Volume XXXIII August 1992 Number 8

becomes easy to drift away from the fundamentals of one's faith when he hears less and less about revelation of God and thinks more and more about his personal welfare and the concerns of this life. It becomes far easier for such an one to go through therituals of religious practice, which do not demand too much attention from his problems in this life, than toexercise the self-control of compelling the heart to layaside the cares of this world and follow after the things of the Spirit. We drift away from the truthbecause we lose sight of what truth is. We talk abouthonor and praise to God and do little about it because it is the easiest course and takes less time and effort. We promise and never change because we love thethings of this world more than we love the things ofGod. These are facts, and no amount of logic will eliminate them.

Jesus taught a parable of a sower who sowed seeds.There were four kinds of soil that received the seed. This is recorded in Matthew 13 and Luke 8. One kind of soil was hard and compared to the roadside, andseed sown upon it never penetrated the soil, so thatthe birds of the air carried it away. Other seed fell insoil which had no depth because of the underlayingrock. While the seed entered the soil, there was no area for roots to grow and give meaning and stabilityto the seed planted. The third fell into soil which hadalready received other seed which chocked out the good seed. But the last fell into the good ground whichproduced harvest in varying degree according to the ability of the soil. Only the last soil was commended.

In Matthew 13: 14-16, Jesus explains why hetaught the parables and why the hearts were such asnot to receive the word. "And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shallsee, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, andtheir eyes they have closed; lest at any time theyshould see with their eyes, and hear with their ears,and should understand with their heart, and should beconverted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear."

One could become a Christian and afterward allow his heart to turn away from the truth so that it wouldnot be right in the sight of God. It is far more important than most people in the church realizes for each one toexamine himself and know that his praise and worshipto God is an action of the heart and not the service of the lips. The heart is that part of the person whichunderstands and believes. When the heart becomes calloused, one will neither see nor hear so as to understand the truth and be changed.

The heart is that which is convinced of right andwrong and understands the nature of man's sins whichseparate him from God. This is the reason the accountin Acts 2 reveals that those who heard the preachingof the apostles were pricked in their hearts and criedout, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

The heart is the seat of action. "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness... " (Rom. 10: 10).Obedience is an action of heart. "... But ye have obeyedfrom the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you" (Rom. 6: 17).

The difference between acceptable worship anddevotion to God and that which characterized the hypocritical Pharisees is the difference between a worship and devotion involving the heart, which obeysthe commands of God on the one hand, and a lip praise which subscribes to the commandments of men on the other.

We are living in an age when the majority of men andwomen are caught up in the race for riches and the care ofthis world, and such endeavors stifles the obedience of thefaith from the heart. "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon" (Matt. 6: 24).

Certain Strange Things

To Our Ears

The Athenians spent their time "in nothing else, buteither to tell, or to hear some new thing" (Acts 17: 21).What they were not used to hearing was the simple,unadulterated gospel of Jesus Christ. They honoredmany gods but they knew nothing of the "God that madethe world and all things therein" (v. 24). They were theintellectually elite. They were broad-minded and hadroom for many gods in their thinking. But the notion ofonly one true God was indeed "strange" to their ears.And intolerant besides!

They heard Paul until he got to the resurrection of thedead, and that's when "some mocked. " Others said "We will hear thee again of this matter" (v. 32). There weresome in Athens who believed but there was not the wide reception to truth which Paul found in Corinth later, orat Ephesus, or Thessalonica. The doctrine was just toostrange for most of them.

To the polytheist, the concept of one God is still "strange. " His identity, nature, character and will remain a mystery to him. Paul wrote "there is one God and Father of all who is above all and through all and in youall" (Eph. 4: 6).

To the evolutionist the concept of a divine creator ofthe universe and all life in the earth, is a "strange"sound. He thinks you must be intellectually deprived tobelieve such. He is much more comfortable with big-bang theories, and speculations about ice ages andfossils. When he "In the beginning God created. " heoften mocks and closes his ears.

To the modernist the doctrine of verbal inspiration and Biblical inerrancy is "strange" indeed.He has become accustomed to viewing the Bible as apiece of allegorical literature, or a collection of folktales. He cannot fathom what Peter said when he declared that "holy men of old spake as they were movedby the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet. 1: 19-21). He has reduced themiracles of the Bible to either a naturalistic explanation, or rel-egated them to uninspired legends.The Bible doctrine of sin and salvation through bloodredemption offends him. It is strange to him that anyonein this enlightened age could believe that.

To the denominationalist baptism for the remission of sins is indeed a "strange" sound. Peter taught it clearly in Acts 2: 38. But somehow this fellow seesthat as a threat to the doctrine of grace. He certainlycannot reconcile it to his popular view of justificationby faith only. Mark 16: 16 which links salvation to bothfaith and baptism, and Gal. 3: 27 which says that baptism puts one "into Christ" create problems for him.You do not hear the TV and radio preachers of the denominations discussing these verses, except to occasionally pervert them. They will preach over andover that baptism has nothing to do with salvation,that sinners are saved before and without water baptism. We are thought strange to preach on it and tourge sinners to obey what the Lord taught.

To the denominationalist it is a "strange" sound tohear "there is one body, one Lord, one faith and onebaptism" (Eph. 4: 4-5). If he speaks of the one body, heexplains that there is one great universal body of believers and that all the churches are but branches on that one vine. It is strange to his ears to hear that religiousdivision is wrong and that all who believe on Christthrough the teaching of the apostles are to be "one" asthe Father and Son are one (Jno. 17: 20-21). You hear itsaid that it is good to have all the choices so we can allfind one with which we are comfortable. One bodyholding to one faith and practicing one baptism? Preposterous! What a "Strange" sound.

To the advocate of "unity in diversity" it is "strange" to hear that we are all to "walk by the samerule" and "to mind the same thing" (Phil. 3: 16). Hethinks "unity in diversity" in the only game in town. Hecannot conceive of brethren believing and preaching thesame things on sponsoring churches, church support ofprivate enterprises, church funded recreation,Premillennialism, instrumental music and similar issues. To him, Romans 14 is an elastic passage with roomto include whatever doctrinal and practical matter wemay want to file away there. To this brother, there isroom for all sorts of views on marriage, divorce and remarriage except for those who declare themselves inopposition to some of these views.

To the worldly minded it is a "strange" sound tohear preaching against social drinking, dancing, smoking, the wearing of scanty clothing in public, and theneed for putting Bible classes and gospel meetingsahead of scouting, soccer practice, little league and othersports activities. "Seek first the kingdom of God" (Mt.

6: 33) sounds all right until it is related to what was justmentioned.

To the factious brother it is "strange" to be reminded that we are to "esteem other better than" self (Phil. 2: 3). He thinks it smacks of weakness and compromise to be reminded that "love is kind" and "is not rude" and that it "thinks no evil" (1 Cor. 13: 4-5). He glories ina fuss. He is good at it. He knows how to avoid the realissue and divert the subject to personalities. He will leada group out of a congregation across town to start a"sound work" and leave the older congregation bruised and bleeding and will precipitate a division that willtake fifty years to fully heal, if then, while the unbelieving world looks on in derision and the Devil laughs. It is"strange" for this brother to hear Gal. 5: 19-21 applied to him and to have "strife, seditions and heresies" placed inthe same category (works of the flesh) as fornication,idolatry and drunkenness.

To the hedonist it is "strange" to hear that fornication is a sin (1 Cor. 6: 18), that marriage is honorable(Heb. 13: 4), that murder is wrong (even when it includesthe unborn child), that we are to "abstain from fleshlylusts which war against the soul" (1 Pet. 2: 11).

