We have a few questions on hand from various correspondents which we will answer consecutively.

      First is one from Bro. L. N. Doty, of Elmwood, Saline county, Mo. He writes: "Does the Church of God believe in the doctrine of inherited depravity of the human heart? If so, is it total depravity?"

      We answer, that so far as we know the doctrine of hereditary or inherited depravity is, perhaps, universally held among us. There may be exceptions, and Bro. Doty is possibly one; but with single exceptions the doctrine is held everywhere by our people.

      This depravity we hold to be total, in the general sense of the expression "total depravity."

      The brother does not ask us to give an explanation of this doctrine as held by us, but we will add, notwithstanding, that depravity is not to be understood as synonymous with sin or guilt; neither does the doctrine of total depravity imply that man is as bad as he can be, or that all men are sunk to the same depth of depravity. The "total" has reference to man's entirety. There is no part of him that does not feel and manifest the effects of the fall.

      From Bro. Lemuel Russell, Lacon, Ill., we have two questions. He first inquires whether we should use the plural word doctrines, or whether we should not confine ourselves to the singular doctrine. He seems to think that the plural in the New Testament always refers to human or false teachings, and that when speaking of that which is of God, the singular is used. This is not a new point to our readers, as several of our correspondents some time since advocated a similar view. To us it is a matter of small moment, as we do not think there is obligation resting upon us to confine ourselves either to the singular or the plural form of the word. However, it is true that the two words in the New Testament which are translated doctrine (didaskalia and didakee) always occur in the singular when the reference is to the true doctrine; whereas, in every instance in which they are in the plural the reference is to false systems of faith and teaching. In many instances, however, the use of the singular is accounted for by the form of the thought, while in others the singular is used somewhat in the form of a noun of multitude. Back of this lies another fact, viz.: That there is one pre-eminent doctrine of the New Testament, which is inclusive of all others, and upon this the sacred writers seem above all to have fixed their attention. From the same standpoint our minds are also fixed upon this ultimate truth, out of which all others flow, and then we naturally use the singular.

      But then there is a difference in the meaning of the term doctrine in different connections. This difference was anciently indicated by several distinct terms, all of which are often covered by our English doctrine. These other words often occur in a good sense in the plural. Christ's sayings oftentimes were doctrines. So were his words. Now when we refer to these sayings or words we are as fully entitled to use the plural as were the inspired writers. Bro. Russell may say with as much propriety. These are the true doctrines of God, as the Revelation could say, These are the true sayings of God. Many of these sayings we call doctrines, and we think rightly. So that we see no reason for condemning the use of the plural, while at the same time the use of the singular in other instances is no doubt eminently proper, and prevails among all classes. The term doctrine was anciently used much as our term faith is now used, to signify that which is taught and believed. This accounts for the singular so generally in the New Testament.

      Bro. Russell also asks: "Do you fellowship a professed Christian that has been, as they say, baptized by sprinkling or pouring for baptism, and who does not submit to baptism by immersion?" The condition of Christian fellowship upon which we insist is fellowship with God through Christ. If we have evidence enough to convince us that a man is made one with Christ, we demand no other conditions as precedent to fellowship. We endeavor to teach them the Scriptural doctrine of baptism, holding that nothing in baptism in form but immersion; but we do not make baptism a test of fellowship.

      A brother from Crawford county, Ohio, writes: "Please tell us where the Church of God was before 1830, as I cannot find any organized body of Christians calling themselves by that name before that date; a body Arminian in doctrine, rejecting infant baptism, practicing immersion, and the literal washing of the saints' feet as an appointed ordinance." When Christ was in the world he said, "Upon this rock will I build my Church," &c. This Church, or these out-called believers in Christ, was afterwards known as the Church of God, and as such practiced the literal washing of the saints' feet as an appointed ordinance, baptized, i. e. immersed believers only, and was Arminian in doctrine. Those whom God through Christ and by the Holy Spirit and word thus called out in all ages down to the present constituted the Church of God. To-day these constituent parts of the Church of God are found everywhere that men truly repent and believe into Jesus Christ. In Apostolic days these believers in any given locality assembled for worship and the ministration of God's word and the ordinances; as such they constituted what we now called a local church, society, or assembly of Christians, and were called, in this local sense as a society, the Church of God at Corinth, etc. For as all the true believers into Christ in the world constitute the Church of God (militant), so those in any given locality constitute the Church of God in that locality. To illustrate: If a man has ten thousand sheep within a given area, and he runs division lines through this area to divide them off for the purpose of feeding them more conveniently; the whole ten thousand constitute his flock of sheep, and those within any given area constitute the flock in that area. So with the general and the local church. But after the days of the Apostles, while men, as they do to-day, called the whole body Christ's sheep, or God's church, they began to call the local members as societies by every and any other name save the true and proper one. In 1830, or previous, through the instrumentality of Elder John Winebrenner and others a reformation was effected in this (and in other) particulars. Through the preaching of the word God called sinners to life, and they, as all others thus called, became constituent parts of the Church of God. These associated together for worship and the administration of the word and sacraments, and were called just what God called them, churches of God. So the Church of God has always existed since the days of Christ, but her nominal identity was lost in error, and human doctrines, and false names, just as it is to-day with a great part of the general Church of God.

      A sister inquires: "Is singing by a class of non-professors worshiping God?" This is what we make out of the question, understanding the sister to refer more particularly to non-professors in choirs. If she refers to choirs, we can simply say that in our judgment it is out of place to have a choir composed of irreligious persons. We would almost as soon think of ordaining an irreligious ministry as appointing an irreligious choir. If the sister refers to the participation in congregational singing by the irreligious, then we answer that as that is their personal act we are not responsible for it. If they wish to sing, let them do so.

      A brother from Michigan writes: "If an elder gets his back up against some of his members and he will not go to them to make things right, and will cast them out of the church willfully, and they are lost, who is to give an account in the Judgment? Who is the murderer, the elder or they themselves?" Well, as to the final judgment, we do not know much about it. We know that every man shall stand or fall by his own words (a character); but doubtless a part of that record will consist of our official acts as elders, if such we have been. No man can act improperly toward the least saint and cause him to fall and be lost without having it said, It were better that a mill stone were hanged about his neck, and he be cast into the depth of the sea. Discipline is necessary, and there are circumstances under which members must be expelled, but he who administers discipline from wrong motives, and expels a man simply because he has got "his back up" against him, assumes a fearful responsibility. Men must take heed how they behave themselves in the Church of God. They must rule wholly in the fear of God. The word of God alone is to be the rule, and if they cause any to fall by reason of discipline administered contrary to this infallible rule, woe be unto them. The qualifications of an elder are prescribed in the Sacred Oracles, and he who possesses them cannot act from site or selfwill in such responsible matters as are involved in the ruling of the Church of God.

[The Church Advocate 40 (June 23, 1875): 4.]

      Christian H. Forney's "Answers to Questions" was first published in The Church Advocate, Vol. 40, No. 8 (June 23, 1875), p. 4. The electronic version has been transcribed from a copy of the article printed from a microfilmed edition of the newspaper held by the State Library of Pennsylvania. Thanks to Adams Memorial Library for arranging for the interlibrary loan, and to St. Vincent College Library for the use of its microfilm reader/printer.

      Inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typography have been retained; however, corrections have been offered for misspellings and other accidental corruptions. Emendations are as follows:

            Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 4:      is nsed. [ is used.
            body Armenian [ body Arminian
            was Armenian [ was Arminian
            expells [ expels
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 3 June 1999.
Updated 13 July 2003.