The "Bus Ministry" appears to be sweeping the brotherhood like an outbreak of chicken pox. So far asI know, however, "conservative brethren" have not been infected as yet.
WHAT IS A BUS MINISTRY?
So far as I can tell, you just buy an old bus, paint "CHURCH OF CHRIST" on the sides, and start a sectarian originated and motivated promotioncampaign. It appears as another way to project a "goodimage" to the public. The use of the word "ministry" in connection with bus routes seems to be used in a denominational sense. The whole idea of calling every thing that we do a "ministry" is denominational in its concept. Paul told Timothy to ". . . make full proof of thy ministry" (2 Tim. 4:5b). What was the ministry he was to "prove"? Paul said, "Preach the word . . ." (v. 2).But today brethren have the "ministry of ushering", the "ministry of benevolence," and the "Bus Ministry."Where will it end? It would be far better to go back tocalling "Bible things by Bible names." Brethren today have to have a whole new terminology just to keep "on the march."
WHAT ARE BUSES USED FOR?
Supposedly, the buses are used to haul children,and / or aged persons to the meetinghouse for Bibleclasses and worship assemblies. But, the buses end upbeing used for many other things. Things that in noway expedite the work of the church. Usually, in fact, are not the work of the church. One church I know of,had a bus for quite a while and used it mainly to haulthe teenagers to the roller-skating rink. Is this thework of the church? What passages authorize it? Recently this church purchased another bus, and isswept up in the "bus ministry" fever, and plans to buy two more. One close to me suggested, not altogetherfacetiously, that they needed two, one to go to theskating rink, and another to drive to the dances. Thatis not too far-fetched. The same church held an all-night prom-party for the teen-aged members who
were so "burdened" with Christianity they couldn't goto the Prom.
ARE BUSES SCRIPTURAL?
I believe the Scriptures would authorize the use of abus if the circumstances dictated the need for such. As the Scriptures authorize the paying of a preacher forhis expenses in traveling to a place to preach thegospel (Mk. 16:15-16; 1 Cor. 9:14), then the possibilityarises of a circumstance where it might be expedientto spend funds to bring the people to the preacher. Inour modern society, it would seem that such circumstances would indeed be rare, but if so, then itwould be scriptural. But often, if a bus is purchasedbecause of a scriptural necessity, then the bus is alsoused for other purposes (i.e. trips to amusementparks, roller rinks, etc.) thereby destroying itsscripturality.
WHAT ABOUT COKES, CUPCAKES, & OTHER GIMMICKS?
Several brethren have written clearly and pointedlyabout physical reward motivations to get people toattend Bible classes, or worship services. Such practise is not authorized in God's word. In John 6:26Jesus condemns those who were following Him,"because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled." Bro.Clifton Inman, Editor of The Bible Herald, publishedat Parkersburg, W. Va., and who is certainly notknown as being an "anti", wrote pointedly on this inthe Aug. 15th, 1973 issue. He said, "If it is wrong toserve out of a desire for worldly rewards, it is wrongto entice one to serve from such a desire. To offer candy, cookies, toys, etc. to get children to attendBible study is wrong. To offer the sensational is wrong." (pg. 4) "It is time that we learn righteousmotives for our actions and follow them and not try tojustify false and sinful motives. The one who makes hisbelly his god will use good words and fair speeches todeceive and divide. (Romans 16:17-18)." (pg. 5)
I certainly agree with these needed words from Bro.Inman. We need to return to the sanity of God's wordthat we might recover from this attack of the "BusMinistry" craze. Think about it, brethren.
— Box 86 Roseville, OH 43777
A person's concept of his God will determine hisbehaviour. It is very important that we have a correctview of the character of Almighty God. Wrongconcepts and false notions about God's attributes willcertainly lead to sinful behaviour.
During the time of Zephaniah, the people had an evilconcept of the Lord: "And at that time I will searchJerusalem with candles, and punish the men who aresettled on their lees; who say in their heart, The Lordwill not do good, nor will He do evil" (Zeph. 1:12).Feeling that God would not do good or evil, someIsraelites did as they pleased.
Among pagan religions the gods were debased,always quarreling, adulterous, capricious, dishonest,and liars. The gods and goddesses were worse moralreprobates than the people who worshipped them, butmore and more the heathen became like the object ofhis false worship.
How highly important it becomes, therefore, forman to obtain a genuine concept of the SupremeBeing. We are not left in the dark. God has revealed Himself. The Bible is His self-revelation.
Scripture reveals God as spirit (John 4:24). He islight (I John 1:5) love (I John 4:8) and a jealous Godwho allows no other beings to be worshipped (Ex. 20:3,5). A divided loyalty shall not be accepted. The LordGod is merciful, gracious, long-suffering, abundant ingoodness and truth, and He forgives iniquity and transgression (Ex. 34:6, 7).
The angel Gabriel reminds us that "no word fromGod shall be void of power" (Luke 1:37). Manyscriptures affirm that nothing can withstand God'spower (Mark 10:27; Luke 3:8; 2 Tim. 2:9).
Furthermore, our God judges righteously (Psalm9:4,8; Isaiah 5:16; Jer. 11:20). He is upright and thereis no unrighteousness in Him (Psalm 92:15). Sinreceives His intense hatred, but the sinner can receiveHis abiding mercy and love (Jer. 31:34; 2 Peter 3:9).
God isa personal God. He is not some vague, abstract and purely philosophical phenomenon.While the Lord God has frequently been referred to as"The Ultimate Concern," "The Ultimate Cause,""The Prime Mover," or "The Wholly Other," these terms actually give erroneous concepts of the realpersonal nature of the Creator. How could youaddress your prayer to "my Dear Ultimate Cause?"Prayer is personal communication with the Heavenly Father and for it to be meaningful we mustrealize the intimate relationship which exists betweenthe child and his Father.
