Gooding, David: 4 - Questions and Answers

And it comes to my mind, a verse I've been thinking of recently, that brotherly love continue. And I think it's very applicable to this session. And possibly it would be more applicable, applicable at the end in its revised versey form, that love of the brethren. And now, Dr. Gooding is with us again to answer all your difficult questions. He's been having it very much his own way up to the present, taking these long sessions and giving us no time at the end for questions. So it's very considerate of him to grant us this hour or a little more so that we can apply our questions to him. I don't know why he has picked on me to do this job of chairman. He's used to his men, I was going to say keeping order, but very often that's where they fail. However, it's a pleasure for me to be here amongst you, and indeed I take this opportunity of thanking those at Roseford for having us here at this time, and on your behalf we would indeed thank the brethren of this assembly for this great privilege and opportunity of coming together and for our help. Now, you are at liberty to put your questions to me. I'll not answer them, I may tell you, but, uh, so that things may be done orderly. If you will put your questions, Dr. Gooding will answer. And then if you feel you have any contribution to make, uh, as well as questions, there will be opportunity for you to give that head. You are at liberty to speak out your, what is on your mind. Uh, and we do give you this opportunity. So I now just hand over and would ask for the first question to be addressed. There's a hand up in the middle, right? Could you say a little more about 4 Corinthians 5 verse 5, this idea, um, one who, uh, then, uh, sinning. Uh, yes, thank you. Um, just let me underline, if I may, before I answer the question, what Mr. Lennox has said, do feel free to say anything. I have proceeded on the assumption that I'm among friends and brothers. Uh, you won't hurt my feelings. My skin is moderately tough, and there's no use in sessions like this unless we are completely frank. Uh, I, uh, let me say, in answering these questions, I'm not doing this ex cathedra. Uh, uh, merely giving you, uh, uh, what I feel, and I am genuinely, uh, sincerely, uh, looking forward to hear, uh, what you feel in your views. Um, on this matter, it seems to me that Paul regards the church a- as a place, uh, around which there is, so to speak, God's protection. Here, and in Timothy, as somebody pointed out to me in the, in, in the break, uh, you read this expression, delivering such and one unto Satan. Uh, you'll see. Uh, now, um, the analogy that comes to my mind, I don't know if it's helpful, is the book of Job, where Satan comes along to God and says, look here, you know, you put a wall around Job, I can't touch him. And God said, all right, well, for the moment, not now for because Job was a sinner, but for purposes of training discipline, he's right, oh Satan, you may have a go at him. I wonder whether there's something of that here, that the church, church fellowship in this sense, is, uh, so to speak, also kind of a wall of protection around, but now this man is going to be delivered to Satan, excommunication of the church will, will turn him over, so to speak, to Satan, eh, for the destruction of the flesh. And again, I wonder whether this means, doesn't straightforwardly mean, this man is guilty of immorality. And whether s- uh, the destruction of the flesh, uh, would mean, uh, what is referred to again in one Corinthians eleven. I rather than trying to think it might be. Sickness, as with Job, uh, uh, extreme sickness if needed. And if the man were unrepentant, uh, too long, perhaps even death. God's discipline on him, therefore, so that his spirit may be saved. At least one Corinthians eleven does say that when God allows us to be disciplined in the form of sickness to our bodies, eventuating in death, it is done so that we should not be content with, condemned with the world. So that here the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. That is God's discipline now, rather than like the world going on to God's judgment. What would happen if the church weren't to cast this man out? Does this imply that he wouldn't? Uh, well, I think if the church didn't, there are, uh, uh, uh, there are implications in two directions. Perhaps one is that, as Paul warns them, a little leaven will leaven the whole lump. If it's not dealt with, you will get the church infected by immorality all the way through. Two, on the other side, I think perhaps one Corinthians eleven again may supply an answer. If we don't judge ourselves, if the church doesn't act, uh, then God himself reserves the right himself to act anyway. If we would discern ourselves and judge ourselves, we should not be judged, but when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord. So I think even if the church doesn't act, God himself reserves the right to act. It is a fact, of course, that a solemn thing if, if in such a case God doesn't act. Hebrews chapter twelve says that if you don't get chastised, you are not a child. Uh, well, I mean, let's see what, what do you feel? It's just, just the general concept of Mm. is once a Christian, always a Christian. Oh, I see. Well, that is, yes, of course, a, a, a very large, uh, uh, uh, question, and perhaps it is, uh, from the point of view of those who feel that, uh, once a Christian, you don't necessarily remain a Christian, uh, the scriptures that, uh, they would appeal to more readily, I think, would be places in Hebrews. The ones in Corinthians that I know of seem to point the other direction. Uh, 1 Corinthians three, if you build utter rubbish, wood, hand, stubble, your life is that. The explicit statement is that that all will be burned up, yet he himself shall be. Man's whole life will have some. Uh, one Corinthians eleven, a man that has to be chastised so grievously to the point of death. This cause many, uh, uh, among you wicked sickly many sleep. Yet it explicitly says, uh, but when the Lord does chasten us in that way, it is so that we shall not be condemned with the world. So, uh, the Corinthian scriptures seem to me to be fairly explicit. Uh, I know that there are other scriptures, uh, uh, John fifteen is one of them, and several in Hebrews, where people, uh, feel that, uh, it does teach a man can be lost. Next question, perhaps. Um, are we going to deal with, uh, the question of spiritual gift and their operation in the church this afternoon? Uh, yes, yes, I had thought perhaps in my second talk, uh, um, and I promise you not to be so long there. I don't want to talk, in my view, and then run and get on the plane. Uh, you see, I shall be much shorter. But, uh, yes, I hope to deal with that this afternoon. Perhaps that would be appropriate to bring up those matters then. Louder, sir. Oh, righto, sir. Do waggle your fingers if I can see. Right. Um, I wonder if I could, um, sort of combine Friday's talk and today Yeah, by all means. a question that I, uh, just talking to friends, like people here, I think many of us concerned on a very practical level. Um, you've laid out for us particularly this question of the taking of names and, uh, how I think one can see this also has relevance to the freedom in the gospel that you spoke about this morning, um, which is obviously a New Testament principle, as you, as you explained. And yet one has to recognize that we, we must start from where we are now. Now, if I can imagine a situation that I know people come into, suppose I am going to move my home to a town, uh, what sort of criteria then must I use to determine where I shall worship, uh, in the light of these principles that you've explained? Because, if I can just illustrate from my own experience, make it absolutely clear how I'm getting at it, um, if if I go somewhere that I have no clue about at all, my practice, certainly until recently, would have been to trot off straight away to the Anglican Church because I know the liturgy there. Uh, I have been through it, and say if I'm going to go to the communion service, I know that the, there's nothing there that will offend me if I leave it, and therefore I have freedom through that to worship the Lord and to remember his death and the breaking of bread. Equally, sometimes one can go perhaps to a, uh, what one might call an assembly or something like this, where anyone can contribute, and I find myself more involved. Now, I want to do that. Yes, thank you. Yes, that question. Um, uh, I, I want to say, to begin with, uh, something that I, I fear to you may seem that