Truth Magazine

By Foy W. Vinson

There are many things that baptism will not do. It doesn’t change one’s heart, remove temptation, guarantee a sinless life or guarantee eternal life. And yet at the same time there are some things which baptism will do. Modern denominationalism has been almost entirely negative in its treatment of baptism to the point that to most people it is nothing more than an “outward sign of an inward grace,” which really means nothing at all. Regardless of such thinking, the New Testament makes some very positive statements relative to the design and effects of scriptural baptism. It teaches that baptism will do the following.

First, baptism will remit one’s sins. Men usually deny this but God’s word emphatically affirms it. In Acts 2:38 the apostle Peter told inquiring believers to “repent and be baptized — for the remission of sins.” Language could be no clearer! Penitent believers are to be baptized in order that they may obtain remission or forgiveness of sins. This fact explains the words of Ananias as he told Saul of Tarsus to “arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins–.” (Acts. 22: 16.) Some seek to evade the obvious conclusion of Peter’s statement in Acts 2:38 by interpreting the word “for” to mean “because of.” This, however, cannot be since relxntance and baptism have the identical design as per this passage, i. e., the “remission of sins.” No one contends that remission precedes repentance and therefore one cannot consistently contend that remission precedes baptism. So baptism does remit one’s sins.

Second, baptism will put one into Christ. In Galatians 3:27 we read: “For as many of you as have been baptized into (Christ have put on (Christ.” We are informed of this same fact in Romans 6:3. Nothing else is said to put us into (Christ. The word “into” is, defined as “from being outside of, as in place, state, forte, etc., to within.” In other words the term “into” describes the process of entering. Before one is put into Christ he is outside of Him and thus without Christ. Paul describes those who are “without Christ” as “having no hope, and without God in the world. ” (Eph. 2: 12.) In contradiction to this we are told that “in Christ” the following things reside: (1) all spiritual blessings (Eph. 1:3); (2) redemption or the forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1: 7); (3) salvation (2 Tim. 2:10); (4) consolation for the dead (Rev. 14:13); (5) a new creation of life (2 Cor. 5: 17). Other blessings in Christ could be mentioned, but these should suffice to cause us to be grateful that baptism does put one into Christ.

Third, baptism will put one into the death of Christ. Paul declares this in Romans 6:3, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” Again we have the word “into,” and it means the same in this passage as it does in Galatians 3:27. So until one is baptized he is out of or without the death of Christ. This means that such a person is in the spiritual condition that obtained before Christ died on the cross and which would have continued to obtain had he not died. This is so because there has been no personal application of the death or shedding of the Savior’s blood to the soul and correspondingly no derivation of the benefits accruing therefrom. The benefits of his death are expressed in such terms as redemption, forgiveness, remission, etc. (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1: 14; Matt. 26:28; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19.) A realization that baptism does put us into His death should assuredly increase our respect and appreciation for this ordinance.

Finally, Baptism will save us. This of course has been the gist of all the observations made thus far concerning what baptism will do. Whether we mention that baptism puts one into Christ, or remits ones sins, or puts one into the death of Christ, all of these points can be equated or summed up in this last one, i. e., that baptism saves us. However, Peter makes this precise statement in 1 Peter 3:21 when he says, “The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us–.” This settles the matter once and for all. Any doctrine on baptism, which robs it of this accomplishment, is a false one. The only reason that need be given for why it Let us realize the limitations of baptism, but saves is that God has so stated in His word at the same time let us not be unconscious and has made it a condition of salvation or inappreciative of its accomplishments.

Truth Magazine VI: 9&10, pp. 8-9
June & July 1962

By Connie W. Adams

Church discipline is a much-neglected subject. In many places, a good lesson from the pulpit setting forth just exactly what the Bible says on the subject would be a great shock to those assembled. A failure to understand and practice corrective discipline has resulted in congregations being filled with half-converted, worldly minded, negligent people. This has robbed the church of its spiritual power, caused it to be looked upon with disdain by the world, and thus greatly hindered the spread of the gospel.