Scripture reveals many, many other traits and characteristics of our God. These mentioned are only afew. Search the scriptures daily and draw closer to the Lord. To know God is to be in a correct relationship toHim. Whatever concept you have of God demands a response.
Take heed to Psalm 94:7-11, "Yet they say, The
A TRIBUTE TO A FRIEND
With sadness I report the death on January 22 ofDelson Seaton, formerly an elder in the Manslick Roadcongregation in Louisville, Kentucky and sinceSeptember, 1973 a part of the new Hebron Lane congregation with which the editor labors. While Delson Seaton was not widely known over the country, yet he was known and respected by a numberof gospel preachers and others. He was a vital part ofan active, aggressive and loving eldership in one of thebest congregations in the land. Not only did he makehis mark on the lives of the members of that church in general, he also had a special part in the encouragement of a number of young men to preachthe gospel, including his own two sons, Glenn andDoug.
There is no higher calling in life, nor any heavierresponsibility, than the eldership of the Lord's church. He discharged his duty in that work about as well asany man I ever knew. He was an aggressive personalteacher and led a number to Christ through his homestudies. He was tender, yet firm with wayward members and had a great part in leading a number ofthem back to the Lord. He was the friend of preachersand often drove many miles to hear the gospel in ameeting and offer quiet encouragement to the preacher and the congregation.
Brother Seaton fought bravely to overcome leukemia. Even after it became apparent that he wasin a losing battle, he did not despair but faced theinevitable with resolute faith. He did much to helpprepare his family for his death. Though hospitalizedeight times in a year and a half, he taught everyonewho would listen about the Lord and his word. Most of the nurses, aids and doctors who attended him regarded him as a preacher. He sent for various onesduring his illness, to talk with them about their souls.Not many days before his death, he sent all others outof his room so the two of us could talk uninterruptedlyabout his funeral and then about heaven.
Now, he is gone at the untimely age of 42. But it maytruly be said that "he being dead yet speaketh." I am abetter man because his life touched mine. Neither his wife, Oleta, sons, Glenn and Doug and six-year-olddaughter Amy, nor any of us who mourn this loss,must sorrow as those who have no hope. If ever theprecious promises of the gospel should comfort thehearts of those left behind, surely they do in this case.
Julian Snell and the writer conducted funeral services in the presence of a "standing-room-only" crowd. Thenhis body was laid to rest in lovely Hebron Cemeteryjust perhaps two hundred yards from the spot wherethe Hebron Lane building will be erected, hopefullythis summer. His memory prompts the following editorial.
ENCOURAGING YOUNG MEN TO PREACH
The books of 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and 2 Corinthians have much to say about preachersand preaching. Timothy and Titus were both youngermen than Paul who traveled with him and helpedmuch in his work of reaching the lost and edifying thesaved. Every man who preaches or aspires to do soshould make it a point to read and re-read those books often.
Preachers, following the instruction to Timothy, should "put the brethren in remembrance" of what theword of God says (1 Tim. 4:6), be an "example of thebelievers" (1 Tim. 4:12), "give attendance to reading,to exhortation, to doctrine" (1 Tim. 4:13), "preach the word" "in season and out of season" (2 Tim. 4:2) and "commit to faithful men" who would be able to teach others what they have been taught (2 Tim. 2:2).
It is the exception when a young man determines topreach without encouragement in word and deed in hisown home. Parents who are materialistic and place thekingdom in a secondary role are not apt to have muchinfluence toward developing their sons to preach thegospel.
Congregations need to fulfill their responsibilities totrain and develop their own members for more fruitful service to the Lord. Attention needs to be given to the training program and adequate teaching, both in classes and from the pulpit, needs to be done.Young men ought to be used in the services. Unusualinterest and ability on the part of some should benoted and developed. Why is it that some congregations are regularly developing young men topreach the gospel while others are not? I know of somechurches which have been meeting for years which have NEVER produced a single gospel preacher. Whyis this?
I am not opposed to a young man who wants topreach getting a college education. Such can be veryhelpful when properly used. But going to a college operated by the brethren did not motivate me topreach the gospel. I was already doing that beforeever going to college. It was in the home and the congregation where the desire began and flourished.Older preachers offered encouragement. Older brethren patiently endured inept attempts to preach.What is true of this preacher is also true of manyothers across the land in this respect.
But young men today who manifest a desire topreach do not always receive the encouragement theyonce did. A few years ago a young preacher couldspend his summers in gospel meetings doing good forothers and gaining valuable experience which would help him the rest of his life. Not so today.Congregations want only seasoned veterans to comeand preach in meetings. Besides, summer meetings have shifted to spring and fall. Further, it is gettinghard for a young, inexperienced man to locate with acongregation anywhere. They "admire" his determination, think he will "make a preacher,someday" but they would rather let him "practice" onsomebody else. Pray tell, how is a young, inexperienced preacher ever going to get"experienced" unless he preaches? Are we in dangerof professionalism which regards church members asspectators and preachers as a part of the performingarts to spell-bind an audience?
