"RIGHTEOUSNESS EXALTETH A NATION"

On the evening of the day that the Vice President ofthe United States resigned, I taught my regularmidweek class at the Arch Street church in Little Rock. It so happened that we were studying Proverbs14, and it was appropriate to give special attention toverse 34 which says, "Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people."

In discussing this verse, I read the following statements from THE PULPIT COMMENTARY which present a valuable and needed lesson for allAmerica:

"I. RIGHTEOUSNESS IS REQUIRED IN ANATION. Morality has not yet been sufficiently applied to politics. It is forgotten that the ten commandments relate to communities as well as to individuals, because they are based on the eternal andall-embracing principles of righteousness. Men haveyet to learn that that which is wrong in the individualis wrong in the society. Nations make war on oneanother for reasons which would never justifyindividual men in fighting a duel. Yet if it is wrong fora man to steal a field, it must be wrong for a nation tosteal a province; and if an individual man may not cuthis neighbor's throat out of revenge without beingpunished as a criminal, there is nothing to justify awhole community in shooting down thousands ofpeople for no better motive. If selfishness even issinful in one man, selfishness cannot be virtuous inthirty millions of people. The reign of righteousnessmust govern public and national movements if the will of God is to be respected.

"II. RIGHTEOUSNESS IS A BLESSING TO A NATION. To the cynical politician such 'counsels of perfection' as command conscience in government, andespecially in international action, appear to be simplyquixotic. He holds the application of it to be whollyimpracticable; he imagines that it must involve nothing but national ruin. Hence, it is maintained,there is no right but might, because there is no international tribunal and no general authority overthe nations. The two points must be kept distinct — the internal life of the nation and its foreign policy. 1. Internal life. There are national sins in the sense of sins committed by a great part of a nation — sins that shamefully characterize it. Thus drunkenness is to alarge extent an English national sin. The oppression ofone class by another, a general prevalence of businessdishonesty, a frivolous pleasure-seeking fashion, allaffect the nation's life when they are largely extendedamong the people. These things eat out the very heartof a nation. For a nation's sin the punishment is onearth, because the nation goes on while individualsdie, and so there is time for the deadly fruit of sin toripen. So was it with Israel, Babylon, Rome, etc. 2.Foreign policy. Wars of aggression may aggrandizethe victorious people for a time. But they rouse thehatred of their victims. A high-handed policy thus multiplies a nation's enemies. It is dangerous to be anoutlaw among the nations. Above all, there is a justRuler, who will put down the tyrant and punish theguilty nation.

"III. RIGHTEOUSNESS MAY BE OBTAINED BY FOLLOWING THE RULE OF CHRIST. It is difficult to make an unchristian nation behave in a Christian manner. The sermon on the mount was addressed to disciples of Christ (Matt. v. 1). Nationalrighteousness will follow national submission to thewill of Christ. The reason why the nations snarl at one another like wild beasts is just that the inhabitants of the nations do not yet follow Christ. He came to set up the kingdom of heaven on earth,and when this kingdom is established in the hearts ofthe citizens, the nations, which are but the aggregatesof citizens, will learn to follow righteousness." (Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 9, pp. 281, 282.)

On page 290, a different writer made the following additional observations:

Page 2

"I. SIN THE NATION'S SHAME. 1. A sinful nation

in the sight of God. This is a nation of which the people have gone astray from him; do not approachhim in worship; do not consult his will as revealed inhis Word; have no ear to lend to those that speak in hisName; lose all sense of sacred duty in the pursuit ofgain and pleasure. 2. The flagrant guilt to which suchgodlessness leads down. (1) It is probable, in a highdegree, that impiety will lead to iniquity, that theabsence of all religious restraint will end in abandonment to evil in all its forms. (2) History assures us that it does so. The denial, or the defiance, or the entire disregard of God and of hiswill, conducts to and ends in vice, in crime, in violence,in despotism, in the dissolution of old and honourablebonds, in the prevalence of despair and suicide, in utter demoralization. (3) This is the reproach to a people. A country may lose its population, or its wealth, or its pre-eminent influence, without being theobject of reproach; but to fall into general impiety, andto live in the practice of wrong-doing — this is a disgrace; it brings a nation down in the estimate of allthe wise; its name is clothed with shame; its fame has become infamy.

"II. RIGHTEOUSNESS A NATION'S STRENGTH. National righteousness does not consist in any public professions of piety, nor in the existence of great religious organizations, nor in thepresence of a multitude of ecclesiastical edifices andofficers; nations have had all these before now, andthey have been destitute of real righteousness. That consists in the possession of a reverent spirit of anestimable character, and the practice of purity, justice, and kindness on the part of the people themselves (see Micah vi, 6-8). In this is a nation's strength and exaltation, for it will surely issue in: 1.Physical well-being. Virtue is the secret of health andstrength, of the multiplication and continuance of lifeand power. 2. Material prosperity; for righteousnessis the foundation of educated intellectual energy andvigour, of commercial and agricultural enterprise, ofmaritime intrepidity and success. 3. Moral and spiritual advancement. 4. Estimation and influence among surrounding nations. 5. The abiding favour ofGod (Ps. lxxxi, 13-16). We may learn from the text (1)that no measure of brilliancy in statesmanship willcompensate for debauching the minds of the people,for introducing ideas or sanctioning habits which aremorally unsound and corrupting; (2) that the humblestcitizen whose life tends to establish righteousness amongst his neighbors is a true patriot, however narrow his sphere may be."

