Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

I know of no subject that is more misunderstood or is less studied than that of the Holy Spirit. We are taught in the scripture that “secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever.” (Deut. 29:29.) There are many things about the Holy Spirit which are not revealed. Contrary to this, there are some things which have been revealed and these things should be given proper consideration by man. I am aware that many faithful men have spent years in study of the subject at hand and I would not be so pre-sumptuous as to even think I know as much as these. However, the Bible contains many lessons on the subject of the Spirit and surely our Father would not have said so much to us on a subject of which he intended us to remain altogether ignorant. Hence, we will examine the subject of the baptism of the Spirit in the hope that we may, at least, acquire a sufficient knowledge of what is taught concerning it to enable us to enjoy its God appointed influence on our lives.

John the Baptist said to those who came to be baptized of him, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” (Mat. 3:11.) With this in mind, recall that Paul told Timothy to “study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim. 2:15.) This admonition certainly should be applied to this subject. If we can rightly divide and apply the word to this subject, we will be aided tin our attempt at an understanding of it.

That God promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit to certain persons, through John the Baptist, is not disputed by anyone. The matter in controversy with some is whether or not the baptism thus promised was to be perpetual. The only way properly to examine the subject is to notice the passages that relate to it.

Joel 2:28-30

Peter, on Pentecost, quoted a passage from Joel 2: 28-30: “And it shall come to pass afterwards that I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophecy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions; and also upon the servants, and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out of my Spirit; and they shall prophecy: and I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth.” Peter, on Pentecost, quotes this passage as being fulfilled in the events of that day. (Acts 2.) There is little doubt that the passage makes reference to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. As it is here stated that the Spirit shall be poured out upon all flesh, it is insisted that those living now are a part of all flesh, and hence, it requires all time to fulfill this prophecy. But are there any restrictions of the expression, “all flesh”? If not, the passage proves entirely too much. Paul tells us that “all flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes a n d another of birds.” (1 Cor. 15:39.) Therefore, if the phrase “all flesh” is not to be limited, we not only have man baptized by the Holy Spirit, but also all beasts, birds and fish. Some will say then that this means all human flesh.” This would still prove too much for this would include the most wicked man of the earth as well as the most faithful Christian. If these conclusions are not only justified but demanded, is it possible that there can be more restrictions?

Notice that Joel said the sons and daughters who were the subjects of this baptism were to prophecy, the old men were to dream dreams and the young men were to see visions. Do we see these things exhibited by all Christians today? It not, the phrase “all flesh” must be pruned down even further until it embraces such, and only such, as can do the things spoken of. When Peter said, “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2: 16), the disciples were prophesying, speaking in tongues, and doing the things spoken of by Joel. Therefore, it seems that we are authorized to restrict the phrase all flesh” to such as exhibited the signs predicted in the prophecy. Since there are no men now doing this, we must conclude that the argument drawn from this prophecy to support the notion that persons are now baptized with the Holy Spirit is evidently defective. (Space does not permit the proof that men who say, they speak in tongues are performing great deception before unlearned. innocent people.)

Matt: 3:11

The language of John the Baptist claims our attention next. He said to those who came to the Jordan to be baptized of him. “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes T am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” (Matt. 3:11.) Does this mean that we today are baptized with the Holy Spirit? If this does prove the point, it must do so in one of two ways. First, it must be that the language used directly includes us, or the principle taught must be applicable to us. But first, let us inquire, who were the persons represented by the pronoun “you” in the sentence “he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost?” That the word could not have been inclusive of all John’s audience is clear from the fact that there were wicked people there, comparable to the chaff that is burned with unquenchable fire. (vs. 12.) But even if it did embrace all to whom he spoke, it would require very elastic rules of interpretation to make it embrace the man of our time. We have a rule of grammar that says:

“Pronouns must agree with the nouns for which they stand in gender, number and person.” If we respect this rule at all, how can we make the second part of the passage, “he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost,” mean man today and refuse to apply the first part of the passage, “I indeed baptize you with water…” to man today? Someone is ready to say that it is foolish to say that we today are baptized by John. Keeping in mind the aforementioned rule of grammar, it therefore follows that those who were here promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit were among those baptized by John in water. If we apply this promise to other persons, we must derive authority for doing so from other sources than the passage employed, for evidently it is not there.

