Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

Dear Brother Bill,

It is with a sense of trepidation and not a small amount of chagrin that I compose this letter. I have refrained from doing so since your promotional session in Louisville last December. But after continuing to see, in issue after issue of the Guardian (since I am not one of those who quits reading whatever he disagrees with), journalistic pot-shots, sideswipes, and hit-and-run tactics, under cover of a strange kind of “piety,” I feel a need to register a “second-generation pulse rate.”

As one who has attended and spoken at several “unity forums,” who reads the literature of the “unity faction” in the Restoration Movement (e.g., Mission Messenger, Restoration Review, Integrity, and Mission), and who has had occasion during the course of both private study and formal schoolwork to grapple with the questions implicit in the severing- of fellowship and maintaining the existing ruptures; I can understand (although I do not condone) the inclination of some so-called “second-generation preachers” (including some of my closest friends) to be swept away with all the rhetoric. What I do not understand is how some of the older, more experienced men (including yourself) have apparently been affected as well; I would like to think that you know better. I have respected your ability since the days when you preached in Indianapolis during, my high school years-but I must confess that events of the past several months have left me perplexed, amazed, and frankly, appalled.

First, I fail to understand why you would label a man (Brother Cecil Willis), for all practical purposes, a liar when what is involved is only a memory lapse-and the lapse is yours, Brother Bill, not his (I speak with reference to the alleged “most of the night discussion” in your article, “Editor Willis’ Pleasant Task,” Gospel Guardian, December 6, 1973). I do not know all the details of how late you stayed, but I do know what I saw and heard for myself-a tired, red-eyed Bill Wallace early one morning at Cecil’s home, who, when asked, declined to feel anyone’s pulse on grounds of fatigue due to “being up late last night talking.” (I do not recall the exact words, but this was the gist of the conversation). Now Bill, it may be that your memory, and Cecil’s (and mine, for that matter), are defective, but why label a man-especially one with whom you have worked so closely in the past-a common liar over something like that? I do not agree with everything Cecil has done or does, either-and certainly he can take care of himself-but I fail to find any basis for such a slanderous charge.

While I am on the subject, I recall a comment you made shortly after one of those early “pulse-feeling” trips:”

A visit with Cecil Willis of Truth Magazine, in Marion, Indiana; was a highlight of the Indiana trip. It is always great to visit with him. He is a man of God who has the best interests of the Cause of Christ at heart, always. . we engaged in lively conversation about brotherhood affairs and his counsel is highly beneficial. (“The Pulse of the Brethren (II),” Gospel Guardian. October 9, 1969, p. 362).

What has Cecil done to change so drastically,(into an arrogant power-wielder, manipulating brethren and doing despite to the body of Christ while ascending to the titular headship of a sect, as you have recently portrayed him)?

Second, this entire business of nit-picking and introducing irrelevancies (who was where, when, and with whom; who stayed at Cecil’s home how long; who sold Bibles (or sacked groceries?) in St. Louis during which summer; etc., etc., ad infinitum et nauseam) into the discussion reflects a disappointing unwillingness to deal with issues that have been clearly, and sincerely, called to the, brethren’s attention just dump a kettle of red herrings into the water and you are off the hook, so to speak.

Additionally, the old “rubberstamp” approach’ seems to have resurfaced-just label someone’s argument ‘with an emotionally loaded term and one need not deal with the scriptural principles involved (as in “good works,” “Sommerism,” “anti,” etc.). In this case, substitute labels such as “legalism,” “spiritual , cannibalism,” “sectarianism,” “brotherhood manipulation;” etc., and you are henceforth excused from further discussion. Or, you can publicly and piously proclaim “withdrawal” from open skirmish and continue to pot-shot from behind the trees with every weekly issue. (With articles like, “On False Teachers, Centralization of Power, Works of the Flesh,” “Spiritual Manslaughter,” “Paul and Controversy” “Any Pharisees Around?” “Confused about Calvinism?” “Journalistic Ethics,” etc., etc., who do you think you’re fooling; by proclaiming a “withdrawal”?)

