THE SCRIPTURAL ACTION OF BAPTISM(NO. 2)

Last month some observations were made on the

meaning of the word "baptize" I want to continue

with this study.

The use of the word "baptize" in the New Testament indicates a definite action and no other will substitute for it. In spite of all the efforts to make the word include "pouring" or "sprinkling"water upon one in obedience, to God, it still remainsthat the word has but one meaning.

One way to test the meaning or action of a word ina given sentence is to put the substitute word in thesentence and see if it has the same meaning. When Jesus came to John to be baptized the record says,"And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of Johnin Jordan" (Mark 1:9). Could we say, " ... that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was SPRINKLED of John in Jordan"? Sprinkle means toscatter in drops. The command to baptize (immerse,dip, submerge) applies to the person and not to theelement. The element is not the subject of the action,the person is. To "sprinkle" is to handle the water — the element — and not the person. It is impossible to "sprinkle" a person without destroying his body. I recognize that figures of speechsuch as metonymy may be used in such a term as "sprinkling" a person, but that word would haveto fit the original meaning of the word for which"sprinkle" is used.

But in addition, every time the New Testamenttells of the action of one to be baptized, a going downinto the water and a coming up out of the water is

required. One goes before it and the other follows it.

There would be absolutely no need for this action if

one is sprinkled or poured with water. It is true that

sometimes the Bible does not tell of the actions that

go before and follow the action of baptism. But where

this is so there is nothing to indicate any other action

than immersion.

A passage sometimes used to try to prove

sprinkling of water as baptism is the example of Paul

in Acts 22:16. "And now why tarriest thou? Arise,

and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on

the name of the Lord." Here is the way it is intended

by the reference: "And now why tarriest thou?" (you

have already been saved) "arise," (and stand where

you are) "and be baptized" (have water sprinkled or

poured on your head) "and wash away thy sins,"

(which have already been forgiven in fact) "calling on

the name of the Lord."

Now just look how much is assumed that contradicts the plain language of the passage justcited. It is assumed that Paul stood where he was, and that water was applied to him by pouring or sprinkling instead of immersing him in water as theoriginal word demands in its meaning. Of course, it isalso assumed that Paul was conscious that his sins were already forgiven when he had this water sprinkledor poured upon his head. If assumptions are in order,it is more reasonable to assume that he followed the same action others took when they were baptized.The jailor in Acts 16 was taught by the apostle Paul,and if Paul was sprinkled and believed it to be whatthe Lord required, he certainly would not have taken the jailor out in the middle of the night and baptizedhim. But that is exactly what he did. Paul and Silas "spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all thatwere in his house" (v. 32). "And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And whenhe had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with allhis house" (Acts 16:33, 34). The preaching was to allthat were in his house, and after he was baptized hebrought them into his house. This sounds like theyleft the house, or the place where the preaching wasdone, in order to baptize the jailor and those inhis house who believed. If there is any inference at allin this language, it is on the side of immersion, not in favor of sprinkling or pouring water upon them.

But this same Paul wrote a letter to the Romans in which he said, "Know ye not, that so many of us"(he included himself in the statement) "as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we" (including Paul) "are BURIED with him by baptism into death: that likeas Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory ofthe Father, even so we also should walk in newnessof life" (Rom. 6:3,4). This makes it clear what actionPaul took when he was baptized. He was BURIED!

"Buried with him IN baptism wherein also ye arerisen with him through the faith of the operation ofGod, who hath raised him from the dead" (Col. 2:12).It is an insult to common sense to try to argue thatthis means to sprinkle or pour water upon a personand call it a "burial".

Three things are implied in the word burial: first,the thing buried; second, that in which the thing isburied; and third, the act of burying. The thingburied may be a person, a seed, or a treasure. It may be buried in water, sawdust, or the earth. But the actof burying is always the same. It demands a covering up, overwhelming in, or immersing in the element inwhich the thing is buried.

If it be argued that a person could have waterpoured or sprinkled upon him until he is covered orburied, the requirement of baptism is still not fulfilled. That foolish action of pouring or sprinklingwater upon a person until he is covered has neverbeen the practice of baptism. But even if it were practiced, it could not be scriptural because the element is handled and not the person. The person must be buried in that water. This is the action of scriptural baptism. Substitute action is disobedience to God and the end of such a course is eternal damnation. Why not do what the Lord said to do andreceive the blessing of forgiveness of sins?

SUMMER FAITHFULNESS

It is required of Christians that they ALWAYS

abound in the work of the Lord (1 Cor. 15:58). We

are rapidly approaching a time of year when many

Christians seem to feel excused from such constancy

in service. Summertime is a delightful season in

many ways. It is joyfully anticipated by school

children who need to relax from the regimen of the

classroom. Those of us who live outside of tropic

climes have experienced three severe winters in a

row. Summer offers relief. It is usually vacation time

for most famines. That is needed by all.

The truth is that there can be no vacation from

godliness of character nor from fulfilling divinely

appointed responsibilities where the church of the

Lord is concerned. Some do not seem to understand

this. In many places attendance wanes and

contributions drop while we live it up and enjoy

the "good ole summertime." There are at least

three areas which threaten summer faithfulness.

Neglected Worship

Regular and consistent attendance at public worship gatherings to engage jointly in acts appointed by God are not only necessary to our commitment to the Lord; such practice is of great benefit to all. We all need what such gatheringsprovide. But how many families will take off acrossthe country with carefully laid plans for food, lodgingand entertainment, but with no advance thought towhere they will meet with the saints on the Lord's Day? I know of some who are so careless that theydo not even give the matter a thought. They thinkvacations excuse them from worship with brethren, Iknow of some who have been in places where there were sound congregations which would have been greatly encouraged by brethren from afar who attendedsome unsound church because it was convenient. Some of those who so act would not even think of doing this at home. When children are along and worship isignored for two or three weeks, what must they think? When you pack your clothes, campingequipment, fishing gear, golf clubs, and what haveyou, do you think to include your Bible? Do you taketime to read it? Do you pray? There are some whohave so little regard for congregational responsibilitythat they gad about all summer, visiting from congregation to congregation without knowing wherethe Bible lesson is, or failing to help their children tobe prepared. Summertime can play havoc with anysort of planned teaching curriculum. Enjoy the summer, but don't become pantheists in the bargain, worshipping the sky, the sea or the mountains. Worship Him who made them all and appointed whatwe do in public worship.

Misappropriated Funds

Every Christian is to support the congregation of which he is a part with funds proportionate to prosperity, given cheerfully and according to purposeof heart. How could any child of God think that he isexcused from his responsibility in this because it issummertime? Why should the work of the churchsuffer while we lavish funds on our own entertainment and relaxation? Do congregationalexpenses cease at this time of year? Are there notgodly men with their families scattered around theglobe sowing the precious seed of the kingdom whoare able to be there because of the commitments made to them by faithful congregations? I do notknow how readers feel about the matter, but thiswriter would no more think of spending for personalamusement the money purposed to support the workof the congregation of which he is a member, then hewould think of spending the house payment or car payment money that way. All three are honorablecommitments and should be carried out.

Indecent Exposure

God's standard of modesty and decency is not seasonal, nor geographic. It is not wrong within itselfto swim, sunbathe, water-ski or engage in other suchactivities within certain limits. But when there is a mixing of those other than the family circle for suchactivity, then there are some questions which oughtto be considered. The revealing near-nudity of themodern bathing suit (not just bikinis) ignores the principle that we are our brother's keeper (and oursister's as well). Such attire, or lack of attire, is calculated to incite lust. Surely no normal, red-blooded man or woman would seriously deny this. Restraints and reserves are broken down thereby.Undue familiarity is encouraged. The danger is evenheightened, not lessened as some suppose, wheregood friends are involved. Adultery is ordinarilycommitted by people who know each other. Jesus taught that one can lust by looking (Mt. 5:28). Thisis especially a problem to men, but by no meansconfined to them. Our society has lost its sense ofblush and shame to such a degree that women sometimes gaze with lust after men. While all, menand women alike, should guard their hearts from lust,all of us should consider it a personal duty not toplace a temptation in the way of others. And don't beso naive as to think YOU could never stir such impure interest in others.

We wish for all our readers a most pleasant summerseason. But we plead with all who read these lines toremember who you are and what your responsibilitiesare in the work of the Lord. Don't let the casual,easy-going spirit of the warmer months tempt you tosear your conscience and weaken your characterbefore God. This article is written from a sincere desire to fulfill the divine charge to "preach the wordin season and out of season" (2 Tim. 4:2-3). As oneelderly preacher said one time, "That means whenthey like and when they don't like it; when theythink it appropriate and when they don't."