Then, is there a principle taught here which is applicable to us? If so, I cannot see it. The passage was a promise made to certain persons, to be fulfilled to them, and when so fulfilled, there was no general principle remaining which would apply to any man today. I do not wish to be understood to say that no other person was ever baptized with the Holy Spirit. We know that others were so baptized, but this is not the passage that proves it. We have been testing the passage in Matt. 3 to see if it proves the doctrine in question.

We know that this passage is relied on to sustain the theory and we have sought for the extent of its application and the time of its fulfillment.

In three recorded accounts of John’s statement concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit, we have no specific allusion to the time of its fulfillment. When Jesus was assembled with the apostles just prior to his ascension, he “commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which saith he, ye have heard of me; for John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” (Acts 1:4, 5) As the Lord here associates this promise of the Father with John’s baptism, it seems certain that he here refers to the same promise which God made by John. This being so, we see that it is easy to recognize its fulfillment on the day of Pentecost at Jerusalem, where they were commanded to wait for it. Therefore, when we connect these passages, it is difficult to look beyond the day of Pentecost for the complete fulfillment of the promise from the Father regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

We are told that Peter quoted this passage at the house of Cornelius as being applicable to the Gentiles, saying, “As I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 11:15-16.) This statement of Peter regarding the conversion of Cornelius is sufficiently like the language of Acts 1:4, 5, to make it probable that both passages refer to the same conversation of the Lord. As God baptized the disciples with the Holy Ghost when the Gospel was first proclaimed to the Jews, it is proper that he should attend its introduction to the Gentiles by the like gift. But if the baptism of the Holy Spirit was then bestowed upon all converts, as we are told it now is, why did Peter associate it with the beginning? Why did he not say, “As I began to speak the Holy Spirit fell on them as on all others converted?” Some such style would have been appropriate. Many thousands had been converted since the events of Pentecost. However, the language employed is of such a nature as to make the impression that such an event had not come to their attention since the beginning, when the Gospel was first preached.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a miracle performed by the Lord. If, therefore, all converts of our day are baptized with it, it follows that there is a miracle performed every time a conversion takes place, and that miracles will continue as long as there is a person converted to God. This would require that the conversion of every man be suspended upon the performance of a miracle over which he has not the slightest control. Suppose that this is actually the picture. Man could do nothing until God enables him to do it by baptizing him with the Spirit. What then? If God has to administer it, and man can do nothing until it is done, and it is never done at all, who is to blame for it? Will God sentence the sinner to hell and there punish him forever for not obeying the Gospel, when it was no fault of his own that he did not do it?

One Baptism

Paul informs us that there is “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.” (Eph. 4:5.) I believe that we will all admit that this one baptism is for the remission of sins. All agree that the one Body, Spirit, Hope, Lord, Faith, Baptism and God, spoken of in this connection by the apostle to the brethren of Ephesus, are essential to the remission of sins, spiritual growth and unity, and final happiness of all men. Those who oppose the worth of baptism in water, though, always insist that this one baptism is Holy Spirit baptism. If it is possible to convert the thoughts of men in regard to this, much would be done to destroy opposition to water baptism.