Third, and by far the most bothersome aspect of the controversy, is the apparently pervasive nature of the false teaching being done. What you presented in Louisville as being “Ed Fudge’s positions” seems to have been, at least partially accepted and endorsed as your own. You use the same quotations, interpret key passages (such as Romans 4, 1 John 1, etc.) in the same manner (as in “Confused about Calvinism?”, February 7, 1974; “On Friendly Terms with God,” March 14, 1974; “What is Walking in the Light?”, April 18, 1974; and others), and otherwise seemingly sympathize with Ed’s positions or protect him (why, who knows?) by attempting to classify his view on Calvinistic or Reformation positions (such as the imputation of the personal righteousness of Christ to the believer) as no more important than the means of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, or things practiced privately by individual Christians which do not affect corporate congregational activity, or the means by which God saves men (as in “On False Teachers . . .,” June 13, 1974, and “How Sound are You?”, May 2, 1974). Ignoring for the time being the moot question of whether men such as Burns, Sommer, and Whiteside have been quoted or referred to entirely within context, I am left with the same question I asked Brother Fudge at Lawrenceville, Georgia, in August, 1972; (the answer to which question introduced me to Edward’s “meek and quiet spirit”): “If you accept a person’s premises and use the same scriptures, arguments and quotations to bolster the position, how can you avoid arriving at the same conclusions?” The point is not (as some would like to think) a smear campaign to indict by unfavorable association but similarity of teaching.

It is saddening to me to contemplate the possibility that Bill Wallace has been affected by the rhetoric being flung around today with reference to fellowship, but I don’t think I’m the only one who smells the smoke! As I recall, the only response you made to Cecil’s quotation (“Tell Us It Is Not So,” Truth Magazine, April 26, 1973) of Leroy Garrett’s report that you were “reexamining” your position on fellowship, finding your former position “too difficult to live with” (“Mini-Meeting Trail: Texas Style,” Restoration Review, September, 1972) was to label Leroy as a source “ordinarily considered) unreliable or prejudicial in journalistic reporting” (“We Are Under Attack-(I),” Gospel Guardian, July 19, 1973). Now of course I do not agree with Leroy Garrett on most issues, I suppose, but I see no reason why he should lie about such an occurrence. While he may not be doctrinally “sound,” he is a personable gentleman, at least in my experiences in being around him, and I see no reason to question his veracity. It seems somewhat strange to me that everyone with whom your memory conflicts is out of step–Cecil Willis, Leroy Garrett, Jim Cope, James Adams, Roy Cogdill (as in “Why?”, Gospel Guardian, December 13, 1973)-except Bill Wallace! “Why,” indeed, Brother Bill?

I find it difficult to believe that someone as seasoned and historically well-informed as Bill Wallace cannot see the source and implications of the shopworn Calvinistic concepts which are being utilized to attempt to justify a wider fellowship. But I suppose if everyone could see the implications and end products of his actions, there would be no digressions. Failure or inability to look ahead, to stop digression the only place it can be stopped-in the very beginning-of such is the very stuff of digression.

Can we not discuss the issues, Brother Bill, calmly and fairly, even if others may choose not to do so? Or must we, as you expressed yourself to me several months ago, “fuss for awhile” and then merely attempt to ignore problems and issues by dismissing them as prideful “preacher squabbles”? I pray not. If the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ to the believer is correct and scriptural; if it is, in fact, virtually if not altogether impossible for a Christian to fall “out of the state of grace,” or to cease to “walk in the light;” if we have, in time past, 2 John 9; then let us come out openly and squarely deal with those issues and attendant ones, instead of implicating by innuendo and insinuation (the tactics of false teachers in every age). Certainly, if any issues bear open investigation, these do! May God help us to have eyes to see, ears to hear, and the strength of His might to stand upon His truth!

P.S.

Bill-

I would be interested to have you respond to this Aopen letter” in any way you see fit, even if you choose not to print it in the Guardian (as I suspect you will not). I have contemplated writing it for a good while (it was not composed hastily) and finally just read “too much” in the Guardian. But I would appreciate a response, if only a letter.

Also, you mentioned several issues ago that you had recently been studying some material pertaining to the church in the first half of the twentieth century. Since I am doing the same kind of thing (1900-1940) for my Ph.D dissertation at Vanderbilt, I would be interested to hear any observations you might care to make, or to know of any interesting material you may have come across.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:43, p. 8-9
September 5, 1974

By Daniel H. King

Very often when I am engaged in an attempt at getting a brother to sit down with me and determine together exactly what the Word of God teaches on a given subject, I have the designation “Pharisee” thrown up at me. Now, frankly, I must make the admission that under those circumstances a jibe like that does not really bother me. In fact, it=s a compliment! What does irritate me, though, is the misunderstanding that lies behind their usage of the word. Ponder this question for a moment: Where is there a biblical denunciation of the exacting determination of and adherence to the law of the Lord which characterized the Pharisees? Unless I am very badly mistaken you will look in vain to find such. It just is not there. On the contrary, let me direct your attention to a few considerations which you may not have focused upon previously.