Two things are being done in some places now whichought to help this problem. Some well established congregations are having a young preacher come towork with them for a year or two where he can serveunder elders and work beside older and more experienced preachers. It was this writer's good fortune to work with two such younger men at Manslick Road in Louisville. Neither of these men was an "associate-minister" in the denominational sense of the term. They were simply gospelpreachers supported to devote their time to studying,preaching and teaching. The brethren prepared a study room for them, equipped it, gave them a living wage and planned much work for them to do.They preached considerably in the local work andthroughout the area, taught classes, knocked on doors,assumed part of the writing duties for a bulletin, andin both cases, did their first gospel meeting workelsewhere. Other young people saw preachers notmuch older than they treated with dignity and respect.They learned why these men wanted to preach. Theywere uplifted by the enthusiasm and idealism which inheres in youth. The congregation took delight inwatching them grow. The program was a challenge tothe elders to help bring out the best in these men. Theolder preacher in the situation was greatly blessed. Itis refreshing to see this being done in more and moreplaces.
Another practice which I hope catches on is that ofcongregations which do not have full time preachershaving a young man to come and work with themthrough the summer months. Some who could notsupport a man all year, might be able to support onefor three or four months. This would boost the work at such places and offer much encouragement to youngmen. Why do young preachers yet in school have tospend their summers working in a steel mill, a department store or on a construction job when thereare many congregations without preachers and whichbadly need them? Certainly it is honorable to engagein secular work to support oneself. But would not farmore good be done if that same amount of time andeffort were diverted into the work of the Lord duringthose months?
Brethren ought to find out about the soundness ofthe convictions of any preacher, young or old. Whilethere are some young men who give out an uncertainsound, I believe they are in the minority and thosefaithful to the Lord should not be penalized for theerrors of others. Brethren, let us get behind young men who want to preach the gospel and give them achance.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Be sure to read the reply to thisarticle by Marshall E. Patton carried elsewhere in thisissue. CWA]
This writer has participated in a number and variety of "unity conferences," which have brought together people from the instrumental and non-instrumental churches of Christ. Most of these were conducted with evident good-will on both sides, andwith joy at how much is held in common. Differences are always ascribed to "differing systems of interpretation," and it is lamented that the meetingsare never long enough to review and reconcile all thedifferences.
These paragraphs are offered as an attempt to clearaway some of the fuzzy thinking which has indeedallowed two systems of interpretation to grow upamong people who claim to be devoted to the ideal ofspeaking where the Bible speaks, and being silentwhere the Bible is silent.
There is in fact little difference between those of instrumental and anti-instrumental views as to those things the Bible plainly says. The problem areas are almost always in the realm of Scripture silence. Some regard any "religious" act as forbidden unless a specific command for it may be shown. Others see aprohibition of this kind as itself an addition to Scripture. It may be noted that there are severaldozen divisions among those of the anti-instrumentalpersuasion — a situation which in itself stronglysuggests fallacy in the system of argument. The viewpoint that silence means "forbid," — originally appearing in Calvinistic Puritanism — if valid in condemning instrumental music is equally valid in condemning individual communion cups, Herald of Truth radio and television programs, colleges,church buildings, and any and every other tool ofservice which is not mentioned in Scripture.
Command, example, inference — Though theprohibition-by-silence principle was very much in usebefore it was incautiously borrowed by the restorationmovement, there has arisen here a distinctive, almostproprietary, way of phrasing it. This has been the useof Thomas Campbell's terminology, "command, example, inference," drawn from his magnificent essay, Declaration and Address. Unfortunately, manypeople have used this terminology who have neverread the document, and the result has been to accomplish a result which is flatly contrary to that which Mr. Campbell had in mind. His purpose wasto de-em-phasize divisive problems by showing thatthere is a basis for unity in holding to those things theapostles taught and practiced. The effect of "command, example, and inference" has been, however, a belief that these words are of equal strength. This is not true, and Thomas Campbell wasparticularly anxious that this be recognized.
To achieve this, he built some safeguards into hissystem, found in Proposition Six of the document. Inferences or "deductions from Scriptural premises"may truly be regarded as the word of God whencorrectly inferred, but, he said, such conclusions as arereached by deduction are binding only on the individual who accepts the reasoning (and the conclusion), and such deductions may not be made terms of communion.
It is tragic that these limitations which Thomas Campbell built into his admirable system have beenset aside. The unity which is possible by agreement onwhat the apostle taught and did has been lost becauseinferences and deductions have too often been made terms of communion, by being bound on those who notonly did not see that they were so, but who perhapswere able to see that they were not so.
Principle — There is, however, an implicitrecognition that "command, example, and inference"are insufficient to answer all the questions which mayarise, in that neither side in the controversies whichhave plagued the restoration movement has been content to use only these three tools for learningtruth. Both sides have frequently gone back of command, example, and inference to principle.
The instrumental party is challenged to show a"specification" of musical instruments in Romans 15:9;1 Corinthians 14:15, 26; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians3:16; and James 5:13. If this cannot be done, then it isconsidered that the practice of the first century churchof making music without instruments has been established.
However, when those who argue for instrumentschallenge this interpretation of what is essentially anargument from silence, a whole series of argumentsdrawn from Old Testament Scriptures are advanced
— such as the specification of gopher wood for theark, the sin of Nadab and Abihu in using "strange" oruncommanded fire, and the command, "see that thoudo all things according to the pattern," and others likethem — to establish the principle that it is essential tokeep all God's rules with scrupulous exactness. It isheld that Amos 6:1-5 establishes the principle that God highly dislikes instrumental music because of the manner in which the idle and gluttonous people ofSamaria were condemned. Thus, whether it be recognized or not, the anti-instrumental position, inthe absence of a specific command, "Thou shalt not useinstrumental music," is driven to finding and using principle.
The instrumental party also resorts to the use ofprinciple to supply authority for which there is nospecific command, example, or inference; like the anti-instrumental party, those who argue for instrumentsalso go to Old Testament Scripture. God's evident approval, as particularly reflected in the Psalms, isheld to establish principle, that God may condemn thewicked people of Samaria for making instruments"like David," but He actually approves and appreciates songs of praise on, or accompanied by,musical instruments.