To the feminist it is "strange" to be told that the husband is "the head of the wife" (Eph. 5: 22-23) and thatshe is to be "subject" to him. She does not want to hearanything about her role in guiding the house (1 Tim.

5: 13) and as a home maker (Titus 2: 4-5). She is outragedto be told that in the church woman must not "teach or usurp authority over the man" (1 Tim. 2: 12).

To some congregations it is a "strange" sound tohear plain, old fashion, Bible preaching. Story telling,amusement, wit and attempts at eloquence have takenthe place of simple, straightforward Biblical exposition,aimed directly at the audience. What is wrong withstarting a sermon by identifying and reading a passageand then coming straight "at" the hearers with practicalapplications? Yes, I know there are different approaches.But I can tell you in many places what I have justsuggested would definitely be a different approach fromwhat those in the pews are used to hearing. There is a place for pathos, for humor, for illustration but these are all incidental to the main business of acquainting hearers with exactly what the word of God says and how theycan use it to be all that God would have them to be.

Anytime we get to the place that the word of God is a "strange" sound to us, then we are in a lot of trouble.

Safe Sex

Our national schizophrenia is evident in many settings. We see it in the feminist demands that women betreated just like men and yet the increasing charges ofsexual harassment that stem from a lot of men talkingto women like they would talk to a man. We see it in thegrowing concern for prenatal care and cases of expectant mothers being brought to court for endangeringtheir unborn babies by using drugs; and yet the demandthat mothers maintain the right to kill their unbornbabies. And we see it in the constant expressions ofconcern over the AIDS disease; and yet, the continuouscall for sexual liberation.

Advocates for do-your-own-thingism constantly pushfor "safe sex. " By this, they primarily mean the use ofcondoms. The evening news regularly treats us toaccounts of high schools and colleges that make free condoms available.

Robert C. Noble, M. D., of the University of KentuckyCollege of Medicine, is an infectious-diseases physicianand an AIDS doctor to the poor. An article by him waspublished in the AFA JOURNAL, May 1991. He said,"Passing out condoms to teenagers is like issuing themsquirt guns for a four-alarm blaze. Condoms just don'thack it. We should stop kidding ourselves. "

Doctor Noble speaks of a 21 year-old boy with AIDSthat he is caring for: "He could have been the model forDonatello's David, androgynous, deep blue eyes, longblond hair, as sweet and gentle as he can be. His mom's in shock. He called her the other day and gave her two messages. I'm gay. I've got AIDS. His lover looks like afellow you'd see in Sunday school. He works in a bank. He's had sex with only one person, my patient (hissecond partner), and they've been together for morethan a year. These fellows aren't dummies. They read newspapers. You think condoms would have saved them?"

He quotes from a government pamphlet that states:"Condoms are not 100 percent safe, but if used properlywill reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases,including AIDS. " Dr. Noble fairly shouts: "Reduce the risk of a disease that is 100 percent fatal! That's all that's available between us and death? How much do condoms reduce the risk? They don't say. So much for safe sex... I've noticed that the catchword now is "Safer Sex. " So much for truth in advertising. "

"At our place, " Dr. Noble continues, "we are taking care of a guy with AIDS who is back visiting thebars and having sex. Well, did your partner use a condom?' I ask. 'Did you tell him that you're infected with the virus?' 'Oh, no, Dr. Noble, he replies, 'it would have broken the mood. ' You bet it would have broken the mood. " He proceeds to observe that the mood isnot the only thing that often gets broken, citing one study that shows a 4 percent breakage rate for condomsduring heterosexual relations and a much higher ratewith most homosexual relations.

Then the good doctor says something that reveals tous why his comments have not been picked up by themedia and widely publicized: "Nobody these days lobbies for abstinence, virginity or single lifetime sexualpartners. That would be boring. Abstinence and sexualintercourse with one mutually faithful uninfected partner are the only totally effective prevention strategies. "He says, "My message will fly in the face of all othermedia messages... In the movie The Tall Guy a nurse goes to bed with the Guy character on their first date,boasting that she likes to get the sex thing out of the wayat the beginning of the relationship. His roommate is a nymphomaniac who is always in bed with one or moremen. This was supposed to be cute. Pretty Woman saysyou can find happiness with a prostitute. Who are thepeople who write this stuff? Have the 80's passed andeveryone forgotten sexually transmitted diseases?"

Dr. Noble concluded by saying that he was teachinghis daughters the fact that condoms give a false sense ofsecurity and that unmarried people shouldn't be havingsex. "Few people have the courage to say this publicly... they sound like cranks. " But the truth is"Condoms aren't going to make a dent in the sexual epidemics that we are facing. "

When it comes to sex education, the only sure counselis found in the word of God: "Let your fountain beblessed, And rejoice with the wife of your youth.As a loving deer and a graceful doe, Let herbreasts satisfy you at all times; And always beenraptured with her love. For why should you, my son, be enraptured by an immoral woman,And be embraced in the arms of a seductress?" (Proverbs 5: 18-20). "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators andadulterers God will judge" (Heb. 13: 4). "Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,burned in their lust for one another, men withmen committing what is shameful, and receivingin themselves the penalty of their error whichwas due" (Romans 1: 27).

The Principle Of Obedience

Omri's dynasty brought to the throne Israel's worst kings. First there was Ahab, whose very name hasbecome a symbol of evil; whose wicked wife Jezebel launched Phoenician Baal worship in Israel and butchered all who opposed her. Ahab's son Ahaziah succeeded him. He had so little regard for Jehovah that when hebecame ill he sought his fortune from Baal-zebub, a Philistine fly god, instead of asking the great prophetElijah. Amaziah's brother Joram succeeded him. He did put away the sacred pillar of Baal, but stubbornly heldto Jeroboam's golden calves.

Ahab's daughter Athaliah married Jehoram of Judah.Under her influence Jehoram was so bad that the chronicler records of his death, "he departed with noone's regret" (2 Chr. 21: 20). Their son Ahaziah wasequally wicked. When he died Athaliah killed the royal offspring — her own grandchildren — and seized the throne of Judah for herself.

God finally ran out of patience with this abominablefamily. Elisha sent one of the sons of the prophets toanoint Jehu, one of Joram's captains, as the next king ofIsrael. God's commission to Jehu was, "Strike the houseof Ahab your master, that I may avenge the blood of Myservants the prophets, and the blood of all the servantsof the Lord, at the hand of Jezebel. For the whole houseof Ahab shall perish, and I will cut off from Ahab everymale person both bound and free in Israel" (2 Kn. 9: 7f).

Jehu executed his charge with unparalleled zeal. Hedrove furiously to Jezreel, shot Joram in the back withan arrow, then dumped his body in Naboth's field. Ahaziah happened to be visiting Joram at the time.Jehu killed him, too. He then proceeded to the palace,ordered the officials there to throw Jezebel down to him,and when they did he trampled her with his horses.

Jehu next sent letters to the elders of Jezreel who were acting as guardians for Joram's sons, demanding that they send the son' heads to him. They complied.Jehu piled the heads in two heaps at the gate of Jezreel,then massacred all he could find of Ahab's priests, and even his acquaintances.

Samaria, the capital of Israel, was next. On the waythere Jehu came across forty-two of Ahaziah's nephews (Ahab's great-grandchildren) and slaughtered them. AtSamaria the bloodshed continued against all who sup

ported Ahab's line or worshiped Baal.What a gruesome page in history!

Analysis

How did God feel about this grizzly business? Oneanswer is in 2 Kn. 10: 30: "And the Lord said to Jehu,"Because you have done well in executing what is right in My eyes, and have done to the house of Ahabaccording to all that was in My heart, your sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel. ' "Jehu's dynasty was by far the longest in Israel's history. It was during Jehu's great-grandson Jeroboam's reign that God raised up the prophet Hosea. And through Hosea we get an entirely different view ofJehu's work.

