Truth Magazine

By Foy W. Vinson

I suppose that the subject of baptism is the most highly controverted of all the themes mentioned in the New Testament. Often discussions on this theme are attended with great passion or emotion and from the seemingly endless and fruitless arguments arising therefrom it would appear, at least to the casual observer, that a solution is unobtainable. And yet the teaching of the New Testament on baptism is so simple and clear that it is much more a matter of accepting rather than understanding what is taught. Since there has been such a smokescreen of confusion raised over baptism, and since there have been many false statements made concerning what baptism will do or not do, it seems in order to “search the scriptures” to ascertain the truth. In this article we consider some things baptism won’t do, and in a later article we will discuss what it will do. Now however, let us notice some things according to the New Testament which baptism will not do.

First, baptism will not change one’s heart. There are those who believe and others who are misrepresented as believing that the act of baptism within itself possesses some mystical power capable of effecting a complete change in one’s convictions, affections and purposes. This is commonly referred to as “baptisimal regeneration.” But the Bible teaches no such thing. The heart of man must change before baptism, not at it! The heart of man is composed of (1) his intellect, which believes, reasons and thinks; (2) his emotions, which love, trust and desire; and (3) his will, which intends, purposes and obeys. But before a person can be scripturally baptized his intellect must undergo a change from unbelief to belief; his emotions must change from indifference to love and trust; and his will must cease to be rebellious or insubordinate and become submissive. These changes are all accomplished by faith and repentance. That is why Christ made faith a prerequisite of baptism. (Mk. 16:16.)

This is the reason the inspired apostle on Pentecost required repentance prior to baptism. (Acts 2:38.) So baptism does not change one’s heart. This must precede baptism.

Second, baptism won’t remove temptation. One is playing right into Satan’s hands who thinks that because he’s been baptized there is no danger of temptation. Remember, baptism takes care of the past, but it does’s guarantee the future. In fact the New Testament makes it clear that Christians will be tempted. Paul wrote the following to the brethren at Corinth: “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” (I Cor. 10:12-13.) So Christians are tempted, though they are promised a way of escape. Furthermore, we find the following language addressed to baptized believers: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist steadfast in the faith–” (1 Pet. 5:8-9.) So baptism does not remove temptation.

Third, baptism will not guarantee a sinless life. This point is closely related to the former one. Since temptations occur even after one is baptized, it necessarily follows that the baptized are not immune to sin. In fact, the scriptures teach just the opposite. There was a false doctrine extant a few centuries after the establishment of the church to the effect that there was no forgiveness after baptism and hence many were discouraged from being baptized until the’ had reached an older age where they felt they could live sinlessly. If this doctrine were true, then all would be hopelessly doomed. The apostle John says to Christians, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (1 Jno. 1:8-10.) So baptism does not guarantee a sinless life.

Finally, baptism will not guarantee eternal life. Many professing Christians live as if they thought it did. If, however, we succumb to temptations and fall into sin after being baptized, and then fail to repent of such sins and confess them, but rather die in them, then we cannot go where our Lord is. (Acts 8:22-23; Jno. 8:21; 1 Jno. 1:9.) This is the reason Christians are warned to “let no man beguile you of your reward;” (Col. 2:18), and are told not to become “weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not” (Gal. 6:9); and finally are admonished to “be faithful unto death” that they might receive the “crown of life.” (Rev. 2:10.) Hence we need to realize the limitations of baptism. These are some things it won’t do, and to trust in baptism to this extent will mean your eternal ruin.

Truth Magazine VI: 7, pp. 21-22
April 1962

By Robert H. West

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

The above passage has figured very prominently in the current controversy concerning benevolent institutions. Some brethren contend that this passage is authority for the church to “visit the fatherless and widows,” while others contend this is limited in application to individuals only. Without considering the arguments on either side of this issue, let me raise this question: What essential difference does it make if this passage does refer exclusively to the church or to the individual? If all brethren were to agree that James 1:27 applies to the church or only to the individual, the basic issue in the present controversy would still exist, to wit: Can the church build and maintain another institution through which to do its work? Why enter into an argument as to whom this passage applies when, even if we convince our opponent, we will still be divided on the basic issue?

There are, however, some facts taught in James 1: 2 7 which definitely do affect the basic issue in the present “orphan home” controversy. These arise from seeking out the correct definition of some of the words in this passage.

We are told by some brethren that we send a contribution individually or out of the church treasury to a benevolent institution, we are thereby “visiting the fatherless and widows.” But where do you suppose the idea originated that giving to and visiting mean the same thing? Certainly not from any inherent meaning of the word. Someplace “way back down the line” somebody merely assumed this to be the case and many brethren have been basing their faith on this assumption ever since. But what does the word “visit” actually mean in James 1:27?