We are being reminded that in all history no democracy or republic has survived more than 200years. We may be the exception, but if so, we mustturn from corruption in government, hedonism andimmorality in society, error and hypocrisy in religion,and return to the righteousness of God which alonecan exalt a nation or a person.

2

A NEW YEAR

This issue of the paper ushers in a new year and anew volume. It also begins the first full year of editorial responsibility for me. Perhaps this is a goodtime to pause long enough to thank those who haveassisted in so many ways during the first seven monthsof trying to edit and publish this paper. Writers havecontinued to send an abundance of material much of which we hope to publish. The regular writers for the paper have cooperated wonderfully both in writing and in gathering subscriptions for the paper. Thus far,we have mailed more every month than we did the preceding month. The paper now goes to every stateand to about twenty-five foreign lands. Subscriptionshave come in from many quarters. Many words ofencouragement have been received along with a fewbrickbats. We shall continue to do the best we know how to produce a paper of quality in make-up andcontent and which is balanced in subject matter. Thatdoes not mean that there will not be times when heavyattention must be turned to some specific subject.Circumstances of the times largely determine such decisions.

Also, a word is in order to those who have submittedmanuscripts other than those who write regular columns for the paper. When all of these writers submit material in a given month, that is more thanenough usually to fill one issue. Ordinarily, they do notall send material every single month and as space isavailable we select from other manuscripts we thinksuitable. We have a backlog of excellent material,perhaps enough to fill the paper for a year. Some articles duplicate subject matter recently covered byothers. Some are not in proper manuscript form. Amanuscript must be double spaced with an inchmargin all around the page. About 3 and 1 / 2 pages ofmanuscript will fill one whole page in the paper.

A word is in order about our policy in advertising.We devote three pages to church ads. At present wedo not plan on more than that and are happy that thesepages are now full. As some discontinue we hopeothers will replace them. We have contracted with RELIGIOUS SUPPLY CENTER, INC. for two pagesto advertise books and supplies. We do not sell any other advertising space to anyone for any purpose. Itis our opinion that this is enough space in one issue for advertising. Anyone wanting to advertise a book will have to make arrangements for RELIGIOUS SUPPLY CENTER to handle the book and if theydecide to run an ad for it, we will carry it. Also, bookor supply orders which are sent to the editor will only be delayed. These should always be sent to RELIGIOUS SUPPLY CENTER, P. O. Box 13164,Louisville, Kentucky 40213. This information is carried monthly on page two. Changes of address,subscriptions or manuscripts should be mailed to theeditor at P.O. Box 68, Brooks, Kentucky 40109. Ourarrangement with the book store does not involve any organic tie between the paper and the store. I donot own a dime's worth of stock in the company. Theydo not own or in any way have any control over thepolicy of this paper. That is all under the control of theeditor who alone decides who writes for it, what goesin it and business judgments concerning its operations. Readers and friends will determine whether or not the effort is worthwhile and should live or die. The coming months will contain muchinteresting and profitable material on a variety of subjects. Stay with us.

ANENT THE GOSPEL GUARDIAN AND EDWARD FUDGE

For the past several years there has been a growing concern as to the future course the GOSPEL GUARDIAN might take. This writer has been asked the question in many places in the last few years:"What has happened to the GOSPEL GUARDIAN?"This unrest has surfaced in recent months in controversy carried in the GUARDIAN and TRUTHMAGAZINE. Pointed questions have been raised inTRUTH MAGAZINE concerning what is felt to be acompromising stance in relation to the new unitymovement and the fellowship controversy both ofwhich have been linked in the minds of brethren with the name and views of W. Carl Ketcherside. Penetrating questions have been raised particularlyconcerning published statements of Edward Fudge, anassociate editor, as well as his private influence onthese questions. I have refrained from writinganything directly about these matters in SearchingThe Scriptures until I could see the bulk of what wasgoing to be said and could thus be in a position toevaluate them more fully before offering comment.

During the last year of my work as an associate editor of TRUTH MAGAZINE I wrote some articles which were aimed at some of the views which had been expressed both editorially and by Edward Fudgein the GUARDIAN. In the last few years some veryserious problems have developed with some young men who have attempted to remain amongconservative-minded brethren but whose minds have become saturated with the views of Carl Ketcherside. Some of these young men, to my knowledge, haveregarded Edward Fudge either as their mentor, or atleast a voice in conservative circles advocating whatthey believe. I have personally encountered thisproblem in several locations over the country. This isnot a figment of someone's imagination. BrotherFudge has espoused views since his college days which

3

Page 4

have raised question as to his general soundness. Hehas written some things on fellowship, unity, grace and the imputed righteousness of Christ which haveraised many eyebrows among brethren who want towalk in the old paths. Many brethren, of whom I amone, hold that some of these views are Calvinistic intendency. The notion that at the judgment our imperfections will be covered by the imputed perfect righteousness of Christ is a cardinal tenet of Calvinism.

