not let Anthodo it?

The truth of the matter is, the "woe" of Isa. 29was against literal Jerusalem, "the city where David dwelt," and cannot possibly refer to anything iAmerica. The expression "as Ariel" (v. 2) tells why"the city where David dwelt" is called "Ariel" inthis prophecy. The word "Ariel" is from a Hebrew word translated "altar" in Ezek. 43:15. Hence, Jerusalem was to be unto God as an altar. It was to be a place of slain victims (not animals, but people ithis instance)

Subsequent history of God's people shows that every detail of this prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity of its people by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon

That Jerusalem is the place of the fulfillment ofIsaiah's prophecy is evident from the whole context of the book itself. Notice, first, Isa. 1:1: "The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of UzziahJotham. Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah." Nownotice the immediate context of the prophecy under study: "Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, yescornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem .. . For the Lord shall rise up as in mountPerazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon,that he may do his work, his strange work; anbring to pass his act, his strange act" (Isa. 28:1421). This "strange work" is the same "marvelous work and a wonder" of Isa. 29:14. Notice that the wrath of God or the "woe" of our text was to be upon them that "rule this people which is in Jerusalem," and "the city where David dwelt."

From the prophecy of Isa. 29:1-5, we learn that the "woe" involved "the city where David dwelt," that "the multitude of thy strangers" was to "campagainst thee, round about ;"• that they were to "raise forts against thee," and those who were the objectof the "woe" were to be "brought down" so as to "whisper out of the dust" — the latter statement symbolizing the humiliation and low state to whichthey were to be reduced. For an accurate fulfillment of every minute detail of this prophecy, one has onlyto read the subsequent history of Jerusalem as set forth in II Kings 25:

"And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign,in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month,that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he, andall his host, against Jerusalem, and pitched againstit; and they built forts against it round about. And the city was besieged unto .the eleventh year of kingZedekiah. And on the ninth day of the fourth month the famine prevailed in the city, and there was no bread for the people of the land. And the city was broken up, and all the men of war fled by night bythe way of the gate between two walls, which is bythe king's garden: (now the Chaldees were against the city round about:) and the king went the watoward the plain. And the army of the Chaldees pursued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho: and all his army were scattered from him... And in the fifth month, on the seventh dayof the month, which is the nineteenth year of kinNebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king oBabylon, unto Jerusalem: And he burnt the house of the Lord, and the king's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great man's house burnt he with fire. And all the army of the Chaldees, thatwere with the captain of the guard, brake down the walls of Jerusalem round about. Now the rest of the people that were left in the city, and the fugitives that fell away to the king of Babylon, with the remnant of the multitude, did Nebuzaradan the captainof the guard carry away... So Judah was carried away out of their land" (II Kings 25:1-4, 8-11; 21).

The evidence and conclusion is corroborated several times over by other scriptures and prophecies, especially from Jeremiah. Space limit, however, forbids such examination here.

Isaiah 29:7,8 picture in prophetic language theoverthrow of Babylon and others who fought against Jerusalem. While Babylon's triumph over Jerusalem seemed real and lasting, it was only as a dream. It was enjoyed for a moment, then she herself was overthrown. Her subsequent history confirms this. Notice that these verses refer to nations that foughtagainst "Ariel" (Jerusalem) or against "mount Zion" (Jerusalem). These verses cannot po ibly refer to nations that warred against one another onthe American continent.

Isaiah 29:11-14 picture the condition of Jerusalem and Judah immediately prior to and during their destruction. Because of sin, the people are pictured as one overcome with "deep sleep," blind, drunk, staggering on to destruction. They no more discern God's revelation through prophets and seers than alearned man could discern the contents of a sealed book, or an unlearned man could read the same book with the seal broken. Both pose impossible situations. Because of their blind spiritual stupor, Godwrought "a marvelous work and a wonder" in bringing about the destruction of Jerusalem — a seemingly impo ible task in view of its apparent power,might and security. (Continued next i ue with anexamination of Ezk. 37.)

Page 6

THE SABBATH TODAY

This is the second in a series on the sabbath question. It is alleged by most Sabbatarians that the ten commandments were not given on shaking Sinai but in the garden of Eden. In a discussion with Burt

F. Marrs, I asked "With whom could Eve have committed adultery since Adam was the only man onearth?" He replied that she could have committedadultery with the devil. Of course, this was nonsense since the devil is a spir itual being but E ve was physical. It is argued from Gen. 26:5 that since Abraham kept the statutes and laws of the Lord that it must have included the Sabbath. However, onmight as well argue that Abraham had been baptized for the remission of sins and observed the Lord's Supper, since they are commands of the Lord. Sabbatarians need to be reminded that Abraham also kept the law of circumcision (Gen. 17:10-14)and also offered animal sacrifices (Gen. 22:13). Would this mean that Christians are to keep these today?