JESUS CHRIST — LUNATIC, LIAR OR LORD

(In December of 1978, the Unitarians of N. Canton,Ohio invited me to appear on a panel with a Rabbiand Catholic priest to discuss Jesus of Nazareth. Each was allotted about 15 minutes for a speech and then the audience was permitted to ask questions ofthe panelists. The following is my speech with minoralterations for publications. The title was selected forthis article.)

Welcome to this panel discussion, this forum, and

we trust that our coming together will be beneficial to

everyone as we focus our attention upon Jesus.

Most of you, if not all of you, are familiar with thelate Dr. C.S. Lewis, who was professor of Medievaland Renaissance Literature at the University of Cambridge. Dr. Lewis said, as quoted in his book, Mere Christianity, "I am trying here to preventanyone saying the really foolish thing that peopleoften say about Him (meaning Jesus): 'I am ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher but I don't accept his claim to be God." Dr. Lewis responded toa statement like that, "That is the one thing we mustnot say. A man who was merely a man and said thesort of things Jesus said would not be a great moralteacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg — or elsehe would be the Devil of Hell. You must make yourchoice. Either this man was and is the Son of God, or else a made man or something worse."

C. S. Lewis, earlier in his life, was an infidel and through study and evidence that he observed he became a believer in Jesus Christ. He also stated in the book, Mere Christianity, "You can shut him upfor a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as ademon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lordand God, but let us not come up with anypatronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." So, according to Dr. Lewis we either must consider Jesus as a mad man, or a Devil of Hell, or Lord and God.

Claims of Jesus

Now Jesus, while he was here tabernacling in theflesh as recorded in the Bible, declared that he was the Son of God and his fellow countrymen, the Jews,understood by that statement that he was declaringhimself to be God or equal to God as revealed inJohn 5:17-18 and in John 10:32-33.

The apostle John wrote in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. That's what Jesus claimed for

himself. He wasn't the Son of God in the sense that

we are sons of God or the angels are called sons of

God, but he was the Son of God in a peculiar sense.

As John 3:16 says, "He was the only begotten Son of

God." He never said, "our Father," as he talked to the

multitudes. It was always "my Father" and "your

Father." Jesus came from the very bosom of Jehovah

God and so was his claim.

He declared himself to be the Messiah to the

woman at Jacob's well in the 4th chapter of John.

She said "when the Messiah comes he will tell us all

things." and Jesus responded unto her in verse 26, "I

am He." In John 14:6 Jesus declares that no man can

come to the Father but by me. "I am the way (not a

way), but the way, the truth, the life. No man cometh to

the Father but by me."

In John 11:25 at the death of Lazarus, Jesus said, "I

am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in

me, though he were dead, yet shall he live." Martha

understood who He (Jesus) was when she confessed

that "thou art the Christ, the Son of God."

You know, Jesus said on one occasion in the 14th

chapter of John, "If you have seen me you have seen

the Father." God is invisible but the Bible teaches

that the invisible God was made visible through the

manifestation of Jesus Christ. In John 8:58 he said,

"before Abraham was I am." He is eternal and as

stated in John 1:1, the verse we have already quoted,

"In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with

God and the Word was God."

Jesus precedes time. He is eternal. He is also sinless. (John 8:46). "Who is it that convinceth me ofsin?" Not one of his enemies could find a flaw in his life. We know what his friends said about him in Hebrews 4:15, "Who was without sin." A high priest without sin.

Now here are some claims (there are others) that Jesus made for himself. He said, "I am the Son of God;" "I am God;" "I am the resurrection and the life," and in view of those declarations, ladies and gentlemen, it is no wonder that Dr. Lewis said,

"We either have to treat him as a man or a Devil of Hell or confess him as Lord and God, and it ispatronizing nonsense to say that a man who made claims like this would be a good moral teacher."

What Others Thought of Jesus

Paul said we look for the blessed hope and appearing of the great God and Savior Jesus Christ. (Titus2:13). Peter confessed him as the Son of God (Matthew16:16). John said Jesus did signs in the presence of hisdisciples which are not written in this book, but "these are written that ye might believe that he is the Christ the Son of God and believing you might havelife through his name."

Stephen, as Luke records in Acts 7:59, was callingupon God when they stoned him to death. He was calling upon God and he addressed that prayer, asthe verse states, to the Lord Jesus Christ. Stephenconsidered him God. Nathanael said that he was the Son of God in John 1:49. John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God that cometh to take awaythe sin of the world."

Alternatives

As we look at these affirmations and declarations,

as we evaluate them, ladies and gentlemen, what

Jesus said, and the others that spake about him,

they were either wrong or right. He either was the

Son of God or he wasn't. He either was the

resurrection and life or he wasn't. He either was the

Messiah that the Jews expected as taught in the Old

Testament, or he wasn't.

If he were wrong (remember, He was either right or

wrong), if he were wrong, you have TWO

ALTERNATIVES. Number one, if he knew that his

claims were false, that makes him a hypocrite. In

fact, it makes him a liar; yet, he taught a high moral

standard that his disciples emulated. Was Jesus a

hypocrite? He was if he knew that he was not the

Son of God.

The second alternative in this is that if he didn't

know it, and was self-deluded, that makes him a

lunatic. Channing, a Unitarian, as quoted by Dr.

Philip Schaff in his book. The Person of Christ, said,

"The charge of an extravagant, self-deluding en

thusiam is the last to be fastened on Jesus." Jesus

wasn't a lunatic and neither was Jesus a deceiver.

So, how do we look at Jesus and his claims if he

were wrong? Friends, he was either a liar or he was a

lunatic! Now, if his claims were true, then we have

TWO ALTERNATIVES. We either accept them or

reject them.

I believe that the claims that Jesus made are true

and to me there is overwhelming evidence, and I

share with you tonight just briefly some of this to

substantiate my faith that Jesus is priest, prophet

and king — that indeed he was God manifested in the

flesh — Immanuel, God with us, and he's now at the

right hand of God as Lord of lords and King of

kings.

The Empty Tomb

Let's look at the empty tomb. In Luke 24:3 when the women came to the tomb, they found not the body — it was gone — it was missing. Now, what happened to the body? The body was buried in Joseph's new tomb, but it was missing. If it were missing, as it was, it was either stolen or it was raised. If it were stolen, it was either stolen by enemies or friends.

But if the enemies stole the body of Jesus, theynever did produce it, and on Pentecost in Acts the 2nd chapter, when Peter preached the resurrection of Christ, he convinced thousands of those who had a hand in putting Jesus to death, who had said, "Crucify him, crucify him.'" His enemies didn't steal the body. What an opportune time, ladies and gentlemen, to squelch the Christian doctrine once andfor all if the enemies stole the body.

Well, did the friends steal it? If the friends stole it, when, and how? Really, they didn't have the power to steal it and the enemies didn't have the motivation. What's rather strange is that if the friends of Jesus stole the body why would they havepreached a falsehood, knowingly? Why would these disciples become martyrs for that which they knew was a hoax?

We can't accept rationally that the body was stolen: evidence won't allow it. What are we going todo with the empty tomb? That has to be faced. What happened to the body of Jesus? I maintain that it was resurrected on the third day, even as Jesus claimed for himself.

Observations of Prominent Men

William Lyon Phelps, for more than forty years a distinguished professor of English Literature, and author of some 20 volumes of literary studies, said (and I quote from the book, A Great Certainty in This Hour of World Crisis by Wilbur Smith), "And it may be said that the historical evidence for the resurrection is stronger than for any other miracle anywhere narrated."

Sir Edward Clark, a lawyer, as quoted in Basic Christianity by John R. W. Scott, said. "As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences forthe events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the high court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling."

Professor Thomas Arnold who was for fourteen years the famous headmaster of Rugby, and author of the famous three-volume, History of Rome, said, "I have been used for many years to study thehistories of other times and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, than that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

I'll leave you with this in conclusion as my time has expired. If Jesus was not what he claimed to be,ladies and gentlemen, then he deserves an Oscar for the best actor that ever walked on the face of the earth. Thank you.

— Much credit is to be given to the book, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, by Josh McDowell.

THE ANSWER TO THE MARRIAGE QUESTION

The controversy rages over whether or not theguilty put-away fornicator has the God-given right tore-marry. I do not believe such a person canscripturally re-marry. But even if I could convincethe whole world that such is so, we would likely stillhave the marriage and divorce problem with whichto contend.

The answer to the marriage question is to BEGINNOW, today, to teach our children the Bible truthregarding the seriousness of marriage, the importanceof choosing the right mate, and the fact that God'sway is always and forever the right way. You see, thefact that we must contend among ourselves overmatters such as whether or not the guilty party mayre-marry is a lucent demonstration that we are treating symptoms and indications instead of ascertaining and then attacking the actual cause ofthe difficulty. It should be abundantly clear thatuntil the cause is determined and removed we will be continually beset with the frustrating dilemma of symptomatic treatments which seemingly have noend.

