Truth Magazine

By Wayne

“Going Home” could mean different things to different living bodies, but what it means here is a spot on Earth which equals about 2 1/2 acres of the hottest, the driest, and the coldest and most barren, flattest, of the reddest, hardest Northwest Texas dirt that could be gathered up and put in one pile this size. That dirt is so hard, contrary, and self-willed that it took nine of us gouging, chiseling, hoeing and plowing for nigh unto 50 years and the original two that started it all are still hacking away at it and we ain’t been able to change its nature but very little, if any.

Now, I don’t mean for it to sound like it’s been hated all those years, quite the contrary. I believe all nine of us love it till this day, but it’s mainly because of a little old house that was transformed from a shanty into a love-bless’d home by Mother and Dad. Now, there’s a combination that can’t be beat. Oh, they’ve been knocked down, pussied ’round, stepped on, misused, abused, kicked in the face and in the rear, and been imposed upon by more people than you’d care to think about and a big portion of ’em was related to them in some way or another. Even I am guilty of getting in a few licks. But somehow they keep getting up again and again to carry on; each time probably a little slower than the last and maybe a little weaker physically, but oh, the spiritual strength they have exhibited through the years. Well, certainly they may have wavered, faltered or stumbled a few times by the way, but it could happen pretty easy when you’ve already been knocked off balance. “Going Home” is getting close to them again in hope that maybe some of that strength and faith and goodness and mercy and kindness and wisdom and compassion for others will rub off on me and I can leave again feeling that I might be able to withstand the storms of life a bit better than before and maybe help someone else along, too. You know, it’s a good feeling to be able to say you’ve been brought up by parents like that or for others to be able to say they’ve had association with a couple of people on Earth that was just a level above humanity and striving to make it all the way to the top by the time they get to the end of the line.

“Going Home” is looking back at everything home used to be. It used to be a refuge from severe weather storms. In my little days I could run inside and as soon as the screen slammed at my heels nothing could hurt me, nothing bad could get in there. That old place has been a first aid and comfort station with an attendant around the clock, a welfare center where anybody could get a bite to eat and even at times a pair of shoes or a coat, a loan institute operating at a loss, of course, a football field, baseball diamond, track course, a dairy, truck farm, a stage for important actors, training class for home economics, site of many quilting parties, a nursing home, a hideout from the law, a popular playground and entertainment center for all the games commonly known to the poor folks’ kids such as Steal the Flag, Kick the Can, May 1, Hide and Seek, Red Rover, As I Draw This Magic Circle, Pin the Tail on the Donkey, Spin the Bottle, Tag, King on the Mountain, and a bunch more I can’t even recall. It’s been a full-line junk yard, a constant repair shop, a chicken farm, a combat zone for would-be soldiers, the wild west with cowboys and Indians. It’s been a research and experimental lab, a wonderland where dreams were built and some were broken, a springboard into the world, a port to return to when it would get so rough it almost caused us to capsize or shipwreck, a wedding chapel, a place of prayer, an opportunity for our own children to know a part of our backgrounds, a place of joyous reunions and sad good-byes, a hospital where life was given and taken away, and broken toys and broken hearts were fixed. It is a beacon that shines bright for all of us to see our way when we start “Going Home”, no matter where we are.

One day this beacon will go out, we all krow and expect this. I guess then “Going Home” will just mean opening up the treasure chest of memories that’s been accumulated over the years or maybe “Going Home” will take on a new and different meaning. Who can tell?

Well, ya’ll come and go with me, cause I’m “Going Home” again.

Truth Magazine XX: 47, pp. 749-750
November 25, 1976

By Jeffery Kingry

Have you ever wondered why your new electric razor always breaks down, bridges collapse, cars won’t start, politicians don’t work, and the world’s economies are rapidly disintegrating? Incompetence seems at times to have a stranglehold on the “civilized world.” Order 1,000 sheets of paper and the U.P.S. delivers 1,000 reams. You send a change of address to the magazine and never see another copy of it-even though you do get your name and correct address on ten new mailing lists for trash mail.