At birth of Hosea's first son, "The Lord said to him,"Name him Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I willpunish the house of Jehu for the bloodshed of Jezreel,and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house ofIsrael' "(Hos. 1: 4). How is it that God earlier commended Jehu, but now promises to punish him for thebloodshed which God had commanded in the first place?The answer lies in Jehu's subsequent conduct. Afterbecoming king "Jehu was not careful to walk in the lawof the Lord, the God of Israel, with all his heart; he didnot depart from the sins of Jeroboam, which he madeIsrael sin" (2 Kn. 10: 31).

Jehu had a common ailment: he did right only whendoing so suited him. E. B. Pusey makes pertinent observation:

"If we do what is the Will of God for any end of ourown, for any thing except God, we do, in fact, our ownwill, not God's... Jehu, by cleaving, against the Will ofGod, to Jeroboam's sin, which served his own political ends, shewed that, in the slaughter of his master, heacted not, as he pretended, out of zeal for the Will ofGod, but served his own will and his own ambition only.By his disobedience to the one command of God, heshewed that he would have equally disobeyed theother, had it been contrary to his own will or interest.He had no principle of obedience. "

It is gratifying to see people do what is right, what isGod's will. Yet that alone does not assure us of God's approval. We must have a principle of obedience, thatis, we must do what God says because if is His will andwe are serving Him.

Applications

"We are starting a new work. " That is good. Thecommission says to take the gospel to the whole world.If a new congregation is the product of a planned effortto establish the church in an untaught community, Godsurely will be pleased. But not all "new works" are bornof such lofty motives. Occasionally they are the resultof brethren not having learned humility, meekness,longsuffering, and forbearance; of brethren who are not diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit (Eph. 4: 13). Some do not want to be overseen. Some carnallyexalt their personal preferences. God knows. He is ableto discern whether there is a pure spirit of obedience orone adulterated by self serving.

Husbands and wives sometimes quit loving eachother. In such cases, some are sensitive enough to their children's needs that they keep the marriage togetherfor the sake of the children. It certainly is God's will that married people stay together (Mt. 19: 6). Here, however,that is not the prime factor. What is being done is mainlyfrom personal considerations. Before God will be pleasedrepentance is needed: both husband and wife must startloving each other again.

The advent of AIDS has caused some people to rethink their attitudes about sexual relations. A few "experts"are starting to advocate monogamy as the best course.They are right! I hope they are successful in establishinga trend away from pre- and extra-marital sexual activity. Yet you have to wonder how much of a principle ofobedience would be behind such a change. Why are people changing? Will they return to promiscuity if acure is found? God would surely be pleased to see lessfornication. But we honor Him only by abstaining because fornication is sinful, not simply to avoid deadlydisease.

"And there is no creature hidden from His sight, butall things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him withwhom we have to do" (Heb. 4: 13). We would all do well tosearch our hearts. Is the principle of obedience there?

"First Principles"

It is the duty of everyone who names the name ofChrist to depart from iniquity (2 Tim. 2: 19). The sameperson is responsible to "go on unto perfection" (Heb.

6: 1).

I'm caused to wonder if some of us think that the passage in Hebrews refers only to the preparation andpresentation of sermons on the part of preachers; that once a preacher has preached on "first principles" henever needs to do so again.

The preacher who spends all his time on first principle subjects is not declaring the whole counsel of God,and his hearers are going to be undernourished. Conversely, the preacher who mentions these first principles only once every twenty years is not giving hishearers a balanced diet.

Somewhere along the line, some of us have unconsciously applied "the doctrine of the first principles' (ASV), exclusively to faith, repentance, confession andbaptism. As a result, not only are some members of the church ignorant of the first principles of the doctrine ofChrist, but evidently some preachers are ignorant ofthem, too.

For instance, there are preachers among us whoseem to be confused as to what constitutes repentanceon the part of alien sinner, who teach that responsiblepeople can be saved without baptism, who teach that wecan still receive miraculous gifts which were impartedby the laying on of the apostles' hands, who teach thatChrist came the second time in judgment at the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70.

It is no wonder that many saints may not be groundedin the doctrine of first principles, when those whopreach and teach are not grounded themselves. Somewhere along the line, someone has failed.

This failure may be due, at least in part, to the notionthat first principles are beneath a mature preacher'scollection of sermon outlines. We preach and write onsubjects which are calculated to impress or edify otherpreachers, while forsaking those subjects most needed(and even desired), by the average listener or reader.

Again, while the preacher has a responsibility to God,to himself, and to his audience to dispose a variety ofspiritual food as the occasion requires, it is still theresponsibility of each person to "grow in grace, and in

the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"(2 Pet. 3: 18).

Even the mature child of God never tires of hearingany part of the "old story" of the cross. Paul thought itneedful to remind the Christians at Rome and Colosse what transpired in their lives at the time they werebaptized (Rom. 6; Col. 2: 11-13; 3: 1, 2).

The best advice I can give to preachers as to sermoncontent is from the pen of the apostle Paul, as he wroteto all preachers, in 2 Tim. 4: 1-5. And, while some newconverts or babes in Christ may best exist for a time onmilk only (Heb. 5: 13), even a diet of meat can beaccompanied by a glass of milk now and then.

Some good cooks may specialize in hot rolls, cornbread,or apple pie, but they need to compliment those specialties with other foods. Some preachers may need to get offtheir "specialty" now and then and give the people agood mess of cornbread, pinto beans, and turnip greens.

My wife can prepare a delicious meal which willaccommodate the diabetic, the person on a low-salt diet, and her husband as well. I can always add the salt or the red-eyed gravy to suit my own taste.

It is hard to feed people what they need when theyonly show up for an hour on Sunday morning, but evenat that I think some of us can offer a better balanced diet than what some have received in the past.

Some of God's commands are harder than others to accomplish, and sometimes we dismiss them perhapswithout even really understanding what God wants ofus. In Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 15, we findPaul continuing the theme begun in chapter 14 ofedifying each other, and not doing something which would cause another to stumble. Finally in verse 6 Paulwrites: "That ye may with one mind and one mouthglorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. "Is it really possible for Christians to be of "one mind?"Isn't this something we're already doing in most congregations? Or are we killing some congregations becausewe need this very thing that God commanded?

When Paul wrote to the Corinthians he discussed a problem some of them had regarding the one who hadtaught them or baptized them into Christ. Paul wrote:"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our LordJesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and thatthere be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the samejudgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, mybrethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, thatevery one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paulcrucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name ofPaul?" (1 Cor. 1: 10-13). Because these brethren werenot of one mind, and glorified men rather than Christthey were in the process of destroying the congregation.Later, in chapter 3 we find Paul continuing the thoughtby saying, "And I, brethren, could not speak unto you asunto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes inChrist. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: forhitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now areye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there isamong you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye notcarnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am ofPaul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?"(1 Cor. 3: 1-4). This carnal spirit, this mind of the flesh is divisive, hinders our growth since we are unable toeat of the meat of the word, and causes death. Paul toldthe Roman Christians: "For they that are after the fleshdo mind the things of the flesh; but they that are afterthe Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnallyminded is death; but to me spiritually minded is life andpeace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God:for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed canbe. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God"(Romans 8: 5-8).