First, we would inquire of those who advocate the theory, and believe themselves to have received this one baptism of the Holy Spirit, why do they still submit to baptism in water in any form? Surely if they have been baptized with the Holy Spirit, (that is, if this is the one baptism), and add this a baptism in water, they have not one but two baptisms. Hence, Paul should have said, “There is one Lord, one faith, and two baptisms.” We are, however, told that Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit and subsequently baptized with water, in obedience to the command of God through Peter. Does this prove that we may have two baptisms? If this is true, would such persons as think this help Paul in escaping the dilemma he is in, for he said, “there is one baptism.” If such a one is willing to accept and say with us that the baptism of the Holy Spirit at the house of Cornelius was a miracle, such as has not occurred from that time to the present (of which we have any record), there is no difficulty between the “one baptism” taught by Paul, and the Holy Spirit baptism promised by the Lord.

Paul also says that “by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” (1 Cor. 12:13.) Although this passage was written in connection with Paul’s explanation of the miraculous gift of the Spirit, yet we are willing to admit the principle taught in it to be applicable to Christians in general. However, this passage falls short of proving that they, or any man, were baptized with the Holy Spirit.

“By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” There is one body (Eph. 4:4); this is the church. (Col. 1: 18.) There is one baptism (Eph. 4:5), by which we enter this one body. Therefore, notice the importance of the passage. By (the teaching of the) one Spirit (the Holy Spirit which revealed the message of the New Testament) are we all baptized (in water) into one body (the church). This seems to be the obvious meaning of the passage and is in harmony with the whole of the Spirit’s teaching on the subject. This allows but one baptism, hence, no difficulty.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we want to call to your attention the striking difference in the forms of speech used in reference to water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism. “Go teach all nations, baptizing them…” (Matt. 28:19.) “Preach the Gospel to every creature, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mk. 16: 15, 16.) Every creature, among all nations, who is capable of hearing and believing the Gospel, may be baptized with the baptism connected with faith as a condition of salvation.

How different the style when speaking of Holy Spirit baptism!!! “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” “Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” When speaking of that baptism coming down to us and designed to be perpetual, the style is all nations, every creature; but when speaking of Holy Spirit baptism, it is “you,” “ye,” and this is the extent of it. Does this not seem significant to you??? “In oral discourse, the persons indicated by pronouns of the 2nd person, (such as “you” and “ye,” LW) are always present with the speaker.” This rule knows no exceptions. Applying this rule to the events surrounding John’s statement; we see even more clearly, that John was addressing an audience “in oral discourse” and he addressed his audience with a second person pronoun, which indicates their presence with him. How could these pronouns of the second person embrace any persons not present before John when he used them? This helps to see the distinction between the style used in reference to water and to Holy Spirit baptism. It is my prayer that this will help you to understand the subject better.

Truth Magazine VI: 12, pp. 7-10
September 1962

By C. D. Plum

Continuity as used here simply means continuous. By the continuity of elders we simply mean God intended that “elders and their work” be continuous in the church, and not cease when the “miraculous gifts” in the church ceased, as some erroneously suppose.

When I was a young preacher 43 years ago, an old preacher at Paden City, W. Va. tried to take me under his wing and warm me with the false idea that the elders and their work were not intended for the church in this day. He did not even get to first base with me. He fooled a few, but this false teaching soon faded away.

I am told now about another preacher with whom I am not personally acquainted, who is singing this same wicked tune, and who is fooling a few who ought to know better. In this case, as in the case of the Paden City preacher, I do not remember the Scriptures they perverted in trying to prove elders are unscriptural since the special gifts ceased. Hence, in this article I am not attempting to answer their so-called arguments to uphold their false teaching, but I shall set forth some positive proof that it is the will of God that elders continue in the church. But, first let us notice that God authorized:

The Appointment of Elders

Acts 14:23. “And when they had ordained them elders in every church.”

Titus 1:5. “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.”

Acts 20:28. “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy ‘Ghost has made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood.”

Now let us take an additional step from this thought. Here it is: God not only authorized the appointment of elders but,

God Specified the Work of Elders

Acts 20:28. Elders were to “oversee” the flock (church).

1 Timothy 3:5. (“For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”)

Hebrews 13:17. “Obey them that have the rule over you, etc.”

1 Peter 5:1-4. “The elders which are among you I exhort… feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall wear a crown of glory that fadeth not away.”