Dr. Lawrence Peter, a school psychologist and University professor discovered the cause of incompetence in structured society and wrote a book on it. The Peter Principle has become the classic first work of the study of Hierarchal incompetence, and Dr. Peter is referred to all as “The Father Of Incompetence” (Dr. L. J. Peter, The Peter Principle, William Morrow & Co., Inc, New York, 1969).

The Peter Principle is very simple: “In a Hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his own level of incompetence.” This principle is very easily demonstrated. Mr. A is a very apt mechanic, but he has no ability to work with people. He is promoted at the car dealership where he works from mechanic to shop foreman. Mr. A proved his ability and was promoted until he was given a job that he could not do-and was really no good at. He is not promoted any farther because he cannot do the job he now has. Mr. A has reached Final Placement: his highest level of incompetence. However good a person may be, as he is promoted, assuming there are enough jobs in the hierarchy, he reaches a job he cannot do and is promoted no farther. So, given enough time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties (Peter’s Corollary ). All work is accomplished by those people who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.

Cannot Apply To Christ’s Church

Dr. Peter readily admits that his new science of Incompetence only applies to rigid Hierarchies. The Peter Principle does not apply to those few eccentrics who avoid getting involved with Hierarchies. The church that Jesus built, as revealed in the N.T., does not fit in with this new science. There is no organization in the Body except as functional units. There are no titular jobs in Christ’s church-one is not a Preacher, but one preaches. One either shepherds according to God’s prerequisites and qualifications or one does not-no matter whether a church calls him an elder or not. One either serves, prays, sings, gives, etc. or one does not. Hanging a sign on the door doesn’t make one a child of God-obedience and service do. But, -when the Peter Principle does find application in the church we can rest assured that it applies because we have ceased being eccentric and become Hierarchically inclined.

Standards

Efficiency, or -Getting The Job Done” is determined in Hierarcheology not by any standard, but by the employee’s superior in the hierarchy. Peter states, “If the ‘superior is still at a level of competence he may evaluate his subordinates in terms of performance of useful work . . . that is to say he evaluates output.”

But if the superior has reached final placement he will rate his subordinates in terms of institutional values: He will see competence as behavior that supports the rules, rituals, and forms of the status quo. Promptness, neatness, courtesy to superiors, internal paperwork, will be highly regarded. In short, an official evaluates input” (Peter, p. 42). Dr. Peter terms this “Peter’s Inversion: whenever internal consistency is valued more highly than efficient service.” A professional automaton may be termed a “Peter’s Invert.” He has inverted the means-end relationship.

Among preachers in the church we see this whenever the church becomes “Hierarcheologized” or whenever it leaves the N.T. Pattern and designs itself as a hierarchy. When the preacher’s “superior” is the church instead of the Lord, as in the employer-employee relationship of the world, then his performance and efficiency is determined by his superiors. The preacher is judged “efficient” by the number of brethren he visits during the week, the peace he can maintain within a church by compromise and avoiding “sensitive” subjects in his teaching, the clothes he wears, his ability to consume vast quantities of criticism with a smile, his ability to work with the “young people,” his ability to run things behind the scenes. All of these and more are indices of a preacher working within a hierarchy. Those preachers who determine how “successful” their work is by how well they please their superiors in these areas can aptly be called “Peter’s Inverts.” These no longer see themselves existing to serve the church by serving God, but look upon the church and the word as raw material to manipulate to maintain them, the rituals, the paperwork, and the hierarchy. “Competence,” says Dr. Peter, “like beauty and contact lenses, is in the eyes of the beholder.”

Indices Of Final Placement

It is useful to know when one has reached final placement. Peter lists some areas of behavior which identify those who have reached their highest level of incompetence.