I'm running away from that question. If you ask me in that sense, what criterion? It's not running away, it proceeds directly from the principles that I've been expounding and I hold, is that you must be perfectly free to decide that question immediately before the Lord. I mean that very sincerely. Uh, I, I think this is of utmost importance that each man is first and foremost, uh, and in the first place, in the major criterion, he must decide this as a matter between himself and the Lord, to say. Uh, now, uh, having said that, uh, uh, necessarily that- that means that perhaps I shall decide things slightly different from what you will decide, to say. Um, I sometimes, uh, find myself wondering, have I any right to be outside the Church of Rome? I say to myself, good Lord boy, are you a schismatic? You see. What right have you to depart from Rome? Granted Rome is in, as I would count it, glaringly evil, have you any right to be outside it? Are you not, by your, uh, not being in Rome, uh, on the grounds that, or you couldn't stomach some of Rome's evils, are you not adding to the confusion by adding, uh, schism? I do have genuinely tried to think that one through. I come to the conclusion, there comes a point when a man must obey the law. That is to say, I, I myself would take a positive view. I must be free to obey the Lord Jesus. Uh, similarly, if there is anything, uh, where the truth of the gospel is concerned, I must not be party to something that is traitorous to the gospel. To say. So now, uh, uh, for me, uh, the first criterion being obeying the Lord would already begin to be, uh, controlled in the next stage by certain quite fixed things. You see? I wouldn't myself feel happy, uh, in participation in in a system where the constitution demands me, uh, uh, uh, uh, involves me in some disobedience to the Lord or failure of obedience to the Lord. That's a kind of, uh, uh, uh, general procedure I should go under. Uh, I think there too, uh, I would feel dishonest if I went to a church with a mental reservation, yes, I will be here, I'm going to change it from stop tops to bottoms, uh, when I know that their constitution is thought out, presumably for God. I'd have to be more honest than that. I should feel myself kind of a, a fifth columnist, to say, and I would feel unhappy. But here again, now I'm getting right down into where different men would have different conscience on the matter. But that is the kind of criterion that I would go by. Uh, thirdly, some people take the view, don't they, that what the thing that would guide you is the spiritual state of the church. Mercifully, matters of of organization sometimes, uh, uh, uh, organization, um, our spiritual state sometimes rises above it or or whatever it is, below it or whatever you, uh, you know, it's i- i- i- it emerges in spite of it, thank God it does. And some people say, well, I make that my criterion, uh, bother what the constitution of the particular church is, so long as it's in spiritual good fetel and God is blessing it and seeing so saved. Uh, all right. Uh, for myself again, I would feel that there is perhaps something, some necessity for a bit more statesmanship than that. Uh, the evil that men do, no, wait a minute, yes, the evil that men do lives after them, the good is often interred with their bones, so to speak. I think if you go on the principle of merely going where the spiritual, uh, fetel, you know, is good, you'll be here today, somewhere else tomorrow. And that, uh, in church fellowship, there is some kind of loyalty. I was be talking about that this afternoon, so I mentioned briefly some kind of loyalty involved. And that principle is often as important, and sometimes in the long run, more important, uh, than immediate spiritual. But it is on those general lines that I should go, uh, uh, and uh, of course, holding the view I hold, it's a question of each individual church at a time. Because that's the kind of supposition I'm working from, judging each individual church at a time. Um, I would therefore be wary, because of what I- I- I feel about this business of names and organization, I should be wary o- of being a member of a church that involved me in being a member of a whole host of churches. To say. That's the kind of consideration that will go with me. But I want to stress at what now and again, I would hold that each man must decide this immediately before the Lord. Does that begin to, and how do you do? You talk about this question of, of a body of churches as opposed to the individual one. I wonder to what extent really it is possible, uh, for this to happen. It seems to me that any or all local, uh, independent churches even seem to me to associate with one or with another. It's the question of interchurch, interlocal church fellowship. Now, would you like to amplify the distinctions between that and organization? Uh, well, of course, I have, uh, uh, uh, uh, on this occasion, I have emphasized one extreme. Uh, uh, there is another side to this whole question, isn't there? If you look at Paul, eh, at this particular church in Antioch, a great fuss is made about this. It's official independence of Rome. But granted that, uh, every effort made, the, uh, believers of Christians in Antioch raising money to send to the Christians in Rome, uh, in Jerusalem. It's independent of Jerusalem, but they raise money to send to Jerusalem. Uh, they don't want to be, uh, East and West, never the twential meatish kind of thing. Uh, uh, interchurch fellowship fostered, yes. And similarly, Paul writing to the Corinthians and urging certain practices says, look, I ordain this in all the churches. You see, uh, keen to foster relationships. If you read the end of Romans, uh, chapter and a half full of Gentiles and Jews and things, uh, Paul is again playing the statesman. He's afraid that the church will be divided into two halves, a Jewish half and a Gentile half, and he doesn't want that to happen. So there's a good deal of interchurch fellowship, of course. Uh, I say yes, and very healthy. All I mean by talking about, uh, interorganization is, i- i- the danger comes when you take three churches here, or three hundred churches here, and you group them into one group, as distinct from another five hundred over here. That moment, in the, in the interest of unifying these, you will split them from them. You see, that grouping of churches less than the grouping of the whole churches, it's not union, it's division. That's what I, I, I would feel, uh, on that matter. Can I ask a related question? Oh, well, I think the man hang went up dribble first. So we've got a different problem here. When, when Paul was talking to different churches in church, uh, he had a problem of there being many churches in, say, one community, like, for instance, Cambridge, where we must have dozens of churches. Mm-hmm. Um, and here in Cambridge, we have churches of different denominations. Mm. So we're not just working on a, on a parish basis, how you want a church to one parish, therefore each church there is independent. But the problem goes much wider, and, um... it strikes me now that the problem here and in many other cities is how can, um, the many denominations that we have work together on a super denominational basis. Um, and here, if people are going to work together in a way that they've got to worship together, for instance, um, some months ago there was a, a relay of Billy Graham Mission here in Cambridge, on which occasion many of the churches did work together and got the, the things relayed to one of the cinemas. Um, c- couldn't this sort of setup be developed for an everyday working basis? And, and if wouldn't this be a good idea? Um, strikes me that very often the difference in names between churches, i.e. denominational names, is a stumbling block more to, um, unregenerate, unregenerate people within the church than it is to the, the believers who surely should be able to work together and worship together. Uh, well, yes, and and uh the kind of thing that you're talking of appears to me as Christian instinct, uh, triumphing over the divisions that have been caused by organization. Uh, I uh, and here, uh, I don't want to sound cynical, but I do believe this is a valuable instinct, to say. Uh, I'm now going to say, we'll give you the impression perhaps that I have a fearfully childish and oversimplified mind. The solution that says, well, now you be Brethren, you be Moravian, and you be Baptist, let's work together. Well, there's a better solution, isn't there? There's a deeper one. Don't be anything. You say, uh, this matter of names, uh, it is