Thus, a broad and comprehensive basis for a systemof Biblical interpretation which would have rich promise of solving the instrumental-music issue, andothers argued with the same kind of arguments,already exists, in formally recognizing the importanceof a procedure both sides in each of the areas ofcontroversy are already doing — and that is to recognize that behind command, example, andinference lies principle.
Since neither group can show the command theopposition requires, both parties go to Scripturalprinciple to find their strongest arguments! There hasalways been de facto recognition that command,example, and inference are not the only ways oflearning the will, or the good pleasure, of God.
Principle is basic — Back of any command or lawmust rest a principle! The whole Mosaic system oflaws or commands rests, not on an order or commandto accept them, but on the evident existence of God. "Iam the Lord, thy God" is principle! It is this principleupon which the whole Mosaic system rests!
Paul in Romans uses the principle of the evidentexistence of God as the very foundation of his argument which justifies the conclusion that "all havesinned, and are coming short of the glory of God."
Thus, in order of strength, principle is followed bycommand. As Paul's illustration puts it, the builder has more honor than the house. Definitely behindcommand is example. Its authority is less than that ofcommand to the extent that the human mind is forced to operate in determining whether a claimed apostolic example is intended to be for the whole church and forevery age in the history of the church. Inference ordeduction is weaker than example to the extent thatthe mind of man enters into the equation in reachingthe conclusion. And, though it is seldom mentioned asa basis upon which authority is claimed, there is a fifth area — that of judgment. This is where there is really not enough Scriptural material to put an inferential argument, or process of deduction, together, but people go ahead and make up their minds anyway! And, it may be said, this fifth procedure, definitely last in strength, has providedmany arguments in religion! Is it important to God? — A second consideration needs to be kept always inmind. It is incredible that so little attention is paid tothe question, "Is this really important in the mind of God?"
It would seem to be "elementary," as Sherlock Holmes put it, that a subject God does not evendiscuss (granting the anti-instrumental claim of "silence" in connection with the words "psalm,""hymn," and "song") can hardly be one of importanceto Him. There should therefore be, first of all, a way ofdetermining whether a given subject is of importanceto God. I suggest this: "How often is this subject discussed?"
Why should we suppose that a subject God does noteven discuss is so important to Him that it wouldjustify division among His children? Let us ask firstabout any subject before it is even discussed among us: "Is this important to God?" If it is, we know it is,because God has discussed it.
Thus, if the Bible does not discuss a given subject atall, no matter how important it may seem to men, it isof no importance to God, and it is not a proper subjectfor controversy among Christians.
If God mentions something once, then it is worthy ofnotice on the part of His people. If He says somethingtwice or three times, then — and only then — we have enough information on the subject to proceed fromScriptural facts to principle, and learn God's thinking on the subject.
If there is a command or a precedent, well and good.We can usually agree on what happened and what itmeans. However, since every command of God restsessentially on the nature and power of God, let us notforget that back of inference, example, and even command must be principle, the very thing each partyin a religious controversy tries to find in the absence ofexplicit command. Both sides in the instrumental-music controversy, and all the other three or fourdozen issues among the churches of Christ today, recognize this authority de facto. Now, if all partieswill simply recognize the right of each party to usewhat all are using, the Scriptures can then be studiedin an attempt to answer these two questions:
First does God say anything about this subject? If He does, then — and only then — it is a proper one for continued discussion.
Second, what is the evident principle underlyingwhat God has said? Since God does not contradict himself, it follows that careful study of everything God says on a given subject will lead the earnest seeker toa knowledge of the mind of God on the matter. Thesetwo considerations ought to lead honest enquirersafter truth not only to truth, but to unity in the truth.
practice than some of us, I think the requested reviewis well in order. Brother E. R. Harper, in his effort todefend "Herald of Truth," used the "principle"argument in his Lufkin, Texas debate with BrotherYater Tant. The very fact that it never appeared insubsequent debates on the same issues, is evidence ofits weakness and its inability to stand the heat of debate.
Mr. Dunning implies that those of the "noninstrumental views" are guilty of fuzzy thinking,using a false system of interpretation, evidenced bydivisions among us, and numerous inconsistencies. While these are serious charges, and while he, nodoubt, is sincere in believing them, I, nevertheless,emphatically deny every one of them, and believe thatI am in position to prove them false. I do appreciatethe candor, enthusiasm, and objectivity with whichhe writes. However, the confidence displayed is unwarranted. His inability to correctly represent hisopposition, and, especially, his lack of knowledge of the primary issue, namely, Divine Authority And How to Establish It, is a great reflection on the boldness of his article.
Concerning divisions, let it be observed that there are divisions among those of the "instrumental persuasion;" that such reflects just as strongly uponthem as upon others. All of this does mean that thereis a "fallacy in the system of argument" on the part ofsomeone. This exchange should help us to see just who is guilty.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Dunning has misunderstood some of the cardinal points of "Thomas Campbell's magnificent essay,DECLARATION AND ADDRESS." In fact, it hardlyseems possible that one could be more guilty of thesame thing of which he accuses another, namely, "toaccomplish a result which is flatly contrary to thatwhich Mr. Campbell had in mind."
In the first place Mr. Dunning reflects upon Thomasand Alexander Campbell as well as others of the "Restoration Movement" when he says "the prohibition-by-silence principle . . . was incautiouslyborrowed by the restoration movement," and assignsthe origin of it to "Calvinistic Puritanism." 1 Pet. 4:11,"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God;. . .," in its full import, prohibits by silence, and waswritten centuries before "Calvinistic Puritanism" was born. Furthermore, he misrepresents both his opposition and Campbell when he says "there has arisen here a distinct, almost proprietary, way of phrasing it. This has been the use made of Thomas Campbell's terminology, 'command, example, inference, drawn from his magnificent essay, Declaration and Address."