I. Abnormal Tabulology: This is an important area of Hierarcheology. A competent employee normally keeps on his desk just the books, papers, and apparatus that he needs for his work. After final placement, an employee is likely to adopt some unusual and highly significant arrangement of his desk.

Papyromania: This manifestation of final placement causes the employee to clutter his desk with piles of never used papers and books. Consciously or unconsciously, he thus tries to look busy and mask his incompetence by giving the impression that he has too much to domore than any human could accomplish. R is often observed among preachers and editors who have such a cluttered desk and office that they hardly if ever use it, except as a manifestation to visitors of how busy they are.

Fileophilia: Here we see a mania for the precise arrangement and classification of papers, usually combined with a morbid fear of losing any document. By keeping himself busy rearranging and re-examining bygone business the fileophiliac prevents other people-or himself-from realizing that he is accomplishing little or nothing of current importance. This mania is often observed in preachers who keep accurate and up to date files on visitor’s cards, and attendance records, but never get around to visiting and converting the visitors or rebuking the slack attenders.

II. Structurophflia: Structurophilia is an obsessive concern with buildings-their planning, construction, maintenance, and reconstruction, with an increasing indifference with the work that is going on, or is supposed to be going on, inside such buildings. Many believe that the erecting of a new, better, or more elaborate structure will help attendance, attract prospects, and “give the church a goal to work for.” Often, the only result is that the congregation looks even smaller in the larger building. Preachers often state that a congregation is “established” when it has a building. These may really be trying to improve the quality of the work of the church but end up only producing another building.

Self-pity: One excellent indication of final placement is the telling of chronic hard-luck stories. It is always the fault of someone outside and beyond the pitiers,’ control that makes them incompetent. This self-pity is usually combined with a strong tendency to reminisce about “the good old days,” when the complainant was working at a lower rank, a level of competence.

Compulsive Alternation: Once one has reached final placement, he may try to keep others off balance. A confident friend will be put off with a snub, a timid subordinate will be flustered by abnormal familiarity. Subordinates always say, “You don’t know how to take him.” Editors of religious journals often do this by coming down equally hard on both sides of an issue (“We are a fair and open journal.”), snubbing friends while befriending enemies.

Cachinatory Inertia: A sure mark of final placemen is the habit of telling jokes instead of getting on with business. This is often seen in those preachers who get so wrapped up in an anecdote as an illustration, they forget what they were trying to illustrate.

One outstanding way of determining final placement is in the art of Substitution. Once he has reached his level of incompetence, he must engage in one or more substitutions to keep sane and happy. Otherwise he would have to face the Sordid Truth, that he is unfit and incompetent to do the job. As long as the preacher stays busy, whether it is productive work or not, he avoids having to face the fact that he is not doing his job in teaching the gospel.

Some of the techniques employed are certainly applicable to our discussion:

Technique One: Evangelist-Editor Substitution: The word “eOitor” is not found in the scriptures, but because some evangelists cannot do the work God gave them, they become editors. (Those who can neither preach nor edit, we choose as “Staff Writers!”-CW) This man has ceased from all productive work and justifies his support by saying “Writing is just another form of preaching.” He deludes himself into thinking that what might be justified as an incidental part of his work as an evangelist is his primary work-and devotes all of his energies by substituting another set of duties which fie carries out to perfection. An example of this is the Journal editor who raised his total support from churches and brethren that he might devote his time to writing for a new subscription journal. In the six issues of the paper he has managed to produce thirteen jokes and anecdotes, four pithy sayings, zing a few enemies in the back, and to promote the paper and himself around the country. While quite productive in procuring a permanent vacation, this substitution demonstrates that he has reached his highest level of incompetence in serving the Lord.

Technique Two: Perpetuat Preparation: This is the fellow who is always reading (or writing) books on personal work, but never seems to do any. It includes the Professional Student. Most Professional Students have found that they enjoy the continual feedback of a college atmosphere that says, “You got an A. You are smart, you are worthwhile, you are competent.” To leave that environment and attempt to practice what has been learned is often too hard on the Professional Student’s psyche, for then he would learn that most of what he has garnered is useless for living . . . or competent living.