God Never Placed a Time Limit Upon the Work of Elders
As long as His Specified Work Is Here There Must Be Elders to do it Here

God’s word does not say elders are to oversee,” “rule,” “feed” till the special gifts cease. Who dares say he does? Who dares “pervert” this word to make it say what it does not? Such a one better read and heed Galatians 1: 6-9.

1. As long as there are “sheep” there must be shepherds. “And when the chief Shepherd (Christ) shall appear, ye (the little shepherds, elders) shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.” (1 Peter 5:4.)

2. As long as sheep need food there must be someone to look after the feeding. Who does this? (1 Pet. 5:2.)

3. As long as there needs to be overseeing in the church, there needs to be overseers.

4. As long as there are wolves to destroy the flock (church), there needs to be elders (shepherds) to protect it. (Acts 20:28-32.)

5. As long as there are “gainsayers” there must be elders who are sound in the faith to resist them. (Tit. 1:5-11.)

SO!

The Lord still has sheep in this world, and these sheep still need shepherds (elders).

Men are still made elders “by the Holy Ghost,” when 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 are obeyed.

Neither Timothy nor Titus could lay hands on elders to impart the special, miraculous, spiritual gifts, yet they were to appoint elders. (Only apostles could do this.) Why was this so? Perhaps to save us from that false doctrine that elders are not today because they have no miraculous gifts. Neither Timothy nor Titus imparted anything to those they appointed as elders.

The “apostles,” “prophets,” “evangelists,” and “pastors” were not done away with the coming of the “unity” of the faith; just their miraculous powers ceased to be demonstrated “when that which is perfect (New Testament) is come.” (Eph. 4:11-16; 1 Cor. 13:810.)

Truth Magazine VI: 11, pp. 22-23
August 1962

By David Lawrence

It becomes apparent when we discuss religion with one who differs with us that we must have common agreement in one area before proceeding to the next. For instance, it is necessary that we concur on the existence of God before we can discuss the divinity of his Son. We must then agree upon the divinity of Christ before we can discuss the validity of his word, and we must agree upon the validity of the word before we can discuss its teachings. Without common ground it is impossible to have a basis for argumentation.

For instance, I could discuss the Bible with a Roman Catholic more easily than with a Unitarian. The Catholic usually believes that the scriptures are inspired and infallible. The Unitarian usually believes that the Holy Scriptures are of human origin.

The current problems plaguing the Lord’s church in recent years present just such a problem in communication. Brethren advocating church support of human institutions and “brotherhood elderships” are reluctant to discuss the matter from the word of God. The truth of the matter is that they cannot discuss the word of God with us, for they do not think of the scriptures as we do. We have two opposing attitudes toward the Bible.

It is difficult to determine whether the attitude was always present and resulted in the unscriptural practices, or whether the practices came first and brethren changed their attitudes and their preaching to fit the practices, which they refused to abandon when they found them not in harmony with the scriptures. I am of the persuasion that the two attitudes existed simultaneously for many years. One attitude resulted from sincere faith in God’s word as the all-sufficient guide to heaven. Such passages as I Peter 4:11, II Cor. 5:7, Col. 3:17, I Samuel 3:9-10, Acts 10:33 reveal what attitude God intends for us to possess. It is the attitude that seeks divine authorization for all beliefs and practices. It is the attitude that we must have a “thus saith the Lord” for what we do religiously.

The other attitude developed in recent years, even as it did in the nineteenth century, among many converts who were brought into the church and never taught the full truth, and among congregations where preaching was weak and worldliness strong. It is the attitude that “I’ll do what I want, what pleases me, and expect it to please God.” It is an attitude that provides that Bible examples are never binding, and man is free to act in areas where God has not specifically prohibited us. This attitude developed the missionary societies and instrumental music in the last century. It finally resulted in the Christian Church. Today it is developing the benevolent and edification societies, sponsoring churches, and other arrangements. If pursued, it can only lead to the establishment of a denomination. The end result of such an attitude, taken to its logical extremity, involves a complete apostasy from God. Witness the liberal element of the Christian Church. Mark the “progressive” brethren of today who will soon leave the Christian Church far behind.