Firstly, if you will remember, as Jesus began his condemnatory oration pointed at the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23, the Lord prefaced his remarks by saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat: all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not. Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.” At the very outset of his speech Jesus makes a significant point regarding the Pharisaic approach to interpretation of and obedience to the Law of Moses: the Pharisees were right! Were it not so the Savior certainly would not have said, “the scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat,” and, “all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe.” The fact that they bound “heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders”, does not imply that these burdens were not implicit within the Law itself. Contrariwise, Jesus had earlier offered, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30). The figure of the yoke employed here is undoubtedly a reflection back to the Old Testament usage (Lam. 3:27), but it was commonly applied to the Law by the Rabbis at the time Jesus made the allusion. The Lord was suggesting that the Law of Moses was a “heavy burden,’ grievous to be borne” and he was placing this in contradistinction to his new and superior system. Peter, in his opposition to one of the stipulations of Moses’ Law being bound upon Christians, later queried, “Why make ye trial of God that ye should put a yoke upon the. neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” (Acts 15:10). Paul also utilized this same figure regarding the selfsame issue, “For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage” (Gal. 5:1). Indeed, the yoke of bondage was implicit within the Lalv, making it a “law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2), and placing a curse upon everyone “who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them” (Deut. 27:26; quoted by Paul at Gal. 3:10). The Pharisees were merely binding upon men the burdens and obligations which the Law itself entailed. This is why Jesus did not condemn their strict interpretation of and adherence to the Law: their’s was the right approach!

Now, in case you think that I have missed it on this one, take a look at the sect called Pharisees from the vantage point of a former Pharisee, the apostle Paul. In Paul’s letter to the Philippian Christians, the apostle put his critics to silence by boasting of his past acquaintance with the Hebrew religion and’ the Pharisaic approach to the Old Testament, with words: “a Hebrew of Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee” (Phil. 3:5). What useful purpose would have been served in Paul’s making such a statement if the Pharisaic viewpoint had been completely wrong? It is interesting to note, as well, that the evangelist clearly distinguished himself from the liberal Sadducees in the midst of the divided Sanhedrin council at Jerusalem with the exclamation, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees: touching the hope and the resurrection of the dead I am called in question” (Acts 23:6). This was no mere politically motivated expression-this was Paul’s conviction! Paul’s heart was still committed to the Pharisaic conviction that the Word of God was to be carefully interpreted and strictly obeyed. When he had become a Christian Paul had not given up the Pharisaic contention for reverent devotion and total submissiveness to the authority of the scripture (here applied to the particulars of the resurrection hope and the existence of angels and spirits); rather, he had continued to embrace them. It is only thus that Paul could continue to call himself a Pharisee. The conservative Pharisees were right and the liberal Sadducees were wrong! Again, Paul offered an interesting description of the group in his defense before Agrippa in Caesarea: “After the straitest (strictest, most exacting) sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee” (Acts 26:5). As well, you may remember that there were certain believers who remained with the Pharisaic sect in Jerusalem even after the beginning of the church. And, although they were wrong regarding the continuance of Mosaic legislation into the Christian era (Acts 15:5), it remains quite evident that their basic approach was consistent with that of the early church-else their relationship with the Pharisaical sect, or the church one, would have been entirely severed. Where do we read of Essenes or Sadducees having any such affinities with the church? We do not because their viewpoints were far too disjunctive. The church and Pharisaism, on the other hand, had a common ground upon which they could agree and from which they could work.