Mr. Roy B. Thurman, in his little book uses Isaiah

56:5 which mentions the "sons of the stranger" askeeping the sabbath. What Mr. Thurman failed totell his readers is that the same STRANGER was told to observe the law of circumcision for the same reason as keeping the sabbath. God said, "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keethe pa over of the Lord, let all his males be circumcised ... for no uncircumcised person shall eatthereof (Exo. 12:48). Does he practice circumcision? T he Bible makes it clear what the "sons of the stranger" in Isa. 56:6 had to do in order to be eligible for sabbath keeping and entering God's house. The Lord said, "No stranger, uncircumcised inheart, nor uncircumcised in the flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is amongthe children of Israel" (Ezek. 44:9). When these Gentiles joined themselves to the Lord, they ceasedto be Gentiles and became proselytes to the Jewish religion. In Exodus 20:10 God tells the stranger WITHIN THY GATES to keep the sabbath command. If the sabbath is universal as the Sabbatarian claims then why speak of the stranger WITHINAND WITHOUT the gate, since there would be noSTRANGERS.

Sometimes it is argued by Sabbatarians that thestandard of right and wrong is found in the tencommandments, because of the death penalty. It certainly would not be denied that under the Mosaic system some standards of right and wrong were found in the ten commandments. However, we mustremember that the death penalty is found in other commands. The sons of Kohath were told not to touch any holy thing lest they die (Nun. 4:15). This would also have to be a standard of right and wrong.It was not part of the ten commandments. E ven wizards were to be put to death (Lev. 20:7). So itmust be observed that many standards of right andwrong were found outside the Ten Commandments. In Amos 8:5 the Jews asked two important questions, "When will the new moon be gone, that wemay sell corn? and the Sabbath, that we may set forth wheat?" The Jews' wanted to know when the sabbath would be gone. Sabbatarians argue that itwill never be gone but God says it would. In verse nine God answers their questions, "And it shall come to pass in that day saith the Lord God that I willcause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in a clear day." In Mark 15:33 we readthat the sun went down at noon and darkness covered the earth and remained for three hours. Thus, according to God, this ended the sabbath. Burt F.Marrs claimed that this could not be true because the Jews wanted to cheat. It can be granted thatmany of the Jews wanted to cheat God, but remember, gentle reader, it was God who thundered backhis reply by saying the sabbath would end when the sun went down at noon. T he cheating of the Jews had nothing to do with the answer of the Lord. The stubborn fact remains that God said the sabbath would end when the sun went down at noon.

Page 7

"WHAT IS TRUTH?"

T his is the question which old Pilate asked Jesus a long time ago (John 18:38). There has been much discu ion of the subject in the religious world, andmany answers to the question. To the average sectarian, including preachers, there is no such thing as truth. Oh, I know that they don't think they believe that, but they do. Any time one argues that anything one wants to believe and practice is right(just so he is honest) he is saying that there can be no wrong. And if there is no wrong, then there is no standard by which we determine that there istruth.

Let me illustrate what I mean by examining some statements which I have heard and read recently

A local newspaper reported an interview between a staff writer and the vice president of a local Baptist seminary. The Baptist official stated that inmany ways Billy Graham was too liberal for them. He said, "we differ on the subject of the church and its importance in evangelism. We believe here that the commission of evangelism to the world wasgiven to the church as a local group. I could not in good conscience tell a new convert to go out and join the church of his choice."

It is refreshing to hear a denominational preacher deny the old "join the church of your choice" argument. And he is r ight in saying that evangelis(and any other work) was given to the church in the local rather than the universal sense. Many peoplneed to learn that le on. Of course Baptists denythat the Bible speaks of the church in the universal sense, but it does (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22,23)

I now quote from the newspaper article:

"Owen said he and others at the seminary consider the Missionary Baptist churches to be some 'of the true New Testament churches today,' but he added:

"That is not to say we are the only true church. But it has been my observation that most of the true New Testament churches in America today go under some kind of Baptist name."

Now you never read more double talk than that, yet such is typical of sectarian preachers. This is right, but something different is not wrong. Howabsurd!