The exchanges between the two papers named above have become rather intense. Some have erroneously concluded that it is all a power struggle tosee which editor or paper could control the loyalty ofbrethren. I do not believe either editor or paper hassuch aspirations, though William Wallace, editor of theGOSPEL GUARDIAN does not share this view. Mycomments here are surely not inspired by such motives. The conflict reached a low plane and theprincipal issue was obscured when editor Wallace wrote an article on November 22, 1973 entitled "ThePolitical Mr. Willis" in which he charged that Cecil Willis aspires to be the "titular head of his own churchof Christ." For shame! It is one thing to ask pointedquestions as to where people stand and another toimpute sinister motives. Editor Wallace has had much to say about fairness, kindness and brotherlylove and how the absence of these "turn off youngerpreachers. Do such allegations as he has made reflectthe virtues he has so ardently recommended in others?Even if he believes fully in his heart that they are true,does it contribute to fellowship, unity and love to saythese things out loud? Either his recommendation iswrong or else his practice is.

On December 3, 1973 William Wallace spoke to a fair sized audience in Louisville, Kentucky on "The Past, Present and Future of the Gospel Guardian." Alengthy question and answer period followed hisspeech. The many questions raised reflected a greatapprehension as to the future of that paper and itsinfluence and especially the views of Edward Fudge.Time and again editor Wallace found himself trying todefend Brother Fudge. Surely it would be much betterif Brother Fudge would defend himself and his viewsin such gatherings. It would be a lot less embarrassingto William Wallace. If nothing else has before, heshould now see clearly that the attempts by EdwardFudge to answer in writing the charges made againsthis views, have failed to get across to at least a goodlynumber of brethren and that editorial protests thatEdward Fudge is not guilty of these charges have notsettled the minds of many brethren. At best, there isyet room for considerable doubt as to where all of thiswill lead. For what it is worth, I would not hesitate toask any writer for this paper to terminate his servicesif as much question existed as to his soundness as doesexist with Brother Fudge.

I urged Brother Wallace during the question periodto offer his apology for the severe impugning ofmotives which he has done. He refused to do so. I told him after the session that I was going to appeal to him in this paper to do so. He owes it to Brother Willis andto a brotherhood embarrassed to see such a spiritinjected into what should be a controversy over Bibleteaching, and especially from one who has deplored"ugly journalism." Personal reflections would best beleft out by all parties concerned. A book business isnot the issue. The size of the circulation of a paper isnot the issue. The aspirations, or lack of them, ofeditors is not the issue. There are real, spiritual issuesat stake which may only be settled by an appeal towhat the Bible says. While there is room for discussionas to the best judgment with which to pursue theseproblems, it is one thing to deal with doctrine and itstendencies and another to malign the motives of thosewho ask questions about where one stands and aboutwhat one has written.

While I bear no malice toward Brother Fudge (Icounted his late father a good friend and benefactor) or Brother Wallace, it is this editor's settled persuasion that Edward Fudge is a bruised reed which will pierce the editor's hand and the very heart of his paper unless he comes forth with much greater clarity than he has thus far touching the serious doctrinal import of what he has written. I would loveto see the GUARDIAN live to do good. At present itsinfluence for good is seriously in doubt. This writer came away from the December 3 gathering in Louisville with a very heavy heart. It is not myintention to turn this paper over to a running battle onthis or any other one subject, but conscience required that something be said at this juncture. Wehave some articles in hand touching these and related subjects which will be forthcoming in the next fewissues. Consider them carefully. Meanwhile, I sincerely hope that editor Wallace has the necessarycredentials to read the "pulse of the brethren" whichhe is once again taking.

4

SOME DIVINE EXPECTATIONS

"Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospelof Christ: that, whether I come and see you or beabsent, I may hear of your state, that ye stand fast inone spirit, with one soul striving for the faith of thegospel; and in nothing affrighted by the adversaries.. . ." (Phil. 1:27-28, A.S.V.). There are four particularthings in this passage to which I direct your attention that Paul tells the Christian to do. Let us observe:

MANNER OF LIFE — WORTHY

The Christian's conduct is to be worthy of the gospel. Whatever we do, whether it be our speech,manners, dress, style of living, business transactions,entertainments, etc., let it reflect the principles of thegospel. Erdman stated in his commentary in referenceto this scripture, "For a Christian the rule or law of hislife is that it should be 'worthy of the gospel ofChrist.' " This must be the "rule of thumb" in all of our activities.

Too many in the church permit the fads and fashionsof this world to set their standards. Girls who wear scanty attire, such as mini-skirts and short-shorts, areexamples of this. Boys who take on the hippie-style of living, such as hair that gives them a feminine appearance, and clothes that are dirty and sloven,are not letting the gospel rule their lives.

A person might be a slob when he obeys the gospel,but there is no excuse for him to remain one. Paul wrote, "In like manner, that women adorn themselvesin modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety. . ." (1 Tim. 2:9). Modest apparel, shamefacednessand sobriety apply to men, too. Regardless whatothers do, or what is popular, or what is approved bysociety, let the Christian be governed by the will ofChrist.

GOSPEL — STEADFASTNESS

The Christian is to stand fast in the gospel. There is no place in our life for retreat, surrender or compromise. The child of God is to be firm and steadfast in the truth. This is accomplished by being rooted and grounded in Christ (Col. 2:7), or becoming spiritually mature so as not to be tossed to and fro byevery wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:13-14).

William Barclay said, "The world is full of Christianson the retreat, Christians who, when Christianity is difficult, conceal, or at least play down, their Christianity. The true Christian stands fast, unashamed in any company" (Com. on Phil., p. 37). Though I disagree with Barclay in his broad use of"Christian," he fitly depicts a problem among us in thechurch. Scores of brethren, including preachers,abandoned the truth on which they had stood and casttheir lot with the enemy. They could not take the heatof battle and exerted pressures. They were scared ofboycott, isolation, loss of income, etc., so theycommitted spiritual treason for convenience and self-aggrandizement. Holding on tenaciously to the gospelwill mean great sacrifices, but it pays in the long runwith eternal dividends.