I am not aware of any of the "non-instrumental persuasion" using the terminology ascribed to Campbell above for the purpose stated. Furthermore,I am unable to find such terminology so used in thewhole of Campbell's Declaration and Address. In fact, such terminology for expressing the prohibition-bysilence principle is neither distinct nor acceptable tothose of the "non-instrumental persuasion." Wecertainly have no proprietary feelings about it.
I do find Campbell saying repeatedly, with perhapsslight variation, throughout the essay that "nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the church, or be made a term of communion for whichthere cannot be expressly produced a 'Thus saith the Lord,' either in express terms or by approved precedent." While "express terms" may be made to include necessary inference, it does not include justinference. There is a world of difference between an inference and a necessary inference. One is only possible or even reasonable, but not altogetherconclusive. The other is conclusive beyond all doubt, aconclusion from which there is no escape, hence, absolutely necessary. However, inferences — mere inferences — do not establish truth. If so, then infant sprinkling would have to be accepted along with instrumental music. Campbell was right when he saidsuch ought not to be made terms of communion.
It is true that Mr. Dunning's terminology,"command, example, and inference," does not suffice"to answer all questions which may arise . . . and for learning all truth," but such terminology is not representative of his opposition. While his use of it may appear to give him victory in the field of argumentation, a more careful examination shows thevictory to be only over a straw man. The following terminology, "express statement, approved example,and necessary inference," used by those of the "noninstrumental persuasion" as well as by scholars of different faiths, is sufficient to answer all questionswhich may arise and for learning all truth — including every divine principle. There is no need for either side going back of this for anything in the matter of establishing divine authority or in learning the will ofGod. In fact, there is no other way by which truth canbe revealed! Principle itself, whatever it may be, mustof necessity be revealed in at least one of these ways.
This brings us to the heart of the article under review — the matter of establishing authority by way of principle. It is here we see the greatest fallacy in Mr. Dunning's line of argument. He simplyfails to distinguish between the simple matter of HOWa thing is revealed and WHAT is revealed. It is just that simple. Principle is not a how of revelation; it is the what of revelation. Webster's CollegiateDictionary defines the word "principle" (in the sense inwhich Mr. Dunning uses it) to mean: "A fundamentaltruth; a primary or basic law, doctrine, or the like."Anyway one looks at it "principle" is something thatmust be learned, and it cannot be learned except it berevealed (1 Cor. 2:11-13). Question: How can anyprinciple be revealed unto us except by way of eitherexpressed statement, approved example, or necessaryinference? There is no other way by which God reveals truth to any man. Furthermore, this is sufficient for all truth, and Mr. Dunning is wrong if hesays both sides have to depend upon more than this.
Our appeal to and use of Old Testament Scripture inthe instances referred to is not for the purpose ofestablishing authority, but rather to corroborate thatalready established in the New Testament. Since both the Old and New Testaments reveal that "it is essential to keep all God's rules with scrupulous exactness" — by way of express statements (Deut.4:2; 2 Jno. 9; Rev. 22:18, 19), the examples of the Old Testament mentioned by Mr. Dunning serve only toillustrate and confirm. Of themselves they establish noauthority for the New Testament dispensation nor arewe dependent upon them for such.
What Mr. Dunning sees as an inconsistency on ourpart in condemning instrumental music in worship and embracing individual communion cups, churchbuildings, etc., grows out of his lack of knowledgeconcerning the nature of authority. When authority isestablished by "express statement, approved example, or necessary inference, it may be either generic or specific, if generic, it includes all objects within the genus authorized though not specified. Specific authority includes nothing except that specified. Any dictionary will confirm this. Mr. Dunning's trouble is that he can find neither genericnor specific authority by way of "express statement,approved example, or necessary inference" for his instrumental music in worship. Hence, he is left without divine authority.
Yes, principle is basic, and may lie back of any command, but it still must be revealed. It is the what of revelation, not the how. It, therefore, is not a way ofestablishing divine authority.
Concerning the rest of Mr. Dunning's article, very little need be said for the thoughtful reader. Whether or not a thing is important to God does not dependupon how many times He says it, but rather upon the fact that He does say it! He did say, "And whatsoeverye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the LordJesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him"(Col. 3:17), which means that all things must be doneby His authority. Who can imagine the size of the bookit would take to name all things one must not do? Yet,the failure to mention such cannot mean that it is not important. The fact that it is unauthorized by Christsuffices as a prohibition for those who truly revere Hisword. Furthermore, when He reveals His will to us, itis important. It matters now how it is revealed — whether by "express statement, approved example, ornecessary inference, it is of equal value. The fact thatit is God's will, regardless of how revealed, suffices forhonest souls.
The Romans obeyed the "form of doctrine that was delivered" them (Rom. 6:17-18). Paul said he had "received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith" (Rom. 1:5). "A great company of the priestswere obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:7). The Romans had obeyed the gospel (Rom. 10:16). Those "that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ shall be punished with everlasting destruction" (2 Th. 1:6-9). Those who do not obey the truth shall be punished (Rom. 2:8-9). Peter's readers had "purified your souls in obeying the truth" (I Pet. 1:22). Paul asked the Galatians, "who hath bewitched you, that ye shouldnot obey the truth?" (Gal. 3:1). "Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?" (Gal. 5:7). Peter said the word could be obeyed (I Pet. 3:1). When obedience was considered, the doctrine, the faith, the gospel, the truth, and the word was theinstruction that was obeyed. These either all refer tothe same thing obeyed, or these people obeyed different things.