The methods of Perpetual Preparation are applicable to preachers.

(1) First Things First-This method issues forth in a minute, painstaking, time consurning attention to every phase of preparation for action: The building up of abundant reserves of spare forms, spare parts, spare ammunition, spare money, etc., in order to consolidate the present position before advancing on a goal. For some students who have achieved final placement as students they spend several hours each night before studying sharpening pencils, arranging and collating papers, cleaning the desk, adjusting the light. Preachers use this method incessantly in what they call “The Study. ” They compile books, stuff file cabinets, read mail and answer it, read some, and then go home for coffee and a nap.

(2) Obtain Expert Advice-This method looks to bygone experts instead of live ones. It is called “Searching For The Precedent.” Most often it is employed by preachers who “specialize” in “Restoration History.”

(3) Confirm The Need For Action-This method is often employed by elders or brethren in business meetings. Spend sufficient time in confirming the need for action, and the need will disappear, This is especially true in the areas of benevolence and preacher’s support. If sufficient time is spent in deciding if !here is indeed a famine, or that a preacher is without support, the need will quickly take care of itself.

Technique Three: Side Issue Specialization: We see this in the “writing preacher,” the “debate preacher,” the “meeting preacher.” and the “scholar-teacher preacher,” The side issue specialist is incompetent to do the work of evangelism so lie substitutes a zealous concern for something he can do efficiently.

Technique Four: Image Replaces Performance: An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance, In the church this might be called the “Big Preacher Syndrome,” a sure indication of final placement. Image making as a substitute for performance is successfully used by politicians (who talk and lecture on the hoary glory of our democratic traditions, and the sacredness of the public trust, and then do little or nothing toward carrying out the real duties of their position), the artist (who paints little or nothing of value, and finds his calling, lecturing on the value and beauty of true art), and preachers (who talk about the great heritage of Paul the evangelist, and the need to take the Gospel to a lost and dying world, and the need of consecrated work, and yet product none of it.)

Technique Five: Convergent Specialization: Finding himself incompetent to carry out his duties, the convergent specialist will ignore most of them, and Concentrate his attention and efforts on one small task that he can do. If he finds himself incompetent to do the job, he specializes further till he reaches a level of competence. Historians become the foremost authority on the first thirty minutes of the reformation. Academicans who are incompetent to understand the meaning and value of a literary work may write a lengthy treatise on “A Comparative Study Of The Use Of The Comma In The Literary Works Of Otto Scribbler.” Preachers often specialize in writing reactionary articles about what other preachers said, or spend their times publishing books that nobody reads.

Technique Five: Utter Irrelevance: The LJtter Irrelevantist is a daring incompetent. He makes no pretence of doing his job. He ignores it completely and does something else-writes letters to the editor or to “Dear Abby,” goes to meetings and tells people that he is a preacher, repeats canned sermons written by someone else, joins social clubs, or assumes a Boy Scout Troop. He never produces any results in anything that he does.

We could fill a text book with the ways that brethren avoid their work-but the lesson is simple: “But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an crangelisi, make full proof of thy ministry” (2 Tim. 4:5).

Truth Magazine XX: 47, pp. 747-749
November 25, 1976

By Daniel H. King

March 15, 16, 18, and 19, 1976, witnessed one of the few public debates that has been held in Nashville in recent years. It was held at the Eastland Church of Christ meeting house and was well attended throughout by those representing both points of view. Brother Howard See, who preaches regularly at Eastland, represented the church of Christ, while Mr. H.C. Vanderpool of the New Bethel Baptist Church in Goodlettesville, Tennessee represented the Missionary Baptists. The debate was instigated by the fact that Brother See follows Mr. Vanderpool on WNAH radio Monday through Friday. The two sparred with one another on the air for a time over the issues involved in the discussion and this led Brother See to challenge Mr. Vanderpool for a public discussion. Mr. Vanderpool accepted the challenge and propositions and other arrangements were worked out over a series of months. The result was an exciting and beneficial discussion.