BRETHREN — HARMONY The Christian is to maintain unity with his brethren.

The apostle declared that the Philippians were to"stand fast in one spirit, with one soul striving for thefaith of the gospel." To have unity brethren must workat it. Paul wrote, "Giving diligence to keep the unity ofthe Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3). Some areready to divide the church at the slightest provocation. Certain places have done almost irrevocable damage in the community to the Cause ofChrist by contentious, cantankerous brethren. Of course, when unscriptural practices enter the churchand these cannot be removed, there is no alternativebut to divide. However, many times the problem isbecause of incorrigible brethren. They are not willingto give and take in matters of opinion. The good of thechurch is not at heart, but only having their stubbornway is the main thing. They seem to thrive on nitpicking and having a racket going all the time.

Instead of striving together for the gospel, many

spend a great deal of their time fighting one another.

They bicker among themselves as to what color to

paint the auditorium, whether to carpet the floor, pave

the parking lot, etc. Paul stated, "But if ye bite and

devour one another, take heed that ye be not

consumed one of another" (Gal. 5:15). Several

churches have fussed and splintered themselves right

out of existence. "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like-

minded, having the same love, being of one accord,

of one mind" (Phil. 2:2).

ENEMIES — FEARLESSNESS The Christian is not to fear his foe. The adversaries of the Philippians were both Jews and Gentiles. Although, evidently, there was no Jewish synagoguewhen Paul established the church at Philippi (Acts 16),since that time, ten years later, the Judaizers were atwork (Cf. Phil. 3:2). Among the Gentiles the paganidolatry with its immoral environment constituted areal adversary to the Christians at Philippi. Too, thepagans at Philippi, judging from 1:30, could incite thecity officials against the Christians.Today, our adversaries are seen in many forms,both in and out of the church. There are atheists, evolutionists, liberals, modernists and denominationalists, all enemies of the truth. Toward none

of these are we to be affrightened for God "hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of loveand of a sound mind" (2 Tim. 1:7). Through Christ wecan be victorious. God "always causes us to triumph inChrist" (2 Cor. 2:14). "If God is for us, who can beagainst us" (Rom. 8:31)? Hence, let us proceed withconfidence and courage in the face of all opposition.

I am grateful to Brother Adams for the opportunity to show that these arguments are in error, and do notjustify the conclusion that those not in agreement'have not the Father and the Son'. II John 9 speaks of'going beyond the doctrine'. Scripture catalogs of sinnever list praising God with instruments. 'Where there is no law, there is no transgression' (Romans 4:15). God never said 'Thou shalt not use "mechanical" instruments'; this conclusion has been reached through human reasoning. By noting errors in theargument, it may be seen that the conclusion is invalidand the position not be forced on others as the price ofunity. Anti-instrumentalism was incautiouslyborrowed from Calvinism by the early Restoration, but has been preserved as zealously as though Christhad specifically asked for it: Now to some of the errors.

1. Brother O'Neal says 'God has told us to "sing".'This is a dangerous half-truth. God used three music words; not one of them can be defined in First Century usage as 'human voice ALONE'. Luther built a whole system of error by adding 'alone' to Romans 5:1; Calvinist errors on music were similarly built on adding 'alone' to the three music words, after restricting them all to 'sing', when in fact it does notbelong with any of them. I offer three areas ofevidence, in keeping with II Cor. 13:1b, to show thatthis 'human voice ALONE' limitation is contrary tofact. The reader is strongly urged to do his own study!

a. The Greek people, the vast majority of Greeklexicons, Bible dictionaries, and other sources of definition ridicule this limitation. Copies on request ofcomment by a Greek Orthodox Presbyter, who statesflatly that there is no word in Greek which means 'sing alone'. Contrary to what you may have heard, manyGreek churches use instrumental music; only monasticcommunities consistently do not. Copies on request ofseveral dozen sources of definition which specificallyrequire instruments with the word 'psalm'; my ownHebrew and Greek lexicons and unabridged dictionaryall require instruments, or at least permit, WHICH IS EQUALLY DAMAGING TO THE ANTIINSTRUMENTAL POSITION. b. Better yet is a source of definitions we know Paulused and loved, the Septuagint Greek version of OldTestament Scripture. This is NOT an appeal to 'Old Testament authority', but pointing out an obvious ifoverlooked fact, that both Paul and James quoted the

, Septuagint, Paul extensively, and even when it differed from the Hebrew. No serious student entertains doubt that 'New Testament Greek' is the same as the Septuagint:

'(The Septuagint) was the Bible of mostwriters of the N. T. Not only are the majorityof their express citations borrowed from it,but their writings contain numerous reminiscences of its language. Its words are household words to them. It laid for them the foundation of a new religious terminology.'

(my emphasis) I.S.B.E.