WHAT WAS PREACHED?
Remember the Ketcherside doctrine is that the gospel is preached to alien sinners, and doctrine istaught to Christians.
By preaching the apostles were charged, "ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine" (Acts 5:28). Paul and Barnabas "preached the word of God" (Acts 13:5) and one "desired to hear the word of God" (Acts 13:7)when a false teacher tried to turn him "from the faith" (Acts 13:8) which Paul described as being the "right ways of the Lord" (Acts 13:10). When this one believed it was "the doctrine of the Lord" (Acts 13:12). When Paul "preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection" the Athenians wanted to know "what this new doctrine" is (Acts 17:18-19).
Paul said he "preached the faith which once he destroyed" (Gal. 1:23). Elymas was seeking to turn Sergius Paulus away "from the faith" (Acts 13:8). Jude exhorted saints to contend for the faith (Jude 3).
To Roman saints Paul said he was ready to preachthe gospel (Rom. 1:7, 15-17). Jesus said the gospel was to be preached to every creature (Mk. 16:15-16). Paulsaid to Corinth, "I preach the gospel" (I Cor. 9:16).
To the Ephesians Paul said, "Ye heard the word oftruth" (Eph. 1:13). Paul told them he was "speaking the truth" (Eph. 4:15). He said the "truth is in Jesus" that they had heard and been taught (Eph. 4:21). Paultold Timothy "I speak the truth in Christ" (I Tim. 2:7).People will be damned "who believe not the truth" (2Th. 2:12). The saints at Thessalonica believed the truth (2 Th. 2:13).
At Salamis Paul and Barnabas "preached the word of God" (Acts 13:5). Paul told Timothy to "preach theword" (2 Tim. 4:2).
Now when the doctrine is preached, if the faith, andthe gospel, and the truth, and the word of God is notpreached, then we have five different things beingpreached. However, all five of these terms refer to thesame message of salvation that is preached.
One needs to keep in mind that Ketcherside saysdoctrine is lor saints and not for alien sinners.
The apostles were released from prison (Acts 5:19) and commanded to go into the temple and speak thewords of this life. While there in the temple theyproclaimed the will of God to the people and were latercharged by the high priest of filling "Jerusalem with your doctrine" (Acts 5:28). Sergius Paulus heard the word of God preached and believed the doctrine of the Lord (Acts 13:5-12). The people of Athens wanted toknow of "this new doctrine" and Paul preached untothem the famous sermon on Mar's Hill. Thus, the New Testament teaches that alien sinners bad doctrine delivered unto them.
ALIENS ARE TAUGHT
One needs to keep in mind that Ketcherside saysteaching is to saints of God and not to the alien sinner.
Peter and John "taught the people" (Acts 4:2). The apostles "entered into the temple . . . and taught" (Acts 5:21). The apostles "daily in the temple, and in every house, ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ" (Acts 5:42). Paul and Barnabas "taught much people" in Antioch (Acts 11:26). These two men "taught many" in Derbe (Acts 14:21). Paul was at Corinth a year and a half "teaching the word of God among them" (Acts 18:11). For two years in Rome Paul was "teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 28:31). From these verses welearn that alien sinners can be taught the word of theLord.
PREACHING TO THE CHURCH
We need to be reminded it is Ketcherside that saysone cannot preach the gospel to the church.
CALVINISM EXAMINED #5
Those who believe the doctrine of Calvinism believe that since we are Totally Depraved, and therefore there is nothing we can do that would be considered"good"; and since God has Unconditionally Elected some before the foundation of the world; and since they believe in Limited Atonement, the next step, ofnecessity, would be Irresistible Grace. By this theymean, the elect are irresistibly called to salvation bythe effectual working of the Holy Spirit. Those who believe in irresistible grace usually turn to Eph. 2:1 totry to prove their doctrine. Paul said in that passage,"dead in trespasses and sins" and that man is unable toeven hear the gospel until such time as God sees fit tosend him a direct working of the Holy Spirit.
Just here, let us examine more closely Eph. 2:1. Paul said that God had "quickened" those who were "dead in trespasses and sins, and made them alive.The word "quickened" means to "make alive." In Col. 2:12-13 Paul said that they were "quickened (madealive) when they were buried with Christ in baptism.He said in that same context that they were circumcised with a "circumcision made without hands in cutting off the body of sin." Thus the spiritualcircumcision that Paul is talking about is not a "fleshlycircumcision" (as that under the law of Moses), but acircumcision of the heart. Thus when they obeyed God's commands, God cut off the body of sin and destroyed it (Rom. 6:6). This, as Paul points out to theEphesians, took place when they were buried with Christ in baptism. Also, note that this took place whenthey were dead in trespasses and sins.
WHAT DOES THE WORD "DEAD" MEAN?
The idea that because one is "dead" in trespassesand sins he cannot hear the word of God (the gospel)without a direct operation to make him alive is foreign to the teachings of the New Testament. The basic meaning of the word "dead" is simply that of beingseparated. In case of one who is physically dead, thereis a separation of the body and the spirit (Jas 2:26). However, when we are talking about spiritual "death" we are talking about one being separated from God because of his sins. This does not mean that the one who is dead spiritually cannot hear the word of God. Infact, Christ said that such a person could hear and believe.
In John 5:24-25 we read, "Verily, verily I say untoyou, He that heareth my words, and believeth on him
that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."How are we to pass from death unto life? — by hearing and believing.