a scandal to the world outside. And granted you, eh, in many, uh, conditions, it goes back to not just to little, uh, things, but to matters that Christian people have honestly before God felt very sincerely and very deeply. But even if it were only at the level of our witness to the world, why advertise to the world these differences? You see, if you have, uh, burning in your heart a belief that a church should be run by elders, why must you go and advertise this fact to the world outside that you disagree with somebody else who doesn't hold that view, but he's a Christian, by labeling yourself Presbyterian? Why can't you be Presbyterian if you, in that sense, and run your church by others? By advertising that I, I disagree with my Christian, uh, brethren in another group of churches about this. Why not drop it? That's where it seems to me that those things I talked about on Friday are important. It isn't a little matter. You see, now, again, take the, uh, great zeal and, and enthusiasm, on many people's part, godly enthusiasm, in the ecumenical movement. How can we bring the churches together and stop this scandal? Well, is it cynical to say that the trouble is this, you first built up these various organizations, put the labels on them, now you spend hours and hours trying to overcome the effects of what you've done. Why do it at all? And if it is a scandal before the world and drags the name of Christ in the dust, haven't we somewhere, I know this is fiercely difficult, you know, a- a- a- a- as as Hugh says over here, fiercely difficult facing the actual facts of life, but haven't we somewhere along the dust to say, well, God bless our our predecessors, but before God, we must do something about this and drop the old names. I don't know what you think. Do you think that is absurdly innocent and, uh, impactful? It sounds, before I come back again, um, very much the theory of what can be done, but it doesn't seem to me to be very practical in that particular form. Mm-hmm. Because as soon as we gather together to worship in different churches and different assemblies, we are labeled in the eyes of the world to the name of those churches and assemblies. And, um, you know, this, how can we avoid showing this disagreement? What's the world read into the fact that we worship in different places, that we are not united? And furthermore, a thought that has often struck me is that this is more with regard to the evangelical movement as such, that if, not the evangelical, the ecumenical movement, sorry. Mm-hmm. Um, that if the church presents a united front to the world, won't it become a mighty movement in itself rather than in the Lord? Oh yes, your two questions there, uh, don't mind my saying this, they seem to be going two d- two different ways. Uh, um, uh, there is, I know, uh, the the practical question that's often been raised. Look, to have just each little group of Christians, uh, so to speak, uh, an independent unit standing on its own feet, uh, happy interchurch fellowship with other churches, but in the last analysis standing on its own feet, this is absolutely impractical in the modern world, or in any world, because, uh, to be effective, you must speak with a united voice. Well, I s- I s- I take that in some part, but I support that my reading of history is that that is an argument that history has proved wrong. All the organization of churches into bigger groups than individual churches on the plea of speaking with a united voice has broken down, for there isn't one group of churches that I know of that speaks with a united voice. Not even our friends, the good Roman Catholics. They are a tremendous ferment of different ideas. They speak with contradictory voices in all directions, except if it's their organization above that speaks with one voice, but individuals don't, nor do the individual churches. So i- if history has in fact proved it wrong, it doesn't work. On the second very practical ground, you'll say, look, this would be impossible to have little, uh, groups, uh, by themselves. Uh, what's finance coming? Well, if that argument were true, Christianity would never have started at all. But it... it started in impossible situation and proceeded. And it may be childish, I feel that way, perhaps I'm a little bit unreal, but uh, um, uh, when I look at the work of the gospel... and the ecumenical movement, I sometimes heave a very big sigh. I say, my dear good gentlemen, you're sitting there solemnly hour after hour, spending thousands of pounds, uh, planning how you can somehow unite these organizations that you've built up without giving them up, and s- uh, and you so on. By your boy, if you didn't have to do that, if there weren't any organizations that to cause the differences, you could be getting on with the gospel. I'm not sure that the people, uh, if I might have a word, uh, in the ears of the elders of this church, uh, I'm not sure that the people on Rosa's estate kept up about your church organization. You'll see. Uh, get on with the gospel, do. That seems to me to have been the secret of the early church. They weren't bothered by these vast systems. They went and preached, and churches were formed gaily. But, you know, to answer your other, uh, uh, um, other question, that there are differences, yes. Somewhere along the line, we've got to, uh, uh, uh, make room for, haven't we, differences that are quite healthy. My impression in, in, in looking at those churches, uh, Mr. Stanford was talking about on Friday, is that those churches were many of them very, very different in size. Some differences were possibly wrong because they were disobeying the Lord. Some differences perhaps right. That just as individuals differ, so we might expect differences of emphases in different churches with that, uh, lovely variety, uh, that perhaps is is good and healthy, so long as it, uh, is all, so to speak, uh, directed towards the Lord, and he's generally there in in control. I think he was raised a very basic question, and I'm sure we don't want to move on too quickly from it. There are two others have suggested, I, I keep in memory you, John, do you something to say? Well, my, my question has been partially answered, in fact, um, but it is related. In your remarks on Friday night, talking about the taking of names, you didn't in fact refer to one Corinthians four, verses six following. Um, now these things, brethren, I have in a finger transferred to myself in a palace for your sakes, and in us you might learn not beyond the things which are written, etc. One Corinthians talks explicitly of taking the names of individual men, um, within a church. Uh, what I'd like to know is, is what is the implication of this verse? Does, does this mean that you can abstract from this kind of situation to the kind of situation we've been discussing? It seems to me that you've a double problem with sectarianism as such. You can have sectarianism which manifests as sectarian spirit. And it seems to me you can have it where no, uh, ill spirit is intended. I mean, I may call myself, which I don't, but I may call myself a, a, a Christian brother, and I may have no, um, sectarian spirit about doing that, or I may call myself an Indian, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Would you like to comment on this kind of thing? Yeah. Well, that verse that you co- you quote is, uh, one Corinthians four six. These things, brethren, I have transferred in a figure, if that's the word how it should be translated, to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn. That next phrase is a bit difficult. If you consult the commentaries, you will find the various, uh, notions and translations, and more recently, uh, uh, conjectural emendation. Uh, not beyond what has been written, eh, is the Greek. There is no verb that you don't go or you don't think or you don't do anything. It's just simply not beyond what things have been written, you'll say. And people say it doesn't make sense to start with. Uh, eh, what has been written anyway? By the time the letter to the Corinthians was written, there wasn't much of the New Testament written anyway. What on earth he's talking about, not beyond what is written? How is it relevant to the situation? Where does the Bible talk about this kind of thing that he's talking about? And considerations of that order have led, uh, one person at least to suggest that there is here a textual corruption that a scribe, noticing that the manuscript in front of him was correct, uh, incorrect, uh, corrected it, not this, but something else. So it's an ingenious argument, uh, and one for which