The first thing children need to learn about marriage is that it is serious business. There is todayan open flippancy about marriage. And while it istrue that living together without a marriage contracthas not pervaded the thinking of most morally-minded individuals, it is also true that the permissiveness and tolerant attitude of society hascaused many Christians to fail to place properemphasis on the true seriousness of marriage. As aresult, many persons enter into the relationshipwithout due consideration and learn too late that theyshould have assigned more importance to their decisions relating to marriage.

To begin, children need to learn that marriage isnot a mere social relationship. In order for them to beimpressed with this fact they must understand thatmarriage was neither originated in nor is it controlledby society. God originated marriage (Gen. 2:18-25).And God sustains and governs marriage (Matt. 5:32;19:9; Eph. 5:22-33, etc.). The realization of such should cause every person contemplating marriage toconsider carefully what requirements are necessarybefore one is qualified in the eyes of God to enter thishighly regarded relationship. God has spokenconcerning marriage and that indicates that He hasconcern for its sanctity and that any marriage notentered into within the confines of his regulation islacking His approval and is thereby sinful (Cf. Lk.

16:18; Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:10-11). If we are to have

any effect on the startling rise in the divorce rate, we

must begin to show our children that there are three

parties to every marriage — the man, the woman, and

God. And we must cause them to see that when the

vow is made, God is a signer to the agreement and

even if the man and woman seek to nullify the pact,

God must likewise be consulted before any change is

made.

We need to teach our children to value and respect

the marriage vow. They must be made to understand

that to make a vow and then dismiss it is a serious

crime in the eyes of God (Eccl. 5:1-4). Many a

marriage has failed because its partners attached no

real significance to the vows which were exchanged at

the beginning of the contract. For instance, when one

takes a partner "for better or worse" and worse

comes, there can be no negation of the commitment

on grounds that "I didn't know what I was saying!"

"Better it is that thou shouldst not vow, than that

thou shouldst vow and not pay" (Eccl. 5:5). And

when the times of financial reversals come (and we

would do well to teach our youngsters that such

times will come!), to endure such is to fulfill the

covenant agreement. And God, who was a party to

such a vow, will tolerate no less! Children who are

reared to respect truth and to follow through with

promises and commitments, even if it sometimes hurts,

are far less likely to have marriage problems,

regardless of the severity of the adversity which

attacks their relationship.

Sex is one of the most powerful of all human drives. We must begin now to teach our off-springthat such is the case and thereby impress their mindswith its potential danger. Many children have a poorconcept of sex and its relationship to marriage. Infact, far too many children receive their sex educationfrom television, which promotes it as a normal appetite which can be satisfied without any moral restraint whatever. Or they receive it from movies, which actually encourage experimentation with all forms of sexual encounters, and which almost never frown on any sexual deviation, no matter the moral turpitude involved. Or they learn about sex from magazine "experts" who have placed the real premium on mere carnal satisfactionand who in some instances actually ridicule those who would run the risk of psychological disaster by denying themselves any form of sexual gratification. Or our children may very well be gaining their sex education from the popular songs of the day, songs which serve to stimulate and heighten sexualfeelings to the extent that "turning back" in the face of sexual temptation becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible. Certainly sex is not dirty. Certainly our children must understand that sexual expression is not only normal, but a most beautiful mode of joining two kindred spirits in the deepestcommunication of total commitment. But when sex becomes merely the animalistic culmination of a law of necessity, it is empty, meaningless, and more importantly, sinful. God has a special aberrance for sexual sins (1 Cor. 6:15-20), and says that "he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body," indicating that the satisfaction of sexual desires outside the

realm of marriage is doing so with ends lower than

God intended when he made the body.

We must teach our youngsters that to marry a nonbeliever is extremely dangerous and is thereby highlyinadvisable. I do not believe it to be a sin for a Christian to take a mate who is not a believer. To so teach has God allowing a relationship to continue where one member of the marriage obeys the gospeland the other does not, but disallowing that same relationship to be formed between a believer and a nonbeliever (Cf. 1 Cor. 7:11-ff). However, for one who is a follower of Christ to marry one who is not is totake a step in the wrong direction and invites certain strained relations at the outset of the marriage. Statistical evidence is abundant regarding "mixed" marriages and shows conclusively that whenone marries a non-believer such a marriage is likelydestined for trouble, if not the divorce court. Even ifa prospective companion is a Christian, that personshould be taken as a mate only after seriousconsideration and much prayer, for the commitmentis for a lifetime. Our children need to know that when the honeymoon is over and they must getdown to the business of living life, the spiritual tieswhich are shared between two Christians are a primeconsideration and a marriage devoid of such strengthis seriously incapacitated, no matter how much "love" is there.

And our children need to be taught the value ofgood communication in any relationship, but especially in marriage. Of all the couples who havecome to my office with marital difficulties I would behard pressed to name even one instance where a lackof communication was not a major contributor to theproblem. And it is no wonder! Husbands today donot talk to their wives; and wives today do not talkto their husbands! We pass along these same attitudes to our children and as a result, in many homes today, there is little exchange of edifying andstrengthening conversation. When there is communication it is all too often of the varietywhich cites the faults of others, screams insults, orloudly proclaims other negative reactions to life. Such verbosity does not lend itself to saying "I loveyou," or "I appreciate you," or "I am interested, tellme." The value of good communication cannot be overemphasized. And communication BEFORE marriage is as good a measuring device as I knowto see whether there will be communication AFTER marriage. The person who would enter into a marriage relationship where there has not already been an abundance of communication is foolish to a fault!

I know some will say that this solution is idealistic and Utopian in its very concept. Maybe it is. But Iam tired of trying to solve problems that become socomplicated with verbiage and so complex with sophistry that a Solomon would be completelyperplexed to solve them. And, yes, there are stillsome areas where I don't have sufficient information (and the ability to apply what I do have!) in order toaffect an equitable solution. In fact, some questions are so complex I don't believe the interrogator understands them! So, why don't we just try something simple for a change. Why don't we just get back to

basics and start at the beginning again. Why don'twe teach our children what can happen when God isleft out of marriage? And brethren, if we don't startRIGHT NOW to do something to help them learnabout the seriousness of marriage they are apt togrow up attaching little significance to it. And ourchildren's children are likely to look upon it as anantiquated puritanical concept which doesn't even deserve sober consideration.

People, the answer to the marriage question is toteach our children that marriage is a spiritualcommitment to two partners — the mate you havechosen, and God, who began it all in the first place.

SHOULD A CHRISTIAN SMOKE?

One hears the argument quite often when he is

discussing smoking, drinking, overeating, etc., with

his brother in Christ, that it is "not what goes into

the mouth that defiles the body, but what proceeds

from the mouth" that is harmful. See Matt. 15:10-20

and Mark 7:14-23. Thus the argument goes when

discussing the harmful effects of cigarettes or strong

drink or even drug effects, that one has Bible proof

that he need not worry about putting something into

his mouth, for the Bible "plainly teaches" that I

should not worry about "defiling myself from

without" (taking something into the body) but should

worry about what "proceeds from the mouth" (that

which leaves the body). How foolish and shallow this

argument is. It is quite depressing at times to see

how far one will go in an attempt to justify his habit.

I sometimes expect this behavior from people in the

world, but amazingly I often find more cooperation

from a worldly man in getting him to quit smoking

than I do from my brethren. The man of the world

can see the harm; my brethren try to ignore it, and

"quote scriptures" to justify their habit.

Everyone by now should know that cigarettesmoking is bad for his health. The latest reminder for all to read is the report on Smoking and Health fromthe office of the Surgeon General. It is encyclopedicand the obvious effects of smoking read like a plagueor major disaster. Notice, 350,000 people will die nextyear from the effects of smoking. (The smokers retortis . . .we all must die sometime). Thousands morewill be incapacitated, yet smoking even amongChristians continues. The list of diseases is awesome and the relationships between cigarettes and diseasesof the heart, lungs and stomach continue to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Of all the hazards of cigarette smoking, cancer ofthe lungs stands out the most and is the best known.Can we argue this point any longer, or should we argue it? It is a known fact! The statistics are known, diverse and convincing! The lung cancer rateof cigarette smokers is twenty times greater overall,and more specific cancers of the lung (there aredifferent types) are almost exclusively related tosmoking (and inhaling). Experimental evidence in animals is convincing that the risk of developingcancer in the lungs varies with the amount and duration of smoking. Should a Christian smoke?

Besides cancer however, there are many more diseases influenced and caused by smoking. Smokingis the predominant cause of bronchitis and emphysema. You have seen people whose cheeks are

puffed out and can't walk across the room without

collapsing and are short of breath at the least

exertion. More than likely cigarette smokers.

