THOUGHTS ON FELLOWSHIP

Ever since the establishment of the church, there have been those who argue that everyone baptized forthe remission of sins should be fellowshipped. Theycontend that the new birth makes all children of God, brothers, and as such, are worthy of our fellowship.Such teachers forget that children can be disinheritedfor going beyond God's will. The 23,000 in 1 Cor. 10were the same Jews that are spoken of as disinheritedchildren. See Num. 14:12. This error must have been the reason why we have the following admonition in 2John 9-11:

"Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, andbring not this doctrine, receive him not into yourhouse, neither bid him God speed: For he thatbiddeth him God speed is a partaker of his evildeeds."

The weight of the matter rests with the expression,"the doctrine of Christ," which has to be limited to suit the convenience of the position to extend fellowship toall. Anything taught by Christ is his doctrine. The American Standard Version has it even plainer as "theteaching of Christ." Hence, if a man goes onward andabides not in the doctrine or teaching of Christ, he losesall claim to the favor of God. The expression, "hath notGod" speaks of the seriousness of this sin. God withdraws all fellowship from such a one.

Christ stood in front of Pilate in John 18:36 and said, "MY kingdom is n6t of this world." Now the problemfor all is simply this: When the Lord plainly said thathis kingdom was not earthly, was that a part of hisdoctrine or teaching? If it was, then I cannot fellowshippremillennial brethren for they teach Christ's kingdomis of the world, whereas Christ plainly said it was not. Ihave no right to extend fellowship where God deniessalvation.

We are told by Luke in Acts 2:42 that the earlychurch "continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking bread, and in prayers."Are we to understand that there is a difference in the expression "apostles' doctrine" and the "doctrine of Christ?" By what rule of interpretation would there bea difference? The expressions are used in the same wayand mean the same things. In Matt. 18:18 Jesus tells his disciples, "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever yeshall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed inheaven."

It was upon this basis that the division over the use of mechanical music and the missionary societyoccurred many years ago. Brethren had "gone beyondthe doctrine of Christ." Every verse in the New Testament said to sing. Nothing was authorized but thechurch to do the work of the church. In our time, we have experienced division over human institutions doing the work of the church supported out of the treasury of the church and over the pooling of vast amounts of power into the hands of one eldership: allmissing from the "teaching of Christ."

The Plains of Ono

Now that the battle has been fought it would be sadindeed to lose it all by compromise. When Nehemiah went back to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem he was opposed in three ways:

1. Ridicule, Nehemiah 4:3,
2. Threat of force, Nehemiah 4:21,
3. Compromise, Nehemiah 6:2

There is no difference in the expression, "the doctrine of Christ," and "the apostles doctrine." If we fellowship those who are not willing to "abide in" but are determined to "transgress the doctrine," which causes them to lose God, I had better be careful lest I extend fellowship where God has denied salvation.

GOSPEL ANCHOR REVIVED

In 1958 Gene Frost published briefly a quarterlycalled GOSPEL ANCHOR. It contained a wealth of excellent material and many brethren have not forgotten it. Now comes word that Brother Frost plansto publish the GOSPEL ANCHOR as a monthly. Anexcellent staff of writers has been chosen includingMaurice Barnett, Jere Frost, David Harkrider, JackHolt, Brent Lewis, Elmer Moore, Lloyd Nash and Morris Norman, besides the able material which we all know will flow from the pen of Gene Frost. These are all sound and capable men and we can expect good thingsof this paper. In a very attractive prospectus Brother Frost said:

"We hope to maintain the quality that characterized the Quarterly, while adopting a monthly schedule. Our proposal is to publish a journal that deals with current problems of interest to the church of our Lord, devotional material, in-depth studies of texts and subjects...in essence the entire range of interest to the sincere, concerned child of God. Our purpose is to focus upon Bible teaching as free ofpersonalities as possible."

Subscription price is $6 a year. These subscriptionsshould be sent to GOSPEL ANCHOR, P.O. Box21172, Louisville, Kentucky 40221.

TO THE PHILIPPINES AGAIN

Plans are being made now for the editor and CecilWillis, editor of TRUTH MAGAZINE to spend themonth of April, 1975 preaching in the Philippines.Brother Willis was there in 1970 and I was there in 1971. These trips and those by other brethren havebeen very fruitful. Many brethren have been urging both Brother Willis and myself to return and we havedecided to go together. The main purpose of the tripwill be to conduct study sessions with as manypreachers and teachers as can come to the places we willbe speaking in hopes that they will be better preparedfor their task of evangelizing that nation. Some of ourreaders have had a part in supporting faithful men inthat country and may have an interest in helping tomake our trip possible. Travel expenses are muchhigher than they were the first time we went and we willneed to raise an adequate amount. Should any readershave an interest in helping we would be glad to hearfrom you and will supply you with information as towhat is needed. More will be said about the trip and thework in that fruitful country as the time draws nearer.

PERPENDICULAR PARALLELS

It is not uncommon in defending a practice to arguethat said practice is equal to, or runs in the samedirection as another practice which is accepted withoutquestion. In discussions of differences among brethren,it often has been said that some things are parallel toothers. Any religious issue must be settled by divineauthority expressed in scripture. It does no good toprove that plan "B" is parallel to plan "A" unless plan"A" is scriptural. Otherwise, though a parallel might be argued, both would be wrong for want of scripturalproof.

In the controversy over church support of colleges,those favoring it have said the practice is parallel tochurch support of benevolent institutions. Both operateunder boards governed by state charters, and bothperform a service which, in at least one area, overlaps a responsibility of the church. N. B. Hardeman pointedout these parallels. Batsell Barrett Baxter argued in histract on "Current Issues" that the right of the church to support one such institution, was the right tosupport both, and that they "stand or fall together." Ibelieve he was correct in this assessment. Our difference is that he believes they both stand and I amconvinced they both fall, though they are parallel.

But some think they see parallels where none exist,hence the contradictory title of this article. A perpendicular parallel is as non-existent as a round square or a wet dry spell. Now, if you are still with me,here are some "for instances."