Notice how many times God tells us to be of one mind or one spirit. In Romans 15 where we began Paul wrote: "Now the God of patience and consolation grant you tobe like-minded one toward another according to ChristJesus: that ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans

15: 5-6). Back in chapter 12 he wrote: "Be of the samemind one toward another. Mind not high things, butcondescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in yourown conceits" (v. 16). At the end of Paul's second letter to the Corinthians he wrote: "Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, livein peace; and the God of love and peace shall be withyou" (2 Cor. 13: 11). To the Philippians the Holy Spiritcaused Paul to write: "Only let your conversation be asit becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I comeand see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs,that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind strivingtogether for the faith of the gospel" (Phil. 1: 27). In thesecond chapter Paul wrote: "Fulfill ye my joy, that ye belike-minded, having the same love, being of one accord,of one mind" (Phil. 2: 2). And in chapter 4 Paul wrote: "Ibeseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche that they be ofthe same mind in the Lord" (Phil. 4: 2). Perhaps ourmistake in reading these verses is to assume that theymean that we must always see every issue exactly alike, and that we will never have different opinions aboutthings. But is that really what God demands of Hispeople? Or does He instead demand that we all havesuch a oneness of spirit and mind that we all submitourselves totally to the authority of God through His

word? Does He not demand of us that we put awayour selfish pride and arrogance and instead submit toeach other in lowliness of mind (Phil. 2: 3)? But wepersist in trying to have our own way regardless of theharm to each other and the congregation. This onenessof mind does not excuse error. Instead it will help toeliminate error because with one heart and mind and spiritwe will seek to know God's will, not our own, and do it.With lowliness of mind we will each "please his neighborfor his good to edification" (Romans 15: 2), and "receiveye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory ofGod" (Romans 15: 7).

Some of God's requirements do seem difficult for us aslong as we persist in thinking that a thing can't be done.God doesn't ask of us what we are unable to do. And He does ask us to be of ONE MIND!

In our last article we noted several errors concerningthe sponsoring church arrangement, chief of which wasthe lack of Bible authority for such an arrangement. Inthis article we want to investigate the sponsoring churcha little further and examine some additional reasons that have been offered by those who support this workingrelationship.

Rules

What are the rules governing the sponsoring church? Who decides who is going to be a sponsoring church? Whogets to be the sponsor, the church that receives all themoney, and who gets to be the supporter of the sponsor,the ones who give all the money? If this were a Scripturalarrangement the Bible would be our guide for answeringthese questions; but since this cannot be found in God's word, where do we go for the answers?

These are valid questions. What if all the supportersdecided they wanted to be sponsors of a work they couldnot afford, where would they go for the needed funds? Who is going to tell all the supporters, now turnedsponsors, that they cannot be sponsors?

Various forms of these questions were posed to brother Jeff Smith, a local preacher in Shelbyville, and a supporter of the sponsoring church. No answers were given.Attempts were made to justify the arrangement., but noanswers were given to these questions. Let me point out that we are not picking on brother Smith. There are numerous supporters of the sponsoring church, but thecongregation he preaches for in Shelbyville supported the One Nation Under God campaign and it is for thatreason that he was called. It is our hope and prayer thathe and all others who promote this unscriptural working arrangement will see the error involved in such anarrangement and repent of their sins.

Expedient?

It is argued by those who promote this arrangementthat the sponsoring church is just an expedient. In otherwords, it is a help or an aid to the church in carrying out the work God has assigned. Does the sponsoring churcharrangement expedite the transfer of funds from onesource (the local church) to another (the preacher in the field)? Actually, the more hands that touch the money,the slower the flow. Instead of aiding the process of thetransfer of funds, the sponsoring church impedes it.

If two checks were sent to the same preacher in the field and one was sent directly to him and the other wassent to a sponsoring church earmarked for him, whichwould reach it's destination first? Not only is thisconcept unscriptural, it does not help the local churchfulfill its responsibility in the most expeditious way.

Additional Arguments Offered

WE DO LOTS OF THINGS WITHOUT AUTHORITY. This argument is made by some who do not understand how to establish Biblical authority.They evidently believe they do not have authority for a building, lights, church treasury, and other such items.However, there is authority for these items whetherthey understand how to establish it or not. Let us studythe authority that we have to build and maintain a building in which to worship God.

Christians are commanded to assemble (Heb. 10: 25). We cannot assemble without a place. Whether itbe under an oak tree, in a house, or in a building, therehas to be a meeting place. The place is authorized underthe command to assemble. God allows each local church to decide for themselves what type of place willbest suit their needs.

We have examples in the Bible of the church meetingin homes, in upper rooms, and in places other than thehome (1 Cor. 16: 19; Acts 20: 8; 1 Cor. 11: 22, 34).The woman at the well in John 4: 20-24 was concerned about the right place to worship God, but Jesus taught her that the time was coming when the place would be irrelevant and those who properlyworshipped God would do so in spirit and in truth. So, aplace is necessary and authorized under the generalcommand to assemble, but where and what type ofplace is left to the discretion of the congregation.

Everything that we do is to be done in the name of theLord Jesus and if we do not have authority, general orspecific, then we had better give it up.

BUT, ITS A GOOD WORK. This is another statementmade by some who promote the sponsoring church.Some people believe that calling something a good workautomatically give it God's stamp of approval.

Uzzah probably thought that keeping the ark ofGod from falling and being broken to pieces was a goodwork, but he quickly discovered that he had violatedGod's law (2 Sam. 6: 6-7). We can do a work that Godcommands, but if we do not do it the way that Hecommands, it will

not please Him. It was right to move the ark, but God hadexpressed through Moses how the ark was to be transported and violating the command of God led to the death of Uzzah.

For instance, take the Lord's Supper. We are commanded to partake of the Lord's Supper and we know byexample that we are to do this on the first day of eachweek (Matt. 26: 26; Acts 20: 7). Will it please God if wedecide to partake on Tuesday? We may believe that it will help us be more spiritual. Our intent may be sincere, butour actions will be wrong and God will not be pleased.

Teaching the gospel is a good work (Mk. 16: 15). Weknow, by example, that the church may do this bysupporting a gospel preacher directly (Phil. 4: 15-16; 2Cor. 11: 8-9). These passages illustrate how the firstcentury church obeyed this command. There is as muchauthority for creating and supporting a sponsoring churcharrangement as there was for the Israelites to move the ark on an ox cart. Ox Cart religion will not save!

FELLOWSHIP US ANYWAY, ITS JUST A MATTEROF OPINION. Those who go too far and do not abide inthe doctrine of Christ often use this argument as areason why fellowship with them should not be broken.They want to put matters of faith in Romans 14 instead of 2 John 9-11 where they belong.

The Christian Church wants to call instrumental music a matter of opinion, those who advocate divorceand remarriage for any cause want to use Romans 14 asa basis of fellowship, and the denominations want to putall differences into Romans 14. Using the logic of the liberal churches, we would have to fellowship everyoneincluding the denominations of men. Why did the apostleJohn bother to write 2 John 9-11 if it has no practicalvalue?