No, the Pharisees were neither condemned nor castigated for strict adherence to the Law. They were judged guilty because they preached the truth but did not practice what they preached; they said and did not (Matt. 23:3). Also, notwithstanding the fact that the outward forms of their worship were correct, they were worshiping to be seen of men rather than to please God (Matt. 23:5, 27-28). Holding that the Mosaic system was supreme, superior even to that of the Messiah (the Messianic system espoused by Jesus, anyway), they shut the doors of the kingdom to themselves and others (Matt. 23:13). They proselytized by “hook or crook,” then perverted their converts by their own hypocritical ways (Matt. 23:15). In addition, they made false distinctions between oaths (Matt. 23:16-22), allowing certain oaths to be broken, and bound traditions of former generations as on a par with scripture (even at times to the exclusion of scripture itself, as in Matt. 15:1-9). Their strict application of the tithe was good, “these ye ought to have done,” but they neglected the weightier matters of the law, “justice, mercy, and faith” (Matt. 23:23-24); their preoccupation with externalism left out true inner holiness and spirituality (Matt. 23:25-28). In their hardness of heart they garnished the tombs of the prophets, bewailing their awful treatment, yet became guilty of the far-worse crimes of rejecting and crucifying the Son of God and persecuting his chosen apostles and prophets (Matt. 23:29-36).

If they were guilty of all of this, you say, how can there by anything good about them that is worthy of consideration or imitation? In spite of all of this, as we earlier demonstrated, their attitude of regard for the Word of God was good. It was never condemned. Sometimes they were not completely consistent with it, but that does not mean that they- did not possess it. What it means is that they sinned against it and against the God who inspired it. Moreover, their desire for exacting obedience to the law was right. This was precisely what the law demanded. Because they themselves did not put the principle into practice does not in the least undetermine the propriety of the principle itself. It was and is sound. Christ now has a law (Rom. 8:2; Gal. 6:2; Js. 1:25; 2:12), and it is to be respected (Jn. 12:48; 1 Cor. 4:6; Col. 3:17; 1 Tim. 1:3; 2 Tim. 6:3; 2 Jn. 9) and observed . with precision (Jas. 2:10). And, though Christ’s law involves the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:6), liberty from Moses law (Gal. 5:1; 2 Cor. 3:17), and freedom from sin (Jn. 8:32), this does not for one moment imply that it is to be any less respected or any more laxly observed than was Moses’. We can certainly learn many negative lessons from the Pharisees, but we must not fail to learn this positive one.

Now, my main point is this: the term “Pharisee” involves both a derogatory and a complimentary sense. And, it in to my dismay that I hear Christians using the term to make light of the very characteristics that Jesus and Paul complimented them for. By their gross misrepresentation, they do not realize that they are despising the most praiseworthy thing about the Pharisees. Their name is thus being misused to undermine a sound and inherently biblical approach to the Bible.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:43, p. 6-7
September 5, 1974

By Rufus R. Clifford

“Train up a child in the way he should go” and “bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” are Bible statements setting forth the responsibility of parents to their children. Parents make their children, in a large measure, what they become. To determine the destiny of their children for time and eternity is the responsibility of parents. What we are in life depends to a large degree on the environment in which we are reared. Physical health is endangered by exposure to filth and to communicable diseases. Good morals are corrupted by constant association with those impure in heart and life. Solomon said in the long ago that a companion of fools would be destroyed. If one runs with the dogs, he will soon learn to bark. If he lies down with the dogs, he will get up covered with fleas. Paul summed it all up when he said, “Evil companionships corrupt good morals.”

Unless the proper spirit prevails in the home, unless the right attitude toward truth and righteousness is implanted and developed there, disastrous and eternal consequences are certain to result. Happy homes are essential to happy hearts and lives, and also to useful and successful lives. The influence of the home is powerful and lasting. It is here that character is molded and personality is formed. The purpose of the home is to bring lives into this world and to train them for the highest good and greatest usefulness. Children can be so trained and guided as to prefer a happy, godly life to the ways of the world.

Every child is entitled to be well born, to descend from parents whose physical, mental, moral, and spiritual powers have not been depleted or impaired by sinful living. We care not how fine parents may be physically, mentally, and morally, however, they are still unfit to do what is right for their children unless they are Christians. A child has a right to parents who are Christians. One reared in such a home has an infinitely better chance of overcoming the world’s temptations which the years bring to us all. Fortunate, indeed, is the child who, like Timothy of old, grows to manhood or womanhood under the influence of a godly mother and a pious grandmother.