(1) The church and the individual. It is commonlyheld by some brethren that whatever the individual Christian is at liberty to do, the church as a body mayalso do. Now there is a perpendicular parallel if I eversaw one. Some have gone a step beyond and said thatwhatever the individual does, the church is doing. A little exercise in common sense should be sufficient to show that is not so. A Christian goes bird hunting. Didthe church? A Christian in business sells ten gallons ofgasoline. Did the church? A godly mother spanks herchild. Did the church do it? Two passages clearly show a distinction between individual action and church function. In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus pointed out whatto do in cases where one brother sins against another.After the offended person goes to the offender and evenafter he takes one or two more with him, it is then said "if he will not hear them, tell it to the church." One person was not the church. A combination of two orthree individuals did not constitute the church.

The other passage is 1 Timothy 5:16 where Paul distinguished between a brother relieving his own needy kin and the church doing the same thing. "Let him relieve them and let not the church be charged;that it may relieve them that are widows indeed." If whatever the individual does the church is doing, thenwhen this brother relieved his needy relatives, thechurch was already doing it. But Paul did not believethat.

(2) Institutionalism and the preacher's house. Some say they do not believe the church should support any human institution from the treasury, but that they seeno advantage in leaving a congregation which does so, to associate with a congregation which provides a preacher a house. Here is another perpendicularparallel. The Bible teaches that it is right for a preacherto receive "wages" (2 Cor. 11:8) and to have his "necessities" provided (Phil. 4:15-16). He is entitled to"live of the gospel" (1 Cor. 9:14). One thing necessaryfor all is a place to stay. Whether the congregationprovides a house as part of his wages, or pays him theextra amount to buy his own is a question of judgment.But it all falls under the heading of "wages,""necessities" and a "living." This is not parallel to achurch attempting to do some of its work through another organization. If the church made monthlycontributions to a construction company operating forthe purpose of building houses for preachers, then wemight be getting closer to a parallel. (3) Congregational practice and inconsistencies of some members. Some are unwilling to leave congregations involved in unscriptural teaching andpractice and join themselves to a nearby congregationwhich practices none of these objectionable items, onthe ground that there are inconsistencies in the lives ofsome members in the congregation trying to stand fortruth. Nobody claims, so far as I know, that everymember (or any member) of such a congregation trying to resist innovations, is sinlessly perfect. Hut the question of essence is this: Does the congregation publicly endorse and defend the objectionable practice?Is that the "official" position of the congregation? Isthe pulpit free? Is a gospel preacher at liberty to preachthe truth on any subject, though some might be slow toaccept and practice it in their personal lives? If so, thenthat is a far cry from a congregation supporting falseteaching and erroneous practice. This has become oneof those perpendicular parallels to sooth the con sciences of those who have found themselves in unscriptural situations and who lack the courage torenounce all such and take their stand with brethren who are trying to teach and practice the truth. (4) The loose fellowship movement. Some are arguing that because Romans 14 teaches there are someitems in which brethren may have scruples which differwith other conscientious brethren, that this justifiesfellowship with those who have perverted the publicworship by unscriptural practices (instrumental music), or who have perverted the work and organization of the church. They want to justifyfellowship with those who have departed from the truthon the ground that Paul put the eating of meats in the

realm of the individual conscience. But they are not in the same category at all. What involves the private conscience of one brother without affecting anyone else is not the same as that which concerns public activity in work or worship where the action of all becomes an issue. Some are wondering if brethren can work together when they differ over a woman's covering or participation in government service, why the same does not hold true regarding instrumental music or institutional support. That is one of those non-existent parallels. One concerns individual conscience only while the other involves collective activity of all.

Of late some brethren have become exercised over the question of how much sin the Lord will overlook, or how much wrong the grace of God shall be expected to cover. Do not be deceived, my brethren. This argument is a smoke screen thrown up by those who really believe that instrumental music, institutional support, sponsoring churchism and the like, should not be condemned but that we should forget the whole thing, throw our arms around each other and not be so belligerent as to tell the innovator that his practice is unscriptural. That is what it is all about, perpendicular parallels to the contrary notwithstanding.

QUESTION: What is the Scripture's teaching concerning forgiveness of sins of which we have no knowledge of committing? Such as: 1) Killing someone in war under the impression that such was lawful and even commanded by our Lord, 2) Telling lies unintentionally, and 3) Using instruments of music in worship under the impression that such was authorized of God and even commanded by our Lord.

— H.K.E.

ANSWER: Before attempting to answer the above questions, it is imperative that one have some understanding of what the Bible teaches concerning different kinds of sins. This will enable one to make proper classification of the above questions as well as proper application of truth in answering each.

One fundamental distinction to be kept in mind in the matter of answering questions is the difference between the work of a lawyer and the work of a judge. The former determines what law is; the latter pronounces sentence. If justice demands clemency, not provided for in revealed law, in view of extenuating circumstances, it is the prerogative of the judge to grant it — not the lawyer. Our responsibility is that of the lawyer. I, therefore, am not too concerned about answering questions which pose hypothetical situations and involve extenuating circumstances which demand clemency from the viewpoint of a human sense of justice. Granting such clemency is not my prerogative. My work is determining law in the light of revelation.

Furthermore, it is not my purpose just here to identify every possible classification of sin. I shall point out some fundamental differences that will suffice for answering the above questions and solving some related problems.

Sin is a transgression of the law (1 Jno. 3:4). Since God's law is perfect, and since humanity cannot attain unto perfection, "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). This is true of the child of God as well as the alien (1 Jno. 1-8). For this reason Jesus became "the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 Jno. 2:2). However, the benefits of this sacrifice must be appropriated. The salvation offered is conditional (Matt. 7:21; Heb. 5:8,9).

It should also be noted that not all of God's conditions are the same in nature. Some commands are absolute and some are relative. I believe this to be a fundamental point of distinction. By absolute commands, I mean those so fixed as to be void of any relativity. Obedience to such is determined not upon the basis of its relation to something else, but rather upon the basis of being wholly independent of everything else. Concerning obedience to such, there is no "give or take" depending upon some situation or outside factor. There is no "grey" area — it is all either "white or black." One either obeys or he does not, without regard to other matters. For example, one is either "buried and "raised" in baptism (Col. 2:12), or he is not — and that is it. Such commands are absolute.