The sponsoring church arrangement is sinful. "Sin islawlessness" (1 John 3: 4). Lawlessness means a state ofbeing without law. The sponsoring church is without law

— there is no authority from God for such an organizational structure — therefore, it is sinful. Those whopromote it and those who support it and those who blindly follow along are in sin and need to repent and ask God's forgiveness. We plead with our erring brethren tocome back to the way of righteousness.

bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake ofHis believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks. " (Dialogue with Trypho, LXX)

1. Tertullian (early 3rd century) "Then, havingtaken the bread and given it to His disciples, he madeit His own body, by saying, This is my body, ' that is the figure of my body. "
2. (Against Marcion, IV: 40)
1. Origen (early 3rd century) "Now, if 'everythingthat entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and iscast out into the draught, ' even the meat which has been

Leading Catholic apologists, such as Karl Keating,sanctified through the word of God and prayer, inauthor of Catholicism and Fundamentalism,accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into thequote extensively from the writings of various early belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect ofchurch writers. Since so many of the Catholic doctrinesthe prayer which comes upon it, according to the proporare not found in the scriptures, they believe that these tion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means ofwritings supply evidence that the doctrines peculiar toclear vision to the mind which looks to that which is Catholi-cism were held and practiced by the very beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but theearliest Chris-tians. Mr. Keating states their position word which is said over it which is of advantage to himvery well in the following manner. After referring to who eats in not unworthily of the Lord. And these Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Clement of Rome,things indeed are said of the typical Ignatius, Ireanaeus, Clem-ent of Alexandria, Peter ofand symbolical body. "Alexandria, Lactantius and Eusebius, he states,(Commentary on Matthew, XI; 14)"Remember, these are the works which form the basis4. Cyprian (mid 3rd century) "Knowing then that I of Christian historical writing in the immediate post-have been admonished that, in offering the cup, the New Testament centuries... their cumulative testimonytradition of the Lord must be observed, and that nothingshould carry considerable weight. " (Catholicism & must be done by us but what the Lord first did on ourFundamentalism, p. 204)behalf, as that the cup which is offered in remem-

Were the early "Church Fathers" Catholic? Did theybrance of Him should be offered mingled with believe those doctrines now recognized as being pecu-wine." (Epistle 62)liarly Catholic? Let's examine just a few of them.Catholic apologists point to John 6 as the key passage

A fundamental belief of Roman Catholicism is tran-in which our Lord speaks of what will be instituted atsubstantiation. The Baltimore Catechism, states the Last Supper. Here, they say, is where the clearestthe doctrine this way.teaching about Transubstantiation is to be found in the

"The whole Christ is really, truly, and substantiallyscriptures. Is it true that no record exists from the earlypresent in the Holy Eucharist. We use the words, 'really, centuries of Christianity doubting the Catholic inter-truly, and substantially' to describe Christ's presence inpretation? Is it true that no document exists in whichthe Holy Eucharist in order to distinguish Our Lord's the literal interpretation of John 6 is opposed and onlyteaching from that of mere men who falsely teach thatthe metaphorical accepted? Is it true that those earlythe Holy Eucharist is only a sign or figure of Christ, orChristians were Catholic and held to the Catholic doc-that He is present only by His power. " p. 273.trine of transubstantiation?

"When Our Lord said, This is My body, the entire1. Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd century) "Elsesubstance of the bread was changed into His body; andwhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John broughtwhen He said, This is My blood, the entire substance ofthis out by symbols, when He said, 'Eat ye my the wine was changed into His blood. " p. 276flesh, and drink my blood; ' describing

Of course, those passages referred to by Catholicdistinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties writers in an attempt to support this doctrine are thoseof faith and the promise, by means of which the passages dealing with the institution of the Lord's Church, like a human being consisting of manySupper and John 6. Karl Keating even goes so far as tomembers, is refreshed and grows, is welded togethersay, "There is no record in the early centuries of anyand compacted of both - of faith, which is the Christian doubting the Catholic interpretation. There body, and of hope, which is the soul; as alsoexists no document in which the literal interpretation isthe Lord of flesh and blood. " opposed and only the metaphorical accepted. " (Ca-(The instructor, I. vi. 43)tholicism & Fundamentalism, p. 238).2. Tertullian (early 3rd century) "He says, it is true,

Can we find any early "Church Fathers" who did notthat "the flesh profiteth nothing; but then, as in the hold the doctrine of transubstantiation? former case, the meaning must be regulated by the

1. Justin Martyr (mid 2nd century), "Now it is evi-subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thoughtdent, that in this prophecy (allusion is made) to the His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing

that he had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, he, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'it is the spirit that quickeneth; ' and then added, The flesh profiteth nothing, ' — meaning, of course, to the giving of life, he also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit; "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. '... Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. " On the Resurrection of the Flesh, XXXVII)

The early church writers are also very important to the Catholic teaching concerning the Papacy, and it is true that many of them teach that Peter was in Rome. The more important question would be, "Do they teach that Peter was the first pope?"

1. Tertullian (early 3rd century) "Just, for example, as if Peter too had censured Paul, because whilst forbidding circumcision, he actually circumcised Timothy himself. Never mind those who pass sentence on apostles! It is a happy fact that Peter is on the same level with Paul in the very glory of martyrdom.

(On Prescription Against Heretics, Chap. XXIV)

3. Cyprian (mid 3rd century) "For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything; so as to say that he held the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those lately come. " (Cyprian, Epistle LXX, 3)

3. Eusebius (early 4th century) "Now Clement, writing in the sixth book of the Hypotyposes, makes this statement. For he says that Peter and James and John, after the Saviour's ascension, though pre-eminently honored by the Lord, did not contend for glory, but made James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem. " (Ecclesiastical History, Book Vi, ii. I)

The main passage that Roman Catholic authorities use in support of Peter's supposed papacy is Matthew 16. In light of the great weight given to the early church writers by Roman Catholic as they seek to find foundation for their beliefs, we must ask, "How did the early church writers interpret Matthew 16?"

1. Origen (early 3rd century) "And perhaps that which Simon Peter answered and said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, if we say it as Peter, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven shining in our heart, we too become as Peter, being pronounced blessed as he was, because that the grounds on which he was pronounced blessed apply also to us, by reason of the fact that flesh and blood have not revealed to us with regard to Jesus that He is Christ, the Son of the living God, but the Father in heaven,... And if we too have said like Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God', not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us that might be said by the Word, "Thou art Peter', etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which is followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church. "

"But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it, ' hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, 'Upon this rock I will build my church?' (Origen's Commentary on Matthew, 10 & 11)

Considerable emphasis is given to the word "rock" in Matthew 16: 18. The Catholic position is that the word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek and Kepha means rock. Therefore, there is no difference between Peter and rock. They teach that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, that Matthew was essentially saying, "Thou art Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church. " Only in the Greek translation of the Aramaic original was there a difference. This they teach in spite of the fact that not one single fragment of an original Aramaic Matthew has ever been found.

However, did those early church writers recognize a difference between Peter and Rock?

1. Tertullian (early 3rd century) "Again, He changes the name of Simon to Peter, inasmuch as the Creator also altered the names of Abram, and Sarai, and Oshea, by calling the latter Joshua, and adding a syllable to each of the former. But why Peter? If it was because of the vigour of his faith, there were many solid materials which might lend a name from their strength. Was it because Christ was both a rock and a stone? For we read of His being place 'for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense'". (Against Marcion, Chap. XIII)

Do not be deceived. While some of what those early church writers taught was true and some was not, it is important to note that right or wrong, they were not Catholic.

Television is considered by many to be a major sourceof moral and behavioral influence. Others consider television to be a reflection of values in society. Depending on your view of television's power and influence, youprobably found either alarm or amusement with thenational debate over the television character MurphyBrown's recent child born out of wedlock, and theattention it received from the Vice-President of the United States.

Our society is having great difficulty trying to find areason for people to have children in marriage. Foryears children have been in classrooms where evolutionary ideas, alternate lifestyles, and ideas of totalfreedom have been emphasized. National leaders aswell as many "church leaders" have looked the otherway as teen pregnancy rose to record numbers, andabortions became as common as the measles. The younghave been given sex education, birth control pills, andmonthly checks if they have had children out of wedlockand were unable to provide for them.

Now as the illegitimacy rate has soared from about 5percent 30 years ago to 17 percent today, and to 62percent among black children in this country; people are finally starting to get upset. In the midst of some of thiscountry's worst rioting ever (centering among poor young people raised without fathers), along comes asingle white professional women who makes a decisionto raise her child born out of wedlock on national television. The obvious mixed message was just toodistasteful to many who see the violence and povertywhich result from many fatherless homes.