Parents should realize that they will have to give an account to the great Judge in the day of Judgment for the “precious bundles of joy” entrusted to their care, for the influences set in motion in their hearts and lives, and for the examples which they set before them. Parents should, therefore, live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world. This is the way to save ourselves, our children, build up the kingdom of God, and make secure the future of our country.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:43, p. 6
September 5, 1974

By Cecil Willis

The apostolic example left by Paul as to the manner in which preaching (or writing) should be done is being disregarded by many today. Paul said that his preaching was “not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void” (1 Cor. 1:17). Paul wanted no one to be converted to his oratorical powers, or improperly influenced by any demonstration of worldly wisdom. Because of the simplicity and directness of his preaching and writings, Paul was disrespected by some who heard him. Some who opposed him sought to capitalize on his ineptness (as they considered it) in writing, and his lack of rhetoric in his preaching. In 2 Cor. 10:10, Paul refers to what his enemies were saying about him: “For, His letters, they say, are weighty and strong; but his bodily presence is weak and his speech of no account.” In response to these critics, Paul said: “But though I be rude in speech, yet am I not in knowledge. . .” (2 Cor. 11:6).

The simplicity of Paul’s preaching was not occasioned by his lack of formal education, or because of his inability to make minute intellectual discriminations. Though born in Tarsus, Paul evidently was sent to Jerusalem in order that he might sit at the feet of one of the great teachers of his day, Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Scripture also indicates that Paul had enough ability and learning to enable him to advance “in the Jews’ religion beyond many of my countrymen. . .” (Gal. 1:14). He was a member of the strictest sect of the Jews; Paul was a Pharisee (Acts 26:5). We would say of Paul that he stood head and shoulders above other men of his own religion and time. Yet Paul admits that his preaching did not demonstrate or display his educational attainments. He told the Corinthians, “And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom; but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:4, 5). There were some who even considered the message that he brought to be mere “foolishness” (I Cor. 1:23). All these passages lead to the inexorable conclusion that Paul preached as simply as he did on purpose.

Contrasted With Modern Preachers

It seems that some preachers today put a premium on being able to write every sentence in such a complex way that it is capable of being misunderstood, and that in several different ways. Some brethren seem to think that ambiguity, evasiveness, equivocation, and complexity are traits much to be desired in a preacher or writer. At least such writers leave themselves a “loop-hole” through which they can extricate themselves from a difficult or an embarrassing situation, should anyone be so bold as to presume that he understood what this scholarly (?) author said, and should therefore take issue with what he preached or wrote. Whenever something is challenged which has been written by one of these who feign great learning, inevitably they cry out, “But you misunderstood what I said.” It already has been well said by others that those men who cannot write so that they can be understood, or who will not write so that they can be understood, would do the brotherhood a great favor if they wrote nothing at all for public consumption.

One brother told me about a year ago that he had received about 90 letters asking about the fellowship question. He interpreted these letters to mean that many brethren were interested in the superior information he could impart to them. My interpretation of his having received the 90 letters was the brethren wanted to know where he stood. The mere fact that so many inquiries regarding fellowship had come to him should have told him something about the fact that brethren who read his writings still did not know for sure where he stood. I suspect, if the complete truth were known, that one Alabama Associate Editor has gotten a lot more than 90 letters from brethren trying to find out where he stands on this fellowship question.

Strangely enough, so far as I now can remember, I have not gotten a single letter wanting` to know where I stand on whether we should fellowship the liberal institutional brethren,: or the “instrumentalists.” My interpretation of this fact has been that brethren could tell from what I have preached and written where I stand on this issue. If I were going to interpret my flow of mail as a St. Louis Associate Editor interpreted his 90 letters of inquiry, I would have to conclude that brethren just plain do not care to know where I stand. Preachers, as well as trumpets, should not give an “uncertain sound” (1 Cor. 14:8). Yet, a few years ago, some brethren in the Northeastern section of this country published a paper which they called An Uncertain Sound. They might better have named it An Unusual Sound, for it certainly had little resemblance to those sounds which reverberate from the Scriptures, and it bore little similarity to the papers published by men who were determined to write the truth, and to do that in such a manner that it could not be misunderstood.

The writings of some brethren (including those entitled Answers To Questions by Brother Edward Fudge) remind me of a little quip I read somewhere. One man is reported to have said, “I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!” Perhaps some of you scholarly brethren will unravel that for me, and tell me plainly what that fellow was saying. By accident, on one occasion I happened to overhear someone state what my Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test score was. It was not high enough that I want to tell you what my score was, but neither was it quite as low as some of my correspondents indicate they think it to be. I would like to think that I would fall somewhere in that general category called “Average.”