Smoking is one of the leading causes of cancers in the

larynx (voice box), mouth and throat. Should a

Christian smoke?

An equally discouraging compilation of smoking and disease can be drawn from the heart and circulation. Male cigarette smokers have more coronary artery disease (these arteries which supplythe heart with blood) than non-smokers. Smoking isone of the major risk factors in heart attacks and sudden death. If you want to shorten your life, smoketwo packs a day, eat all the food you can eat, and quitexercising. It is the surest known way to take 15-20years off of your life. Other diseases: stomach ulcers are more prevalent in smokers than non-smokers. Cancer of the bladder is more prominent. The most obvious and alarming as well as convincing statisticto me is that all the above mentioned diseases have been found less often in females until ten to twentyyears ago, but now even the fairer sex is beginning tobe affected by these diseases. Why? Because twentyto thirty years ago women began smoking as extensively as men. You "have come a long waybaby" as the commercial sings!

What can be done about smoking? The obvious solution is to quit. How does one go about convincingAmerica with it's vast riches and resources that it has to give up the pleasures (?) of smoking?Obviously we cannot stop production of cigarettes(How nice that would be). I am immediately delugedwith the saddened realities of thousands of tobacco farmers going hungry and losing their farms. Whatwill you do with the industry, the cries of the wounded are heard to moan. What about developing a "safe" cigarette. My answer . . . Impossible. Most people are addicted or at least affected by thenicotine in cigarettes. If we were to develop a newcigarette with new ingredients, how are we to knowwhat their effects will be?

Certainly all fair-minded Christians, smokers ornot, must know the harm cigarette smoking causes.Are we really caring for the body, the temple of theHoly Spirit which is in you which ye have from God?(1 Cor. 6:19). I honestly feel that the answer to myquestion "Should a Christian smoke"? is an unqualified, uncompromising, straight forward NO!How about it brethren, what is your answer?

HABAKKUK — FROM SOBBING DOUBTS TO AN ACTIVE FAITH (PART II)

As we closed Chapter 2 of the Book of Habakkuk

we learned God revealed to him magnificent

promises. (1) The righteous man will live by his faith

and (2) the earth will be full of the knowledge of God.

Then we saw where God revealed to the prophet His

own plan, first to use the wicked nation of Babylon

and then to destroy the nation because of their

wickedness. Habakkuk's eyes now SEE God. He now

is ready to be silent before Him, and we are ready to

enter into Chapter 3. Remember Chapter 1 was: THE

BURDEN — faith grappling with a problem.

Chapter 2 was: THE VISION — faith grasping the

solution.

Chapter 3 is THE PRAYER: faith glorying inassurance. If the first Chapter was faith SIGHING,the second, faith SEEING, now we have faith SINGING. Just as we had 2 problems in Chapter 1 and 2 promises in Chapter 2, now we have 2 productsin Chapter 3. These two products of faith are (1)praise for the ability to see God clearly, and (2) theconfidence to face uncertainty in the future.

Chapter 3 begins with Habakkuk's psalm of how he

is now able to see God.

1. 3:2 -The Reverence for God, "I have heard the report and I fear thee." At first he was questioningGod and he was calling an investigation to examineHis activities, but now faith vindicates God and hehas the proper relationship between the superior and the inferior. Without faith this relationship gets allout of perspective.
2. 3:2 — The Activity Of God, "Lord revive thy work." Here he is saying for God to continue Hiswork just as He was doing. At first he questionedGod's lack of activity because the wicked in Judahprospered, but now he sees that God had a plan allalong. Lord continue, "revive it in the midst of theyears."
3. 3:3-4 — The Glory Of God. Just as He appeared to the children of Israel in Deut. 33:2, "fromTeman" and "from Mount Param, His splendor covers the heavens." How beautiful is God to this prophet who now understands by faith and sight.
4. 3:5-7 - The Wrath Of God, "Before him goespestilence." The wrath against the wicked. So just asJob thought he knew God but found he had reallyonly heard of Him, so Habakkuk now SEES, now heKNOWS God in a personal one-to-one relationship.What Habakkuk needed to learn was God's purposein using a nation like Babylon and this is repeated in3:12-13: "in indignation thou didst march throughthe earth; . . . thou didst go forth for the salvation of

thy people, for the salvation of thine anointed." His

plan was purification or perfection. Had Judah been

allowed to continue to become more and more

ungodly she would have ended up as the people

before the flood — in TOTAL destruction. But while

there was a righteous remnant, purification would

preserve the righteous and refine it as fire would

purge gold.

Here is the second product of faith — confidence in

the face of disaster! Here the prophet is trembling in

the inward parts because he knows what is coming

upon his people and his home. There will be TOTAL

desolation: the fig tree will not flourish, no fruit on

the vines, no food from the field, and the flock will be

cut off with no cattle in the stalls. NOTHING will be

present to eat because of the intensity of judgment,

but notice his attitude — "I will exult in the Lord, I

will rejoice in the God of my salvation." This shows

us what one thing it takes to serve God. It doesn't

take great material wealth to serve God. It doesn't

take great talent to serve God, but it takes FAITH!

In spite of everything the prophet is going to suffer

in the coming judgment, he is going to maintain his

faith. Notice the description of it literally in

3:18 — "he is going to JUMP FOR JOY and he willSPIN AROUND IN DELIGHT." It is going to be sobad there will be nothing to eat, but his faith is greatenough to jump for joy and spin around in delight. He had learned his lesson well because "my feet arelike hinds feet", the most agile little deer that ran,jumped, and climbed where no other animal could go.The example of the greatness of his faith now, inspite of all, ought to be our goal.

Finally, let us note the 5-step process by which

Habakkuk turned from sobbing doubts to the most

fervent faith:

First, he went to God with his doubts. We don't need men to preach their doubts. All of us have enough doubts of our own without somebody goingaround preaching about all the things they are notcertain about. Every preacher that left the Lord andlost his faith took a certain number with him because he became a spokesman for doubt. Brethren, when wedoubt let's not destroy other Christians with ourbroken spirit, because doubt is an infection that iscultured to grow in a weak heart. Do what Habakkukdid. Take your doubt to God. This small book is oneof the few where God is not talking to man throughthe prophet. Here, it is Habakkuk talking to God andGod's response to him. This is the place for the secret discourses of doubt and not to be paraded before themultitudes.

Secondly, Habakkuk said I will wait. After one goes to God with his doubts, the next most important thing is patience. Habakkuk was willingto go stand and watch to see what God would sayto him. This involves man's part when doubts enterinto his mind. He must be willing to meditate,study, explore with God in prayer and finally towait patiently for the answer. We want our answersin triplicate and right now. Like the woman who called this office stating the need for an answer inthe next 4 minutes. Yet, so often the answers to thequestions and the doubts need time. We need timefor the answer to mold, change and form our livesaround

God's response. The story is told of a young believer

in the last century who began to question his faith

because there was no recorded history of the Hittite

nation of which the Bible spoke. Therefore, he

concluded the Book must be in error. He heeded not

the admonition of those stalwart defenders of the

faith to be patient, and then later as the result of a

tragic accident died in his unbelief. However, only a

matter of months had elapsed when the news

headlines read: "New Discovery — The Biblical

world of the Hittites found."

Thirdly, he was ready to praise and glorify God when answered. The necessity of open-mindednesshere is emphasized. Too often doubts become the toolof "intellectual snobbery." Too often those among usdoubt because they feel a superior sense of wisdomwhich gives them a keener insight of the situationthan all the other "lemmings" who simply follow thecrowd into the sea of belief. The truth is that this is not an honest manifestation of doubt, and the dishonest doubter will not be ready to praise and glorify God even when the answer is received.

Fourthly, Habakkuk was willing to bear his punishment. Even though he was not a part of thewicked nation, he will have to endure the judgmentthat is going to come. So even though the consequences of his faith were not pleasant, he was willing to accept them. When problems arise over doctrine and doubts arise concerning the scripturalness of an issue, we must accept the consequences of a particular answer if we are tomake the journey from doubt to faith. Even thoughthe answer was not what Habakkuk wanted, he waswilling to pour forth his praise and glory to God for the answer.

Fifthly, he is now ready to make the total commitment. Yes, even in trembling and decay ofthe inward parts "I must wait quietly for the day ofdistress." This is the final step in the process of development. "Now, Lord make me to walk in thehigh places." This is as high as the heart of man cango. This is the deepest commitment that man canmake as he gives himself to the Lord.

Thus, in conclusion to the Book of Habakkuk, wemight ask where are we in this journey? All of ushave had our doubts and questions, but how manyhave made the transition that Habakkuk made? Maythe Lord grant us time and opportunity.

"IS MARK 16:15-16 A DIRECT STATEMENT?"