The See-Vanderpool debate was Brother See’s twelfth venture onto the polemic platform, although it was only his second discussion of the Missionary Baptist doctrine. He formerly met W.B. Curnute at Graywon, Kentucky, in 1956. However, he had debated on Primitive Baptist doctrine several times. More recently he met P.D. Hardin of the Church of the Firstborn (1974) in Nashville, and J.W. Holcomb on the subject of women teachers (1975). Brother See did an exceptional job all four nights of the debate, was very well prepared (a good grasp of all of the issues, mastery of the arguments, many splendid charts, available printed materials for all, and one of the best printed outlines that I have ever seen. Vanderpool was especially irked by it, calling it the “Declaration of Confusion.”) Also, we were well pleased with Brother See’s Christian behavior and gentlemanly manner. Not one time do I recall an instance where he left these lofty issues to “get personal”. As most of us know, this is one of the reasons that debating has been given a bad name in recent years, and we are proud to say that this was not of that low caliber. Brother Guthrie Dean who preachers in our city for the Franklin Road church served as Brother See’s moderator. Most are probably aware that Brother Dean suffered a severe heart attach on the Sunday morning following the debate.

H.C. Vanderpool is well-known and is certainly considered a champion among his Missionary Baptist brethren. He is noted as a preacher, debater, Baptist historian, editor and writer. This was not his first debate with our brethren. He debated Weldon Warnock twice in Louisville and Glenn Ramsey in Carthage, Tennessee (Oct. 1975), and possibly others. He co-authored the book Twentieth Century Baptists with W.T. Russell in 1963 (his own biography appears on p. 159, wherein he relates his experience” of salvation); independently wrote Travel With Me Through Bible Lands (1970), and his autobiography I Became Rich During the Depression (1974). He is also the editor of the Baptist Banner. Mr. Vanderpool proved himself a worthy opponent and a gentleman. Truly it might be said that “he did the best he could with what he had.” F. L. Ray acted as his moderator in the discussion.

The facilities of the Eastland church had been decided upon because of its seating capacity of 520. Mr. Vanderpool had said that the house would probably be filled by his own brethren. Many Baptists did come, but attendance figures were Dot quite tip to his expectations. The average for the four nights of discussion was around 300 per night. The crowds were very lively and enthusiastic with many “Amens!” and 1-J)h Uhs!” but were amazingly well behaved in light of the great gulf that separated the views of the opponents. One incident that sticks in my mind occurred on the last night of the debate. A Baptist man had become very heated at the fact that lie did not think Mr. Vanderpool was meeting See’s arguments. He was seated in the rear Dear my wife and was heard to say as lie rose in a huff to leave, “I’m getting sick and tired of this. That fellow isn’t teaching the truth!” (Vanderpool was speaking at the time). Evidently the discussion did at least one man some good. Even if he never does anything about it, it could be said that he heard the truth and was convinced by it–and in a debate! Who said debates do not accomplish any good any more?

The propositions for debate encompassed a much-discussed proposition and a little-discussed topic as well. The first two nights centered upon the following proposition: “Resolved that the Scriptures teach that repenting sinners are saved, receive remission of sins, through faith in Christ and that before water baptism.” Vanderpool affirmed and See denied. But the second topic dealt with an area that is not usually taken into consideration when debating the differences between ourselves and the Baptists. It may be stated in the form of a question: When do we come into contact with the blood of Christ? The proposition was worded as follows~ “Resolved that the Scriptures teach that baptism in Water is essential to the blood of Christ being applied to the alien sinner for salvation, the remission of sins.” This peculiar wording allowed for a slightly different slant in the debate. In my own limited experience I have not been made aware of a discussion with this particular wording in the proposition. I think that this is the real contribution of this disputation. And, in my own estimation, it caught Vanderpool flat-footed. He was forced to simply restate his affirmative arguments from the first two nights on the last two nights. It was obviously a very awkward situation that he found himself in during this second part of the debate.