The gentleman believes that the truth of the Bible authorizes the Baptist church and that it teaches the truth. Yet he said they are SOME of the true churches today. If that be true, then there arechurches which do not wear the Baptist name norteach Baptist doctrine which are also true. But if those churches can believe and teach somethingwhich is different from the Baptists (which he believes to be true) and be right, then error is as good as truth. So to them, there is no standard of truth. and that is what I said in the beginning

Notice that he said that they are not the only true church, but that MOST of the true churches wear the Baptist name. Now by what standard can onedetermine that it is right to wear the Baptist name but it is also r ight to wear some other name? Not by truth, for it doesn't contradict itself nor teach conflicting doctrines.

On a recent radio program, I heard a Baptist preacher discussing Revelation 5:9 which says,"Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open thseals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred,and tongue, and people, and nation." In his comments, he applied the word "nation" to denominations (which is par for the course for him) and then concluded that there were saved people in alchurches. He said that he expected to meet Martin Luther in heaven, even though Luther was not aBaptist and was wrong on baptism. I'm not the judgeof Luther's salvation, but I can detect the fallacyof the Baptist preacher's argument

He believes the Bible (truth) teaches one to be aBaptist, and that immersion is scriptural baptism. Yet he believes one will be saved who was not a Baptist, was not immersed, and did not believe andteach it. If they should both make it to heaven, it will prove that God has no standard of authority concerning baptism and church membership. So anything and any way would be acceptable, and where there is no error there can be no standard of truth. I pointed this out on our program the following Sunday (on the same station) and asked how many other points a man could be wrong on and still be saved, or if he could be wrong on everything. If so, what is truth?

While we are speaking of Baptists and have mentioned Billy Graham, we may as well make a day of it. In his newspaper column someone asked him about the clothing one should wear, and what thishad to do with being a Christian. Here is his reply

"Nothing! We are not saved because of what wewear or don't wear, or even what we do, or don't do. 'By grace we are saved, and it is not of ourselves.' It is not what we do, or wear, or the way we act, butwhat God has done in Christ. The Bible does teach us that we are to dress modestly."

How about that for some more double talk? He would have us believe that the Bible (truth) teaches us to dress modestly, but one can go naked and still be saved! It is all-up to God and Christ. We can do wrongly, dress immodestly and act unrighteouslyand still be saved. If we are not saved by what we do, why such statements as those found in Matthew 7:21; Luke 6:46; James 1:22 and Revelation 22:14?

According to Graham, it is the truth that oneshould dress modestly, but one may dress immodestly and still be saved. Therefore, wrong is as good as right and error is as acceptable as truth.

In closing, I believe two questions are now inorder: What is truth? What is the purpose of it?

Page 8

I RECEIVED THE "PHILIPPINE CHRISTIAN" AWARD

In a special issue of the Philippine Christian (Sept.-Dec. 1971) the new editor, brother Douglas LaCroy, devoted the entire issue to the benevolentquestion. He also devoted two pages of the abovementioned i ue to J. T. Smith and his position (s)on the benevolent i ue. T he article was wr itten in an effort to try to destroy the work that brother Connie Adams and I did in the Philippines in May1971. While we were in the Philippines I engagedbrother Eusebio M. Laquata in a debate on thbenevolent question and the sponsoring church arrangement in M'Lang Cotabato; and since that time many Filipino people and preachers have given up,as I did, a position that cannot be successfully defended. Not only that, but the debate has been putin book form and over 1500 copies have already beenshipped to the Philippines. T hus the "liber als" inthe Philippines are beginning to "hurt" as is obvious from the articles printed in the PhilippineChristian. T he truth of the matter is, at no timwhen Americans have been in the Philippines willthe Americans who are connected with the "liberal" school in Bagio City attend any of the services. Dudley Spears and Jim Needham were in Bagio Cityin April of this year, and the "American liberals" brought some of the Filipino preachers by an"dropped them off" at the services. The purpose of those who attended seemed to be to disrupt theservices during the question and answer period. The Americans in the Philippines are too cowardly toappear before the Filipino people and try to defend what they teach and practice. No! I guess I am mistaken about that. They are too smart to try to defend what they teach and practice. They know thewould lose more brethren to the truth than they already have. I challenge any or all of the Americans in the Philippines, or anyone they would get to represent their position from the United States, tomeet me in two debates — one to be held in BagioCity and the other one anywhere the brethren canagree upon on the island of Mindanao. They knotheir doctrine cannot be successfully defendedHence, they are not going to try it.