I don't suppose there is a passage in the entireword of God which has been discussed more than the above text. I have spent hour after hour on thepolemic platform discussing the text with Baptist preachers. Now it is brought into focus by liberal brethren. It becomes a little trite answering thesefoolish quibbles but I find it very necessary for thesake of our young people. All kinds of peculiararguments come from the heat of controversy. Thelatest comes from my friend, Roy Deaver. Roy is asort of champion of the "Conservative liberal cause". Young preachers as well as the older ones look up tohim for answers to their problems. If these quibblesare not answered, many will feel they cannot beanswered and thus will be led off into the wilderness of confusion.

For years brethren have argued that authority inthe Bible is established in three ways — direct command or statement, necessary inference or apostolic example. In order to broaden the base ofBible authority, some brethren have taken foolish positions. Both in the Freed-Hardeman lectures and in our debate, brother Deaver took theunenviable position that Mark 16:15-16 was not adirect statement or command, necessary inferenceor apostolic example. He argued that since it wasnot one of the three it must be something else. If thisis true, there are other ways of establishing Bibleauthority. To be perfectly frank, I have never heardbrother Deaver say what the other way of establishing authority might be. He hinted in our debate it might be expediency. If he thinks expediency is a way of establishing authority, he isin for lots of trouble. He did argue that authority isestablished only two ways, "Explicitly and Implicitly". Well, all of us have known that for years! Any good dictionary will tell you that"Implicitly means implied or understood although notdirectly stated or expressed". (American HeritageDictionary, page 660). In the same dictionary we aretold that "Explicit" means to be expressed with precision clearly defined or specific. Well, now doesn't this help a great deal? One doesn't have to be astute to know that a direct statement or command is explicit and a necessary inference is implicit! So thisdoes not add one thing to the way Bible authority isestablished except a lot of subterfuge. Brethrensometimes like to throw big words around as if theyhave discovered something new but when reduced tothe lowest common denominator, it comes out the same. This reminds me of an old Indian friend of

mine who had listened to a younger man tell how

many Indians he had whipped and implied he could

take care of the old Indian. After listening he replied,

"Ugh, loud thunder, much lightening, no rain"!

Any student of the Bible knows that Mark 16:15 isa DECLARATIVE SENTENCE. I will affirm Mark

16:15 is a direct statement. The text under consideration is: "He that believeth and is baptizedshall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned". The reason it is a direct statement and not a command is that he uses third person instead of second. This is why we always stress command orstatement. Sometimes the Bible speaks in second person and sometimes in third person. Since it will notbe denied that our text is a declarative sentence, if wecan find out what a declarative sentence is, we will set matters straight. I have before me two goodEnglish books dealing with grammar. On page 10,of the "Plain English Handbook" by Walsh he says,"A declarative sentence makes a statement". Then he gives us an example of a declarative sentence."Our glee club sings well". Now isn't that simple. If Mk. 16:15 is a declarative sentence and, indeed it is, then it makes a statement! The very thing brotherDeaver says it doesn't do. Mr. Walsh, the grammarian,even uses the word STATEMENT! The example hegives is certainly DIRECT so there you have it. Our text is a direct statement, not withstanding RoyDeaver to the contrary. The other authority who tellsus about a declarative sentence is Jonathan Rigdon,Ph.D, in his book "The English Sentence", He says, on page 224, "A declarative sentence is one that asserts or denies". He, like, Mr. Walsh, gives us anexample: "You are mistaken". Excellent! If Roy willallow me to use the third person as the Lord did inour text, I will say, "He (Roy) is mistaken", and brother, that is a declarative, direct statement!

Matthew and Mark differ somewhat in giving thegreat commission. In Matt. 28:19, Matthew records adirect command from the Lord, to his apostles. He says, "Go teach — baptizing certain people".However, in Mark he speaks to his apostles (secondperson) and then shifts to third person talking aboutothers, "He that believeth and is baptized shall besaved". This is a direct statement, couched in a declarative sentence of the third person.

How any man could go through the country andtell his students that the great text of Mark 16:15-16 is not a direct statement is beyond me. Every vestigeof Bible and grammar is against him. Wouldn't it benice if people didn't have to defend false doctrine? itsurely would save me a great deal of time.

CHURCH ENTERTAINMENT

A number of years ago brother Athens ClayPullias, then President of David Lipscomb College,wrote and published a tract entitled, "Where There IsNo Pattern." In view of the fact that many desire todo what they want to do, whether they have scriptural authority or not, it was no small wonderthat brother Pullias' tract "caught on" among manywho were members of the Body of Christ.

Today we are seeing the results of this throughmany different avenues. In the letter that follows (which is a reduction of the original letter) we seesome twenty-odd-years later some of the results ofsuch teaching.

(Letter)

Angeles area, have been invited by means of the

above letter, to come to a "Concert" presented by this

group. According to Mr. Webster, a "concert" is "A

public or private musical entertainment at which a

number of vocalist or instrumentalists, or both

perform singly or combined" (Webster's New

Twentieth Century Dictionary, Page 355).

Question: Where is the authority in the Word ofGod for the church providing entertainment for anyone? Worship is not entertainment! Jesus said, (inthe midst of all this talk about "no pattern," and "entertainment," excuse me for bringing Jesus andthe Bible into the discussion), "But the hour cometh,and now is, when the true worshipper shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God is a spirit: andthey that worship him must worship him in spirit andin truth" (John 4:23-24). One neither has the right "spirit" or attitude toward the Scriptures, nor is it according to "truth" that entertainment be providedby a congregation of the people of God.

But notice also the admission is free — but they aregoing to accept a donation — free-will-offering-stylejust like the sectarians have done for years. Thus I see at least three principles violated by this "Concert."

1. It is a lack of respect for Scriptural authority, forthere is no Bible authority for the church providingany form of entertainment for anyone. If so, where isthe passage?
2. When we sing, it is for the purpose of makingmelody with grace in our hearts unto the Lord (Eph.5:19; Col. 3:6), not to entertain man.
3. Their "free-will-offering" is not according to theinstructions given in I Cor. 16:1-2 and II Cor. 9:7.

You see, I observe the above violations of Bible principles because I believe that the Scriptures inspired of God do provide a pattern — brother Pullias and many other brethren notwithstanding.

WAS PETER POPE (#2)

In our last article we discussed the following points:

(1) That the office of "Pope" claims to be the Vicar — (to stand in the place) — of the Lord Jesus Christ as the head of His church and the Bridegroom of the Bride. (2) If this claim is true then all who reject the Pope are really rejecting Christ; and it is NOT truethen the office of Pope is the greatest fraud everperpetrated on earth and all who believe in the Popeare deceived and are yet in their sins. (3) The study logically involves four questions: (a)Did Jesus Christ establish such an office as that of Pope, or Vicar? (b) If so, who was the first officer, orperson to fill that office? (c) Did the Divine Son ofGod ordain a succession? And, (d) Has that succession been complete and uncorrupt to this presentday? (4) Regarding the first of these questions we learned that there is absolutely NO HINT NOR ALLUSION to such an office in all the Bible; and that such an office is conspicuously left out of all listsof offices in the church — such as, Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Bishops, Deacons — given in the inspired Word of God. (5) To prove that the church must have a headdoes not prove the office of Pope. Christ is the headof His body, the church. To prove the office of Pope one must prove that the church has a SUB HEAD — A Vicar or Viceroy — a representative or proxy — for that is what the office of Pope professes to be.

Was Peter The First Pope

Let us now consider the 2nd question: Who wasthe first officer? Or, to get right to the point, DidChrist appoint Peter to be the FIRST POPE??

Logically, this question is already answered in theone we just discussed. Obviously, if the Lord Jesus Christ did NOT institute such an office as that of Pope, He certainly could not have appointed Peter toan office that did not exist. But since Catholics think that Christ made Peter the first Pope when He said,"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church", then we need to consider their argumentsalong this line. Their arguments fall into two classes:Scriptural and philosophical. We will examine their arguments from the Scriptures first, then the others,and then we shall offer arguments from the Scriptures showing that Peter could not have occupied such a position.

MATT. 16:18-19

Catholics, from the least to the greatest, quoteMatt. 16:18-19 as their first and foremost proof-text.This passage reads — (and I am reading from theCatholic Confraternity translation of the Scriptures,as I will be doing throughout this study. And which,by the way, was given to me by the Catholic Seminary at which I was enrolled by correspondenceto study the Catholic Religion) — this passage reads,

Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God'. Then Jesus answered and said. Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to thee, but my Father in heaven. And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevailagainst it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdomof heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shallbe bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven'. "

Catholics argue that Christ here promises to buildHis church on Peter and to give him the sole authority to bind and loose the doctrines and practices of that church. They thus attempt to establish the OFFICE of Pope by trying to provethat Peter was the first officer. We shall examine this Scripture in detail in future lessons, and will showyou that Christ established His church on the fact ofPeter's confession that "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God", and that the binding and loosing power was NOT what Catholics claim, but whateverit was, it was given to ALL the Apostles and through them to the Prophets. But we first want to show you that NONE of the 12 Apostles of Christ, allof whom were present and were a party to this conversation — that NONE of the 12 Apostles understood Christ's Words on this occasion to mean any such thing. NONE of the 12 Apostles EVER INALL OF THEIR LIVES believed that Christ had made Peter His Vicar and their Head.