By relative commands, I mean those obedience to which is determined by its relation to something else. Obedience to the command to add the "Christian Graces" (2 Pet. 1:5-11) must be determined in relation to other matters. People may possess these graces in varying degrees. One man's "knowledge" may far excel another man's "knowledge." Yet, the one with the lesser "knowledge" may be obedient, whereas the other may not be. Obedience in this instance depends upon one's "giving all diligence" (v.5). Diligence requires a sincere effort commensurate with one's time, opportunity, and ability. In "The Parable Of The Talents," Jesus teaches that "talents" represent the measure of what one is accountable for, and that one's accountability is in proportion to his ability (Matt. 25:15). Hence, one may grow some in "knowledge" but not commensurate with other determining factors (time, opportunity, and ability) and still not be obedient. Such commands are related to these important factors, hence, are relative.

One may keep absolute conditions to the degree of perfection. In fact, if they are kept at all, they are kept perfectly. There is no relativity about it. One either obeys or he does not — and that is it. Grace is not needed in obeying such commands, so far as human effort is concerned. Grace is seen in the nature of the commands themselves — they are within reach of

human effort. Faith (obedient faith) is the determiningfactor in the matter of obedience.

On the other hand, the relative conditions, void of their relativity, cannot be kept by humanity to thedegree of absolute perfection. Man. because he is man.cannot attain to such. In recognition of this. God's grace has made such conditions relative. Because of this a child of God can be righteous in spite of hiscoming short of perfection. God's grace puts righteousness within reach of human effort. This righteousness, however, is conditional! In addition tofaith, the determining factor here is primarily one's ability. Thus, man becomes and remains righteous notby meritorious effort, but rather "by grace through faith" (Eph. 2:8,9) — faith that manifests itself in obedience to both absolute and relative commands.

There is still another area in which God's grace is urgently needed and in which it has been lovinglyprovided. This area involves that margin of differencebetween man's ability and perfection. This is an area oftransgression that perhaps has received all too little emphasis. While God in his grace does not require of man that which is above his ability, his law, nevertheless, remains perfect. After man has done allthat he can do. he comes short of perfection. He, therefore, is a transgressor of God's perfect law, hence, a sinner (1 Jno. 3:4). Something must be done about transgressions in this realm between man's ability and perfection.

The Scriptures teach that we must maintain a penitent attitude toward and make confession of thosetransgressions that grow out of our inability to keep hisperfect law. Furthermore, he requires a deep sense ofunworthiness on our part, even after we have done allthat we can do. Jesus said, "So likewise ye, when yeshall have done all those things which are commandedyou, say, we are unprofitable servants: we have donethat which was our duty to do" (Lk. 17:10). No doubt,John had such transgressions in mind, primarily, whenhe said, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 Jno. 1:8).Perhaps some were thinking that they had kept God's absolute commands, and consistent with their abilityhad kept His relative commands, and, therefore, werewithout sin. John corrects this erroneous view.

David, no doubt, had such in mind when he said, "Who can understand his errors? Cleanse thou me from secret faults" (Psm. 19:12). The law made provisionsfor "sin through ignorance" (Lev. 4) so that when thesin became knowledgeable, certain conditions were tobe met in order to obtain forgiveness. Prior to that nothing need be done. The context shows that such sins were due to ignorance of law. Evidently, David's "secret faults" refer to sins of which he was not knowledgeable, nor did he expect to be — sins not due to ignorance of law, but due to human inability. Hence,he prayed without regard to the conditions of Lev. 4.He evidently had such in mind when he said, "Have mercy upon me, O God, according unto the multitudeof thy tender mercies, blot out my transgressions.Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse mefrom my

sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions: my sin isever before me" (Psm. 51:1-3). David was conscious of continual guilt over, above, and beyond all that hecould do.

Who can deny that we all are equally guilty today.We even fail (because of human inability) to properlyevaluate our time, opportunity, and ability, though inour own eyes we seem to have done well. We, too, needcleansing from "secret faults." How far short are you inthe matter of patience, temperance, etc.? The truth ofthe matter is you don't know — God does.

What then does the Lord our God require of us? Herequires obedience to His absolute commands. He requires obedience to His relative commands commensurate with our ability. Any transgression in this area must be forgiven through repentance,confession, and prayer (Acts 8:22: 1 Jno. 1:9). While God made provision for transgressions throughignorance of law among the Jews (Lev. 4) and sufferedsuch among the Gentiles (Acts 14:16), that time is no more. Now, he commands "all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). Furthermore, concerningtransgressions which grow out of our inability to keephis perfect law — even sins of which we may not becognizant (not through ignorance of law. but through human inability), of which we all are guilty (1 Jno.1:8), He says in effect: While I cannot bend my perfectlaw to accommodate your human inability, I will extend my grace to cover such, conditionally. The conditions are that you continually make penitentconfession of such and pray for forgiveness (1 Jno. 1:9)

— yes, pray without ceasing (1 Thess. 5:17) — and ever maintain a deep sense of unworthiness (Lk. 17:10).Thus, with this attitude of heart and by regular prayer,grace covers our inability.

If it be argued that it is impossible to maintain thisspirit of mourning and at the same time rejoice in theLord, I reply that such is not difficult, but rather inharmony with personal experiences of time. Suppose,for example, that here is a man who while a child, indisobedience to his mother's command, played with fire. As a consequence, his mother in her effort torescue him from danger suffered a severely burned bodyand a face scarred for life. Since that time — even continually — he mourns the fact of his disobedience. Yet, perhaps no person is filled with deeper gratitudefor a mother's love, nor rejoices more in the reality of living. Every day he rejoices in the fact of life and continually praises his mother for the love that saved him from the consequences of his own disobedience. Soit is with God's children. We continually mourn our transgressions — even our "secret faults" — yet, we rejoice always because of the spiritual life that isours in Christ Jesus.

Now, we briefly answer the questions of our querist.The command "Thou shall do no murder" (the literalmeaning of Ex. 20:13) is absolute. The issue concerningkilling someone in war is whether or not such is murder? Surely our querist would agree that not all killing is murder. Accidentally killing someone is notmurder. I do not believe that killing someone while acting as a duly authorized agent of God in executing His

vengeance upon evil doers (Rom. 13:4) is murder. However, if "killing someone in war" is murder, thenthe individual so doing is guilty of sin and can beforgiven only through repentance, confession, and prayer. His impression or ignorance of law is no excusetoday.