Isaiah said in Isaiah 59:2, "But your iniquities haveseparated between you and your God, and your sinshave hid his face from you, that he will not hear." Johnsaid in 1 John 3:4, "sin is a transgression of the law.Paul said, "For all have sinned and come short of theglory of God" (Rom. 3:23).
HOW DOES GOD REACH THE SINNER?
In Rom. 1:16 we read, "For I am not ashamed of thegospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first,and also to the Greek." Paul says the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes,accepts, and obeys the gospel. In 2 Thess. 2:13-14 weread, "But we are bound to give thanks always untoGod who hath from the beginning chosen you tosalvation through sanctification of the Spirit and beliefof the truth. Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." In1 Cor. 4:15 Paul says, "... I have begotten you by thegospel." Remember also, God is no respecter of persons (Rom. 2:11).
Someone might say, "you do not believe in predestination and election"? Oh, but my friend, I certainly believe in both of them. There is nothing thatI believe stronger than predestination and election.But, I do not believe in Calvin's brand of predestination and election! Paul clearly says in Eph.1:4-5 that we are IF we have obeyed the gospel tothe saving of our souls. Verse 3 is the key to those whoare elect — and verse 13 spells out a step by stepprocedure for becoming one of the elect. "Blessed bethe God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hathblessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenlyplaces IN CHRIST" (Eph. 1:3). Now notice versethirteen. "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: inwhom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed withthat holy Spirit of promise." They are in Christ because: (1) they trusted the teachings of the gospel,
(2) they trusted AFTER they heard, (3) they believed AFTER they heard. What did they hear? It was the gospel. In Matt. 5:24, Jesus said that "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hatheverlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation;but is passed from death unto life." Thus the words ofChrist are able to bring one out of spiritual death untolife. So since spiritual "death" is separation from God,what will it take to get one reconciled to God? Must wewait for a direct operation of the Holy Spirit to bring about reconciliation? Paul said in 2 Cor. 5:18-19, "Andall things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himselfby Jesus Christ, and hath given unto us the ministry ofreconciliation; To wit that God was in Christ,reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing theirtrespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." Paul said, then, making one tobe alive spiritually is possible by accepting the word ofreconciliation.
MICHAEL HARDIN, Star Route, Shepherdsville, Kentucky 40165. In May, 1973 I began working with the church in Shepherdsville. The work has been going well. We have had 34 to respond to thegospel. 9 have been baptized and 25 restored. Much of this success is attributed to a group visiting program. It has opened the door for many home Bible studies. We have several studies in progress and through God's help we are hopeful for continued success.
OTIS JORDAN, P.O. Box 414, Perry, Florida 32347. For the last three years I have been working with the church in a small community called Spring Warrior near Perry, Florida. It has been the most profitable work I have had. There have been 41 baptisms (6 away) and 37 restorations (2 away). The brethren work with me harmoniously. I have preached in meetings in Dublin, Georgia, White Springs, Steinhatchee and Mayo in Florida. Jim Poppell of Wilmington, North Carolina will preach here in a meeting in April.
RAY DIVELY, 424 Dippold Ave., Baden, Pa. 15005. Richard Swan and I spent the month of December, 1973 preaching the gospel in India. We visited 16 congregations and conducted training classes for preachers and teachers among the brethren. While our main purpose was to strengthen the brethren, 22 were baptized during our stay. Two of the churches have constructed small but nice meeting houses of stone. Most of the churches meet in grass hutsthey have built or out in the open. We have encouraged the brethren to construct their own buildings without asking for American money. One cannot understand the sacrifice involved until you see the depth of the poverty of these people. The Baden church has been meeting for five years with 1973 being our bestyear with a new attendance record of 40. Five were baptized in 1973. We continue to help foreign work as we are able, mostly in India in 1973. The brethren helped send me to India and the church here supports a native preacher in that country. Brother Swan andI plan to spend the month of July preaching the gospel in Chile and Argentina.
TERRY GREEN, P.O. Box 219, Los Molinos, California 96055. The Red Bluff church in northern California just finished a gospel meeting on the theme The Work of the Church. Bill Fling, Keith Vanderbasch, Terry Green and Jack Adams each spoke one night. Though the emphasis was to those who were Christians, a couple ofstudies with non-Christians have resulted. Worship with us when in this area.
H. L. BRUCE, P.O. Box 9071, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80932. During 1973 at Northeast, 13 were baptized including a Baptist preacher's daughter and her husband and a former Catholic nun who spent seven years in a convent. 17 confessed faults and 23 were identified. At least 4 learned the truth about the "Herald of Truth" as a result of our recent articles in "Conservative Thoughts," our monthly publication. A former elder in a liberal church and his family took a stand for the truth with us. A fine quantity of young and mature men are members at Northeast with preaching potential and ability.
HARRY PICKUP, Jr., Florida College, Temple Terrace, Florida 33617. (The following excerpts are lifted from a report prepared by Brother Pickup since his Australian trip with Robert Turner —Editor) On September 22, 1973,1 left Tampa, Florida to preach the gospel in Australia for approximately three months . . . I was engaged in ten "missions" — what the Australians call our "gospel meetings." I engaged in one two-night debate with a Pentecostal preacher. In two of these meetings, I gave special lessons attended primarily by teachers and other preachers. I used material on the subjects of "The Fellowship of Jesus Christ" and "The Righteousness of God in Human Affairs." The meetings were held from Sunday through Friday leaving Saturday as the day for traveling. All the meetings were in cities in eastern Australia fromthe north to the south ... in the following cities: Sydney, Emerald, Innisfail, Brisbane, Lismore, Inverell, Wagga, Heidelberg, Boronia (these last two are suburbs of Melbourne). The debate was in Wagga. The churches are all quite small ranging in membership from two to approximately thirty-five. Only four of the ten owned their own meeting house. Two of these assembled for the regular services in the home of a member. Four of these have what we would call full time preachers. Two of these men are American; the other two are native Australians. All four are receiving a large part of their support from American churches. The remainder of thesechurches depend to a large extent for teaching on the members within the congregation and occasional visits from evangelists.