Luke 22:24-27 Is Christ's Own Commentary on The Subject of Headship of the Apostles

I invite your attention to Luke 22:24-27 where there is recorded an incident in the upper room where Christ and the 12 Apostles had gathered to eat the last Passover Supper before Christ's death. The inspired writer tells us, "Now there arose also a dispute among them, which of them was reputed tobe the greatest. But he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exerciseauthority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatestamong you become as the youngest, and him who isthe chief as the servant.'" (Catholic Bible).

Friends, the very fact that such a dispute aroseamong them shows conclusively that NONE of the Apostles understood or believed that Peter had beenmade their Pope, or the Vicar of Christ. All 12 of theApostles were present and heard the words of Jesuswhen He said, ' Thou art Peter and upon this rock Iwill build my church", Yet some 2 or 3 years later,on the night of the betrayal and at the upper roomwhere they were all gathered to eat the last suppertogether, and just a few hours before the Lord was

crucified, the Scriptures tell us, Now there arose

also a dispute among them, which of them was

reputed to be the greatest." No such dispute could

possibly have arisen among them if they had

understood that Christ had made Peter their Supreme

Pontiff and His Vicar. Therefore, the apostles did not

believe in the office of Pope, nor that Peter filled such

an office.

The passage not only reveals the attitude of the

apostles regarding the office of Pope and of Peter

occupying such an office, but it also tells us what

Christ has to say about such an office. You would

expect the Lord to settle their argument and to make

it plain that He had appointed Peter as their "lord"

and Head to "exercise authority over them". The

Lord did NOT say, "Children, I thought you

understood that I made Peter your Lord and

Master back yonder at Caesarea Phillipi when I said

'Upon this rock I will build my church and that I

give to thee the keys of the kingdom' ". But friends,

this is not what the Lord said. He did NOT

announce plainly that Peter was indeed the Head

of the apostles and His Vicar, but RATHER, He

taught them emphatically that there was NO SUCH

PLACE or OFFICE IN HIS KINGDOM!

This passage clearly reveals two things: (1) thatNONE of the APOSTLES understood these words of Jesus to have made Peter their Lord and Head; and

(2) that the Lord Jesus settled the matter beyond any doubt or dispute by telling them that NONE of themwould occupy such an office of Lordship, for thesimple reason that no such office would exist in Hiskingdom!

Now, friends, that should forever settle the matter. Matt. 16:18 could not possibly have any such meaning as Catholics give it in view of this plainteaching. The Bible is in harmony with itself — it does not contradict itself. The Lord JESUS Christ taught this in Matt. 4:7. When the Devil quotedScripture to the Lord in tempting Him, the Lord Jesus answered, It is written AGAIN.... " , and showed that the Scripture had no such meaning as the devil gaveit because the meaning he gave it contradicted the other Scriptures. And just so with Matt. 16:18. Theinterpretation that Catholics give this Scripture contradicts the other Scriptures. It contradicts Luke 22:24-26, as we have just shown you, and also manyothers which we shall study; and it therefore couldnot possibly mean what Catholics claim that it does.Friends, that should forever settle this question without any further argument, but in order to thoroughly study the matter we want to examine every Scripture, and every argument that is made onthis subject. (Matt. 16:18-19 next issue).

Need a Catalog?

Any reader of STS who has not received a catalog of supplies from Religious Supply Center, may receive one free upon request.

Write to: Religious Supply Center

P.O. Box 13164 Louisville, KY 40213 Perhaps you heard about the man who was about

to jump from the Brooklyn Bridge. He was seized by

a policeman and begged to be let go so he could leap

into the river below. The officer counseled with him

and made a suggestion. "You take five minutes and

give me all the reasons why you think life is not

worth living. Then I will take five minutes and give

you some reasons why life is worth living. If at the

end of the ten minutes you still feel like jumping, I

won't stop you. "Each one took his five minutes and

at the end of the ten minutes they joined hands and

both jumped off together.

I am not sure that story is the best way to begin alesson on suicide but I have found that it helps torelax an audience that is edgy, uptight, and uncomfortable over this subject. While it strikes us humorously, many doctors and preachers are beginning to realize more than ever the seriousness ofthe problem of suicide. As bad as it is among middleclass adults, it is worse among high school and college students and has been dubbed the "cap-andgown" disease. It is the number two killer of young people. In many oriental countries suicide has been glorified as heroism. Even yet we read of those whopour gasoline over their bodies and strike a match tothemselves on behalf of some political cause. For a long time human life has seemed to be of less value inthe Orient. This country is being influenced by that and by famous people who choose this course. Frequently the suicide rate is higher than the homicide rate. Over 600 people have purposely taken their lives by leaping from the Golden Gate Bridge inSan Francisco. The average is one per week since thebridge was built. The same countries (the United States, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, and Denmark) which have the highest suicide rates havealso the highest alcoholism rate. Could it be that prosperity, while satisfying our material needs, leavesus with a feeling of intense boredom and that suicideand alcohol are ways of escape from this? Could it bethat these statistics drastically illustrate the sublimetruth that "Man shall not live by bread alone, but byevery word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God?"(Mt.4:4).

WHY THIS SUBJECT?

I got interested in this subject when an anonymousletter was received for a question column I was editing for a local newspaper. The person seemed tobe contemplating suicide or at least trying to justifyit. A small portion of the letter said this: "What andwhere does the Bible have to say about suicide? I can't find anything except for one little thing thatmay pertain to it that may mean it is wrong.Otherwise I think the one who has, may not havebeen so wrong if it was what he felt was right to dodeep inside." My answer to the question began like this: "It is never right to do wrong. And how onefeels about right and wrong is not what determinesit. God sets the standards, not man."

Bible Cases Of Suicide

There are seven cases of suicide in the Bible and one "near case" where a fellow was talked out of it. Perhaps we can learn something from these. 1. AHITHOPHEL (2 Sam. 17:23) was a man of worldly wisdom who aided Absalom as conspiratoragainst King David. His suicide could not be calledlunacy as every step to it was deliberate. When Absalom did not follow Ahithophel's advice, Ahithophel could foresee Absalom's ruin. He did not choose to witness it and share in the disgrace for hehad previously been a faithful counselor to DavidU6:23). He let his pride get the best of him and wasan example of a bad man who did some terrible things. He "set his house in order" and then hangedhimself. A man wrapped up in worldly affairs.

1. KING SAUL (1 Sam.31:4) was a wicked king whotried to kill David and was found in rebellion to God on several occasions because he felt his own ideas were better. He was wounded at the battle of Gilboa. When he thought of what his enemies might do tohim if they found him alive, he concluded that dyingwas better than living.
2. SAUL'S ARMOR-BEARER (1 Sam. 31:5, 6)refused to kill Saul as Saul had commanded. After Saul killed himself, the armor-bearer also decided that living was worse than dying, since he was responsible for the king.
3. ZIMRI (1 Kgs. 16:18) was tormented by the consequences of having committed a murder while drunk (he murdered the king and took his throne).When retribution was squeezing in on him he burned his house down on himself, thinking only of this life.
4. ABIMELECH (Judg.9:51-55) slaughtered his way to his father's (Gideon's) throne. An insurrection broke out and he fled in defeat. He was severely wounded by a stone dropped from a wall by a woman. He ordered his armor-bearer to thrust him through lest it be said to his shame that he was killedby a woman. While the armor-bearer did the actual killing (possibly because Abimelech was unable), forall practical purposes it still classifies as suicide.
5. SAMSON (Judg. 16:30f) whose weakness of heartwith a contriving woman was more astonishing thanthe strength of his body, through vengeance, took his own life by pulling the house down that the Philistines might be killed. It is difficult to say whichis worse: Abimelech's chauvinism (he didn't want it said he was killed by a woman) or Samson's henpeckedness (he was allowing Delilah to literally naghim to death) (Judg.l6:16).

(Samson's case may be debatable if viewed asbeing killed in battle. Suicide is defined as "the act ofkilling oneself intentionally.")

7. JUDAS ISCARIOT (Mt. 27:4,5; Acts 1:18). Sickened by his betrayal of innocent blood, the consequences of wrong doing were more than he couldtake. With no apparent thought of the hereafter hedid what "he felt was right to do deep inside." But was it right or wrong? Jesus said it would have beenbetter if he had not been born (Mt.26:24). That doesn't sound like it was all right. Forgiveness could have been extended even to Judas if he had truly

sought it and he could have gone on living.