Not all untruth is a lie, according to the strict use orprimary meaning of the word "lie." Webster defines itto mean: A falsehood uttered or acted to deceive." Hence, one cannot "lie unintentionally" in the sense in which the Bible condemns lying.

Our worship must be "in truth" (Jno. 4:24). SinceHis word is truth (Jno. 17:17), anything unauthorizedin His word is a transgression of law — hence, sin (1 Jno. 3:4). I know of no provisions for ignorance ofrevealed law in this dispensation of time. Again, God'slaw of pardon for transgression of revealed absolute lawapplies.

In opposing social drinking brethren and others sometimes go to unwarranted extremes. They try toremove all alcohol from "wine" as it was used by Jesusand His followers. To see how the Lord used this word read Luke 5:37-39.

Please consider some statements in, "The New Smith's Bible Dictionary." The article, "Wine," was written by Paul M. Cooper. "Because of the climate ofPalestine, fermentation began almost immediatelyafter the pressing out of the juice, thus there is littlereason to maintain that the wine used by Jesus and hisdisciples on occasions (Mt. 11:19; Lk. 22:18; Jn. 2:1)was not fermented wine. It would thus seem that the Biblical emphasis is against the consumption of wine toexcess whereby one became drunk (Isa. 5:11, 56:11; Ezek. 44:21; Lk. 21:34; Rom. 14:21; Eph. 5:18; 1 Tim.3:3-8, 5:23; 1 Pet. 4:3), but no absolute prohibitive commandment is to be found."

The contention that some of the ancients may havepreserved fresh grape juice the year around is no evidence that all the Christians did all the time. This they would have had to do if they never used fermentedwine in the Lord's Supper. In regard to its institution

J. W. McGarvey writes (The Fourfold Gospel, Page658), "Wine, mingled with water, was drunk during thepaschal supper. Jesus took a cup of this for his new institution. But the word 'wine' is nowhere used in anyof the accounts of the Lord's Supper, the terms 'cup'and 'fruit of the vine' being employed in its stead.Those, therefore, who choose to use unfermented grapejuice are guilty of no irregularity."

We have yet to find even one of our extremist brethren who insists that if no fresh grape juice hadbeen available a church could not have observed the Lord's Supper using fermented wine. It is "fruit of thevine," too.

References to Old Testament or Septuagint usageshave nothing to do with the meaning of Greek words inthe New Testament. Therein, only one Greek word (oinos) is used where the English "wine" occurs, withthe one exception of Acts 2:13. Authorities give onlythe one meaning for (oinos). Their judgment is supported by noting how the word is used in differentNew Testament Scriptures.

In First Timothy 3:3 and Titus 1:7 one of the qualifications of an elder has to do with wine. Thoughtranslated "brawler," the compound word used prohibitively means literally, "near wine" (Strong). Thayer defines it as "one who sits long at his wine."Now, tell us why he did not write, "never touches wine." Or should it read, "one who sits long at his freshgrape juice?" Must an elder now not linger near his orange juice?

Also, First Timothy 3:8 requires that deacons be"not given to much wine." Why did he forbid "much" if"a little" would have been sinful? Now, do not try the"different meaning" dodge here. Read it, "not given to much fresh grape juice." Would the Lord have said that?

Titus 2:3 would have aged women "not enslaved tomuch wine." If he meant that they never should taste ithe would have said so. The language had the words.Try the other meaning which some claim the word had.Can an older woman or anyone else be enslaved to much"fresh grape juice?"

For Timothy's ailments and the sake of his stomach the inspired Paul (1 Tim. 5:23) urged him to "use alittle wine." If all Christians had to banish all alcoholic beverages from their surroundings Timothy could nothave kept his divinely prescribed medicine. Or, would"a little fresh grape juice" have been good for stomach trouble? Is using fruit juices to be contrasted withbeing a "water drinker" (teetotaller)?

Read Romans 14:21. "It is good not to eat flesh, norto drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brotherstumbleth." If my zealous brethren believe that he meant "grape juice" let them say so. How could drinking fresh grape juice cause another to stumble?That taken care of, it is clear that drinking wine in moderation was regarded as indifferent as was the eating of meat. We can not claim that Paul would havewritten, "It is good not to eat meat or to steal sheep, orto do anything by which a brother stumbles." This would be parallel if drinking a little wine were sinful.

Brethren need to learn that when they require moreof others than does the Lord they are over-stepping,"going beyond." Faithfulness demands that we "abidein the teaching." "If any man speak let him speak asthe oracles of God." It is not ours to let our enthusiasm carry us elsewhere.

— Box 895 Craig, Colo. 81625

(Editor's note: This article by Brother Watts is typical of the concept of an increasing number of brethren whoregard those of us who oppose social drinking as "extremists" and too "zealous." A certain interim editor refused to carry Ron Halbrook's first article on this subject because he said he did not want to give hispaper the image of "southern, rural morality." The editor of this paper is happy to recommend to thereader the articles of Brother Halbrook on this subjectand urges all to read his response to what BrotherWatts had to say).

Brother Watts fears we have gone to "unwarranted extremes" in showing the Bible does not sanction socialdrinking but positively forbids it (Searching the Scriptures, June 1973; Apr. and Aug. 1974). 1 Pet. 4:3forbids (1) extreme indulgence and debauchery with intoxicants, (2) the intoxication of revelings, and (3) sipping the intoxicant or social drinking. Brother Watts believes "Jesus and his followers" drank alcoholic wine, so Christians need not abstain from "all alcoholic beverages." Drinking such intoxicants is a matter "indifferent," thus subject only to the normal limits of any freedom. Social drinking is not sinful per se in his view.