I was impressed with these strengths of the Australian churches. Most of the Christians are deeply committed to Christ and His gospel. They are most anxious to know what the truth is and to do it. They are unashamed of the truth. They are personally willing to be involved in the proclamation of the truth. Their character isobviously shaped and molded by the gospel. They have congenial and pleasant personalities, evidences of clear spirituality. Their worship services, it seemed to me, are a little "warmer" and moredeeply spiritual — less mechanical and "hurry up, let's get through." ... I believe that outstanding American Christians have gone to Australia. Men of true character, deep conviction, and wise perception of Scriptures have worked in this nation in the fast few years. ... To my recollection, I did not hear one criticism of any American, though by and large, Americans are not looked upon without criticism by the average Australian.
PREACHERS NEEDED ADD1SON, ILLINOIS. The Franklin Park congregation is seeking a gospel preacher to work with them. Half the support can be supplied here. We are also hoping to find a building in a Chicago suburb. Contact John Smallman, 907 Neva, Addison, Ill. 60101.
FERN CREEK, KENTUCKY. The Oak Grove church needs a full time preacher. Adequate salary with house and utilities furnished. Further information is available by calling Russell Smith, 306 W.Amherst, Louisville, Ky. 40214, phone (502) 363-9846; or Charles L. Runner, 9505 Independence School Road, phone (502) 239-1368.
DEBATES GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA. J. T. Smith is to meet Albert Garner, President of the Baptist College in Lakeland, in debate in Gainesville April 29, 30 and May 2 and 3. This will be the second time for these experienced debaters to meet. The first two nights will be on the plan of salvation and the last two nights on apostacy.Contact J. T. Smith for information as to the place for the discussion. It will be in some public building as neither the Northeast congregation nor the Baptist Church endorsing Garner have enough room for the crowds. H. E. Phillips will moderatefor Brother Smith, health permitting.
ATHENS, ALABAMA. Carrol Sutton, representing the position of the Eastside church and Albert Hill, representing the position of the West Hobbs Street church will meet in debate in Athens May 6, 7, 9 and 10. The first two nights, West Hobbs Street will furnish the building and Albert Hill will affirm:
"It is scriptural for a church to permit the use of her buildings for Bible-centered schools and kindergartens, fellowship meals and social gatherings."
The last two nights will be in the Eastside building where Carrol Sutton will affirm:
"It is not scriptural for churches of Christ to offer contests, picnics, parties, and free gifts to all bus riders as incentives to encourage church attendance." Albert Hill will maintain that such practices are scriptural.
Both men are able advocates of the positions they maintain. Eachhas had considerable debating experience. Their respect for one another and their desire to deal fairly have been evident in negotiations leading to the finalizing of these arrangements. This gives reason to expect a courteous and edifying study.
ROBERTO V. SPENCER, P.O. Box 452, Odessa, Texas 79760. On December 17 we were happy because two persons were baptized for the pardon of their sins. Since September 30 to the end of the year we presented the Visualized Bible Study Lessons 27 times in 13 homes. Recently a man observed that in the slides, Jesus appears with long hair. I explained to him that had I prepared the slides I would not have made him appear so. Really, I think most people who imagine Christ or his apostles with long hair are ignorant of 1 Cor. 11:14-15.
J. B. GRINSTEAD, 4035 Brenton Drive, Dayton, Ohio 45416. Ending two and one half years in Bloomington, Indiana, we have moved to a new work in Ohio. This work is the result of long range planning by the Haynes St. church in Dayton. Their plans havebeen to begin a new work when their building was debt-free. The last payment was made around the first of the year and the new group met the first time February 3. Contrary to rumors there is notrouble at Haynes St. This is not a split. All the brethren are in full accord. The nucleus of about 30 left with the prayers and blessings of Haynes St. which supplies my support and housing allowance as Iwork with the new Englewood church. Englewood is 8 miles north of Dayton on Route 48. If you have friends or relatives in the area you wish us to contact, please inform us. Telephone B. G. Neely (513) 898-5344.
"YOUR ZEAL HATH PROVOKED VERY MANY" SHIVELY CHURCH, 1916 Rockford Lane, Louisville, Ky. 40216. In 1973, 17 were baptized, 9 restored and 23 placed membership with 3 withdrawn from. Three meetings were conducted and several special classes. A library was started and continues to grow for the further study of teachers and all members. Five new deacons were appointed. Plans for 1974 include new classes, intensive door-to-door evangelism, and the support of 8 gospel preachers in addition to Mike Grushon, the local preacher.
PEKIN, INDIANA. Though a small town in southern, rural Indiana, this congregation puts many larger "city" churches to shame in work. In addition to two meetings a year, plus extra classes, a weekly bulletin is published, a weekly radio program conducted, a bi-weekly teaching column is carried in the newspaper,and a bimonthly report on the work of Ron Chaffin, Jim Lovell and Basil Cass in South Africa. Searching the Scriptures and Truth Magazine are sent to each interested member of the church. A Bible correspondence course is in use. In 1974 plans call for the support of 12 gospel preachers in addition to Bob Buchanon, the local man. These men are located in four states and Nigeria (four men), Republic of South Africa, Canada, The Philippines, Venezuelaand Australia. Thanks for your encouragement, brethren.