WHAT IS DISCIPLINE? Webster defines it as: 1. Treatment suited to a disciple or learner; education; development of the faculties by instruction and exercise; training. 2. Training to act in accordance with established rules. 3. Subjection to rule; submissiveness to order and control. 4. Severe training, corrective of faults, punishment. 5. Correction, chastisement, punishment inflicted by way of correction and training.” Church discipline would involve the whole process of training and development of the child of God in the performance of that which the word of God authorizes. The “established rules” in the case would be the teaching of the New Testament. Every Christian must be trained in that which he is to know and to be. He must learn to develop his skills in the pursuit of his duties. In Mt. 28:20 Jesus said those baptized were to be taught to “observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Titus 2:11-12 shows that the grace of God teaches us to “deny ungodliness and worldly lusts” and to live “soberly, righteously and godly in this present world.” 2 Tim. 3-16-17 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of (God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” As the Christian is instructed in these matters, he is being disciplined. From this standpoint, every Christian needs discipline. For this reason, we need Bible classes, gospel meetings, training programs and such like.

But while instructive discipline is needed, the New Testament also provides for corrective discipline. In the army, soldiers are expected to live by the rules. When they fail to do so, correction is meted out. In the church, God expects his people to “follow after holiness,” to “love not the world,” to “set their affections on things above.” Whenever one begins to walk contrary to the pattern of sound words that person needs to be corrected, and the New Testament provides for such correction.

PASSAGES TO CONSIDER: 1. Teachers of error are to be corrected. “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” (Rom. 16:17.) Notice that these are to be marked and avoided because they are not practicing the doctrine of God. Such action was designed to awaken the one in error to his condition and also to save the church from contamination. 2. The “unruly” are to be warned. (1 Thes. 5:14.) 3. True preaching includes reproving and rebuking. (2 Tim. 4:2.) 4. The ungodly are to be purged out. (I Cor. 5.) In this passage we have the account of a fornicator being countenanced in the church at Corinth. They had done nothing about it. This little leaven was in danger of leavening the whole lump, that is, defiling the whole congregation. For the protection of the church, something had to be done. Further, this action was to take place when the church was come together, that is, in the public assembly. They were to “purge out” this ungodly member. This was to be done not only for the safety of the church, but also for the good of the one who had sinned. It was for “the destruction of the flesh.” That is, the sins of lusts of the flesh to which the brother had succumbed. In the destruction of the flesh, there was the hope that his soul would be saved. In the same chapter Paul wrote, “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.” (Verse 11.) Then in verse 13 he said, “Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” Such as are described in this passage are to be purged out, no company is to be kept with them, not even to eating with them, and they are to be put away from among the brethren. Now, just how many congregations do you know of which are practicing what this passage enjoins?

5. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2 Thes. 3:6.) In this passage he deals especially with the brother who would not work, who was idle, and in his idleness had become a busybody. (See verse 11.) Paul said, “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” (Verses 14-15.) The word “disorderly” denotes a soldier who breaks rank. In this context, the soldier broke rank by violating what Paul wrote about working. Now, my question is this: if a man breaks rank and is disorderly, because he violates one thing required of him in his service to God, is he not equally disorderly when he violates some other plain requirement? For example, the Lord taught that Christians are not “to forsake the assembling” of themselves together. To do so is to sin. It is to break rank. I know of brethren who do not believe that a congregation can withdraw from a brother who has simply abandoned the church. Their argument is that you cannot withdraw something you don’t have. It is true that when a brother so conducts himself, he has broken fellowship with God and therefore has none with others who are in fellowship with God. But that same thing is true of a brother who commits adultery or drunkenness. He cuts off fellowship with God in such matters, and therefore has none with any who enjoy fellowship with God. It seems to me that part of this confusion has arisen over the use of the wrong term. We speak of “withdrawing fellowship,” whereas Paul said, “withdraw yourselves.” While a brother may abandon the church and thus cut off fellowship with God and the church, I have an obligation to mark him, note him, keep no company with him until he repents. I know of no more public sin that a man could commit than to just abandon the public meetings of the saints. What greater harm could be done the church in the eyes of the world, or with reference to the weaker members, than for a man so to do?

WHY IS IT NECESSARY? 1. It is necessary because the Lord required it. We cannot respect his authority without complying with what he said on this subject. Those who deny that corrective discipline does any good in all essence are denying that what the Lord required will do good. 2. Fulfilling what the Lord requires preserves the purity of the church. Of course, the church will not be kept absolutely pure, because it is composed of humans. But we are to “follow peace and holiness.” We are to “press toward the prize.” With this spirit in mind, one who stumbles along the way, will recognize his wrong, repent of it, and continue to press in the right direction. Paul said “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” The whole church is liable to be injured by the ungodliness of a corrupt member. l’aul said the word of a certain one would “eat as cloth a gangrene.” (2 Tim. 2:17.)