Now, about the "award" I received from brother LaCroy and the brethren in charge of the PhilippineChristian. They tried to discredit the work I did in the Philippines by pointing out howunstable I am in doctrinal matters. They printed an article in the Philippine Chr istian that I sent tothe Gospel Guardian in 1960 after coming to the conclusion that the orphan homes and the sponsoring church arrangements were O.K. I came to this conclusion because I did as many of the people are doing today. I listened to what a preacher had to say and was led into error because I had confidence in a man, BasiOverton, and not because I could go to the Bible anddefend what I believed. Brother Overton's "logic" sounded great — until I began to try to defend theposition myself. I found that I could not defend it by the Bible, and thus after much study I came tothe conclusion that my first position had been correct. By the way, I would be happy to meet Basil Overton in a debate in the Philippines on the subject of benevolence if the brethren connected withthe school in Bagio City would be willing to endorse him. So, the great award I received was the "wavering coat of many colors."

Well, who knows, perhaps brother LaCroy or brother Overton might present a position in favor of orphan homes that would cause me to change mymind again, if I am so unstable. Think what thatwould mean if one changed during a debate in thPhilippines. Yes, I have changed. Any time that someone presents a position that I am convinced is a Scriptural one on the benevolent or any other question, I will hold that position until I am persuaded that it cannot be defended — then I will change. I do not believe a person is honest with himself or with God who will do otherwise. However, since 1962 when I was pushed off of the benevolentand sponsoring church questions because I could not successfully defend them by the Bible, I have not heard a single argument that I thought presented Scriptural proof in favor of church supportof human institutions or the sponsoring church arrangement. So, the Philippine Christian crowd can ridicule and belittle me personally all they wanwhile they are 8,000 miles away. I am sure they feel very safe and secure in so doing. However, let them say what they will, when all is said and done I still have a position that I am willing to affirm as beinScriptural in an open debate with any reputablebrother in any city in the United States and/or the Philippine I slands. How about you and your s,brother LaCroy? Will you defend the position yohold?

As you read this article, prepositions have alreadybeen sent to the Philippine Christian brethren challenging them to defend what they believe. I would not advise, however, holding your breath until it comes about. We will keep you informed IF and WHEN we hear anything.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________Page 9

Most Bible students are familiar with the storyof Christ's baptism, related in the three synoptic Gospels (Matt. 3:13-17; Mk. 1:9-11; Lk. 3:21-22) and referred to in the fourth (John 1:32-33). But whenasked the "why" of it, or the significance for theChristian and his salvation, many can say but little.Some religious folk speak of being baptized "after the example of Jesus," or of "following Him in baptism," as though the purpose of His baptism wassolely exemplary. Others respond with the phrase found in Matthew, that Jesus was baptized "to fulfill all r ighteousness." When asked what that means,the conversation often stops.In this article we will ask two questions: (1) Whywas Jesus baptized, or, what was the significance of His baptism so far as He was concerned ? (2) What is the significance of His baptism so far as we are concerned, or, how does His baptism relate to ours ? In reporting Jesus' remark that His baptism was"to fulfill all righteousness," Matt. (3:15) does not use the word which refers to a specific commandment or righteous deed (dikaioma), but the more general word which describes the state or condition of acceptability to God in the broadest sense (dikaiosyne).We are not to think, then, that Jesus' baptism was simply one more commandment to be obeyed. It was to "fill up" or "complete" the over-all purpose of God for Christ, and it was directly related to His divine mission on earth — of saving men from their sins. Let us begin by suggesting an answer to our first question. We will then trace five lines of evidence which point to this answer. Here is the thesis: Jesus was baptized by John to publicly identifyHim as the one in whom the Old Testament lines of prophecy concerning a Suffering Servant and a Triumphant Son would both be fulfilled, and to consecrate and commit Him to the tasks that those terms implied.

I. THE DETAILS OF CHRIST'S BAPTISM

When Jesus was baptized by John, three things happened. The heavens opened, the Spirit descended,and the Father spoke. Let us look at these one by one

The latter chapters of Isaiah are heavily Messianic, prophetic of the Anointed One to come and the effects of His work. In the passage 63:7-64:12,the prophet speaks on behalf of the people, calling onGod to save. He speaks first of God's past acts of salvation for Israel (63:7-14). Next he describes the people's present need for such divine deliverance (63:15-19). Finally he calls on God to come and save His people as before, and ends his prayer with confession of unworthiness and dependence on Go(64:1-12). In this context the prophecy prays for salvation in these words: “O that Thou wouldst rend the heavens and come down" (64:1). As Jesus enters on His ministry of salvation, in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecies, God does rend the heavens as a sign of what is to follow. Mark's Gospel includes another informative bit of evidence at this point, forthe word he uses of the heavens opening is the very strong word meaning to rip or tear (schizo, 1:10). Furthermore, the only other time Mark uses this word is at 15:38, where God's salvation is symbolically testified at Christ's death by the tearing othe Temple veil from top to bottom