The definition of OINOS is crucial. Three positionsare held. (1) Wine was always fermented or intoxicating. One source lists several words translated"wine" and says that regardless of the different intoxicating powers suggested by these words "absolute condemnation" is pronounced on none of them 1 — step up to the bar and order what you will,brethren! This approach requires seeing intoxicants inevery Biblical use of OINOS. Thus Zerr implies Jesusmay have provided potent intoxicants in Jn. 2 since "the world was not yet ready for the more advancedteaching on the subject...."2 Jn. 2 is just one passagethat must be twisted to harmonize with this position.Not only does it have Jesus opening a distillery, it hashim providing booze to folks who already had drunktheir fill! See v. 10. "It is utterly impossible for us toimagine Jesus being present in a tipsy crowd, to saynothing of aiding such carousing by his first miracle."3 (Some try to avoid the force of this impossibility by denying v. 10 really applied to the case in Cana, but the very reason it is stated is that itdid apply.)

This approach allows social drinking. Those who state it rest their case on two presumptions. They don't think the ancients knew how to preserve the fresh juices(which we have already rebutted), and the idea of intoxication clearly suggested in some passages (i.e., ageneralization is made from such).5 In other words,these scholars have judged the wines were invariablyalcoholic from external considerations, not from anything which inheres in OINOS itself.

(2) The wines of Palestine were generally fermented,but very light. Thus these "fermented" wines were "not always properly inebriating."6 Absolutely no intoxication came from drinking these wines, unless taken "in enormous quantities."7 These scholars saythe modern intoxicants of our land "differ so widely from the light wine of Palestine that even the most moderate use of them seems immoderate in comparison."8 The comparison is valid according toresearch on our alcoholic beverages; they are so strongthat "the effects" begin "after the consumption of 1 or2 beers or 1 or 2 cocktails."9 Whedon points out that ifthis second view is correct (though he takes the nextone), "there is not the slightest apology for drinking" modern "alcoholic drinks" on the basis of Bible customs.10 This position does not eliminate "all alcohol from 'wine' as it was used by Jesus and His followers,"but the outcome is the same on social drinking. We arenot requiring "more of others than does the Lord" when we identify the modern practice of social drinking assinful. We would be glad to see Brother Watts come even this far and join the fight against a sinful compromise that is gaining ground in the church — the sinful compromise of social drinking. But, again,nothing inherent in OINOS will prove the validity ofthis second approach. And it still must let each contextdetermine whether the OINOS was the common, dailybeverage or a stronger wine truly intoxicating.

(3) OINOS, "wine" in the New Testament, inherently implies NEITHER fermented nor unfermented, intoxicating nor non-intoxicating. Young'sAnalytical Concordance says of OINOS, "wine, grape juice," and of its most common Old Testament counterpart, YAYIN, "what is pressed out, grape juice" (p. 1058). McClintock and Strong admit that YAYIN referred at times to "unfermented liquor" ofthe grape, at times to "fermented liquors." They say ofOINOS, corresponding to YAYIN, "comprehending every sort of wine."11 A. Macalister says there is no "adequate foundation" for "differentiating intoxicatingfrom unfermented wine in the biblical terminology."12

Etymology shows that our word "wine" if from the Latin VINUM, which was "primitively related" to two Greek words: (1) OINOS, wine, which in its oldest formbegan with one additional letter representing V or W,and (2) OINE, vine or wine.13 The primary connection of wine, VINUM, and OINOS is with vine, product ofthe vine, not fermentation or intoxication. In Anglo-Saxon the words wine and vine were sometimes used interchangably, and not merely in instances where Vand W might be interchangeable — i.e., even after the terms came to have distinctive meanings, they werestill sometimes interchanged.14 Both in Old Englishand modern American, the ambiguity is preserved incompound words in which wine "is equivalent to 'vine' or 'grapes.' " 15 Modern usage of the word wine implies a fermented or intoxicating drink, as reflected in modern dictionaries which report current usage. Evenso, the second definition frequently (the first definition occasionally) points out the word is still sometimesused in reference to "fermented or unfermented" juices.16 The point is that the original ambiguity inOINOS has never entirely passed away, even with the English word wine. Regardless of the modern emphasis on intoxication (which accounts for some of the confusion in reading the Bible), there was no such emphasis in OINOS. It was simply the juice of the grapes, used as a beverage, either before or after fermentation — exactly like the modern word cider (juice of apples).17

Thus B. W. Johnson notes the presence of both "fermented" and "unfermented juice of the grape" in Palestine; he quotes Whedon who saw "no reason for supposing" that Christ made intoxicating wine in John.18 A. Barnes agrees that Christ made only "the pure juice of the grape." "the common wine drunk in Palestine."19 On the wines of antiquity. Canon Farrar said, "...many of them were not intoxicant; many moreintoxicant in a small degree: and all of them, as a rule,taken only when largely diluted with water."20

The scholars who disagree (as by taking position 1above) almost invariably admit non-intoxicating winewas used, but think it must have been exceptional.Their reasons do not inhere in the word OINOS, but in such considerations as (II there are scripture "allusionsto intoxication" (a thing no one denies, but which thesemen generalize from), and (2) the supposed ignoranceof the ancients regarding means of preserving the juice(which has been rebutted).21 McClintock and Strongsay of GLEUKOS (another Greek term for wine), it was"produced from the very purest juice of the grape," butthe word alone is "not conclusive" on the question offermentation, "while the context implies the reverse" inActs 2:13. They say of the Hebrew terms for wine (corresponding to OINOS) that they refer at times to"an unfermented liquor" as well as to "fermented liquors."22 Here again the only rule for distinguishing between them is the context.

In sum, the word OINOS does not imply fermented or unfermented, intoxicating or non-intoxicating. Scholars who admit that, sometimes go on to claim YAYIN or OINOS was always fermented except when"modified by the immediate connection in which it isused."23 But this always-fermented rule is based on weak assumptions admittedly external to the actualterm OINOS. The truth is no scholar can look at OINOS in the text and know whether the juice was fermented or not, intoxicating or not, except bylooking at the context. "The immediate connection inwhich it is used" is the very thing which modifies theterm every time. The inherent connection of OINOS iswith the vine and its product, the juice, not with thefermented or intoxicating character of the juice. Thisleaves no ground for social drinking in the Bible wordOINOS or "wine."