3. Such action is designed to save the one in error (I Cor. 5:5.) When the brother finds himself cut off from the company and recognition of the faithful, he may be brought to his senses. Corrective discipline should never be vindictive. The purpose as it concerns the erring brother is to save his soul, when all other efforts have failed.

It should be noted that the act of purging out the old leaven is not the first step in our efforts to reclaim a fallen brother, rather, the last resort. Such action should not be taken until all reasonable efforts to teach and persuade him have proved unsuccessful. Any brother overtaken in a fault is to be restored by the spiritual. (Gal. 6:1.) If any err from the truth, brethren are to seek to convert him from the error of his way and save his soul from death. (Jas. 5:19-20.) He is to be approached with meekness and dealt with in a longsuffering manner.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 1. Some say to withdraw from a brother simply “runs him off.” If he has conducted himself in such a fashion as to be purged out, having resisted all efforts to win him back, then you don’t run him off. He is away from God in his state. You simply let him know, the church as a unit does, and let the world know that you cannot endorse his manner of life.

2. I’ve heard brethren say, “Well, I never heard the old-timely preachers say anything about this.” Now, if you didn’t, that would only mean they failed to do their duty as preachers. 3. Sometimes brethren will object by misapplying the statement of the Lord, “Judge not that ye be not judged.” The kind of judgment involved in that verse is forbidden. It is harsh, unkind, and unreasonable. But other passages show, yea, require, that we exercise judgment in some matters in the church. Jesus said, “Judge righteous judgment.” (Jno. 7:24.) In 1 Cor. 6 Paul rebuked the church at Corinth because they had not judged in the case where one brother went to law with another, and he raised the question, “Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren7” (I Cor. 6:5.)

4. “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone,” some object. Certainly those enforcing corrective discipline should be striving to do right. Sometimes, when this statement is made, it indicates that there has been a wholesale neglect of discipline and that the church has become so corrupt that it would be hard to know where to start and where to stop. But if the statement, “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone” implies that we cannot ever purge out the old leaven, then God would have required something impossible.

5. Some say, “Withdrawing violates the parable of the tares.” In Mt. 13:24-30 we have the parable of the tares in which Jesus said that both the wheat and the chaff were to grow until the end of the world and the Lord would separate them. The idea some erroneously get from this is that if you withdraw from the chaff, you might uproot some of the wheat. In the first place, true disciples are devoted to the Lord and by reason of such devotion are interested in obeying his will. In the second place, this is a perversion of the lesson of the parable. In the same chapter, the Lord explained what he meant by the parable. He said, “The field is the world,” not the church. The good seed are the children of the kingdom and the evil seed are the children of the devil. Both saint and sinner are in the world. The children of the kingdom are not to undertake the business of administering discipline to the world, as some religions have been known to do. God will take care of that matter. This passage does not deal with two classes in the dhurdl, rather, with two classes in the world.

Brethren need to stop hunting for excuses from doing that which is their duty to do. If every congregation would properly tead1 and train the members and then correct those who do not heed the teaching, the church would be purer, its chastity would shine in radiance before the world, it would have a magnetic attraction to the toil worn sinner, the borders of the kingdom would be increased, and more than that, many of the fallen would be reclaimed to the salvation of their souls. May the Lord help us to do such a good job in instructive discipline that corrective discipline will seldom be necessary? Should such become necessary, let us not hesitate to fulfill our God-given responsibilities.

Truth Magazine VI, 9&10 pp. 1,4-5
June – July 1962

By Luther W. Martin

In our modern age of new religious doctrines, new medicines, new inventions, new chemicals, new habits a n d recreations, the scripture that is used as title for this article, needs to be stressed more than ever.

By inspiration, the Apostle Paul states: “…Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (I Cor. 6:19-20.) “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God ” (Rom. 12:1.)

In view of the above scriptures, man does not possess the right to abuse or harm his body, any more than he has any right in the sight of God to end his life. Judas committed suicide and we know from the scripture that he “went to his own place.” (See Acts 1:25.)

Surgeon General of the Public Health ServiceSpeaking for the United States Government in an article which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and is more recently copied in part in the Congressional Record, March 19, 1962, pages A-4141-42:

“The Public Health Service believes that the following statements are justified by studies to date:

1. The weight of evidence at present implicates smoking as the principle etiological factor in the increased incidence of lung cancer.