Thus we have two fundamentally different attitudes. Until we regain common ground, which appears unlikely, there can never again be the old scriptural discussions and debates. We have tried to get them to prove that the building and maintaining of benevolent institutions on the part of churches is in harmony with the scriptures. But how can we discuss such a matter from the scriptural viewpoint with men who do not believe it necessary to have scriptural authority? They cannot see the reason in our arguments; we cannot see the reason in theirs. We operate from two separate premises. So long as we have different attitudes toward God’s word, agreement is impossible. And where there is no agreement, there can be no unity, for Amos truly said, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

As to the solution of the problem, I certainly would not propose to offer one. It will surely be possible to find some of our brethren who basically desire to serve God and who do reverence his word sufficiently, who, when they are shown the error of their way, will abandon it and cleave to the truth. But I fear that in many cases we must admit that “Ephraim is joined to idols.” However, let us be diligent in teaching those who remain to develop the proper attitude toward the Bible, and make application of that attitude in practices. Let us do so now while we have the opportunity. Let us especially teach our young folks and recent converts. If we may all, as Paul commands, “be not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is,” then perhaps we can prevent a repetition of this unnecessary tragedy.

Truth Magazine VI: 12, pp. 10-11
September 1962

By Bill Fling

From Vancover, British Columbia, a church bulletin carried this announcement:

“It is requested that no equipment or furnishings such as typewriter, coffeemaker, etc. be taken from the building without permission from the building committee.”

The Lord’s church in many places is using some strange pieces of equipment. Of course the church has a legitimate need of communion trays, a meetinghouse, a place for teaching Bible classes, a baptistery and other things to carry out the commands of the Head of the church. These have been used for years by faithful churches.

Within the last few decades, however, some unusual pieces of chattel have been acquired by various churches. A church in San Francisco has ping pony tables; one in Long Beach has a gymnasium; and others have baseball bats. Several churches now have recreation rooms (sometimes called “fellowship halls”) with coffeemakers, double-door refrigerators, restaurant-type gas ranges, and drawers of silverware.

My question is, What command of the Lord do these things contribute to? What authority do churches have with these things and the activities they represent7 As an individual Christian, I can serve coffee to friends, play on a ball team, or buy a stove; because they come within the scope of my personal responsibility. But the church has no authority from Christ to do such things. Or is there a Bible command for congregational socials, “entertaining yourselves in pies, punch and playful songs?” Did Paul write, “when ye come together to take tea, tell tales’ and joke jestingly?” Did Jude say to “earnestly root for the church ball team?”

What church in the New Testament had a “chariot racing team” or “playtime schedule for persecuted saints?” Did Jerusalem have a “Fun, Fellowship and Frolic” program? If not, how can a church, which claims to follow their pattern, have coffeemakers, ping pony tables, and such like. IN THE ABSENCE OF A COMMAND TO EXPEDI TE, WE CANNOT ARGUE FOR EXPEDIENTS. They must abandon the pattern if they want things which are not in the pattern.

Many grownups are wanting to play like children and expect the church to subsidize and supervise it. One of the sins of Israel was –“They rose up to play.” (1 Cor. 10:7.) Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 188, says “play” is PAIZO (Gr.) “properly, to play as a child, hence denotes to play as in dancing and making merry.” This was connected with idolatry and methinks fun and pleasure have become idols to some. (II Tim. 3:4.)

During the digression of 100 years ago, a little old lady protested the bringing into the church building of the first piano. They put it in, but she took an axe to it one night and chopped it up. She said it had “no business there.” We need some little old ladies to chop up some other things today “which have no business” in the Lord’s church.

Truth Magazine VI: 11, pp. 23-24
August 1962