What about the Lord's Supper? First, the passageswhich forbid using intoxicants as beverages (whetherfor sipping, reveling, or debauchery) do not forbid other types of usages — medicine, cooking, etc.Secondly, as the Supper was instituted at the Passover,unleavened bread and "unleavened" (unfermented) grape juice were used — "the fruit of the vine." Jesus did not have one more round of intoxicating drinks in instituting the Lord's Supper!What about Lk. 5:37-39? What the Lord referred to cannot be found in OINOS per se, but is found in the context — and no one denies fermented, intoxicatingwine existed. The other passages Brother Watts usesare dealt with in the previous articles.

Conclusion

Brother Watts assumes we claim non-fermentation, non-intoxication inheres in OINOS, as he claims it was always alcoholic. We have shown there is no presumption either way. The assumption he thinks wemake conflicts with 1 Tim. 5:23, Prov. 23:31, and "much wine;" his assumption conflicts with passages like Jn. 2 and 1 Pet. 4:3. REPEAT: OINOS alone signifies the juice of the vine: its character is revealedby the context. Brother Watts' contrary assumptionstands on another assumption (no means of preservingunfermented juice) and on generalization (OINOS isintoxicating in all passages because it is in some).

Can Christians now socially drink modern intoxicants? Keep beer in the refrigerator? Stop at thetavern for "a couple of rounds with the boys?" Attend cocktail parties? Conclude business deals with a fewshots of whiskey? Attend banquets where drinks are served and sip intoxicants with the rest of the worldlycrowd? Whereas we would not expect to see BrotherWatts doing these things, he is in the same boat asanother preacher (who is already in so much hot waterthat we forgo naming him) with whom we discussedthis subject. This young preacher was asked by a newconvert in St. Louis, Mo., whether he might keep beerin his refrigerator now that he was a Christian, as hehad done all his past life. He was told "YES" — this was his liberty subject only to the same restrictions as any other liberty. The Holy Spirit gives a different answerthrough Peter: "For the time past of our life maysuffice us to have...walked in...excess of wine (drunkendebauchery), revelings (intoxicated partying), banquetings ('not of necessity excessive' sipping of intoxicants)" (1 Pet. 4:3).

1McClintock & Strong. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological. & Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. X. p. 1017.

2E. M. Zerr, Bible Commentary. Vol. V, p. 198.

3R. C. H. Lenski, Interpretation of St. John's Gospel, p. 197.

4Charles Simeon, Expository Outlines on the Whole Bible, Vol.

XIII, p. 235n.5Zerr, op. cit.; William Smith, A Dictionary of the Bible (F. N. &

M. A. Peloubet, eds.), p. 746.6McClintock, op. cit., p. 1011. 7B. W. Johnson, The People's New Testament, Vol. I, pp. 330-1. 8J. W. McGarvey & Philip Y. Pendleton, The Fourfold Gospel, p.

118. Cf F. B. Meyer, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, p. 53.

9Authority cited by James D. Bales, The Deacon & His Work, p. 33; cf American Automobile Assoc, Sportsmanlike Driving, pp. 678 "...the 'higher' centers of judgment and reason are impaired"starting after "the first drink."

10Johnson, op. cit.

11McClintock, op. cit, pp. 1010, 1014.

12Article on "Food," James Hastings (ed.), A Dictionary of the

Bible, Vol. II, p. 34. 13James A. H. Murray et. al. (eds.), A New English Dictionary on

Historical Principles, Vol. X, Part II, "Wh-", p. 168. 14Ibid., p. 170. 15Ibid. 16William Dwight Whitney (superv.), The Century Dictionary &

Cyclopedia, Vol. X, p. 6938; cf Funk & Wagnals New StandardDictionary of the English Language, p. 2718. 17Isaac K. Funk (superv.), A Standard Dictionary of the English

Language, p. 340. 18Johnson, op. cit. 19Luke & John in Notes on the New Testament, p. 193. 20Cited by William Smith, op. cit., p. 747. 21McClintock, op. cit., p. 1010; Smith, op. cit.; Hastings, op. cit.,

p. 34.22McClintock, op. cit., pp. 1014, 1010. 23Ibid., p. 1010.

"SALVATION" WORDS: "REDEEM"

Etymology and Cognates

The Greek verb from which we derive "to redeem" is lutroo. The noun "redemption" is derived from the basic noun lutron. The root verb for all the "redeem" words is the verb luo, "loose, destroy, etc." In post-Homeric Greek the noun ending tron appears to denote"payment for something." Hence, the term lutron comes to mean "money paid as a ransom." The term is not found in Homer, but occurs in later Greek literature, in addition to occurrences in inscriptions andpapyri. (See Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 4, pp. 340ff.)

Lutron was especially used of money paid in ransoming prisoners of war, but it was also used to denote the ransom of slaves. It is noteworthy that the term was infrequently used to denote payment to deities.

A cognate word is antilutron, which is basically a strengthened form of lutron. This longer form occurs only once in the New Testament: 1 Tim. 2:6. The cognate lutrosis occurs only in Luke 1:68; 2:38; andHeb. 9:12. The cognate lutrotes, "redeemer," occurs only once in the New Testament: Acts 7:35. This termdoes not occur outside the Bible. The compound verbapolutroo does not occur in the New Testament, but itscognate noun, apolutrosis, occurs often.

"Redemption" in the New Testament

It is very striking that the various "redemption" words occur much less frequently in the New Testament than do the other "salvation" words that I have been studying. The noun lutron, "redemption,ransom," occurs only twice: Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45.In these passages Jesus explains the meaning or purpose of His death. A controversy might arise regarding how far we are to push the ransom figure inthese passages. Surely, the death of Jesus was vicarious. This is clear from the passages. Some assertthat Jesus paid a ransom to Satan, for which man wasreleased from sin. Others claim that Jesus paid the ransom to God, to whom the sinner is indebted.

The verb lutroo occurs in the New Testament only inthe middle voice, and is always used of the redeeming act of God or of Jesus (Luke 24:21; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:8). It should be noted that these are the onlyoccurrences of this verb in the New Testament. Here, again, consider the idea of a "ransom," or the idea of "buying back."

LOVE ABOUNDING

"And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ. Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God" (Phil. 1:9-11).