you would have to have all the apparatus in front of you, and it appeals to some people. Like all other brilliant e- e- conjectures, uh, they they sound reasonable, but being reasonable is not necessarily evidence that they were right. And therefore, I incline to the interpretation that makes sense of the text as it stands. I think it is, so to speak, a catchphrase, not beyond what's written. Uh, ne sato ultra crepidem or something, was it? You know, that kind of thing. No, the tale or whatnot mustn't go beyond this. Uh, and uh, this is a catchphrase not beyond what's been written. It is prefaced in the Greek by the word to, which sings it out as a quotation. I take Paul to mean that in this situation they've got to learn literally not beyond what is written. I take the written bit to be the quotations that he has quoted from scripture. And in particular, the basic one that he constantly repeats, that if anyone boasts, he is to make his boast in the Lord. This is a scripture, the basic principles of the Old Testament, repeated at the level of the gospel in Paul's epistles, repeated at the level of church arrangement in Paul's epistles, constantly the basic principle. I take Paul, therefore, to be saying, if I may say this, uh, that, uh, there is a basic principle at stake that is hammered this hard because this is a question of obedience to the word of God. It is not, uh, a little matter of expediency. There's a basic principle, demands obedience. Now, the transferring to a, a figure, um, I think I agree with, say, Leon Morris and company, that perhaps in the Church of Corinth, there were other men. The causes of the trouble were not necessarily Paul and Apollos and Cephas and company, but that Paul, uh, is using his own name and self as a chopping block, because the principle is true, whether it's with Corinth or anywhere else, and it isn't a question of sour grapes with Paul. He he he he founded the church, and now he's getting a little bit peeved because people are, uh, uh, uh, finding some other preacher more popular. It is a principle that applies to all people, and I should have thought at all times. Does that begin to? At all levels. I should have thought so, yes. Now, I agree with you, to come to your second part of the question, that you can have a sort of denominationalism, if you allow me to use that term in strict parts, the grouping of churches and giving of names, without any bitterness and rancor, to say. Uh, that you can have the reverse situation with a great deal of bitterness and rancor, and that, uh, you might say that, uh, here in Corinthians, the main thing is that we shouldn't have bitterness and rancor, and that we should take the bill, look here, you be Baptist, and you be, uh, Moravian, and, uh, uh, I'll be Mennonite. And God bless you, my brother. Uh, without any rancor. That, I would suggest to you, i- i- i- i- is not in the end good enough. If you look at, uh, the more important of these things that have caused divisions, they are sizably important things. One man discovers justification by faith. Boy, my dear me, that's an important doctrine. You see? We owe him a tremendous lot, but I'm not myself convinced before God that forming a denomination around it is the best way to perpetuate it. One man may be very convinced to say that salvation's the thing. You see, but folks say, well, I mean, I'm not sure that it's the best way, uh, God's kind of strategy to make a denomination around it. To say. One man may be convinced that government by elders i- is the right thing, not monarchical bishops. Well, I would agree, but, um, I'm not sure that it's helpful to that truth to make a denomination round it. Why must we? Is it? Has it proved the best way of perpetuating the truth? To say. And at that level, as a method, I, I, I, I would, uh, question it very, very much. Why use your truth to divide the churches? Uh, just a moment, this friend. What, what I want to ask is linked very close to what you just said, that coming back to the point about dropping our names, um, um, one hundred ten years ago in Dublin, some Christians gathered together and decided to drop their denominational names. Mm-hmm. And, um, and as far as I can see historically, what's emerged out of that is let's drop our names denomination. Yeah, yeah, yes. That's the worst denomination of the lot, yes. Any comments on that one? This one is a chance. Pardon me if I were to wax vitriolic on that. It seems to me that it is in an ingrained tendency in the human heart, but not a Christian instinct. Uh, that the idea that you must group churches together seems to be somehow ingrained. Now, now this is going to be wickedness. You will forgive me. I listen to, to my, uh, uh, evangelical low church Anglican friends debating in their hearts what they're going to do about certain moves in the Church of England. One big good man sent me a paper to, to, to was asking me some advice on interpretation of Greek words. He was writing a strong protest against the nineteen fifty seven was it, or 67 prayer book thing. What are you, what are you going to do? I listen from the outside as not being an Anglican. I hear him say, look, want me to come out and form? Form what? Oh dear. Why must you form anything? And it is, it is not a something that, uh, you, you can say, well, I, I joined the prison men. They're as bad as anybody. They'll be constituting themselves Christian brethren or or exclusive brethren or or I don't know what kind of brethren. It seems to be innate, and presently, under another guise, you'll have a headquarters, Park Street or somewhere. Uh, it seems to me something like original sin. That we all run to. And it takes the constant grace of God to see that this is a product of our merely human reasoning and way of looking at things, and we constantly need exercise heart just to be in a church and think because I'm in this church, you know, now I am infallible from now on. It's quite a mistake because it isn't, in the last analysis, an organizational thing. The basic principle is a spiritual thing, and it needs conversion of heart. It needs a constant supply of the Holy Spirit, you'll see. Uh, it, uh, and uh, that is why on Friday, for instance, uh, uh, I wasn't trying to be particularly cunning. I- I- I- in not making any practical application, trying to make the point that there are spiritual principles at stake that go back to our salvation. If a man thinks himself wise in this world, and by mars we all do, we constantly need to remember that the way of running the church is in some sense not natural, it's God's way. We need constantly to be brought back. There is no safety in thinking one is a member of a particular church, and because one is, one is now immune from all dangers. Uh, churches will always go the same way, down the drain, uh, if we're not constantly, uh, uh, coming back to the word of God and renewing our obedience to the Lord. That's what I would feel about that. I hold no brief, uh, uh, uh, for, um, uh, um, uh, the the group of churches that started at Dublin or anywhere else where they started. I confess a great debt to those good men, in the same sense as I confess a great debt to Luther and Ridley and Cranmer and, and, and, uh, uh, uh, uh, Wesley, tremendous debt to them. But I don't think it is a good thing, uh, uh, I don't think it's a successful tactic to, uh, perpetuate the insights that God gave those men by building a denomination around them, to see. Might I just say one more word, and this is the wicked bit. You'll, you'll forgive this, won't you? Dear Wesley comes along, uh, and reacting from the formalism of the Anglican Church, you know, you can prove creation because of this, this, this, and two times y plus x equals, uh, God, and, uh, uh, that proves that sort of, uh, uh, formalism. Uh, and here comes what I do. You must be born again, gentlemen. You must have personal experience of God, personal experience of the Holy Spirit. You must be saved. Great stuff. I hope I, I don't know what, you'll forgive me anyway, perhaps. I worked up in County Down. Uh, and I, I read a bit about the work of God in those parts, a tremendous work of God done in the gospel amongst those miners and the churches that were built. A man over the road from me got converted through listening to Billy Graham. Went back to his, uh, his father decided he could be a Christian without, uh, without going to church. And he came across the verse, don't forsake the assembling of yourselves together. So, oh, you've got to go to church now, he said. So down he went to the Methodist church in which he was brought up and