Mr. Vanderpool’s first affirmative began with the argument that those who were already disciples of Christ were to be baptized. He attempted to sustain this by linking the statement of Matt. 28:19, “Make disciples . . . baptizing them” to Lk. 14:26 where Christ says that his disciples would forsake all and follow him or else they would not be his disciples. In addition, he pointed out that the love of the brethren and the love of God was the witness of salvation, or that we have “passed from death unto life.” At this point he introduced In. 13:35; 1 Jn. 3:14; 4:7; 5:4 and suggested that these were proof of the fact that the term “disciple” denoted a “saved individual”, and Christ had commanded to baptize disciples-not Sinners. To this See replied that disciples had been called disciples even before they were believers (Jn. 2:11). So, if disciple meant “saved individual”, then these were saved before belief. Also, Jn. 6:66 says that some of the disciples of Jesus went back and walked Do more with him. If it is true that disciples were saved individuals, then these people had most certainly fallen from grace.

At this, Vanderpool took a slightly different tact, pointing out that in the Bible believers are said to be: born of God (1 Jn. 5:1); possessors of everlasting life (Jn. 6:47); sons of God (Jn. 1:12); saved (Acts 16:31), among other things. Then he exclaimed, “I baptize believers!” In See’s reply he asserted that at these places and at others the Scripture puts a part for the whole. He made reference to a chart which listed the varions things in the Word pf God that are said to save man: God (Rom. 8:33); Grace (Eph, 2:8); Blood iRom. 5:9); Gospel (Rom. 1:16); Faith (Epb. 2:8); Baptism (1 Pet. 3:21); etc. Giving verbal substance to the obvious, he thereupon inquired, “Which one of these excludes the other?” His opponent did not attempt to answer. Pressing his point, See next offered a chart which dernonstrated the fact that no person in the Bible was ever blessed on account of his faith until that faith had expressed itself in obedience (Matt. 7:21; Acts 10:43; Heb. 5:8, 9; 2 Thess. 1:7-9). He concluded this aspect of the discussion with what he called “A Deadly Parallel” from Js. 2:23.

1. Body 1 Spirit = Live Man

Body 1 Spirit = Dead Man

2. Faith 1 Works = Live Faith

Faith 1 Works = Dead Faith

To this he added that Baptists teach salvation by a dead faith which according to the Scriptures cannot save.

Vanderpool’s third argument came in the form of an assertion: that God has had one plan of salvation for all time: for Abraham (Gen. 15:6); the Israelites (1 Cor. 10:4); during the life of Christ (LK. 7:50); after the time of Jesus (Acts 8:37). Brother See answered by referring to Heb. 9:16-17, suggesting that after the new covenant came into force baptism was required for salvation (1 Pet, 1:22-23), and is in evidence in all of the cases of conversion after Pentecost.

An interesting sidelight at this point was the fact that Vanderpool took the position that Cornelius might not have obeyed the command of God through Peter to be immersed. See made hay with his specious reasoning by simply alluding to the remark of Cornelius in Acts 10:33. Who can believe that Cornelius and his house would have assembled to hear “all things that have been commanded thee of the Lord”, only to reject the command of Peter to be baptized (vss. 47-48)?

Pointed questions from the negative speaker are always beneficial in a forensic dual of this sort, And, some that were used bv Brother See may be suggestive to those who may later meet opponents of a like persuasion. They were: 1) Is calling on the name of the Lord essential to being saved? 2) Is confession necessary to salvation, and if so, why? 3) Does an alien sinner have to repent to have remission of sin, and if so, why? 4) Please put the following in their proper order: faith, repentance, confession, love, calling, direct operation of the Holy Spirit, baptism in water, and salvation. 5) Can an alien sinner purify his soul without obeying the truth? 6) Does baptism belong to the righteousness of God or man? 7) Please give one passage that tells us the purpose of baptism. 8) Is baptism a part of the gospel? 9) Were the Jews in Acts 2 saved when they, asked, “What must we do?” 10) Can an alien sinner be saved and go to heaven without being baptized in water? 11) Can a person be a member of the Baptist church without being baptized in water? 12) When does a person arise to walk a new life, before or after baptism?