The descent of the Holy Spir it is also significantin the light of prophecy. In introducing the Suffering Servant who would bear the sins of others, Isaiah spoke these words for God: "Behold, My Servant,whom I uphold; . . . I have put My Spirit upon Him;He will br ing forth justice to the nations" (42:1).We will notice this verse later in another connection,but for now simply note that the Servant will begiven God's Spirit for His work (see also Isaiah ll:2ff; 61:Iff). At His baptism, Jesus is identified as God's Servant by the descent of the Holy Spirit in the bodily form of a dove resting on Him

The voice of the Father from heaven involves a double quotation from the Old Testament Scriptures. "Thou art my Son" (Matthew has the third person "this is") comes from the Psalms (2:7). "My Beloved .. . in whom/in you I am well pleased" comes from Isaiah (42:1). The Second Psalm speaks of the triumphant Son. He is the anointed of God (vs. 2),the king (vs. 6), the avenging heir (v . 8-9); yeHe is a stronghold for those who trust in Him (vs. 12). Isaiah pictures quite another figure, as menwould imagine it, one who suffers and is despiseand dies in silence. God had known all the while that both would be fulfilled in Jesus Christ, but theapparent conflict greatly troubled many Jews for whom it was a stumbling-block. At His baptism,Jesus was presented by the Father as the one whowould be first the Suffering Servant, but woulfinally be seen as Triumphant Son. Here Jesus enters on His ministry. As the waters of Jordan clear fromHis eyes, He sees already by faith the dark and rugged cross looming ahead. More than that, Jesus sees the throne, and the crown, and the ultimate satisfaction His death will accomplish. The Father announces the dual role, but Jesus accepts it. "He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the poinof death. Therefore God also highly exalted Him(Phil. 2:8-9).

II. THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN THE BAPTIST

Following Jesus' baptism, John the Immerser saw Him approaching and said, "Behold, the Lamb ofGod who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29,36) But in the same conversation John says,"I have seen, and have bor ne witness that this is the Son of God" (vs. 34). The same conflict alreadynoted between the ideas of Son and Servant is again apparent. Jesus is the Son, but also the Lamb! And how did John know that Chr ist was both? "I did not recognize Him," he tells us, "but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Himthis is the one . . ." (vs. 33). John learned that Jesus was both Son and Lamb (Servant) when He was baptized!

Page 10___________________________________________________________________________________________________

III. JESUS' USE OF "BAPTISM" WITH REFERENCE TO HIS DEATH

Jesus Himself saw His death not only as necessaryin the will of God but in terms of His earlier baptism by John and the work He assumed at that time. "I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished" (Lk. 12:49-50). He is speaking of His "baptism" (submerging, plunging) in death. When James and John seek choice seats in the KingdomChrist responds in similar terminology (Mk. 10:3839). Christ viewed His own death, then (1) as necessary in the will of God for the work He came to do,and (2) as a final parenthesis on His ministry, complementing the first parenthesis which was His baptism by John. What began there in His baptism ofwater is ended in His baptism of death.

IV. THE RELATION OF THE TEMPTATION TO THE BAPTISM

We can not here discuss this point in detail, but itmay be observed that all three synoptic Gospels tell of Jesus' temptation immediately after His baptism. In His baptism, Jesus takes on the role and work of the Servant-Son, with all that the terms involve ; in His temptation, Jesus is subjected (unsuccessfully, for which we may literally be eternally grateful) to Satan's attempts to turn Him from this divinely-given work, this "fulfilling of all righteousness," to a kind of "success" and "glor y" that isbased on Satan's will and not God's. We may better understand the baptism and the temptation eacbecause of the other.

V. A POST-PENTECOST TESTIMONY

Long after Jesus had been baptized and crucified, after churches are appearing in response to the gospel proclamation, John the Apostle speaks of Himwho is both Jesus of history and Christ of faith inthese words: "This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Chr ist; not with the water onlybut with the water and with the blood" (I John 5:6). Jesus was not some kind of phantom on whom the"Christ" came at His baptism only to leave agaibefore His death, as certain false teachers of the day wer e saying. T he faith that over comes the wor ld is that which believes that Jesus is the Son of God

— and in the sense John and the other apostles had announced (5:5). Jesus "came" by water, at the beginning of His saving ministry of obedience and suffer ing! He "came" by blood, at the close of that same work. Our faith is in the real man Jesus who was at once truly God — and who is now Lord and Christ!