told them why he'd come. He got converted. Nonsense, they said. Nonsense. He asked me, would I go down with him to his men's group, uh, to stand with him that there was something in this being saved business. I found that so many times, uh, very sad. A warning that merely by building a denomination around an insight you've had doesn't necessarily preserve that insight. And, uh, brethren from Dublin or anywhere else, be warned. It does not perpetuate an insight to form a denomination. Our dear exclusive brethren, all one, standing for church truth. What a sad scandal. And the lesson I deduce from all that kind of thing, I wouldn't go to a Lutheran to be told about justification by faith. My tutor in Cambridge was a Lutheran, and when he died, his wife told me she never expected him to rise again. Her father was a bishop in the Lutheran church, and he told her so. There was no resurrection. Wouldn't go to them for justification by faith. A- a- a- and I have to, the lesson I deduce is from my own heart, and the church of which I am a member and actually street of her past. It is no guarantee that because I'm in this church, now I should preserve this insight. The only thing is constant coming back to the word of God and submitting myself thereto. It is a spiritual problem in the end. Um, you said, uh, and I accept this, that the starting of denominations in the past has been not the best way of preserving these truths. Um, this doesn't really help us now. We're faced with, with one street saying there's the Anglican Church, and then there's the Methodist Church, and the Baptist Church, and the Presbyterian Church, all next to each other down the street. Mm-hmm. Uh, we haven't been sort of helped in a way into, um, a policy of perhaps cooperation of how we, um, how we regard our brothers next door, for, uh, presumably we, we do regard them as fellow Christians, uh, and, um, in what way we should cooperate with them. Mm-hmm. Grant that perhaps their, um, method of worship or their, um, differences about infant baptism or something are valid, so that people can hold differences on this but can still be Christians. Mm-hmm. Yes, well, uh, here, and again, um, I'm not running away from this question where when I say it's, it's part of my main thesis, actually, uh, uh, I repeated this morning, that you down your street, uh, must take this problem to the Lord. This is the genius of it, to see. Uh, uh, but now, let me add this. This is a, a bigger problem than sometimes our enthusiasm allows, to see. What am I to do in Ireland? Am I going to recognize the Roman Catholic Church down the road as a Christian church? You see. Here I get myself in a little disfavor because I am not, to be frank, ecumenically minded. Um, uh, I, I, I, I do a lot going around, uh, Roman Catholics, monasteries and things. Uh, but I would hold that their doctrine, their church, I'm afraid, is built on something that is utterly traitorous to the gospel. Their doctrine of baptismal regeneration, I myself would hold, is absolutely, fundamentally opposed to the gospel, and it's an old pagan thing, and responsible in Ireland for keeping many people in the darkness, ah, ah, ah, ah, uh, of, um, uh, their lost, uh, state. Do you see? I couldn't possibly myself publicly, it's my conscience again, you may decide differently. I could not myself publicly, in the work of the Lord, associate with the Roman Catholic Church on equal terms. You'll see. Because we would disagree over what the gospel is and how a man is saved. You say, oh, well, so long as we preach Christ as Lord, well, all Roman Catholic will preach Christ as Lord. You say, so long as we preach justification by faith, well, so don't, don't be dis- uh, under any disillusion, uh, under any illusion. You're Roman Catholic believes in justification by faith. You say, ah, but so long as we enforce and, and we seek together, you're saved by grace, but the Roman Catholic believes you're saved by grace. But when he says you're saved by grace, by faith, he means that when you were sprinkled as a babe, you were made a child of God and inherited the kingdom of heaven. Something did take place. I would hold that that is not true, and it comes at the root of the gospel. To say. I would therefore find, uh, cooperation there, uh, in the work of the Lord quite impossible. We are saying two things, two different things on what is absolutely fundamental. To say. And, uh, to answer your question from that extreme, um, uh, perhaps it's an unpopular line to take, but I do believe we must be prepared to look at these things seriously. As I look at the Church of England Methodist join up, for instance, if you may allow me to quote one instance. Again, I'm not involved, but I feel a little bit unhappy, and I feel a certain sympathy for Professor Barrett of Durham. I wish in all these talks of church unity, it wasn't so much talks about, um, uh, organization, it was a talk of facing first and foremost the basic question of the gospel. You'll see. I have friends in Crete, preach the gospel, but they've been in prison four times. Do I go and work along with the Orthodox Church? In Crete? You'll see. Now, there I think, I'm only quoting these extreme examples to illustrate the case. I think that, uh, we have to constantly look at this matter in our work in gospel. Realistically, there are some things that go back to differences of viewpoint on what is fundamental, and there can be no joining up of the opposites. It is at the other, uh, end, of course, where the other thing comes, where Christians are agreed on the gospel. Uh, you'll see that I think there, in each individual circumstance, in each individual street now, it's a matter for seeking the Lord's direction i- i- in that situation. Yeah? Um, does- doesn't this contradict what you said about, so these details of church order being completely linked up with the man of salvation? Well, well, I... just let me say that perhaps I, I, I'm not quite, uh, uh, with it. I've expressed myself badly. I think details of church order are linked up with a man's salvation in the fullest sense of that term, the wider sense of that term, you see. Uh, I thought our friend here was talking about, um, um, uh, cooperation in the work of the gospel and getting folks saved, you know, uh, initially. And if we can agree there, isn't that a lovely thing if we can't agree further on? Uh, and I would not be cynical on this matter. I think, yes, uh, a lovely thing. I would confess to you a great deal of unease, to say. I would be afraid of what Jeremiah would call healing the hurt of the daughter of my people too shallowly. The idea that so long as we get folks saved, that's the main thing, that is make a profession of Christ. That isn't the New Testament view, you see. That is not the New Testament view. To use an Old Testament analogy where, uh, uh, Moses didn't go down to the Israelites in Egypt and say, now look here, gentlemen, the main thing is to get out of Egypt. Decide what we're going to do after that. There will be a deluxe course for those who want to take things further. But the main thing is to get out of Egypt. No, no, no, no, no. Salvation is one long thing. It's coming out of Egypt, it's going through the wilderness and into Canaan. And in that sense, I would agree. Uh, it would be too shallow thinking just to say let's agree to hold an evangelical campaign together and then go back to what we're doing. Because that go back to what you're doing, if what you're doing, they've got still some of these old pagan rites and ceremonies and things, they will militate against people's developing salvation. So see, so that I do think we shouldn't, uh, treat the matter lightly, that we should be prepared to say, look, let's come down to fundamental principle in this, so far as we can, and obey the Lord as far as we can all the way along the line. Huh? How far is this working out salvation in the eternal destiny, you know? Uh. Oh, well, yes, I'm glad you asked that question because people may have been misunderstanding me. Uh, when I talk about, uh, uh, uh, the church being a means of our salvation, I'm not talking in the Roman Catholic sense. Uh, Roman Catholic sense, uh, church saves you, if you want to be saved, well, salvation in the church. The church saves you, somehow. Uh, they now have come around to extend their doctrine of baptism by desire so that people outside the church can be saved, which is a tremendous move forward, but uh, according to them. But, uh, normally they're talking about the church saving you somehow by its sacrifices and things and its penances and I don't know