All of the questions submitted to Vanderpool enlarged upon the scope of the debate in some way. One of the most interesting flurries that grew out of a question centered upon the last one in connection with its Scriptural counterpart, Rom. 6:3-10. The affirmative speaker answered the query by saying that at the point at which one places his trust in Christ he dies to sin; hence, he is baptized, i.e. buried. “We bury those in baptism who have died!” he announced. Mr. See retorted that if One will read the passage he will be made aware that through baptism we are baptized into death, and raised up from this grave to walk in newness of life. One does die to the desire to sin at the point of repentance, but that is not the thing under consideration in these verses. He went on to charge that Vanderpool claims salvation at the point of faith for the sinner as well as the beginning of the new life in Christ, Thus, in reality Vanderpool is burying people who are alive! Said conclusion is abundantly true in light of the force and context of the passage.

Mr. Vanderpool found it necessary to make use of the usual number of argumentum ad misericordiam, or “argument to the sympathy”, This is a common type of fallacy which arises when an appeal to passion or prejudice is substituted for logic and Bible proof. First, he claimed that Floyd Collins, a man trapped in a cave in Kentucky many years ago, had begged for salvation but had been told by one of “our” preachers that he could not have it unless he freed himself and was immersed, Collins is said to have perished in the cave. This is an old Baptist myth and is no more true now than it was when N.B. Hardenian met it a half-century ago (see the Hardernan-Bogard Discussion, pp. 117, 130, 140). Brother See simply replied as did Hardeman that Collins was a Christian before he ever went into the cave. Vanderpool said no more about it. Later he raised a similar question with respect to a young girl who had drowned in a stream as she awaited baptism near Livingston, Tennessee. She had already made her confession after having believed on the Lord.” Where is she tonight?” he inquired. See turned the question around by observing, “She is in the same condition as someone at the mourner’s bench if they die prior to convincing God that he ought to save them.” The Baptist disputant had nothing further to say about this case either.

Howard See began his affirmative speeches by arguing that Christ’s blood was shed “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28) and that baptism was to be performed for the same reason (Acts 2:38). Moreover, he argued that without the shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb. 9:22), so without repentance and baptism there is no remission. Along this same line he connected Paul’s statement that we have our redemption through Christ’s blood (Eph. 1:7), that is, the forgiveness of our sins, with the fact that we are baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27), wherein we gain the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38). The third step was with regard to the church: The church was purchased with blood (Acts 20:28); we are baptized into the body (1 Cor. 12:13); the body is the church (Eph. 1:22-23), which has been cleansed “by the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:25-26), or baptism.

He continued this thought by asserting that we are reconciled by blood when baptized, and offering as proof of his assertion the following: we are made nigh in Christ by his blood (Eph. 2:13); we are reconciled in one body by the cross (Eph. 2:16); yet, we are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3-6), and baptized into the one body (1 Cor. 12:13). Therefore, it is in baptism that we are made nigh in the blood of Christ and reconciled in the one body by the cross.

The relationship of blood and water was explored next by means of a chart which called attention to the fact that water and blood came from the side of the Lord at his crucifixion (Jn. 19:34), whereas t Jn. 5:6 says that Christ came by water and by blood”. The Old Covenant came by water and blood (Heb. 9:18-22), and so did the New (Heb. 9:23-26). Thus, the spirit, water and blood agree in one (1 Jn. 5:8). This takes place at the time of and in the act of baptism, the Corinthians being an apt example (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:7; 5:25-26).