Murder (which includes self murder) is wrong

(Mt. 19:18; Rom. 13:9). Besides, some have

committed adultery, stolen, lied, and murdered

while drunk. Are they not responsible for getting

themselves into that condition? It so happens that

the majority of suicides are connected with alcohol

and drugs. We must be careful about making

exceptions where God made none.

Why People Commit Suicide

Some reasons people commit suicide are: 1) They do not believe in a hereafter. Since they have had some unpleasant experiences in life (financial problems, broken romances, etc.) they convince themselves that dying is better than living. While we do not agree with the premise, once granted, a person mayarrive at suicide logically. Of the Bible cases of suicide, there is no evidence that any of them gave athought to the hereafter. 2) Because they think it is heroic. This was Abimelech's reason. They are concerned about being remembered in history as martyrs for a cause. But there is a vast difference inmartyrdom and suicide. 3) Because they will not accept responsibility. There is much emphasis today on being "free" — liberated. No one wants to be "tied down." Some are so obsessed with being "liberated" that they will choose suicide rather than the alternative of accepting responsibility. 4)

Because of anxieties over the cares of this world.

When the stock market crashes their world crashes too. They are wrapped up in "things." But "a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the thingshe possesseth" (Lk. 12:15). 5) Because they want tobe united with a dead loved one. This writer knew a lady who contemplated suicide because her husband had died. She needed to be reminded that she might not go where her loved one went. A person may talk himself into suicide the same way he may talk himself into adultery, theft, lying, etc. Self-control is a forgotten virtue (2 Pet.1:6), It doesn't come in a bottle or a pill. There isno substitute for it (1 Cor. 9:25-27). 6) Some are deceived by false teachers. They are led to believe that suicide is not sinful or some other false doctrine, such as number one in this list. ( A futurearticle will deal with the Jonestown massacre).

What About Insanity?

Some always want to excuse suicide on the basis ofinsanity. If that be so, then everyone should do it and all would be okay — a sure ticket to salvation. Ofcourse there may be cases beyond the knowledge ofthe living. No one knows another man's mind (1 Cor. 2:11). This writer does not know whether every person is sane or guilty. But one can arrive atthe conclusion that he should self-destruct without being insane (Judas, Ahithophel, etc.). No one shouldwant to take the chance that he can plead insanitybefore the judgment bar of God. God will not be mistaken in His judgments? He knows the hearts ofall men (Acts 1:24).

There is some significance to the fact that of the Bible cases of suicide, none could be called faithfulchildren of God. And in each case it was sin that led to their predicament. There is no reason why the faithful child of God should want to commit suicide. There may be many reasons why the faithless personwho does not have peace with God and with himselfwould want to take his life.

That "Near Case" Of Suicide

The solution to suicide lies with the case where a

man was talked out of it — the Philippian jailer (Acts

16). Why was the jailer convinced not to self-

destruct? CHRISTIANITY! Notice the events

surrounding his "near" suicide. 1) Paul and Silas had

been beaten, imprisoned, and put in stocks unjustly.

Would the jailer expect prisoners to be singing as a

result of such treatment? Rather than "gloom,

despair, and agony on me" they were singing hymns

of praise to God. A remembrance of this could have

had a telling effect on the jailer. It was abnormal

behavior for the circumstances. 2) Paul and Silas

were honest in not escaping when the earthquake

came. For criminals, that also is abnormal behavior.

Let a similar thing happen today and see how many

prisoners escape. 3) They saved his life though he

represented the government responsible for their

unjust treatment. Conversely, many escapees have

taken the lives of jailers, wardens or anyone who got

in their way of escape. 4) They had a forgiving

attitude, whereas some prisoners vow and declare

to kill anyone connected with their imprisonment. All

of this was abnormal to his way of loving and

thinking. I do not imply that he already knew the

gospel. He did not. But with these events flashing

before him, he had seen enough Christianity in

action to change his mind. He wanted what they

had. He raised the most important question a man

can raise.

They told him to believe (v.31). They then told him what to believe (v. 32). Upon hearing what to believe he and his family were baptized immediately(v.33). Since they had been through an earthquake, anear suicide, it was after midnight, the wounds ofPaul and Silas needed attention, they had to goelsewhere for the baptizing (plus other possible inconveniences), they must have believed that obedience was absolutely necessary to completesaving faith. The candid reader must be overwhelmed with that conclusion. It couldn't even wait til morning! This writer has participated in and knownof some inconvenient baptisms, but in all of his lifehe has never known of one at any time or place thatwas more inconvenient than the jailer's.

Why the sudden change in the jailer's attitude? Because Christ can make life worth living. What lesson is there for Christians? We need to be in the suicide prevention business!

SCRIPTURES MAKE DEPRAVITY IMPOSSIBLE

When one listens to what Calvinists teach concerning the doctrine of total depravity, several passages of Scripture come to mind that if true, would make depravity impossible. It is an "either-or"proposition; either the Scriptures are true and depravity is not taught therein, or depravity is trueand the Scriptures are false. I will stand with the Scriptures. Notice some passages that show depravity is not taught in the Scriptures.

(1) Ezek. 18:4 says "the soul that sinneth, it shalldie" and verse 20 says "the soul that sinneth, it shalldie. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son:the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him,and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."Also, observe that verse 21 says "if the wicked willturn from all his sins." Ezekiel 18 shows that one commits sin, not that one inherits sin.

('£) Eccl. 12:7 says "the spirit shall return untoGod Who gave it." God gave man his spirit; did Godgive him a depraved one?

(3) Heb. 12:7-9 says, in part, "shall we not muchrather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits andlive?" God is said to be the Father of our spirits. Ifman is born depraved, thus a depraved spirit, thenGod is depraved for "God said, Let us make man inour image, after our likeness" (Gen. 1:26). Since Godis Spirit (John 4:24) and Spirit does not have "fleshand bone" (Lk. 24:39), man is not made physically inGod's image. Since man is made in God's image,with God not being depraved, man is not born with adepraved spirit. Like always produces like. A purespirit produces a pure spirit; a depraved spirit would produce a depraved spirit. God, a pure Spirit, made man a pure spirit. (4) 2 Tim. 3:13 says "evil men and seducers shallwax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived."If man is born depraved or evil, how can he become"worse and worse?" The fact that men can become "worse and worse" shows that men are not born as bad as they can become. They can become "worse" after birth, thus, not born depraved. (5) Matt. 1:21 tells us "and she shall bring forth ason. and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins." Observe his peoplehad their sins. From their sins they needed salvation.They did not have Adam's sin and did not need salvation from it. (6) Acts 3:19. Peter told these to "repent yetherefore, and be converted, that your sins may be

blotted out ..." Repentance and conversion wouldblot out their sins; not the sin of Adam.

(7) 1 Cor. 15:17. Paul said, among other things, that if Christ was not risen from the dead the Corinthians were "yet in your (their) sins." If Christhad not been raised, they were not in both their sinsand also Adam's sin. They were only in their sins. (8) Col. 2:13. Paul said the Colossians were "deadin your (their) sins." They were not dead or separatedfrom God in Adam's sin or in their sins and Adam's sin. All the sin that involved their being "dead" orseparated from God was their sin. (9) Matt. 18:3. Jesus said, "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall notenter into the kingdom of heaven." If children are born in sin, then Jesus is saying that to become acitizen in the kingdom of heaven one must become adepraved sinner. Since children are born free from sin, having never sinned, Jesus is saying one must beconverted, become free from sin in order to enter thekingdom. When people obey from the heart the formof doctrine delivered to them, then they are "made free from sin" (Rom. 6:17-18).

With men in the church teaching that man is depraved by nature, how long will it be until theyconsistently follow Calvin's teaching and advocate"that the Holy Spirit must do an additional work tothat of the written or spoken word for him to besaved?"

If any Calvinist reading these articles has the courage to affirm "The Scriptures teach that man isdepraved by nature and is born in sin" I will be gladto deny such in an honorable discussion negotiatedupon an equitable basis.

NEW CONGREGATION INALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA

BILL J. JAMES, 175 Van Dora St., Grenada, MS

38901 — There is a new congregation meeting in

Alexandria, Louisiana. Their address is 819 Fisk St.