what have you. And of course, it's a little bit of double think, though they don't know it, because it's the church that needs to be saved. See? Now, what I mean is, uh, that it's experienced as part of our salvation, um, as we should be talking this afternoon about the gifts. God ministers to me through other folks in the church, doesn't he? This question of church and Christian fellowship, as we've seen this morning, chapter five, being kind of some kind of preservative. Uh, church experience anyway, not being just a little convenience, just nice to meet each other, so shall we meet in such such place at such such time, but the celebration of the Lord's Supper, that on the practical side, keeping me holy, therefore part of my practical salvation in that, it happens in the church. To see, it's in that sense I mean. In that sense, I should be very keen, therefore, to say it does matter. You cannot take the view, well, so long as we agree on getting the man to, to, to make a confession of Christ, uh, that's all right. No, his experience is day-to-day salvation, what Peter would say, grow up unto salvation. To see this practical continuance. But as to his eternal, uh, acceptance of God, I think if a man never saw a church, never was in one, he would still be accepted with God. To see, I don't think in, in that sense, being accepted with God, as soon as a man has trusted Christ, he's accepted with God, will not be anything else, whether he ever, uh, was a member of a church or not. Well, yeah, I mean, when that when he gets to heaven and the position he is in there? Does it affect that? Oh well, a position therein, um, my views on, on, on, on that kind of thing, uh, are based on my understanding, to your right, of two Peter chapter one, That, uh, while all who have trusted Christ are accepted with God, uh, there will be differences in eternity according to various criteria, uh, differences of reward, one Corinthians three, for work done, but also differences according as to whether we have or have not cooperated with God in the developing of Christian character. All things are given us for life and godliness. There is his divine power available. We have a divine nature, but now it is ours alongside of that very thing to cooperate with God and to add all diligence to add, add, add, add, add, add, add. And the things we add are developing Christian character. If we do these things, they shall be ministered unto us, but the operative word in the sentence is they shall abundantly be ministered to us. Just the operative word's abundantly, uh, if we add these things, that is these Christian virtues and characteristics. If we don't add these things, well, of course, we shall be, we should get in, because it's by grace on, uh, uh, through Christ, but, uh, not necessarily abundantly. Yes, yeah. We are here hearing a bit of good, better, best ways, you know. Mm. Uh, could you comment on this, whether it's sort of rigid or... Good, better, and best ways? Uh, well, you know, the... say I've got to make a decision and, uh, I, I make before God the wrong decision. Mm. Does this matter, or does once having realized it sort of put me back in the same best way with God, or am I eternally in second class way? Oh yes, oh, I see what you mean. Pardon my levity. I'm told by some people, uh, that they made the wrong decision when they got married, and this landed them with God's second best forever. Um, some may felt that they ought to have been missionaries and disobeyed the call for one reason or another, and God has used them since, but they've lived their life through with the feeling that they have got a second best. There is a sense in which I, I think that these kind of things are true. We can't say it doesn't matter what you do, can we? To see, Israel might have gone straight into the land, whoosh, in. They did. Well, they learned a lot of lessons in the desert. It was a roundabout fashion, you see, but they might have gone in a much better way. All right? So I do think that. Having said that, I think that God is, uh, exceedingly merciful. He's not waiting to disqualify us at the, uh, the, uh, first possible moment. The doctrine of divine guidance is not law, it's gospel. You'll see. God isn't standing there saying, I shouldn't think of guiding you, old boy, not unless you came up to this standard and that standard and that standard. You make one mistake, well, do your way. No, no, no, it's gospel, you'll see. And, uh, the great example of guidance in the Lord's work, he, the beginning of the fourth section of the Acts of the Apostles, uh, shows you that same combination that guidance takes. Uh, Paul and company, they say to go here, and, uh, the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not. That showed that they hadn't got any voice from heaven saying go there. Had they? No, they had, they went there. Next obvious thing to do. Then they tried to go somewhere else, and the Holy Spirit wouldn't allow them there. Oh, that must have meant they didn't have any sort of voice out of the blue saying, thou shalt go here. They'd just gone there, but they're not castigated for it. Uh, uh, they therefore found they couldn't go there, so they went somewhere else. And there they had a vision, and even then they had to sit down and logically work it out, what it all implied. So see, there was therefore that combination of doing the next thing as it seemed sensible to do before God, and God coming in, and if he didn't want them quite there, he just guided them there, and then he just guided them here. And when it was appropriate in the circumstance, he gave them a sort of a special revelation. Go here. There is that combination. I believe guidance is gospel, not law. To say, I believe God will work all things together for good. He will use our very mistakes. To say if it, as he did for David. But let that not on the other extreme, induciveness or carelessness. There are some mistakes that you make that will bring you consequences for the rest of life. God will turn them to good if you repent, but that can be very sad consequences. Witness David and Bathsheba, for instance, and all the rebellion and trouble that arose after that. You see, so there are better ways that you serve. And finally, on that score, there are, uh, rules in serving the Lord. Two Timothy lays them down. And in serving the Lord, now the, the, the, the First and Second epistle of Timothy and Titus, they are written to actual practical working missionaries, aren't they? Things are said there that have special application to men that are serving God, holding public position, or evan- evangelists and so on. And writing to Timothy, Paul warns him not to cut his corners. You see, he says that, um, uh, no man in the games is crowned except he strived lawfully. That won't do to say, well, I got at the end if you cut across the middle of the field, you see, you won't get the prize. That's because you get the end, you don't necessarily get the reward if you haven't toiled lawfully. One of the rules for servants of God, there are rules to be kept. You shan't be crowned or given the prize and never be kept. If you could throw a bit of light on a difficulty which I have, um, and try to reconcile in Corinthians the business of elders judging a man in a church to be immoral, and reconciling this with Romans chapter two, which begins, therefore you have no excuse whether you are or you judge another. Oh, I see, yes, yes. Uh, the question, in case you can't hear at the back there, is uh, the uh, apparent um discrepancy, uh, conflict, conflict between uh, one Corinthians five, where the elders of the church at large is asked to judge a man, put him out, um, and uh, uh, Romans chapter two— Is it chapter two, did you say? Yes? Uh, where it says, wherefore thou art in excuse, without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest, for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. And I, I suspect, uh, you might have added to that, uh, the Our Lord's remarks in the Sermon on the Mount, judge not that you be not judged. It seems to me the answer to that is, uh, uh, easiest come at if we take those things, first of all, in their context. What is Paul arguing in Romans chapter two? He's arguing, in fact, in this whole context, that men are sinners, you see, and that they are sinners without excuse. There is, for instance, he says in chapter one, the evidence of creation, and whatever men say nowadays, creation still does witness and is sufficient and adequate evidence for at least two things about God. One, that he exists, and uh, and two, that he's God. And