Christ was baptized in water in view of His future death. We are baptized in view of the same death now past. By His baptism He identified with sinful man, taking on Himself the sins He would bear indeath. By our baptism we identify with the sinless Christ, personally laying our sins on Him and taking on ourselves His perfect righteousness by faith. AHis baptism, Jesus was committing Himself to thewill of God, trusting Him to raise Him" from the death the baptism foreshadowed. At our baptism,we commit ourselves fully to the will of God forus, trusting God to raise us from baptism cleansedand pure, and, finally, to be with Christ forever.

Happiness is a goal of every human individual,regardless of age, nationality, sex or religious belief! It is happiness which makes life worth livingbut the absence of this intangible, practically undefineable object makes life quite unbearable. More people have taken their lives, wrecked their homes and in general "missed life and living" due to theloss of happine . Surely all would agree this is a necessity of life!

Numerous books, some serious, many more humorous have been published striving to pin-pointthis item which like "love" to many remains a mystery. People through the ages have begged, borrowed and stolen in an all out effort to find happine .

I would strongly suggest that happiness will not be found in carnal, earthly objects. Money it has been said br ings happine , yet those who believe this idea know too well that even money will not"buy back your youth when you are old" nor keepone from the grave! Some have thought LOVE was the only intangible object which could produce another intangible object. In other words LOVE plus LIFE equals happiness. This, however, is too vague a formula as far as God is concerned! The apostle Peter becomes more specific when he says, "For he that will love life and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil and his lips that they speak noguile: let him eschew evil and do good; let him seek peace and ensue it" (I Pet. 3:10-11)

There is not much question from those who have tried it that this is indeed the perfect formula for happine . Peter is not saying that if you do thiyou will be sinless! Neither is he advocating thayou will never be persecuted or scorned by the world. What he is saying, however, is simply, "to love life (love here the intangible item) plus refraining fromevil and doing good (good another item, as love,hard to describe) plus seeking peace will bring hap-pine . Now the word happy or happiness is not used, yet by obvious inference it is produced!!

A question: How are we to know good from evilGod's word is the only answer! It by words of inspiration describes both and the warfare that has existed between them since the beginning of time! Through it we may discern good from evil! (Heb5:14).

If we are desirous of living with happine , let's try God's way. It will work. We will glorify God and save our souls! (James 1:21-22).

Route 3, Box 144

Cooper, Texas 75432

Page 11

THE BLACKFORD-DAUGHERTY DEBATE

On May 17, 18, and 19, Brother Dick Blackford and Mr. Robert Daugherty of the Apostolic Church discussed publicly some of the doctrinal matters upon which they disagree. This debate took place iCentral City, Ky. where both men live and preach.The first night, Brother Blackford affirmed that it is right to use the words, "Father, Son, and HolyGhost" in administering water baptism. In definingthe terms of the proposition, he made it clear that by "right" he meant permi ible. He was not affirming that one MUST use these words or any words. There is no fixed formula to be repeated. Jesus does not tell us what to SAY in baptism, but what to DO

The scriptural proof upon which Bro. Blackford based his affirmation was Matt. 28:18,19. He asked a series of questions based upon this verse: (1) Is it wrong to DO what Jesus said ? (2) Is it wrong toSAY what Jesus said? (3) Is it wrong to say what you're doing? (4) If it's wrong to say "Father, Son,and Holy Ghost," who misleads me? (5) Where isthe scripture for baptism in the name of Jesus only

Only one of these questions was answered by Mr. Daugherty and that, not in a negative speech, bufrom his seat while Bro. Blackford was speaking.In fact, it became necessar y for this wr iter, whoserved as moderator for Bro. Blackford, to arise to a point of order and demand that Mr. Daugherty remain quiet until it became his time to speak. In the one question he answered, he said that it was wrong to say what Jesus said. Dick showed that if so, Jesus was wrong, because He said it.

It became clear in the first night of his discu ion that Mr. Daugherty had no conception of the duties of the negative speaker. He ignored the questions. He replied to none of the affirmative arguments. He attempted to introduce new arguments in his final speech which is an infraction of the rules of honorable debate and of the agreement signed by botdisputants. When a point of order was called onthis, he tried to shout the moderator down. Apparently he was later straightened out by some of his fellows for his conduct improved the last two nights of the discu ion.

On the second night, Mr. Daugherty affirmed that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is for all Christians and continues until he present time. He relied principally upon the prophecy of Joel in 2:28 and its fulfillment in Acts 2:16f. He tr ied to show that the "all" of Acts 2:1-4 was the 120 of Acts 1:15 and that the "gift of the Holy Ghost" of 2:38 was the Baptism of the Holy Ghost.

In reply, Bro. Blackford pointed out that the antecedent of "all" in Acts 2:1 is not the 120, butthe 12 apostles of 1:26. They were the only ones on that occasion to receive Holy Ghost baptism. Hepointed out that Daugherty saw "baptism" every-time the scriptures mentioned Holy Ghost but that this did not prove his proposition.