And yet I must confess that the writings of some men tell me nothing. At various times in my life, I have read a good bit of what Paul Tillich wrote. His writings always bugged me. I could read a sentence from Tillich, and could know the definition of every word used in that sentence, and yet did not grasp the faintest idea of what he was trying to say. And yet Tillich is considered to be profound. Perhaps he was, but if people cannot understand what he said, of what value is his profundity? Just last night I read the following sentence in a journal which I receive: It was five years before he was born and seven years after she died that the baby divorced his grandmother.” If anybody out there anywhere understands that sentence, please write and explain it to me! I haven’t the faintest idea as to what the writer intended for his readers to learn from that sentence.

Complete Terminology

Some seem deliberately to try to write so that they cannot be understood. Years ago, I heard someone quoted as saying, “For years I thought the book’ of Romans was the most difficult book I had ever read, until I read Brother Moses E. Lard’s commentary on the book of Romans. Now I think Brother Lard’s commentary is the most difficult book I have ever read.”

An instance of this deliberate usage of complexity is an article I also read last night. It was entitled “Paul, Participles and Parameters.” That sounds exciting already, doesn’t it? Like the writing some brethren do, this article sounds good, but it tells me nothing. The article purports to be an investigation of “one major literary characteristic which has not been studied to date, namely the Pauline use of the participle.” This ought to make some dandy sermon material for the aspiring intellectuals among us.

The co-authors of this exciting article stated that they were going to use “the statistical technique called discriminant analysis” in their study of Paul’s usage of the participle in his epistles. Now in case you are not familiar with the technique called “discriminant analysis,” here is the co-authors’ explanation of it:

“The first step in the discriminating process is to determine the relative importance of the participle types as discriminating agents. To accomplish this, a series of five multiple regression analyses were performed with each participle variable serving as the dependent variable in one of the analyses. In this manner, correlation coefficients were determined and could be used to determine the relative importance of the participle types. The multiple regression analyses suggested the attributive and circumstantial to be the most important discriminating agents of the five participle types listed by Van Elderen and hence were selected for use in the discriminant analysis. “

Now did everybody get that? Well, if you did not, I am sorry. Ne just cannot waste anymore valuable time and space explaining it further, and must proceed to more important natters, namely, to that which the “discriminate analysis” ells us about Paul’s epistles. You dullards who do not yet inderstand the procedure will have to study it further at ‘our own leisure.

Having read this which it took two highly educated men to Trite, I now know the frequency (in percentages) of Paul’s sage of the different kinds of participles (Attributive, Circumstantial, Supplementary, Independent, and Substantive) in eleven of the epistles which Paul wrote. Why the other two or three of his epistles were eliminated from this important study, I guess I will never know. What possible use one might ever have for this information, the authors did not explain. They do tell us, however, that “The overall statistical feature of the discriminant analysis is to attempt to maximize the variation between the different groups without noticeably increasing the variation within the group itself. This can best be accomplished by using methods of the calculus and maximizing the ratio of the Between-groups Mean Square to the With-groups of Mean Square. “Now the authors put a question mark (?) at the end of the last sentence, rather than a period. Perhaps that question mark (?) has some significance to the understanding of Paul’s epistles, but if it did, I did not detect it. But I feel confident that if it did, some of my erudite friends will fill my mail box with letters explaining it all to me.

But if you want to know more about Paul’s usage of the five different kinds of participles used in his epistles (Tutus, Philemon, and Hebrews unfortunately are omitted from this important study), the authors recommend that all the mathematical details and calculations for the application of the discriminant analysis to the data can be found in the IBM 1130 Scientific Subroutine Computer Software Package. No. GH 20-0252-4, published by the IBM Corporation. White Plains, New York. “Now every brother who intends to preach the gospel should have at least one copy of these materials in his library! You just never will be able to understand Paul’s writings without it!

After wading through all of this hog-wash, imagine my dismay when I came to the “Conclusion” of this valuable piece of research. The researchers tell us that frequency and kind of participles which Paul used in his epistles offer “no real additional assistance” in one’s study of the “Pauline Corpus” in regard to “literary styles.” Such a study is probably enough to make Paul, as we occasionally rather crudely put it, “turn over in his grave,” after he so carefully, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit wrote his epistles “not with excellency of speech or of wisdom” (1 Cor. 2:1). It was Paul’s desire that man’s faith should “be in the power of God,” rather than in the “wisdom of men.” In which case, it seems that one might be able to preach the gospel and thereby save souls without understanding fully the “discriminant analysis” in “the Pauline use of the participle.” But perhaps you should jot down that IBM computer number, just in case. . . . (To be Continued)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:43, p. 3-5
September 5, 1974