The Bible teaches the importance of marriage, the sinof sexual conduct outside of marriage, the need to havechildren in wedlock, and places upon both parents the responsibility to love, teach, and provide for their children. The scriptures do this without giving a lesson onsocially responsible behaviour, they give these teachings as commands from a loving God. "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Hebrews

13: 4). "Children obey your parents... " (Eph. 6: 4). "Idesire that the young widows marry, bear children,manage the house" (1 Timothy 5: 14). (See also Deut. 6:6-9, Titus 2: 4-5, & Ephesians 5).

Once we leave a Biblical basis for our morality, whyshouldn't we do whatever seems right to us? We are simply reaping as a society what we have sown, andunfortunately the reaping is just beginning. (See Galatians 6: 7, & Proverbs 14: 34). Corruption and promiscuity among the rich didn't stop there. Now, ithas reached all levels of society in huge numbers withdisastrous results.

As society has slid so have the toleration of membersof the Lord's church with promiscuity, divorce, and filth in entertainment. Let's be honest with ourselves. How have our personal habits, language, dress, and thoughtsbeen influenced by the world? Do we listen to filth ontelevision and accept that as "just the way it is?" Do ourchildren see movies in the home with filthy language,nudity, and violence that your parents would haveturned off? As adults are we so strong that being continually around evil has no affect on us? If that is reallythe case why are so many seemingly strong members ofthe church either engaging in ungodliness or havingsevere problems with family members in these sins?

Where are our values? Why is it that so many havedifficulty seeing anything wrong with close, intimate,slow dancing in low cut dresses? I realize society doesn't see anything wrong with this kind of dancing in unmarried people. But, why can't Christians seeing the rotting of our society's moral fiber see where it begins. It beginswith unchaste handling of males and females. Whetherthis occurs in our homes, or on the dance floor, or inparked cars is not the issue. The issue is, How does thisbehaviour affect the purity of my thoughts and the purity of my actions? Each one of us needs to personallywork on maintaining the purity Christ intends.

The best time to handle the problem of pregnancyoutside of marriage is before that pregnancy occurs. Godwill forgive transgressions, but why fall victim to sinwhen it is avoidable. The message I get from MurphyBrown is to avoid fornication and then you won't be faced with the choice of being a single parent or having anabortion. The most effective means of birth control ever devised for single people is abstinence! Let's think about these issues and examine our lives. Are our viewing andliving habits consistent with the life of a Christian? Theycan be, if we follow Christ.

"Steve Brow's letter, 'Jesus' plan for man, ' makes me wonder. Do religious people pay any attention to thewords they say and write? For example: What kind ofbarbaric tripe is this 'blood sacrifice which would payfor the sins of all mankind?" What is being referred tohere is not just the slitting the throat of a farm animaland hoping for a good harvest next season, which is bad enough. No, human sacrifice is what is being offered as a noble deed. And self human sacrifice, to boot. "Asidefrom that, what in the world is the connection between'sins' and 'sacri-fice'? If I rob or murder someone, howis spilling sacrificial blood (animal or human) of a third person, like Jesus, compensation to the victims? Where's the justice? Where's the common sense?"

Steve J. Moore Irvine

This letter to the editor appeared in a recent issue ofthe Orange County Register. What would you say to Mr.Moore? Let's assume for a moment that his questions are not rhetorical, but sincere. Let's assume that, unlike Pilate, who asked "What is truth?, " and then didn'tstay for the answer, that Mr. Moore would be willing togive you thirty minutes of his time to hear you out. What would you say?

We do not have adequate space to do justice to the answer here, but there are a few thoughts we cansuggest that may get us started in the right direction.Mr. Moore is totally confused about why blood has tobe offered in order to take away sin. In fact, he fails tosee any connection whatsoever between sin and sacrifice, and I suspect he is representative of many peoplewe meet, some who may darken our threshold as visitors. The whole concept of sacrifice, blood and retribution for sin is repugnant to them. On the other hand, we've heard it for so many years, we've rather gottenused to it, perhaps forgetting how radical it must soundto someone with no understanding. Paul called the whole idea the "foolishness of God" because he recognized man's failure to see any "common sense" (i. e.,human wisdom) in the gospel plan.

In the first place, most folks have it all backwards-they are man-centered instead of God-centered. Mr. Moore betrays this attitude when he complains that athird-party's sacrifice has no benefit to the victim. In other words, Jesus' sacrifice does not undo the results of a crime-the murdered and robbed stayed murdered and robbed, as if Jesus had done nothing.

But that is hardly the point. The point is that if Mr.Moore was stupid enough to murder someone (i. e.,breaking all bounds of moral restraint and, indeed,"common sense") — certainly a sin, if one accepts theconcept of sin in the first place — what happens if heafterward decides to reform his life? Will 50 years ofrefusing to murder atone for the one murder he didcommit? More to the real issue, what does he deserve from God, regardless of what society imposes on him ifhe gets caught? What is God to do with him?

You see the questions revolve more around God thanaround us. Yes, we benefit or we pay, depending uponwhat God does, but it is based upon what God does more than on what we do. Actually, we affirm that it takes far"less" (less only in the human sense) than murder androbbery to offend God. Everyone who has the capacity tosins against God eventually: "for all have sinned andfallen short of His glory" (Rom. 3: 23). There is noexception. The question then is not: "How could thisloving and good God destroy 'good' people"? When left tothemselves, there are no good people! "There is nonerighteous, no not one" (Rom. 3: 10). The proper form ofthe question is: "How could God, who is both perfectlymerciful and perfectly just, save any of us, seeing thatwe have all sinned against Him?" There is a majordifference between those two questions, and everythinghinges on which question we own. The first is man-centered; the second is God-centered.

If we understand the form of the second question,things begin to fall into place. God must be just as wellas merciful. Justice requires the destruction of theunjust, otherwise it would not be "justice. " It is preciselyat this point where many people fail to understand the gospel. They have so concentrated on the mercy andkindness of God that they have ignored His justice. But,"consider the goodness and severity of God... " (Rom.

11: 22). God is both just and loving and, perfect God thatHe is, there must be full expression given to both.

This is where the concept of "sacrifice" comes in. Ifany sinner is going to be reconciled to God, his sins mustbe taken away. God does not-cannot! — coexist with sin.Sin must be dealt with before a person comes to God. But God's love has provided a way, although it was a difficultand costly way for Him. He sent His only Son to die forthe sins of the world. The death Jesus would die would have two components, but one was more critical thanthe other. He would die a physical death, shedding hisprecious blood on the cross. He did this, not like theanimals who were the involuntary subjects of sacrificeunder the Old Testament (they were a type of the perfect sacrifice to some), but as a voluntary and perfect sacrifice, a perfectly innocent man dying a criminal's death.That fact alone should get our attention.

But the more severe pain came in another kind ofdeath. Until the cross, God's wrath against sin had never been satisfied (or "propitiated, " a term worth learning — see Heb. 2: 17; 1 Jn. 2: 1, etc. ). Now, I realize that Mr. Moore and his theologically—naivecolleagues may not see the point, but I can't help that (perhaps C. S. Lewis' statement applies here: "those who can't

understand books written for grown-ups shouldn't attempt to read them"). In any case, God's anger againstsin could not finally be assuaged by any number ofanimal sacrifices (cf. Heb 10: 4) or even by imperfecthuman blood. God was not interested in such, and thosewho engaged in human sacrifice were an abomination toGod (Jer. 19: 5). Jesus' sacrifice was not just another"human sacrifice. " When He shed His blood, He underwent a spiritual death as well — God's son was separated from God! "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us. that we might become the righteousness of God inHim" (2 Cor. 5: 21). You see? God threw all of humanity's sins on the body and soul of His Son Jesus "He was wounded for our transgressions" (Isa. 53: 5).