Daugherty also made an argument on "all flesh" of Acts 2:16,17. He said that "all" meant "all." But it was proved that Daugherty does not really believethat absolutely "all flesh" has received the baptismof the Holy Spirit.

The final night, Bro. Blackford affirmed that miraculous healing and other miracles were limited tothe first century. He analyzed I Cor. 13:8-10 to provethe proposition. Mr. Daugherty depended primarilyupon testimonies from those who claim to have been healed.

Dick said that he could produce the same kind of testimony from Catholics, Mormons, and followers of Oral Roberts whom Daugherty claims is a fraud. The Apostolic Church will not accept their testimonies. Why then, should we accept their? What people claim does not prove what the Bible teaches.

The debate was well attended by local people. friendly spirit prevailed. The audience was well behaved with but a few exceptions. Brother Black-ford did a commendable job

I'm convinced that great good can be accomplished by debates of this nature in which local men who are known and respected by local people agree to discuss their differences in an orderly fashion.

— Ken Green 4001 Taylor Blvd. Louisville, Ky. 40215

MARK'S GOSPEL IN DEAD SEA SCROLL?

Popular press and wire-service reports have mademuch of the claim by a Spanish scholar to havefound a portion of Mark's Gospel on a fragment ofpapyrus discovered in one of the Dead Sea caves. In the current i ue of FACTS FOR FAITH, EdwardFudge discusses the actual facts in the case, based on technical articles written by the men involved, as well as on popular press reports. A copy of this i ue of FACTS FOR FAITH is available from the editor upon receipt of 250 to cover handling. Address: Gordon Wilson, 6316 Pernod, St. Louis, Missouri 63139. Supply is limited.

A NEW CONGREGATION IN DENVER

For several months, the elders here at Boston street in Aurora have been formulating plans for a new congregation on the west side of Denver. Several families who attend Boston Street live in that area, so because of convenience for those who have to travel so far across Denver, and because of the great opportunity in that area, a congregation on the west side is needed.

Brother Carl Allen of Lufkin, Texas, has agreed to come and do the preaching for this new work. Boston Street plans to contribute $200 per month

Page 12

toward the support of brother Allen. Lord willing,the new congregation is to begin August 6, 1972

Temporarily, the brethren will be meeting in thMaplegrove Grange Hall # 154 on the corner of 32nd Avenue and Youngfield, just off 1-70 west in Lakewood. We wish these brethren well and pray for the success of the new work.

Our work at 1297 Boston Street in Aurora is most encouraging. Attendance at all services is good and a fine spirit and interest are being manifested. Our Sunday morning attendance is near the 200 mark and contributions are averaging well over $700 per week. We are having many visitors from all over the nation.

We just closed a very successful Vacation BibleSchool for five nights, classes for all ages. Wereached a high attendance of 186 and averaged 171for the week. Brother James R. Cope of Temple Terrace, Fla., is to be with us July 28-30 for a series of le ons on the Home and the Family. When in Colorado, we shall be happy to have you visit with us at Boston Street in Aurora.

— Hoyt H. Houchen 12528 E. Alaska Place Aurora,Colorado 80010

A. D. Puterbaugh, 212 E. Oakhill, Fort Walton Beach, Fla. 32548 — "I can not find one family iFrankfurt who has worshipped with a sound groupin the States." These are the words of Dale Martin and wife, 2267-BR Heugel Housing Area, work phone, Frankfurt Military 6319. Have Christians in Frankfurt contact Dale Martin or send names and addresses to him at HQ ESR, Box 297, APO N.Y09101 or to me, at above address.

Bill Brittenham, 3028 E xmoor Rd., Columbia,

S.C. 29204 — We would appreciate hearing froanyone who has friends or relatives in the Columbia area who might be interested in worshipping orstudying with us. We would also welcome the opportunity to meet with sons, brothers, or husbands who are stationed at Ft. Jackson. We can also provide transportation to worship services. Please write or call. North Columbia church of Christ, 928 Columbia College Drive, Columbia, S.C. 29203. Phone:803-782-5381.

Cecil Belcher, 630 E. Ash Place, Griffith, Indiana

46319 — I moved to work with the Griffith, Indiana

church Sept. 1, 1969. I have enjoyed my work with

the church here. I will be moving to South Bend,

Ind. to work with the Caroline & Calvert Street

church July 15, 1972. To my knowledge this is the

only sound church in the north central part of the

state of Indiana. All who will be traveling, visiting

or moving to that area of Indiana are invited and

encouraged to visit and worship with us there.