This is one of Paul's prayers found in his epistles. In his prayers he prays that brethren may abound in such things as love, joy, patience, longsuffering, wisdom and gratitude. Paul's main concern was for their spiritual enhancement. In his prayer for the Philippians there are three things to which I direct your attention: (1) Love must be properly directed, (2) the purposes of directed love, and (3) the expression of abounding love.

The Direction

Christians are to overflow with love or have an abundance of love. This is the meaning of the word, "abounding." But this love must be channeled and it must act judiciously. An old trite saying is, "Love is blind." This certainly is not true in regards to Bible love. Love is discriminatory. It is to abound in knowledge and in all judgment.

Love and knowledge are indispensable to one another. Paul wrote that "Knowledge puffeth up but charity edifieth" (1 Cor. 8:1). Knowledge must be mellowed with love. The same apostle also stated that if we have all knowledge and have not love, we are nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). On the other hand, love needs knowledge for guidance and discretion. The child of God needs to know whom to love and how to love. These he obtains from a study of the word of God. The Bible tells us that we are to love God with all our heart, soul and mind and our neighbor as ourselves (Matt. 22:37-40). How we go about this is distinctly outlined in the Scriptures.

The Purposes

The reasons for discernible love are plainly set forth in verse 10. (1) The first reason is that ye may approve the things that are excellent. The word, "approve," in the original language is the word which was used for testing metal or a coin to see whether it was pure or genuine or unalloyed. Discernible love tests the issues to see what is excellent or good. The footnote says on this text to "distinguish the things that differ." Love gives us keen perception to eliminate the good from the bad, the important from the unimportant, the trivial from those things that really do matter.

(2) The second reason for discernible love is that we may be sincere. The word "sincere" comes from two Latin words (sine, without) and (cera, wax) and means without wax. Albert Barnes states that sine cera is "honey which is pure and transparent." The idea is that Christians are to be free from the impurities of the world. In the Greek, William Barclay stated that the word means either (a) that which is able to stand the test of sunshine by exposing it to the sun's bright light without any flaw appearing or (b) to whirl around in a sieve until all impurities are extracted. Regardless which one is meant, the idea of purity is indicated and the word "pure" could correctly be used in the place of "sincere." In fact, some translations have "pure." (3) The third reason for discernible love is that we may be without offence. R. C. H. Lenski writes that the debate regarding this word is "whether this is active or passive, offering damage or undamaged, 'uninjured' ourselves. Both meanings are found, here the context favors the latter." Barclay makes it the damage to others.

If Lenski is right it means that we are to live an undamaged life — that is, we are to avoid being morally injured by the sinful obstacles of life. If Barclay is correct, it means that we are not to say things or do things which cause others to stumble. Barclay made two good points in this connection when he wrote that there are people so harsh and austere that they in the end drive people away from Christianity, and secondly, there are people who are good, but they are so critical of others that they repel other people from goodness.

We can profit from both views on Paul's usage of this word "offence" in verse 10. The Bible teaches both, although only one is meant in the text under consideration. You decide which one for yourself.

The Expression

When love abounds the lives of Christians are filled with the fruits of righteousness. This is how love expresses itself. "Righteousness" stipulates the quality of the fruit, and being filled with this kind, it leaves no room for fruit of another character. The quality of righteousness is determined by the Lord's will or his commandments.

The spiritual harvest will consist of "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance" (Gal. 5:22-23), and as William Hendriksen suggested, "works which result from these dispositions." Jesus said, "Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples" (John 15:8). Some of us are failing in fruit-bearing, especially the winning of souls to Christ.

The source of life for the fruit we bear is Jesus Christ. He brought us into a spiritual relationship and enables us to produce fruit unto the glory and praise of God. To honor and adore God is the chief aim and end of man (cf. Matt. 5:16).

W. C. MOSELY, 1231 W. Knox Place, Tucson, Arizona 85705. The last of August, I will be moving to San Bernardino, California towork with the Mountain View Avenue church. David Curtis, who preached for several years in Yuma, Arizona, will follow me in thework at Northside in Tucson.

EUGENE DUMAS, R.F.D. 2, Milton, Vermont 05468. The churchin Milton needs some help. In March they lost their meeting placeand now are having to pay $130 a month to rent the High School.They have paid $5,000 for a nice lot which is well located and hope to erect a pre-fabricated building on it for about $4,000. The group issmall with a weekly contribution of about $40. There are 16 members, 6 of which are wage earners. Five have been baptizedrecently and attendance runs about 30. Faithful churches are scarcein this part of the country. If anyone would like to help but wishes toinvestigate the need further, you may contact Rea Pennock, 1001Samford Ave., Auburn, Alabama 36830; Ralph C. Smart, Sr., 516 Union St., Bangor, Maine 04401; or Jay K. Guyer, 57 Holly Lane,Holliston, Mass. 01746

LEO ROGOL. 412 E. King St., Shippensburg, PA. Paul M. Caldwell was recently in a meeting at Walnut Bottom, PA churchwith 7 baptized. There were 4 baptized recently at Shippensburg.Walnut Bottom is 15 miles northeast of Shippensburg. These brethren have shown a willingness to accept New Testament authority and have stopped their support of Herald of Truth. I willbegin full time work with them in September but will continue toassist the brethren in Shippensburg in any way I can.

JADY W. COPELAND, 335 Fletcher, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701. After 15 years in California, we have moved to Fayetteville,Ark. to work with the Old Wire Road church. Our last five yearswere in the San Fernando Valley (Los Angeles) with the Sepulvedacongregation. This was the third congregation with which I worked,the other two being 10th and Termine in Long Beach and Studebaker Road in the same city. These two churches have now merged and Brent Lewis is doing a fine work there. Fayetteville is located in the beautiful Ozarks and is home of the University of Arkansas. Rayford Faires formerly worked here. Visit us when in this area.

BILL COLLETT, 3000 Lake Villa Drive, Metairie, Louisiana 70002. The Lake Villa church is a small, sound congregation in the New Orleans area. If you have friends or relatives living here who are unfaithful or who do not know about us, please inform us.