The final two arguments which See offered to prove his proposition touched the relation between Old Testament types and New Testament antitypes. Firstly, he alluded to the deliverance of the firstborn among the Israelites in Egypt (Ex. 12:1-13). Here he made three observations: (1) The blood was sprinkled on the doorposts of the Israelite houses; (2) The firstborn within the houses covered by blood were delivered from death; (3) Outside of the house so covered there was no deliverance. This was the Old Testament type. The New Testament antitype is characterized by three like features: (1) The church is purchased by blood (Acts 20:28); (2) Deliverance from death is found in the church (Eph. 2:16; 5: 23); (3) Outside of the church there is no deliverance. Yet we are baptized into the church (1 Cor. 12:13).

The second argument of this sort had to do with the priesthood of Christ as opposed to that of the Levites, the Levitical being the shadow and Christ’s being the substance. In the bygone era the High Priest brought the blood into the sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (Heb. 9:6-7; 13:11-12); there he sprinkled the blood upon the mercy seat (Lev. 16:14). Under the New, Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 9:24), who entered into heaven ffleb. 9:24), where he offered the blood (Heb. 9:12). This “blood of sprinkling” is applied only to the church (Heb. 12:22-24), and at the time in which “our bodies are washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22), that is, at the point of baptism.

At this juncture in the discussion Mr. Vanderpool ceased debating and began to drag out some of the old Baptist tricks. He made no attempt whatever to touch the affirmative’s remarks during his last speeches. Quibbles were offered in regard to which comes first, repentance or faith; on eis (“into”, “for”, or “in order to”) in Acts 2:38, making it “with reference to”; and he divided the verse into three parts, connecting the first and last parts so that he could make the part that referred to baptism “parenthetical”. These and several other such quibbles were quickly answered by Brother See. All in all, it was a fine hour for the “faith once delivered” in the Nashville Area.

As we mentioned earlier in this review, the charts and outlines employed by Howard See in this debate are some of the finest that we have ever seen. They were distributed to all those who were present and wanted them. We now have been made aware that these materials will soon be available in a revised and enlarged edition to those who would like them. Simply write to Brother See at the following address: 2725 Western Hills Drive, Nashville, Tenn. 37214. He is not sure at the present what the exact cost will be, but he hopes it will be minimal. He is also revising and enlarging his notes on the Baptismal Formula, Godhead, and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and they will be available shortly as well. Order them, they are worth having!

Truth Magazine XX: 47, pp. 744-746
November 25, 1976

By Luther Blackmon

Is the religion of Christ only for children? That’s a stupid question isn’t it? Yet I know many people who take their children to “Sunday School” every week, drop them off and then come by afterwards and pick them up. Yet the parents rarely if ever attend any of the services. Now I would much rather see parents bring their children than not to bring them, but some things about this have always puzzled me. These parents send (or take) their children where they will be taught the Bible. They will be taught the importance of the church, that it was purchased with the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28). They will be taught that only those who obey God’s Word will be saved, and that this applies to all people; that Christianity demands that we be faithful, that we must live our lives as we were taught in the Bible. This includes attending worship and working in the Lord’s church (Heb. 10:25; 1 Cor. 15:58, etc.). Now these children are not naive. It won’t take them long to put two and two together, and when they do they will wonder, and likely will ask their parents some questions. Some of these questions may be: “Mommy, doesn’t God have a church for big people?” “How long do I have to go to church before I can quit like you and Daddy?”

You have such a short time in which to mold the characters of those little ones that God has given into your hands. You owe them something better than to let them play cops and robbers while the church is assembled for worship and while you hide your neglect behind some puny excuses. Before you are aware of the passing time, your little boy will be his own man and your little girl will be a woman. Do you want them also to quit the church when they are older? It will take a lot of teaching, likely more than they can get in the Bible classes, to outweigh the influence of your example.

Truth Magazine XX: 47, p. 743
November 25, 1976