Why blood? Because He had to give His life for us inorder to undergo the full experience of human death (cf.Heb. 2: 14-17), a death He would overcome when He wasraised three days later and which He will one day finallydestroy (1 Cor. 15: 26). And "life is in the blood" (Lev.

17: 11). The taking of communion memorializes thisblood (as well as the body He gave) as that which wasgiven to atone for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world. Yes, a third party does offercompensation to sinners, including Mr. Moore, if hewould accept it. But you have to have faith.

Though not a scholar, I do have a reasonably goodlibrary, and therefore, I can refer to my collection ofLexicons, Greek Dictionaries, and Grammars. 1 Corinthians, 14th Chapter

Anything from the 14th Chapter of First Corinthians,is dealing with problems related to supernatural giftsthat prevailed in the Lord's church before the New Testament was completed. Spiritual gifts (supernaturalabilities) existed during the first forty years of the Lord's church. Their purpose was to accomplish the spread ofthe good news of Christ to people of all languages and nations (Mark 16: 17-18, 20; Heb. 2: 1-4; Micah 7: 15).

In Mark 16, the Lord was working with the apostles and confirming the word preached, with accompanying signs. Please note the present-tense suffix, ing. It was then taking place.

In Hebrews, approximately forty years later, theword was confirmed, past-tense! It had been accomplished! Please note the suffix ed, now used; confirmed!

In Micah, according to the days of Israel's coming out of Egypt (40 years), I will show them marvelous things. With miracles beginning with the ministry of Jesus(John worked no miracle — John 10: 41), about 30 A.D.,

and then ending when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70

A. D.

The prohibition concerning the silence of women inthe assembly (14: 34-35) is from the word sigatosan, "let be silent. " In similar manner, the man who might beinspired to speak in a foreign language, but with nointerpreter present, "let him keep silence in the church(assembly); " from sigato (v. 28); and finally, in verse 30, "let the first hold his peace, " (sigato). Each of these verses use the same root word, and thus enforce thesame degree of silence upon the persons mentioned andunder the circumstances described.

Verse 33, reminds the reader that tumult and confusion is to be avoided in the Lord's church... this was particularly prevalent when first one and then anotherprophet or spokesman, might receive a revelation. Onemight also receive a "song!" Thus, "hath a psalm. " If so,it was delivered or revealed to the assembly by the oneto whom it had been given. But even this was in sequence, or by course, and NOT simultaneously withresulting confusion. Thus, this chapter is being totallymisused in any effort to apply its teachings to themodern-day-assembly. There are other passages thatapply to the Lord's church today and that deal with the subjection of women to their husbands, or womankind to mankind.

1st Timothy 2: 11-12

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. " Note that 1 Cor. 14: 33 deals with "your women, " "wives, " and some even insert "married women. " While 1 Tim. 2: 11-12 concerns the generic "the woman' or "a woman. " The Greek word here is hesuchios, meaning quiet, tranquil, causing no disturbance to others... "Having a meek and quiet spirit. " (1 Pet. 3:4).

"Reflexive" and "Reciprocal" Pronouns

Definition — Reflexive Pronoun — "It expresses theaction of the subject upon itself. " (Essentials of N. T.Greek, page 121).

Definition—Reciprocal Pronoun—"It represents aninterchange of action between the members of pluralsubject. " (Ibid., page 120).

Instances of "reflexive pronouns" are found in bothEph. 5: 19, and Col. 3: 16. However, in both examples,the "reflexive" is used in place of a "reciprocal" and isgiven identical translation.

Eph. 5: 19 — "Speaking to one another (heautois)in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. "

Col. 3: 16 — "Let the word of Christ dwell in yourichly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing oneanother (heatous) in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. "

Both the Textus Receptus (upon which the KJV isbased) and Eberhard Nestle's Greek Text (upon whichseveral modern English Versions are based), used theidentical Greek words as Italicized above. In either passage, the terms "one another, " "each other, " or "your-selves, " may be used, and constitute an accurate translation.

A. T. Robertson's Greek Grammar "(g) Reflexive in the Reciprocal Sense. This use of

heauton does not really differ in idea from allelon. This is in harmony with the ancient Greek idiom. The papyrishow this same blending of heauton with allelon. (Robertson was quoting from page 876, of James HopeMoulton's Prolegomena). Robertson then lists both Eph.

5: 19 and Col. 3: 16 as examples of the use of ReflexivePronouns in the Reciprocal Sense. (Page 690). Therefore, even though heautois is a reflexive pronoun it isused a reciprocal pronoun in both Eph. 5: 19 and Col. 3: 16.

J. Stegenga'a Greek-English Concordance

"HEAUTOIS—dative, plural, masculine, 3rd person(reflexive pronoun) — Eph. 5: 19, among others; and meaning: yourselves, themselves, them, ye, you, ourselves, one another. " (Page 91).

"HEAUTOUS — accusative, plural, masculine, 3rdperson (reflexive pronoun) — Col. 3: 16, among others;and meaning: "themselves, yourselves, ourselves, oneanother. " (Page 91).

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T.

"heautou, -es, -ou, etc. or (contracted autou, -es, -ou; plural heauton; dative -ois, -ais, -ois, etc.; reflexivepronoun of the 3rd person. It is used 1. of the 3rd personsingular and plural, to denote that the agent and theperson acted on are the same;... " "3. It is used frequentlyin the plural for the reciprocal pronoun allelon, allelois, allelous, reciprocally, mutually, one another:... "Thayerthen lists several passages, and among them is Col. 3:

16. (Page 163).

Thus, to translate in Eph. 5: 19 and Col. 3: 16,either "one another" or "yourselves" is correct. Brethrenare in error who take the position that one rendering is"false" to the exclusion of the other.

Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker's GreekLexicon

"heatou, es, ou, plural heauton reflexive pronoun...

1. of the third person singular and plural, to indicateidentity with the person speaking or acting... " "3. forthe reciprocal pronoun allelon, allelois, allelous, even in classical authors... "They then list Col. 3: 16, along withothers. (Page 213).

Therefore, even though heautois is a reflexive pronoun it is used for the reciprocal pronoun in both Eph. 5: 19 and Col. 3: 16.

THE NEWS LETTER REPORTS

"... They rehearsed all that God had done with them... " — Acts 14: 27

Send all News Items to: Connie W. Adams, P. O. Box 69, Brooks, KY 40109

CARROLL FINK, Jonesborough, TN — After more than six yearswith the church here, we have again turned our sights toward TexasSHANE SCOTT, Mt. Sterling, KY— After three years with the Oak

which we have considered home since moving from California to Clute,Hill congregation in Mt. Sterling, I will begin working with the brethrenTexas in 1973. In 1978 we purchased property in Livington, TX and in Portage, Indiana in August. Although I will miss being in my homehelped begin a sound work there. Elmer Moore preaches there now and country of central Kentucky, I am excited about the new opportunities

recently was appointed one of the elders. We will be moving toPortage will present.Livingston and would like to work full time with a congregation in theThe Oak Hill church is still looking for a preacher and 1 would eastern part of the State. If that does not work out I will take my socialcommend them to anyone interested. If you are interested you cansecurity and do part time preaching for churches in driving distance ofcontact Arnold Smith (606) 498-1375.Livingston on the Lord's day. My phone number is (615) 753-8261 or753-3515.

GLENDON MCCLURE, P. O. BOX 1413, Antioch, CA 94509 —We

just completed a good meeting with Keith Sharp of Grenada, MSpreaching. Three were restored. Sermons included "The Cost of Discipleship, two nights devoted to Divorce and Remarriage, The Unity ofthe Spirit, The Progressiveness of Sin. On the Lord's day we had sermons on The Great Commission, Let's Go Fishing For Men, Preaching Trip to Nigeria and Into All the World.