uh, God will hold them responsible for it. He won't let them get away with the fact that the, the universe is not evidence that there is a God. God says that there is evidence there is a God, and he will hold them responsible. They are without excuse. There is enough evidence. Secondly, uh, the thou art without excuse, o man, surely is in this context again, he cannot say, uh, that there was not enough evidence to show him that he was a sinner, because he judges the other chap. And in that act of judging the other chap, if he's got any sense, he will see that his own heart is tainted with the same kind of sin, even if he's not done the actual acts, but then very often he has done the same acts. It is reminding the man that his own judgment of other people is evidence against him that leaves him without excuse. Before God, he must admit that he himself is a sinner. Well, now that doesn't, it seems to me, actually conflict with what Paul is doing in, um, uh, uh, 1 Corinthians five or Galatians again. If a brother errs, and some sense that he can be restored, you that are spiritual restore him in the spirit of meekness, considering yourself also, lest you be tempted. Be enough for some of us if we got tempted. Doesn't say in case you fail, in this case you got tempted. Uh, to see, um, uh, we are always in i- in this thing to judge ourselves, to recognize the weakness of our own heart and that we are unworthy. No spirit of pride and self-confidence ought to be here. But now that doesn't absolve us as a church, as churches, when there is a case of certain gross sin that brings the Lord's name into public disrepute and constitutes a danger to the church morally. When we have judged our own hearts and foot course before God, it doesn't absolve us from church discipline. And if that church discipline is done as it ought to be, it will d- be done with many tears and sorrow of heart and confession before God of our own weakness, and that but for God's grace, we should have committed the same outrageous act. You see, similarly, in the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord says, judge not that you be not judged, a very so- healthy, uh, warning. But then the very next sentence asks you to judge, doesn't it? Don't give your, your pearls for all swine, or how will I decide who, decide who is or who isn't a swine? Doesn't that involve me in some kind of, uh, moral judgment? You see, beware false prophets. Well, how shall I know? Well, you'll have to make up your mind, old boy, and you'll judge them by your fruit, their fruits. So there is no, there's no conflict. Judge not that you be not judged. Yes, uh, uh, I've got to recognize that, uh, that mother may seem to have a speck in his eye. I've probably got a mote in mine. Uh, I've got to be careful when I start judging his motives or the way he looks at it. I don't really know, actually. I can't read his innermost thoughts, you see. On the other hand, Christ isn't saying that we shouldn't take any notice when people sin in the church and say it doesn't matter, I suspend judgment. Is immorality wrong? Oh, I wouldn't know. You see, we are to know, we are to exercise moral judgment, to see, uh, in that sense, uh, on the act, and if the person is unrepentant, therefore, on the person. Albeit, when it comes to these motives and underlying and all the complications underneath, we are to remember that we're possibly as wicked hearts as he has. Okay. Did you have a question? Um, we've been talking about towers and levels and about the principles for God's workers. Um, what's your opinion of, um, missionary societies, whether they're faith missions or, or other kinds of missions? Um, that you are paid by the society and it's not labeled like the CIA missionary. Hmm. Uh, as to missionary work, uh, you'll see how dyed in the wool I am. Um, I believe still very effective is the methods that they used in the act, the method they used in the Acts of the Apostles. That is to say, uh, Paul went off with a team of men. The Holy Spirit said at Antioch, for instance, separate me Paul and Barnabas to the work that I call them to, and they took with them one or two fellows to carry their bags and John Mark to do various sundry jobs as their servant, and off they went as a team. Uh, that seems to me to be a very sensible method. It is, of course, the responsibility of a, a church to hold forth the word of life. It's a sad thing if a church loses its evangelical, uh, outlook and outreach, but for pioneer work, and that seems to me it may be work in England, and not just amongst the Africans, for pioneer work, perhaps the best method still is a team of men who know what they're at. So it offers a team. And I think the principles that govern the teams and their constituent parts are s- are somewhat different from church fellowship. Paul would have had you in the church, but he might not necessarily have had you. I don't mean you, I mean me, perhaps me. He might not necessarily have had me in his team. He would have had John Mark in the church. He got to a stage when he wouldn't have had me in the team at any cost. For there are special conditions necessary in men that work together publicly in the Lord's work. You see. Uh, and and uh, that goes, I think, for within the church too. You've got to be very careful to whom you give a Sunday school class, haven't you? Very careful. A man might be very well suited for church fellowship, but if he had a certain background, you would be very careful before you gave him a class of children. For the Lord's sake, you would. You see. And, and gospel teamwork, therefore, yes, it seems to me that idea of a mission, a team of men going forward to do a job, good. Again, when it comes to, uh, the more practical details and finance and things like that, well, it seems to me the cardinal principle, uh, men must do what they feel God would have them do. I can't help saying I admire Paul's spirit, and his method, where applicable, is perhaps the best, that he worked with his own hands and paid for his team. In fact, much of his pioneer gospel work would not have been possible unless he could have done so. For getting money from Philippi to him was a risky business, and nearly cost Epaphroditus his life on one occasion to do it. And he would have been absolutely stymied if he hadn't been prepared to finance his own immediate team. You see. Now you say conditions in the modern world make that impossible? Well, perhaps they do. And, uh, Paul has laid it down in Corinthians, and we were reading this morning that, uh, if Peter wants to read about his wife on his gospel missions and things, uh, he's got every right to expect that, uh, they that preach the gospel shall live of the gospel, and the church will maintain. It's a delightful thing when, when Philippi, uh, sent to Paul money gifts, he was delighted to have them. But I would think that Paul would have retained his independence of judgment. Philippi didn't tell him where to go. Or what to do. But impossible anyway, they didn't have telephones. And I do think, perhaps I'm, uh, using a big stick here, I d- I do feel this myself keenly. For the spread of the gospel, we need constantly to examine our methods. Freedom of action, within its proper limits, of course, but freedom of action of the Lord's servants is an exceedingly important thing. There's several times, um, the idea of using the New Testament precedent for doing something, Mm-hmm. uh, where it's not actually a direct command, Mm-hmm. but merely a statement of this is how they did it. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Now, um, this surely raised a good bit of evidence towards it, but it's not surely conclusive. Mm-hmm. And how far does it count? Mm-hmm. Oh, quite so. Uh, uh, uh, this is a, a, a very important question you do raise. Uh, I'm glad you've raised it. It is also possible, uh, to give an oversimplified picture of the matter. Uh, uh, the fact that Christians did it isn't necessarily an obligation, uh, did it in the first century is not an obligation, you say, for us to do it. Uh, except it, it should we all sell all our goods, like they did on the day of Pentecost, and live communally here in Cambridge? If I tried to preach you that this is how you must do, because they did it in Jerusalem, I fancy I would have a rough passage. Uh, is the fact that they did eat binding on us? I think here, uh, uh, uh, it is not, um, weakness but strength. The New Testament in general tends to lay down principles of action and allows, uh, God's spiritual piety as principles rather than laws, you see, and within this scope, freedom. There are some things, however, that Paul would not have left, nor would Peter have left them to us, but would have laid them down not as principles, but as commands, you see. Now there, again, uh, much will depend on our basic attitude to scripture. Uh, in the matter of commands, well, the Lord's overruling principle remains, if you love me, you will keep it. There's no argument. If you love me, you will. There's no argument about it. If you don't keep his commands, you might as well talk to the moon as to say you love the Lord, you see. Well, it's a command. Where you see things like principle, I mean, uh, precedence, I'm quoting Paul on his missionary tour with his team. Uh, I think again, much depends on our attitude. If we regard the Bible as, oh, I suppose I shall have to do this, a bind. Well, that's going to affect our attitude. If we come to it as the record given by a loving father and a wise master general in the strategy of the field, we should come saying, well, now, Lord, what can I learn from your methods? Are they applicable here? Uh, show me where they are, show me where they're not. You see, it is not, after all, a bondage of slavery. You see, and I think that is important. The New Testament allows you a tremendous amount of freedom of application, guidance as to what other wise men have done in certain situations, not necessarily laid down as law upon you. This is the wisdom of God. And I would feel that important evidence, e- emphasis, thank you for raising it, a very important emphasis. And it goes against, doesn't it? Elaborate organizations, if those organizations tend in the end to become fixed and, uh, bind you. But the other point, where there is command, I would hold that commands will be, must be done. If any man thinketh himself to be spiritual or a prophet, let him recognize the things that I write are the commandments of the Lord. Does that come somewhere near? And there's time perhaps for one more question. Huh? If I could come back to what you said about denominationalism. Does this not contradict what you said before about the church you formed? Do you think that you could have done something better than you did? Do you think that the organization from which you split was not a Christian church? Uh, yes, uh, uh. I meant that quite seriously. I, I, I have, and I do from time to time, ask myself, what I to be, uh, uh, away from Rome. For instance, uh, listening to Stan Ford on, on, on Friday talking about these churches, uh, Ephesus and Company and Thyatira. Let's not confuse ourselves with names. Uh, church and assembly are one and the same Greek word, aren't they? What ho? Don't let's get ourselves befogged with terms. Fire tower was an assembly then. Cool, wow. Do you see? And as people observed, no command to get out of it. And now you're doing some fearful things, and therefore ought I to say, right, oh, Rome is terrible. I have no permission to get out, and if I do, I'm systematic. You see? All right? Now, uh, there, uh, uh, I have come around in my thinking, and here you may disagree, you may feel it is heavily contradictious. Around my thinking, that the best way to approach it is positively. To say, I must do what the Lord says. For instance, for me, uh, when folks, i- i- i- if I led somebody to the Lord, uh, I would feel obliged to preach baptism. To say, like Peter, he commanded them. He didn't leave it to their option. So would you like to get baptized or not? No, no, no, no, no, no. Peter would command them to get baptized. Here's a command. This is not optional. I couldn't do it in Rome. I couldn't do it. So there I come to the situation now, who am I going to obey? Then I have a look round, and I say to myself, well, what is it that this I'm kicking against in Rome? Is it some scriptural principle? You know, as our Lord enunciated it to his disciples in the days of his flesh, he said, the scribes sit in Moses' seat, gentlemen, so do what they tell you, but don't do after their manner. That is, the scribes were a bad old lot, really, to be honest. But they sat in Moses' seat, and so long as they expounded the Old Testament scripture, you do what they say, in spite of the fact that they themselves are a lot of old blackguards, you'll say. Uh, now, do I say that is Rome? Some of them are fearful, but uh, they sit in the authority of the Word of God. Well, now, the very thing that is written, I'd say, this matter of baptism, as far as I can see, is not some biblical command they're pressing on me. It's something they invented outside scripture. And if that is so, I think that the what Peter and Paul said to the Sanhedrin applies, we must obey God rather than man. We must, must be free to obey the Lord. And if the thing that is stopping me i- obeying the Lord is some non-scriptural, extra-scriptural thing that, uh, uh, the church has invented outside the New Testament. Then I feel perhaps I'm not being unfair to take the view that the responsibility for the system is on the people who invented the unscriptural thing. I remember talking to a fellow student of mine in Trinity many moons ago, you won't know him, so it doesn't matter. We fell to discussing this matter. Uh, he's going to be a missionary. And it brought it home to me. I said, my dear good man Tony, you say it doesn't matter what we do, doesn't it? You go out to Africa and introduce these extra scriptural things that have been the cause of so much disagreement and division. Surely, if it's going to be these extra scriptural things for which there's no authority in conflict with positive commands, then the responsibility for the resultant schism must be on those who introduce the extra scriptural things. So that, um, uh, looking at it solemnly before the Lord, because it would be a fearful charge against anybody that he'd helped division among Christians, that is a fearful thing to do. But trying to look at that in, before the Lord, I've come personally to the conclusion, I must be, as I say, I think it's important for everybody else to say it for himself and herself. I feel the basic principle must be I must obey the Lord. Responsibility for the consequences of that must be on those whose organization would not allow me to do it. Well, there we must leave it. I'm sure we all agree that it's been most, a most profitable session, and may form a precedent for others at Roseford later. We trust it will. So thank you, Dr. Gooding, and thank all who have contributed. You've made my job very easy, I must say, and I believe that love of the brethren will still continue. Thank you all. Now, Dr. Gooding will, eh, turn thanks for our time together. O Lord, we thank thee now humbly and gratefully for this discussion together. We thank thee for thy presence. We bless thee, Lord, for saving us and for giving us this wonderful privilege of being allowed to serve thee at all. We who once were spiritual lepers afar off and had no right to handle thy holy things. Thou hast called us not merely servants, but friends in thy tremendous grace and genuine value on us who are so unworthy. And Lord, we do praise thee for Christian fellowship, for the opportunity to pool our experience and our thoughts and our exercises together. We gratefully thank thee for all the servants of God in past days and everything we owe to them. For their study of thy word, for their sacrifice to write it and maintain it. Lord, we confess before thee what immeasurable debt we owe to the past generations. We thank thee, O Lord, that thou art the God of Jacob, as well as the God of Isaac, as well as the God of Abraham. We again present ourselves to thee. Grant, O Lord, that arising out of our discussions, our reading of thy word, our renewal of exercise about these things, that we may make it an opportunity for thee, living Lord, to guide us into those ways that please thee most, and of course, make us most effective in our day and generation. This is a great responsibility thou has laid upon our shoulders, Lord. We cannot do it in our own strength or in our own wisdom. Again, humbly we would abjure our own wisdom, prepared to become fools. Yet, Lord, help us to be vigorous in our thinking, submitting our thinking to thy word and to thy Holy Spirit. And we praise thee for the certainty that thou would never leave us or forsake us, that thou do still walk among the candlesticks, thou do still hold the stars in thy right hand. O Lord, thou who has seen fit to adopt this method of choosing such failing creatures as we to be thy servants, there is enough in thee to guide us aright. Only give us faithful and obedient hearts. We ask it in thine own holy name.