2. Cigarette smoking particularly is associated with an increased chance of developing lung cancer.

3. Stopping cigarette smoking even after long exposure is beneficial.

4. No method of treating tobacco or filtering the smoke has been demonstrated to be effective in materially reducing or eliminating the hazard of lung cancer.

5. The nonsmoker has a lower incidence of lung cancer than the smoker in all controlled studies, whether analyzed in terms of rural areas, urban regions, industrial occupations, or sex.

6. Persons who have never smoked at all –cigarettes, cigars, or pipe–have the best chance of escaping lung cancer.

Unless the use of tobacco can be made safe, the individual person’s risk of lung cancer can best be reduced by the elimination of smoking.”

Royal College of Physicians

Advertising Age, a trade journal published in the U. S.’ reported the findings of the British Royal College of Physicians on the matter of lung cancer and its causes, in its March 12, 1962 issue:

“London, March 7–The Royal College of Physicians claimed today that cigarette smoking is a- cause of lung cancer’ and urged the government to restrict tobacco advertising.

In a report (immediately labeled by the Tobacco Institute in the U.S. as ‘admittedly a review of old data without any new research findings’), the college proposed that tar and nicotine content be printed on each pack of cigarettes.

The medical committee, which drafted the report, was set up in April, 1959, to investigate smoking and atmospheric pollution in relation to lung cancer and other illnesses. Today, it reported that cigarette smoking is a cause of bronchitis as well as lung cancer and probably contributes to the development of coronary disease. It also might be partly responsible for tuberculosis morbidity and mortality in elderly men, and it has an adverse effect on the healing of ulcers, the report said.

Sir Robert Platt, president of the college, presented the report, which went on sale today. He said there is a ‘reluctance to believe the facts’ because big financial interests are involved

The report claimed that health hazards associated with cigarette smoking are so great that prompt preventative measures should be instituted. It proposed restricting advertising, further restricting tobacco sales to children, increasing cigarette taxes, and educating the public to the hazards of smoking.

It said that if cigarette smoking were to end, deaths from lung cancer would decline to some 10% or 20% of its present rate…”

Changing Times–The Kiplinger Magazine

The March, 1962 issue of Changing Times, gives a comprehensive report on the findings of current studies of the relationship between cigarette smoking and the incidence of lung cancer. We copy only a brief excerpt:

“In just one generation, lung cancer, which is fatal 9570 of the time, has changed from an uncommon disease to one that causes by far the largest number of cancer deaths among men. In 1930, there were only 2,500 deaths from lung cancer recorded in the United States; last year, 36,000 persons died of the disease; in 1962, it is predicted that there will be 45,000 new cases and 39,300 deaths.

At this rate, according to the American Public Health Association statistics, a million children now in school will die of lung cancer before they reach the age of 70.

More than a decade ago investigators began the search for the cause of the big increase in lung cancer. Since then, 28 separate studies have been conducted by

scientists in eight different countries. The findings, remarkably alike in result, all point to cigarette smoking as a prime culprit–probably THE prime culprit, though not the only one–in causing cancer of the lung…”

Conclusion

In view of the above quoted factual data, Christians cannot afford to engage in that which endangers their health or which without need or reason, shortens their lives. “But the man who has doubts–misgivings, an uneasy conscience — about eating, and then eats (perhaps because of you), stands condemned…” (Rom. 14: 23.)

Truth Magazine VI: 8, pp. 7-9
May 1962

By Ted Kele

Every person with a sense of spiritual values is interested in the answer to this question. One of the ways in which Satan operates to the discouragement, and ultimate destruction of some of the offspring of God is to raise doubts and fears about their souls’ safety. It is not unusual that this question should be asked.

To this question, God’s Word answers, “Yes.” The Father has not left His children to wonder in fear as to the condition of their souls before Him. “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” (Rom. 8:16,17.)

From the testimony of two witnesses, it may be ascertained whether or not one is a child, and thus an heir, of God. The two who give testimony are God’s Spirit, and the spirit of an individual. Notice that God’s Spirit “beareth witness with our spirit.” Rather than the Spirit bearing witness to our spirit (in which case there would be only one witness), God’s Spirit testifies with our spirit. And from the testimony given by these two witnesses, we know either that we are, or are not, the children of God.

Quite often a person will depend upon his feelings to assure him that he is redeemed. And when his feelings change, then he begins to doubt his salvation, and falls prey to temptation. However, this is not the Bible basis of the evidence of pardon. Firstly, because forgiveness of sins takes place in the mind of God, not in our bodily feelings. “Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.” (Heb. 10:15-17.