Brother O'Neal assumes a distinction between 'classical' and 'New Testament' Greek which is not all that sweeping (I have studied both), and, even if entirely true, is pointless. The important thing is not 'How does Paul's Greek relate to Homer or Xenophon', but 'How does Bible Greek relate to the ordinaryperson of the First Century?' Again, the I. S. B. E.:

'Uncouth and unclassical as much of it appears, we now know that this is not whollydue to the hampering effects of translation."Biblical Greek", once considered a distinctspecies, is now a rather discredited term . . . Much of the vocabulary and grammar. . . showthat many so-called "Hebraisms" were in truthintegral parts of the koine, or "common language", i.e. the international form of Greek

of which the spoken Greek of today is thelineal descendant. The version was made for the populace and written in large measure inthe language of their everyday life.' (my emphasis)

Thus: Paul knew, and was influenced by, thelanguage of the Septuagint, and it provided him withhis vocabulary; therefore, definitions of words as usedin the Septuagint are those he would use; it can only be concluded that the Christian can do his own defining of psalm, hymn and song exactly as Paul did,by looking at all its usages in Old Testament Scripture.

Where, now, is the 'silence' claimed by anti-instrumentalism?

Gregory of Nyssa, a scholar who wrote some timeafter Paul, said 'If a man in broad daylight of his ownfree will closes his eyes, the sun is not responsible forhis failure to see.' Gregory also left a definition of ourthree music words:

"Psalmos is the melody through the musical instrument. Ode' (song) is the cry of melody or musicwith words which takes place by means of the mouth.Humnos is the praise offered to God for the good things we possess.' With material like this available, those who argue against instruments have closed their eyes! For example, Brother O'Neal quotes Vine and Thayer, but does not give useverything either man said which is applicable tothis study. Vine said on 'psalm' (Expository Dictionary, p. 229): 'PSALMOS primarily denoted astriking or twitching with the fingers (on musical strings); then, a sacred song, sung to musical

accompaniment, a psalm.' What does 'to musical accompaniment' mean? An accompaniment on musical strings — and only those desperate for an argument would think of this as 'heart strings'! Similarly, what Brother O'Neal thinks Thayer left outof 'psalm' is included in his definition of 'hymn', page637, which relates the three words to one another in just the same way Gregory did long ago.

c. As a cross-check, I have extensively studied theGreek of Josephus, written in the same koine as the Septuagint and New Testament. His contexts show that psalm, hymn and song do not mean 'human voice alone'. Jewish War, II, xv, 4, speaking of an event of 66

A.D. in Jerusalem, during or just after Paul's lifetime, 'the harp-players and praise-singers' (compound word,Paul's humnos and ode) 'came forth with their instruments,' a third witness to confirm that 'hymn-singing' was done with instruments!

Since God did not re-define these words, the onlypossible conclusion is that Paul understood them asGreek authorities, the Septuagint, and Josephus define them. Space is limited; I close with an observation by Huxley, who may have stolen it fromGregory of Nyssa: 'Truth does not cease to exist because it has been ignored.' The claimed 'silence' is because some have failed to seek, or have ignored, theevidence. What qualifies those who have ignored truth to say those who do not agree with them 'have not the Father or the Son?'

Recently in SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES Iwrote a series of articles on the general subject of "Instrumental Music." At least one of these articles came into the hands of a Christian Church preacher,Dwaine Dunning. He has sent both Connie W. Adamsand me much material privately and elsewhere in thispaper is an article by him in which he attempts toreview what I said. We are glad for him to have spaceto reply, but his attempt is not really an answer towhat I said.

(1) He quotes Rom. 4:15 "Where there is no law,there is no transgression" with the implication there is no New Testament law against the instrument. However, the New Testament law is stated in one word — "sing" (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). It is transgressionto go beyond that law which is the doctrine of Christand those who do "have not the Father or the Son" (2John 9-11).

(2) He says "God never said 'Thou shalt not use "mechanical" instruments'," and thus he would have us think it is invalid to oppose the use of the instrument. Mr. Dunning, God has never said, "Thou shalt not sprinkle babies." Does this mean infant sprinkling is justified? It would if your statement is true. With your argument you could not oppose a Methodist for sprinkling babies.

This puts a premium on the silence of God. WhenGod says nothing, Mr. Dunning would speak for Godand say ". . . and play on the instrument." One shouldbe silent when God is silent. Paul makes an argumenton the superiority of Christ over angels on the basis ofwhat God never said to an angel (Heb. 1:5). Mr. Dunning would make an angel the Son of God becauseGod did not say to one "Thou shalt not be my Son."Moses spake nothing about priests being made out ofthe tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14). Mr. Dunning would have made priests of the tribe of Levi and also anyother tribe had he lived under the law and followed his own argument.

(3) Mr. Dunning is concerned about the "price ofunity" and that somebody will be "forced" into unity.Sir, it was you people who just over a hundred years ago forced the instrument into the worship of Godover the objections of brethren. You had no regard fortheir conscience; you had rather have the instrumentthen than have unity. The Christian Church is theresult of your having forced the instrument into theChurch of Christ. (4) Mr. Dunning believes it is just "half-truth" to say"sing." Let him give us the passage where God eversaid anything in addition to "sing" and we will admit it."Sing" is not "half" of what God said on this question,it is "all" God said. Let Mr. Dunning find more. (5) Friend Dunning tries to justify the instrumentfrom the Greek language and by doing so gets himselfinto trouble. He says I assume there is a difference in (1) Classical Greek and in (2) New Testament Greek.This is not an assumption; it is fact, (see Thayer,preface, pages v-ix and prefatory remarks, pages 687689; and Kurfees, Instrumental Music In Worship, pages 18-25). Yet, Dunning says, "I have studied both." How could he study "both" if there were nodifference.