DEATHS

RALPH P. AUTRY, SR. — On March 17, 1992 the earthly sojourn ofa sound and dedicated soldier of Christ came to an end. For over fifty-two years the proclamation of the gospel was foremost in his life, bothin word and example. Bill Hawkins and Leslie Sloan led the funeralgathering on March 19 as remembrance was made of a life that brought the sweet news of Jesus Christ to so many in Georgia, South Carolina,Florida and Tennessee. He also took the lead in gaining support forothers engaged in the work of preaching the gospel.

He began preaching full time in Union, South Carolina in 1936 and gave up full time work in 1987 to continue work as an elder at Rockchurch near Dickson, Tennessee. For many years he preached in theNashville area while supporting himself.

Born in Oconee County Georgia on November 21, 1913, his lifeended while his wife of 55 years, Marjorine, their children and three ofthe five grandchildren were at his bedside. "Precious in the sight of theLord is the death of His saints. "

LEAH KEY — This bright and devout young Christian left us at theage of 20 after the most courageous battle I have ever witnessed toovercome a brain tumor. I can truly say I have never known anyonequite like her. Leah was engaged to be married to Brett Narmore a fineyoung preacher who has been working with the Hebron Lane congregation near Louisville. Her parents, Charles and Annetta Key aremembers of that congregation. She was a joy to all who knew her andher valiant battle attracted the admiration and ignited the prayers ofChristians throughout the country. "After her first operation, a receptionist the hospital, after being overwhelmed with phone calls inquiring about her condition, asked this question: WHO IS LEAH KEY?" (Reported by Donald Townsley and included in his remarks at the funeral. A large crowd attended the services on April 18, 1992, which was conducted by Donald Townsley. Our loving respects to thesegrieving parents, to brothers Brad and Bruce and to Brett. (CWA)

PREACHERS NEEDED

MIAMI, FLORIDA — The church on Quail Roost Drive, located insouth Dade County, is in need of a full time enthusiastic evangelist who excels in personal work. Support from other sources will be necessary since this congregation of about 35 can only provide partial support. Those interested may contact Joseph K. Giffen at (305) 252-0585 orwrite to him at: P. O. Box 561533, Miami, FL 33256-1533.

LANGLEY, KENTUCKY — The Maytown church is without a fulltime preacher. We have 20 members and are located in Floyd Countyin eastern Kentucky. Those interested may call Emmett Lawson (606)478-2516 or 478-4040 or write: Maytown Church of Christ, HC 80, Box395, Langley, KY 41645.

PREACHER AVAILABLE

DAVID A. BECK, 1404 Morningside Dr., Lake Wales, FL 33853— I am considering moving to another work after seven and a half yearsin Lake Wales. The church is at peace and moving is my decision. I am45 years old and have been married for 26 years. My wife is 44. We haveraised four children, two boys and two girls. Before coming to LakeWales, I worked along with Phil Roberts at Cortez, Florida. Beforeworking in Cortez I worked with Ken Thomas in Bradenton. Contact meif you are interested. My phone number is (813) 676-5112.

FROM AROUND THE WORLD

SPAIN — Efrain Perez reports three more baptized at the Badalonacongregation in Barcelona.

SOUTH AFRICA — Paul Williams reports one baptized and fivewithdrawn from in Eshowe. I lift the following from one of his reportsabout the drought situation in Venda. "Most of the country is mountainous, hot and dry. There is usually enough rain to keep agriculture going,but the present drought has made the land dust dry. In the valley wherethe rivers are still flowing there is a little grass for cattle, but everywhere else there is not a blade of grass to be seen + The drought in southern Africa is the worst in history. Between eight and ten million tons of grain will have to be imported to avert mass starvation. SouthAfrica is well-placed because of its good harbors and railways and itsability to pay for what it needs, but the countries north of us are in greattrouble. They don't have money and are therefore dependent ondonations, and they don't have the infrastructure to get food deliveredto the people. Nearly all the grain will be transported through South Africa, and South Africa will help get it delivered to the people in Zimbabwe, Malawi and Zambia. The countries are working togetherand with the help of people who donate the grain should be able to keepstarvation at bay until next harvest. This certainly is our prayer. "

RAY VOTAW — writes to tell us of the urgent need which ERIC REEDhas to replace the $600 a month support which he has lost. Anyonewishing to inquire may write: Eric Reed, P. O. Box 637, Bellville, Cape7530, Rep. of South Africa.

HUNGARY— Richard Copeland and Jeff Archer report the conversionof two in Budapest in April. Several people are attending a Tuesdaynight class.

PHILIPPINES — Domie A. Jacob reports that 4 were baptized in February (two at Cordon and two at Der-an). In March four werebaptized at Cordon and one at Der-an. In April 39 were baptized, mostof them having been Jehovah's Witnesses who attended the gospel meeting and Bible studies. All of these were in Isabela Province.

Kenny Marrs of Pinole, California, and his father, Kenneth, spent about three weeks working in the Cagayan Valley. Rody Gumpadreports on their visit and says that 36 were baptized during that timeand the brethren were much encouraged.

C. A. Apatan reports from Pagadian City in Mindanao that in the lasttwo months nine were baptized there with ongoing Bible studies witha number of prospects.

Page 17

PEWS AVAILABLE The church in Warrenton, Missouri has 20 old church pews we willgive to any congregation that could use the. They are approximately8'6" long and have a slight curve in the back. If interested please contactthe church: P. O. Box 243, Warrenton, MO 63383. Or you may call BillConway (314) 456-4207, Duaine Kollenback (314) 456-2466 or BobBreuer (314) 456-8723.

RESPONSE TO ATTACKS

Several readers have asked if we planned to respond to the mostrecent attack in FAITH AND FACTS. The answer is "no. " We have dealt with the issue involving the nature of Christ. We have offered propositions which represent the differences and offered a place in Louisvilleto have such a discussion. The complaint that nobody is will ing to debate this matter is absolutely false. The controversy has descended far beneath the dignity which ought to characterize brethren incontroversy over any subject. We are willing to contend for truth and right but not on the level on which this matter is being discussed. I shall continue to preach and teach what I am confident is the truth of God's word on the nature of Christ and am willing to defend that teaching in fair and honorable circumstances. But there will be no replies to personal attacks. There is never an end to such things and the cause ofChrist is the greatest loser of all in endless wrangles.

We were also brought under fire in a widely circulated booklet entitled "Fellowship On Divorce and Remarriage" by Samuel G. Dawson. Though our brother mailed a copy of this booklet to preachers all over the country, he did not honor me with a copy and I saw it second-handed. There are a number of inaccuracies and misrepresentations about me and I have written brother Dawson personally about this. It would serve no good purpose to try andrespond to the personal remarks and innuendoes in this work. My attitude about that is the same as expressed in the foregoing paragraph.

PRAYERS NEEDED

Phyllis Key, wife of David Key who manages Religious SupplyCenter, is battling with a malignancy in the liver. It is growing and chemotherapy has been discontinued since it seems to have had no effect in slowing the growth rate. Phyllis is loved by all who know herand many of our readers have heard her pleasant voice in ordering from the book store. Phyllis, David and all the family urgently need your prayers.

**********THANKS TO DONNIE V. RADER, AGAIN

We have written many notes to thank Donnie V. Rader for his workwith us on the paper. Well, it is time to do that again. Donnie edited theJuly special issue on "Women Professing Godliness. " The material heput together, the arrangement of it and the work done to make it all come together were done with excellence. Our thanks to him and to all those who contributed articles for the special. You did your work welland much good will come from it.