Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 21
October 2, 1969
NUMBER 22, PAGE 4-5a

The Nature Of Authority

Editorial

"Dr. Chamberlain, you have an excellent knowledge of the Greek language. You understand with absolute certainty that the Greek word baptidzo' from which our English 'baptize' derives means to immerse. Yet you are an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church, which, until a few years ago actually forbade immersion as an act of baptism. I cannot understand your thinking on this."

The speaker was a young student in a Presbyterian Theological Seminary. The professor whom he was addressing had just finished a class session in New Testament Greek. Relationship between student and professor was warm and friendly in every way. The incident took place more than a third of a century ago; the professor is now dead, the student, on the particular Sunday afternoon that this page is being written, is in his study in an Alabama church. In fact, the student is now Editor of the Gospel Guardian.

"Mr. Tant," the professor replied, "if I believed for one moment, as you do believe, that baptism had anything to do with a man's eternal salvation, I would be as insistent as ever you could be that he be immersed. The Greek word to which you refer does indeed mean `to immerse'. Immersion was the practice of the apostolic church; Jesus Christ was immersed. Every competent Bible student knows these things. Why then do I sprinkle? and why has my church for so many years forbidden immersion? The answer is quite simple: we believe you are attaching too much importance to a mere form or ritual. The thing that is important is the attitude of a man's heart. And if his heart is right before God, he can have water sprinkled on him, poured on him, or can be immersed. In fact, he can do whatever has religious significance for him! If he believed it would help him to obey God, he could have saw-dust sprinkled on his big toe, and it would be perfectly acceptable as an act of submission to God!"

This terminated the conversation. But for all these years since then, the till subject has come into this writer's mind, again and again. Our difference was NOT a matter of Biblical interpretation or understanding. We were apparently in full agreement as to what the Bible taught. Our difference grew out of differing attitudes toward authority. With the student, once Bible leaching was understood, the matter was settled. There could be no further question or hesitation. With the professor, however, that Bible teaching must needs be analyzed, evaluated, dissected, and weighed as to its relevance or importance in contemporary society. The basis of our difference was in the area of authority, not interpretation.

Beginning in this issue, the Gospel Guardian presents the first in a series of three articles on "Man And Authority" by Brother F. LaGard Smith, Assistant District Attorney of Malheur County, Vale, Oregon. Brother Smith has made a careful study of the subject, and presents a most thought provoking analysis. He traces to its real source the cause of so much of our present day violence and rebellion against authority. Clearly our generation is "reaping the whirlwind" as a legitimate harvest of the seeds of doubt and disbelief which have been implanted in the hearts of growing youngsters almost from their first days in the public schools.

That this same rebellion against authority lies at much of our current trouble in the Lord's church is, we think, beyond question. It is not so much that brethren WANT to rebel against authority as that they simply did not wish to be shackled or tied down by what they consider archaic or unreasonable limitations. The "we do many things for which we have no authority" attitude is the prevailing one, rather than "we reject the authority of the Bible." They do not think they ARE rejecting it. They simply do not understand the nature of Biblical authority. The average man in the pew is hardly to be blamed for this; his teachers, preachers, elders and Bible College professors have preceded him in the same myopia of misunderstanding.

We can perhaps understand how the "chance creation" advocate could reject the idea of authority. But we find it most difficult to understand how a Bible-believing, God- fearing, thoughtful Christian could ignore the plain and simple teaching of Holy Writ. Surely it must be that he has failed to plumb the true nature of authority. We believe Brother Smith's articles will be of real help in dealing with this problem. Incidentally, the author is a graduate of Florida College, and took his law degree from Willamette University in Salem, Oregon. He is the son of Frank L. Smith who preaches for the Huffman congregation in Birmingham, Alabama, and like Timothy of old, "from a babe hast known the sacred writings." He thus brings to bear on the subject a thorough background in the Biblical field together with a prudent understanding of the law. The material in these three articles was originally delivered to a group of young people on "The Rights and Responsibilities of Youth."

F. Y. T.