He appeals to how uninspired writers use the wordpsallo. How some infidel Jew used the word is not in question. We are looking at words in the New Testament.

He used the Septuagint Version (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew) as a background upon which to draw the terminology forthe New Testament. While maybe true, this does notmean that every word used in the New Testamentwhich appears in the Old has the same meaning in theNew as it does in the Old, as Dunning would have usbelieve. Psallo is used in the New and Dunning thinksit means what he says it did in the Septuagint. Whatabout the word translated "circumcision", Mr. Dunning, does it mean the same in the New Testamentthat it did in the Septuagint?

Vine defines ado (sing in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16) "praise to God" (vol. 4, page 35) and Thayer says "tosing, chant." (page 13)

Vine says of psallo (sing in Rom. 15:99 I Cor. 14:15;Jas. 5:13) "in the N.T., to sing a hymn, sing praise."(vol. 3, page 58) and Thayer says, "in the N.T. to sing ahymn, to celebrate the praise of God in song." (page675)

Vine says of humneo (sing in Mat. 26:30; Acts 16:25;Heb. 2:12) "denotes a song of praise addressed to God"(vol. 2, page 241) and Thayer says, "a song in praise ofgods, heroes, conquerors ... in the Scriptures of God;

sacred song, hymn." (page 637)

We do not, and never have denied, that in Classical

reek the use of the instrument is inherent. Thayer

and others say this. However, they say in the New

Testament it is "sing."

Dunning contends that the word "psalm" "specifically requires instruments" and that Hebrew and Greek lexicons ... all require instruments." Thus,the instrument is not permitted, Dunning believes it isrequired and one does not obey God unless the instrument is played. He sins to omit it. He does not think we obey God when we "sing." Dunning makesthe instrument required but it is not inherent in psallo in the New Testament.

CALVINISM EXAMINED NO. 3

According to the doctrine of Calvin, since some men are so depraved they cannot choose salvation for themselves, it follows that God must do the choosingand that without reference to conditions or character. In fact, Electionists tell us that God before the foundation of the world chose a fixed number of people to be saved and the rest will be lost — that the number is so fixed that it cannot be changed by onesoul. This doctrine denies two basic Biblical facts: (1)That man is a free moral agent; (2) That God is not a respecter of persons. Yet the Bible clearly teaches both of these facts. An "agent" means an actor. A "moral agent" means an actor whose actions relate toa rule of right or wrong. A "free moral agent" meansan actor whose actions relate to a rule of right andwrong and who is possessed of liberty, or freedom inthe performance of his actions.

There are a number of passages in the Bible thatteach the two basic principles set forth above. Jesussaid, "And ye will not come to me, that ye might havelife" (John 5:40). Note that Jesus did not say theyCOULD NOT come, but he said they WOULD NOTcome. Thus, it was their choice to make. Also, Paul said, "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselvesto obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whetherof sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness"(Rom. 6:16). In Rev. 22:7 Jesus said, "And the Spiritand the bride say, come. And let him that is athirstcome. And whosoever will, let him take of the water oflife freely." Does this last expression "whosoever" sound like God has limited the matter? I believe youcan see that.

If God does all the choosing and man does not haveany part in his salvation, how do we harmonize thatwith the following biblical facts. "Then Peter openedhis mouth, and said, of a truth I perceive that God is norespecter of persons: but in every nation he thatfeareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptedwith him" (Acts 10:34-35). "But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obeyunrighteousness indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, ofthe Jew first, and also of the Gentiles; for there is no respect of persons with God" (Rom. 2:8-11). If God isno respecter of persons (and the Bible teaches that Heis not) why or rather HOW could he save you and notsave me when we were not yet born?

Involved directly in the second step (election) is thedoctrine of limited atonement. The doctrine of limited atonement simply means that Christ died for those whom God elected before the foundation of the world

— AND FOR THEM ONLY. This is so stated in many of the works of Calvin and others who believe inCalvin's brand of election. Thus, we have two categories of people — the elect and the non-elect. The non-elect, of course, are those who failed to receiveGod's election. Christ DID NOT even die for the non-elect, according to Calvin's doctrine. Let us notice,however, a passage concerning the death of Christ."Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). Men have a choice in thematter of salvation. In our next article, we will giveour attention to Limited Atonement.

In the July, 1972 issue of SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES, my friend and brother, Edward Fudgewrote an article entitled "The Baptism of Jesus," inwhich he posed these two questions:"(1) Why was Jesus baptized, or, what was the significance of His baptism as far as He was concerned? (2) What is the significance of His baptism so far as we are concerned, or, how does Hisbaptism relate to ours?" Brother Fudge answered hisown first question thus: "Jesus was baptized by John to publicly identify Him as the one in whomthe Old Testament lines of prophecy concerning aSuffering Servant and a Triumphant Son would both be fulfilled, and to consecrate and commit Him tothe tasks that those terms implied." (emphasis his)Brother Fudge has done a remarkable job of researchinto the scriptures to substantiate his proposition, butI believe his arguments fail to sustain that thesis.While I commend his scholarship, I cannot agree withhis conclusions. The remainder of this article will be devoted to substantiating this disagreement.Brother Fudge's conclusion is almost remarkable in the light of a recent statement he made in the GOSPEL GUARDIAN. In defense of his failure to make "specific application" of what he taughtconcerning fellowship, brother Fudge commented:"If I can state something in scriptural terms, fairlyused according to their context, I KNOW it is the word of God and not my human opinion or(perhaps faulty) conclusion and inference. There isa time and place for human opinions and conclusions; they are necessary in living one's own life and are sometimes called for in teachingothers. Yet I believe extreme caution needs to be used here. It is so easy to say 'thus saith the Lord' when stating not only what the LORD has thus said, butalso when giving one's own inferences, deductions, conclusions and reasonings based

on it." (July, 1973, page 11)