Since sins are remembered, or removed from, in the mind of God, one needs to know upon what conditions God has promised to forget sins. And if he has met these conditions then he will have the promise of God that God’s mind is clear from holding him henceforth guilty. “He is faithful that promised.” (Heb. 10:3.) Thus, one might be led by his feelings to conclude that he was God’s child, when in reality, God still remembered his sins and iniquities. Salvation takes place, not in our breasts, but in God’s mind. Second, feelings are based upon testimony–which may, or may not be correct. If we are sincerely misled by false testimony, our feelings will react nonetheless, according to the erroneous testimony. It was in this wise that Jacob was led to grieve exceedingly. Believing his son, Joseph, to be dead because of the misinformation gained from his other sons, Jacob “rent his clothes, and mourned for his son.” (Gen. 37:34.) He was sincere in the way he felt, but was sincerely misled! His feeling that Joseph had been devoured by an animal did not alter the actual circumstances. So it is today. An individual assured by some religious teacher that he has been saved, and believing this erroneous testimony, will feel good as a result of what he believes. But he has believed a falsehood. God yet remembers his sins. And unless he learns differently, he may go through life deceived. Yet, this same person may later come to doubt whether he was saved or not. And with the change in his beliefs, His feelings undergo a corresponding change–since he feels as he believes.

One may ask another, “How do you know that you are saved?” “By the way that I feel,” he replies. “How do you feel?” He answers, “I feel good.” “But,” the querist persists, “Why do you feel good?” Again the reply, “Because I know that I am saved!” This common approach to the vital question of the evidence of pardon is in reality but arguing in a circle. It proves nothing. It certainly cannot demonstrate in the light of God’s Word wheher one has been saved or not. “There is a way which seemeth right onto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Prov. 14:12; cf. 16:25.)

Can one know then that he is God’s child? Yes, two witnesses–God’s Spirit and man’s spirit–testify together to he assurance that one is a child of God. It is not a case of one witness, God’s Spirit, testifying alone to man. If then the evidence of pardon depends upon the agreement of the witness of both the spirit of man, and the Spirit of God, in what manner or way does God’s Spirit testify? In dreams? Visions? Still small voices?

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly.” (1 Tim. 4:1.) That which is to be understood from the Spirit’s testimony comes from what God’s Spirit has plainly said. But again, how does the Spirit speak? As His return to heaven approached, Jesus taught His apostles that the Spirit would be sent to them as a Comforter, Teacher, Revelator and Witness. “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.” (John 16:26.) “Nevertheless I tell you the truth, it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove (“convict,” A.S.V.) the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment, Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” (John 16: 7,8,13.) These statements by Jesus indicate that the Spirit would testify after His departure.

This witness of the Spirit was first delivered on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2.) On that day, sinners were convicted of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, by the Spirit’s testimony. (v. 37.) And how was this testimony delivered? Through the words preached by the inspired apostles! “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (v. 4.) “But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words, . . . Ye men of Israel, hear these words, . . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you . . . Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (vv. 14, 22, 29, 37.) Herein we hear the testimony of the Holy Spirit, in the words of the inspired apostles. This accurately fulfilled Jesus’ promise to them, “For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” (Matt. 10:20.) (Heb. 10:15-17; cf. Jer. 31:31ff.), and in Such was characteristic also of the inspired writers of the Old Testament. The writer of Hebrews quotes from the pen of Jeremiah (Heb. 10:15-17; cf. Jer. 31 31ff.), and in doing so, comments, “Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before…” How did the Spirit witness? Through the writing of Jeremiah! “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Pet. 1:21.) Therefore through the writings of the inspired men of the New Testament, the Holy Spirit bears witness which has to do with our assurance of our salvation. But man’s spirit must also offer testimony with God’s Spirit. How does the spirit of man do this?

The spirit of man bears witness as to what the individual has, or has not, done. This is a matter of consciousness known only to the person’s own spirit. “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?” (1 Cor. 2:11.)

As a result, when God’s Spirit testifies in the inspired writings as to what man must do in order to receive God’s grace, and the spirit of the individual testifies that he has met these conditions of grace, the joint testimony of the two witnesses assures the person of his salvation. This assurance brings hope and joy. Do you have this assurance?

Truth Magazine VI: 8, pp. 18-20
May 1962