They are meeting in a rented house. England AFB is

but a few miles from Alexandria. If the reader knows

of anyone living in Alexandria or in the surrounding

community, please contact Mike McCarry. His phone

number is 318-466-3283. DON GIVENS, Maple Ridge, British Columbia,Canada — This plea is unsolicited, and on behalf ofanother evangelist who is working full time in western Canada. I have always heard that there arevery, very few conservative preachers willing to go "overseas" to preach the gospel, but that there isplenty of support available for the few willing to takeup roots and go. Well, Canada is not "overseas," butit is "over-borders." William Spaun has been workingfor 2 and 1/2 years in British Columbia, and for thepast 8 months has been some $400 per month shortof total support. He gave up a good secular job inSeattle (at $1500 per month salary) to preach full time, He is asking $1200 per month in Canada wherethe cost of living is 30% HIGHER than in the

U.S.A. He has written dozens and dozens of letters and always the answer is "sorry." Can any church oreven individuals help keep this evangelist in B.C.where he is the only other conservative preacher(besides Don Givens)? Contact him directly at P.O.Box 192, Haney, B.C. or phone 604-467-2735. Canyou help him monthly, or even with a one-time sum?

He will be happy to answer any questions you have.WILLIAM C. SEXTON, 2219 South Glenn, Wichita,Kansas 67213 — I have been asked to move to work with the small group of Christians in Manhattan, Kansas. I have committed myself to begin work withthem June 1, 1979, providing I can raise adequatesupport. I must raise $800 a month of outside support in order to work with them. At this time (March 15) I am $440 short. If adequate supportcannot be raised by June 1, I will have to choose togo elsewhere. I hope the help will be forthcoming.

Manhattan, with its surrounding areas (includingK-State student body, Junction City, Fort Riley) hasover 100,000 people. There is one sound church morethan 50 miles away, in Topeka, and I don't know of another to the west until the Colorado line. To the north there is not another one until Beatrice,Nebraska, and southward in Eldorado and Wichita,more than 100 miles away. I am asking for twothings: (1) Anyone who has funds they are willing touse to help in this work to contact me at the aboveaddress or call 316-943-3332; (2) Anyone coming toKansas State, Ft. Riley, Junction City or the Manhattan area to contact me or Gay Dial, 204Tremount, Junction City, KS 66441 (913-238-2040);or Tom Dickerson, 115 E. J. Frick Dr., Manhattan,KS 66502 (913-776-6704). If you have relatives in thearea now or those moving there, please send us theirnames and addresses and send them ours, so wemight make contact.

Presently, the congregation meets in a privatehome, as it has from the beginning. Efforts are beingmade to find a public place. Please pray for us thatwe may do the will of God, effectively reaching otherswith the saving message of Christ (Rom 1:14-17).Visit us when traveling through the area.

RON RICHARDSON, Tulare, California — I am writing this letter on behalf of my brother in Christand brother-in-law, Phil Arnold. In February of thisyear he and his family moved to Tulare, California towork with the newly formed congregation there. Weare the only conservative work along Hwy 90 fromSelma to Bakersfield. We are not able to provide fullsupport for brother Arnold at this time. He is receiving some support from other areas but it is notadequate. Anyone who is familiar with Phil knows ofhis excellent abilities to preach the gospel. Anycongregations or individuals interested please contactme at P.O. Box 23, Pixley, California 93256 or phone209-757-3948. CHARLES W. WALLER, Rt. 1, Box 32, Darien,Wisconsin 53114 — On March 11 a new congregationbegan in the Beloit-Janesville area of southern Wisconsin. At present there are three families involved but last Lord's Day we had seven visitorsand are excited about the possibilities in this area.We need to find a man to come and work full time with us to spread the gospel in southern Wisconsin. Congregations are few and far between in this state,but the possibilities are unlimited. We are not concerned about the man's age or the number of hischildren. We do insist that he be solidly grounded inthe Word, enthusiastic and energetic and willing to

do a lot of hard work. Anyone interested may contactme at the above address or phone me at 414-7245140.

HISTORY OF THE WINCHESTER, KENTUCKY CHURCH PAUL R. JOHNSON, Box 249, Winchester, KY40391 — In January, 1975, 13 members from theUniversity Heights church in Lexington, Kentuckyand three members from the Liberty Road church, also in Lexington, started a Bible class in the oldHotel building in Winchester, Kentucky. Bob Crawley of the University Heights church was theteacher of the class. From this beginning they movedto a college building in Winchester, and from there tothe Clark County Board of Education building, wherethey continued to meet until April of 1978.At this time Gene McMurray and Ralph Fox, twoelders from University Heights, along with Bob Crawley, met with those attending the Bible class todiscuss establishing a congregation in Winchester. Inthis meeting it was agreed that the UniversityHeights church would support Paul R. Johnson fortwo years to work in the Clark County area andestablish a congregation in Winchester. Those attending the meeting accepted their offer.The writer began working with the brethren onApril 15, 1978. Their first assembly as a congregationwas on Sunday, April 30, 1978 at the Clark CountyBoard of Education auditorium. There were 30 who banded together to form the new congregation. Theycontinued to meet there until January 1, 1979 whenthe congregation moved to 7 N. Bloomfield Road inWinchester. We have a one year lease on the present facility with the possibility of an extension at the endof the lease. There have been three restorations, two baptismsand six to identify as members with us. Our presentmembership is 39. Our attendance averages between50-55 each Sunday morning. Our contribution averages about $275.00 per week. We have a weeklynewspaper article and a "call-in" radio program overWKDJ at 100 FM on Saturday mornings entitled"What's Your Bible Question?" Visit with us when you are in the area.

LECTURE PROGRAM IN MT

PLEASANT, TEXAS LEON GOFF, preacher of the Southside church inMt. Pleasant, Texas announces a lecture programJune 17-21 on "Morals and the Bible." There will be singing each night at 7:30 led by R. J. Stevens of ElCajon, California. On June 17 at 10:30 A.M. R. J.Stevens will speak on "Is There a Moral Standard?"At 8 P.M. Dee Bowman will speak on "Human Philosophy and Morals." On June 18 at 8 P.M. Roy

E. Cogdill will speak on "Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage." On June 19 at 9:30 A.M. Leon Odomwill speak on "Homosexuality." At 10:25 A.M. Dee Bowman will speak on "Abortion." At 11:20 A.M.Roy E. Cogdill will speak on "Pre-Marital Sex and Cohabitation Without Marriage." At 8 P.M. A. W.Goff will speak on "Attitudes Towards Morals." On June 20 at 9:30 A.M. Roy E. Cogdill will speak on"Modern Views on Divorce and Remarriage." At 10:25 A.M., R. J. Stevens will speak on "Pornography." At 11:20 A.M., A. W. Goff will speakon "Dancing." At 8 P.M., Leon Odom will speak on "The Home As God Would Have It." On Thursday, June 21 at 9:30 A.M., A. W. Goff will speak on "Immodesty in Dress." At 10:25 A.M., Roy E. Cogdill will speak on "Church Disciplineand Morals." At 11:20 A.M., Leon Odom will Speak on "Alcohol and Drugs." At 8 P.M. Dee Bowman will close the series speaking on "Women's Liberation Movement and It's Influence on the Church."

As space allows housing will be provided forvisitors. Those wishing to make inquiry may callLeon Goff at 214-572-7521.

PREACHERS NEEDED ALACHUA, FLORIDA—RALPH P. AUTRY,

Box 112 A, Alachua, FL 32615 — After three pleasant years with the Santa Fe Hills church we will be returning the last week of June to our home in Dickson, Tennessee to work with one of the area churches. The church here desires a preacher to take up the work with them July 1. This is a good work. Absolute peace and harmony prevail. Able men and women assist in the work. Salary will be negotiable. Those interested may write the church at P.O. Box 866, High Springs, FL, 32643, or call 904-462-2236, or 904-454-1981.

EVENING SHADE, ARKANSAS — The church meeting at the corner of Main Street and Old Hwy#11 is in need of a full time preacher. Gospelpreachers interested may write Audy Stovall, Gen.Del., Evening Shade, Arkansas 72532, or call CurtisRoyal 501-266-3420, or Shelton McFarlin 501-2835896. NEWARK, OHIO — The congregation meeting at357 Buckingham Street in Newark is wanting to hearfrom any preacher who would be willing to devote fulltime to the work in this area. This congregation isabout 5 years old and has grown from 19 to thepresent average of around 50. A meeting house waspurchased in 1978. The church is active in personalwork and wants a man to work WITH them, notFOR them. Partial support can be supplied. Ifinterested call Nelson Williams 614-892-2501, or SteveHays 614-345-7079.

PREACHER AVAILABLE WALTER J. SCHREINER, 195 Moull Street,Newark, Ohio 43055 — I began work with the goodcongregation in Newark, Ohio in July, 1974. ThisJuly I will have worked with them for five years. Thework here has grown from 19 to around 50 and nowhas a meeting place of its own. I feel we could bothprofit by a change even though, personally, I consider this the finest congregation I have ever worked with. I will be available to work elsewhere August 1, 1979 and would be glad to talk with anycongregation interested and in need of a full timepreacher. My phone number is 614-366-5262.

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH BAPTISMS 580 RESTORATIONS 86 (Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)