Yet, in July, 1972, brother Fudge readily states, asthe premise of an article, an inference, deduction,conclusion and reasoning rather than a plainstatement "in scriptural terms, fairly used accordingto their context." he even belittles those who, "when asked 'why' " Jesus was baptized, simply "respondwith the phrase found in Matthew, that Jesus wasbaptized 'to fulfill all righteousness.' " Quite a change of attitude in one year!Brother Fudge appeals to six arguments to sustainhis position. First, he argues on the word "righteousness." He contends that Matthew "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. . . ."

I certainly recognize that I am at a severe disadvantage in discussing word meanings with brother Fudge, since he has a Master's degree in Biblical languages, and I barely managed to strugglethrough one course in beginner's Greek. However, there are recognized lexicographers to whom brother Fudge and I both must appeal in definingNew Testament words. One of the truly outstandingscholars in this field is W. E. Vine. He says of the word "righteousness":

"the character or quality of being right or just;

it was formerly spelled 'rightwiseness,' which

clearly expresses the meaning. . . . whatever

has been appointed by God to be

acknowledged and obeyed by man, Matt. 3:15"

(AN EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF NEW

TESTAMENT WORDS, Volume III, page

289).

According to Mr. Vine, "righteousness" is used inMatthew 3:15 in exactly the way brother Fudge says itis not. Dr. Joseph Henry Thayer's A GREEKENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT is universally recognized as a classic work. He defines"righteousness" thus:

"1. in the broad sense, the state of him who is such as he ought to be, righteousness . . . thecondition acceptable to God . . . b. integrity,virtue, purity of life, uprightness, correctness in thinking, feeling, and acting: Mt. iii.15" (page 149).

Is "correctness ... in acting" not obedience to "simply one more commandment to be obeyed"? According to Dr. Thayer, "righteousness" is used in Matthew 3:15 in precisely the way brother Fudgesays it is not.

Yes, we are to think "that Jesus' baptism was simply one more commandment to be obeyed." Jesus

would have "rejected . . . the counsel of God" had Henot been baptized of John (Luke 7:30). And, after all,what is so insignificant about "one more commandment to be obeyed," when God is the author of the command? Furthermore, Jesus did not say this one act of obedience would by itself "fulfillall righteousness." It was a part of an entire life ofhumble submission to His Father's Will (cf. Philippians 2:5-8).

Brother Fudge then appeals to prophecy to sustainhis premise. He examines Isaiah 63:7-64: 12; 42:1; ll:2ff; 61:1ff; and Psalm 2:2,6,7,8,9,12. Yet, not one ofthese passages speaks of Jesus' baptism. As the prophets foretold and as brother Fudge partiallyintimates, it was the descent of the Holy Spirit uponJesus and the voice of the Father from Heaven which fulfilled prophecy and publicly identified Jesus as theSuffering Servant. Certainly it is significant that God chose the very time of Jesus' baptism to thus identify Him. Jesus' baptism by John in Jordan is His first recorded act of public obedience to His Father. God chose this very time to identify Christ as His Son.Indeed, obedience must be important in God's sight!Next, brother Fudge appeals to the testimony ofJohn, but again to no avail. He inquires,

"And how did John know that Jesus was both (Son and Lamb — K.S.)? 'I did not recognize Him,' he tells us, "but He who sent me to baptize in watersaid to me, He upon whom you see the Spiritdescending and remaining upon Him, this is the one..." (vs. 33). Did John say that Jesus' baptism identified Him as both Son and Lamb? NO! John specifically stated that the descent of the Holy Spiritwas the sign (John 1:33). If Jesus' baptism identified Him as the Son of God, why were not "all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem" also identified as Sons of God, in the same sense Jesus isthe Son of God, since they were baptized by Johnalso (Mark 1:5)?

The fourth, fifth and sixth arguments used bybrother Fudge to sustain his proposition pertain to thefact that Jesus' baptism by John was the beginning of His ministry as the Suffering Servant. Our brother appeals to Jesus' reference to the baptism of sufferingand deduces, "What began there in His baptism ofwater is ended in His baptism of death." BrotherFudge then indicates that in Jesus' temptation in thewilderness, which immediately followed His baptism,Jesus took upon Himself the role of Suffering Servant.Finally, brother Fudge demonstrates from 1 John 5:6 that Jesus' ministry began when He "came by water." I grant all the arguments. Certainly Jesus' baptism was the occasion for the beginning of His personalministry. Certainly this has great significance. But theact that initiated His ministry was the descent by theHoly Spirit, which empowered Christ for His work,and the voice of the Father, which publicly recognizedJesus for His task. Without these occurrences, Jesus' ministry could not have begun.