LEE BRINEY, Rt. 2 Box 46-C, Blairsville, Georgia 30512. A newcongregation now meets in Warne, N.C. in a new building. Thischurch is convenient to visitors in the Blue Ridge Mountains ofnorth Georgia or North Carolina. Warne is near the border of thesetwo states in the area of Blairsville, Young Harris and Hiawassee inGeorgia, or Hayesville and Murphy in N.C. Worship here when inthe area.

W. S. WALKER, 119 Meigs St., Sandusky, Ohio 44870. I am now working with a small congregation here, the nearest conservative-minded group to Cedar Point Amusement Park, the Ohio Soldiersand Sailors Home, Firelands Branch of Bowling Green StateUniversity in Huron, Blue Hole and Deer Park in Castalia, and theEdison Birthplace in Milan. There are 34,000 people in this city.Presently, we meet in the home of Jim Hensley on Sunday andWednesday nights. We need encouragement and would be glad tosee brethren who visit this area. Harry Pickup, Jr. was with us in ameeting in August. If you have relatives or friends we could call on,please let us know. Write me at the above address or call (419) 6256584. ______________

REAVIS PETTY, 6102 Whiteway Dr., Tampa, Florida 33617. Ibegan work with the North Street church in Tampa on July 1, after twelve years with the church in Morehead City, N.C. One has been baptized since we came and the work looks encouraging. Thosesending bulletins, please note my new address.

RALPH R. GIVENS, 545 Greenbrier Dr., Apt. 6, Oceanside, California 92054. The work in Oceanside continues to be pleasantand profitable with both spiritual and material progress being made.Several faithful members attending here live in or near Excondido,21 miles away, and plan to start a sound church there in September.The brethren here are in full agreement with these plans and prayGod's blessings on this new work.

JAMES P. MILLER, P.O. Box 591, Merritt Island, Florida 32952.The meeting at Wendell Avenue in Louisville was a success in everyway and was my first effort of this kind since the recent surgery. Itwas encouraging to find that it did not tire me and that I was equalto the task. Surely the Lord is good. One was baptized and oneplaced membership during the meeting. Brethren came from all oversouthern Indiana and northern Kentucky to fill the house every night. My son, Rodney, has been with Wendell Avenue the last fiveyears and has an excellent program of work. My next meeting will bewith Imhoff Dr. in Port Arthur, Texas where Bill Cavender is the preacher. _____________

GUTHRIE DEAN, 1900 Jenny Lind, Fort Smith, Arkansas. Myhealth is much improved following a heart attack in May. We havethree new elders and six new deacons at Park Hill. We had a goodmeeting in July when Floyd Keith spoke on "How to Establish Divine Authority," Olin Kern on "The Need to Keep Informed,"Walton Weaver on "The Development of Institutionalism," Judson Woodbridge on "The Benevolent Work of the Church," Hubert Wilson on "Evangelism and Congregational Cooperation," James Yopp on "Current Liberalism and Its Cause," and Randy Dicksonon "The Future of the Church."

BOB CRAWLEY, 2522 Southview Dr., Lexington, Kentucky 40503.ANEW CONGREGATION began meeting in Richmond, Kentuckyon June 2 with members from four or five families. Rod Boston,employed to work with them as evangelist, is currently supported bythe following churches: Shively and Wendell Avenue in Louisville,Liberty Road and University Heights in Lexington and Harrodsburg, all in Kentucky. The new congregation, known as the "University Church of Christ," meets at 328 Geri Lane in the building of the Madison Lighting Co. Those who know of persons inthe Richmond area who are interested in having a part in this work,and especially those knowing of students who will be going toEastern Kentucky State University, are urged to tell them of thischurch. Robert Turner was in a meeting there in August.

NOTICE ABOUT THE PHILIPPINE WORK WALLACE H. LITTLE, P.O. Box 1306, Marshall, Texas 75670. Part of the program of the Philippine Government to control inflation and other economic problems is a very high import tax. Itruns 100% of the value of the item, and in some cases, even higher.Thus when sending material of any sort there, to preachers or others,be it for benevolent purposes or to aid preachers in their work, whenit is sent to these individuals, they must pay the import tax beforethey come into possession of it. Considering the very low income ofthese folks, they can ill-afford to do so. I suggest such material besent to the Church of Christ (New Testament), in care of the particular person concerned. These will be able to receive whateveryou intend for them to have and use in God's service there whilelegally avoiding the heavy import tax. Since such things (otherthan benevolence) are not for personal use, this is legitimate. I urgeyour attention to this matter.

WILLIS LOGAN, Jacksonville, Arkansas. I began work with thechurch here in August. The nucleus of the membership came from Arch Street in Little Rock and were members already living in this area. Attendance now runs in the 50's and growth potential is good.We have a 15 minute radio program on Saturday mornings on which Eugene Britnell spoke until I moved. A teaching column in the newspaper is soon to begin. If you are visiting in the area, worship with us.

HOWARD (Hoss) WYLIE, 2116 Helen Ave., Las Vegas, Nevada 89108. A new congregation began in January in the northeast section of Las Vegas. We presently meet in the Eager Beaver Academy building at 1841 N. Decatur Blvd. We are referred to as the Charleston Heights congregation. Forest Moyer conducted a meeting here in March. The owners of the building, who were Lutherans, attended the entire meeting, studied with us afterwardand in April this family of four was baptized. I preach three Sundaysa month and Jack Freeman and Leonard Leavitt preach the lastSunday each month. Should any readers of this paper come to LasVegas on conventions, call us at 648-4827 or 648-5925. We will pickyou up and show you it is possible to be faithful Christians and livein Las Vegas, Nevada.

SANTA FE HILLS CHURCH, located between Alachua and HighSprings, Florida (3/4 mile west of 1-75 on U.S. 441) needs a full-timepreacher now. If interested write or call Draper Underwood, P.O.Box 993, High Springs, Florida 32643, phone (904) 454-1981; or R.

M. Grimes, P.O. Box 247, Alachua, Florida 32651, phone (904) 4622236.

ABBEVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA congregation desires a settledfamily man to work fully with a congregation of about 30. This istruly a "mission" field. Those interested should get in touch withDownie W. Guy, P.O. Box 513, Abbeville, South Carolina 29620 orphone 459-2617.