Brother Bob Neely will be with us in a gospel

meeting the last of August. I have two meetings

scheduled. I will be with the church in Monticello,

Ky. July 31 through Aug. 6. Brother E. Lacy Porter

is the preacher there. I will be with the Willow Glen

church near Central City, Ky. Oct. 2-8. Brother

Dicky Blackford is the preacher there.

J. W. Evans, Annandale, Va. — After 7 1/2 years with the Annandale church of Christ I will terminate my work here effective June 30. I have accepted the work with the Eastside church of Christ,2930 Avon Dr., Louisville, Ky. 40220, beginning July1, 1972.

Having had a part from the very beginning of theAnnandale church unto its present status of a sound congregation of approximately 95 members, occupying its own building, organized after the N.T. order,and self-supporting in meeting a weekly budget o$570, it is with grateful contentment therewith that I end my longest tenure of work at any one place.I humbly feel myself fortunate, grateful to God and brethren (elsewhere as well as here), and happy thave had a part in "rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem" of a sound church in this area of our Nation's Capitol. The brethren here are in the process of looking for a preacher for this work.

I am looking forward to my work with the East-side church, and the a ociation with the host ofgospel preachers in the Louisville area. Friends and "bulletin exchanges" please note my change of address after June 30: 3743 Essex Road, Louisville,Ky. 40220.

Vestal Chafiin, 200 Carrington Way, Marietta,Ga. 30060 — On July 31, I will complete two years and one month of work with the Powers Ferry Roadchurch. On the second Sunday in August, I will begin work with the church in Paden City, West Virginia. After July 31, my address will be: 217 S.First Avenue, Paden City, W. Va. 26159.

Larry R. DeVore — After three years' work with the Caroline St. church in South Bend, Indiana, I am moving July 1 to work with the Russell St. church in Portage, Indiana. Bro. Cecil Belcher of Griffith,Indiana, will move to South Bend the middle ofJuly. I will hold a gospel meeting for the Portagechurch July 16-23. My address after July 1 will be:388 Raritan Drive, Valparaiso, Ind. 46383.

Recently I heard the following story: a man whowas a "religious fanatic," had his boss tell him"... I have respect for all religions, but leave your religion at the gate, please, when you come in here to work." I listened to another story, too: one whowas a member of the--------church and sang in thchoir, also ran a service station, and at his place obusiness he would curse and rave and carry on unseemingly. One Monday morning his attention was called to the inconsistency between his religious profession and his conduct on the job. He responded:"How can a man go straight out here among all these crooks."

It doesn't take much character to be good amongthe "good," or to be a Christian among "Christians." The test comes when one is in the company of thesinning people of the world. Here one must excel (Cf. Matt. 5:20). If one's faith and ideology cannocontrol him at all times, in the trying and hostile world situations, then his religion is of no lastingvalue. Instead of being a foundation on which hSTANDS, it is only a crutch on which he leans; instead of being a true disciple, he is only a pretender.

•There is a sense, however, in which a man should leave his religion at the gate. That is its advocacy.Some take up company time advocating their religious views, many times setting off time-consumingdiscu ions, and even creating hostile feelings among workers which hinder production. Such persons are,in effect, asking the company to pay them while theyadvocate their religion and at the same time providethem with an audience and even pay them to listen. Such is not Christian conduct, good human relations, nor wise strategy. Such, I believe, indeed, should be left at the gate.

Although one should leave its advocacy at the gate, nevertheless, the practice of his religious tenets must be taken with him through every gatebehind every door and wall, into every activity. Hemust be governed by honesty and purity, both on and off the job. He cannot lie, steal, nor cheat, eventhough there probably is much of this being done in his presence. He must be governed in his speech,thoughts, and actions by the tenet of purity (Cf. Eph. 4:29; James 1:26-27)

Religion has come into disrepute mainly because persons conduct themselves contrary to the tenets of their religious profession. Filthy language, lying,shifting of responsibility and shirking of one's dutyby those who profess to be religious, has caused many to conclude that all religious persons are hypocrites. Beloved, I know whereof I speak. I have worked on jobs with religious persons, some whocall themselves PRE ACHE RS, who have so acted. So, beloved, for your own good and the influence youmay have on the eternal salvation of others, don't leave your religious tenets at the gate, rather, practice them everywhere you go on THE JOB! Butdon't expect your employer to pay you and provide you with an audience to which you can advocateyour religious dogma. Be a Christian in conduct, andyou'll exert a powerful influence, sending a messagethat will clearly reveal your identity.

— 2804 Lafayette S. Joseph, Mo. 64507