Why, then, was Jesus baptized? When John theBaptist asked the Lord virtually the same question, Christ replied, "thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." (Matthew 3:15) Brother Fudge states:"If I can state something in scriptural terms, fairlyused according to their context, I KNOW it is the Word of God and not my human opinion or(perhaps faulty) conclusion and inference."Let us follow his rule. A. B. Bruce, in THE EXPOSITOR'S GREEK TESTAMENT, says "becometh" means "fitting, becoming, congruous"(Volume I, page 86). The term "fulfill" is defined as

"to carry into effect, bring to realization, realize;

a. of matters of duty, to perform, execute ... Mt. iii. 15" (Thayer, page 518). Therefore, I conclude: JESUS WAS BAPTIZED BECAUSE IT WAS "FITTING" "TO PERFORM" "WHATEVER HAS BEEN APPOINTED BY GOD TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED AND OBEYED BY MAN." Are those not "scriptural terms, fairly used according to theircontext"?

But what does Jesus' baptism mean to us? I commendto you the words of inspiration:

"Though he were a Son, yet learned he

obedience by the things which he suffered;

"And being made perfect, he became the

author of eternal salvation unto all them that

obey him;" (Hebrews 5:8-9).

By His perfect obedience, Jesus was made completeas our Savior. By our obedience, we become one of thosewhom He will save. Jesus' submissive obedience to the command of God to be baptized is an example to us thatwe too should submissively obey the command of God tobe baptized.

600 W. Lobit Street Baytown, Texas 77520

DONALD R. GIVENS, 2710 21st Ave. South, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. The Lord's work in Lethbridge continues to be very encouraging. In the month of October, it was our privilege to preach to and haveBible discussions with ten different non-Christians,including a Catholic, Mennonites, United Church member, two Pentecostals, the daughter of the preacher of a "Free Evangelical Church," a preacherfor an inter-denominational church and his wife, and a young man saturated with modernism. Many opportunities abound to teach denominational people, but baptisms are infrequent because most have their minds cluttered with several thick layersof error. Most know absolutely nothing about pureNew Testament Christianity.

The church in Lethbridge is seeking another gospelpreacher to move up and work WITH me in the Lord's work here. I plan to stay on here, Lord willing, for many more years. We are simply seeking an ADDITIONAL evangelist. There is plenty of workto keep two (or more) men very busy. If you areinterested or know of a young preacher who might be,contact us at the above address or call area code 403,328-0972. This would be a good opportunity for someyoung preacher to work where he is really needed, andto obtain training with a more experienced preacher.One's support would have to be raised elsewhere. Thechurch here is about 22 members and supplies aresidence while the rest of my support comes from thestates. If you, young man, want to be put to work withplenty of Bible classes, preaching and teaching outsiders, contact us, and we will give you the information you need about moving to western Canada.

MARIO BALSAMO, 115 Park St., Grinnell, Iowa50112. In October I began laboring with the church at1402 3rd Avenue in Grinnell. The church is sound and well grounded in the truth. They stand against institutionalism, centralization, the social gospel,fellowship without endorsement (also termed unity indiversity), etc. There are twelve faithful adults withonly three men. Attendance is in the 30's on Sundays.While we need $800 a month support, at present wereceive $700. In January we will be receiving $350 amonth. If there are churches or individuals concerned about the support of the gospel in this area pleasewrite or call. References and additional information will be supplied.

THE LOUISVILLE SCENE. For the information of interested parties, faithful congregations of God'speople in the Louisville area are alive and well. In thegreater Louisville area there are 20 churches standinglor the truth. Several of these are fairly large congregations engaged in much good work. All aregrowing. Much gospel work is being supported on thelocal scene and in fields scattered around the world. Without intending to slight any of them, the followinginformation is for the encouragement of others. EXPRESSWAY has one of the finest teachingprograms to train and develop teachers, preachersand all Christians known to the editor. Attendance runs between 250 and 275 with contributions near $1000 weekly. SOUTH END has 300 or better in attendance. This congregation conducts a daily 30minute call-in radio program which is one of the mostlistened-to programs in Louisville. Over 50 peoplehave obeyed the gospel as a known result of thisprogram. VALLEY STATION is growing with about300 and plans a new building soon due to highwayright-of-way forcing them to move. WENDELL AVENUE has an aggressive door-to-door teachingeffort going which is bearing good fruit. DOUGLASHILLS is doing well on the east side of the city in abooming area. MANSLICK ROAD has better than 200 after giving up 25 families to start the Hebron Lanework. They fully support two men and provide partialsupport to four others. Most all of these churches havesome kind of group visitation program which activatesmembers and reaches the weak and the outsider. Corrective discipline is faithfully practiced throughoutthe area. Visitors to congregations here often remarkabout the small difference between the morning andevening attendance. While there are exceptions, thisis generally the rule in area congregations. Across theOhio River in southern Indiana there are some veryhealthy congregations hard at work for the Lord.

WHAT ABOUT YOUR AREA? Readers of a papersuch as this are edified to learn of good work in variouscorners of the vineyard. This is not a "brag" column.But others would like to know how the work goes inyour area. Tell us briefly. This will quicken the zeal ofmany and stir them up to greater things.

ABOUT H. E. PHILLIPS. Our readers are interested in the health of the former editor of this paper, the beloved H. E. Phillips. He has been restricted by his physician in recent weeks from preaching. He has just been permitted to resume hisfull-time preaching activities with certain limitations. This accounts for the absence of material from his pen in the paper during the lastfew months. He hopes to resume his column "Think On These Things" shortly. We are thankful for hisimprovement and pray that he may be spared manyyears to instruct the people of God. If you have notalready, why not send him a note of appreciation andencouragement. Write him at P.O. Box 17244, Tampa, Florida 33612.