The Greek word, here translated “visit,” is episkeptomai, and is closely akin to the noun, episkopos, which is rendered “overseer” in Acts 20:28. Thayer, the great Greek lexicographer, defines the word, “to look upon or after, to inspect, examine with the eyes  to look upon in order to help or benefit.” Vine, another Greek scholar, defines it: “primarily, to inspect (a late form of episkopeo, to look upon, care for, exercise oversight), signifies to visit with help  to visit the sick and afflicted.”

This is the same word that is found in Matthew 25:36, “I was sick, and ye visited me . . .” Did this mean they merely gave some money? Read the context and see that personal contact is the thing under consideration.

From these facts we see that merely sending a contribution, although this might be needed, does not fulfill the demands of the word “visit.” Personal interest, care, and supervision must be present to obey James 1: 2 7, none of which exists when either a church or an individual sends a contribution. As a matter of fact, “James strikes a downright blow here at ministry by proxy, or by mere gifts of money. Pure and undefiled religion demands personal contact with the world’s sorrow: To visit the afflicted, and to visit them in their affliction.” — M. R. Vincent, Word Studies, Vol. I, p. 736.

A second popular view held concerning James 1:27, is that it is limited in application to destitute “fatherless and widows.” This view has arisen from the assumption that the word “affliction” in this scripture has the exclusive meaning of “physical need.” But both the English and Greek word have a broader application.

The Greek word is thlipsis, which Vine tells us “primarily means a pressing, pressure, anything which burdens the spirit.” Paul’s use of it in 2 Cor. 1:4 (there translated “tribulation” and “trouble”) demonstrates that the meaning of the word is not limited to physical affliction alone.

In our present economic set-up many fatherless and widows are without physical need because of insurance, Social Security and other plans. But there certainly is an affliction that is common to all fatherless and widows whether they be rich or poor. I am speaking of the affliction of heartache and sorrow arising from the loss of father and husband. Long after their physical needs have been met, this affliction of the spirit will remain. If they need money, we should supply it to the extent of our ability. But more often they will need friends more than funds, people more than presents. It is here that all children of God may practice “pure and undefiled religion” by visiting the fatherless and widows in their affliction.

Let us, therefore, never think we can discharge the responsibility placed upon us by James 1: 27 merely by the sending of a check.

Truth Magazine VI: 7, pp.5-6
April 1962

By Leslie Diestelkamp

The purity of the church is a matter of vital concern to every true Christian. Many New Testament passages emphasize the necessity of such purity. The letters to the seven churches of Asia (Rev. 2 & 3) are most significant in portraying the Lord’s desires for the churches. Yet, in searching those seven letters for lessons in admonition and in commendation to the churches, we may often miss another important item. Before he closes each letter, Christ puts the final matter on an individual basis.

“To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life”–2: 7.

“He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death”–2:11.

“To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna”–2.17.

“He that overcometh . . . will I give power over the nations”–2:26.

“He that overcometh . . . shall be clothed in white raiment”–3:5.

“Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God”–3:12.

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne”–3:21.

There must be a great and a consoling lesson for us here. Surely we must determine that the church shall be kept pure and true, but if this fails, we can still be saved as individuals. There is then a double lesson herein: (1) I shall not be saved at last just because I was a member of an active, faithful church, but only if I am true and faithful myself. (2) Likewise, I shall not be lost at last just because the congregation of which I was a part was not altogether pure and true, but only if I fail in my own duty to the Lord.

Truth Magazine VI: 6, p. 1a
April 1962

By Jerry C. Ray

In a previous article the concepts of the heathen writers, the Hellenistic writers, and the “church Fathers” concerning demonology were presented. Three modernistic theories to explain away New Testament demonology were considered and answered.

At this point let’s notice a basic fallacy in the Modernist’s denial of the existence of demons in Biblical times. He illogically reasons thusly: “I have never seen a demon. No one in this present age has ever seen, or been able to prove the existence of demons. Demons are beyond the range of experience of the present age, so they didn’t exist in Biblical times.” Such reasoning places everything upon the basis of experience. By such reasoning I could “prove” that Napoleon Bonaparte never existed. I nor anyone of this present world has ever seen Napoleon, so he must not have ever existed! McClintock & Strong says, “No one has a right to eviscerate the strong expression of Scripture in order to reduce its declarations to a level with our own ignorance.” (II p. 642.) Translated into simpler language, this simply means, “Your (the modernist) ignorance of demons, no matter how great, can set aside my (the New Testament writers) knowledge, no matter how small.”

In reply to the Modernist’s flat assertion that demons didn’t exist in New Testament times, and Jesus did not really cast out demons, we simply say, “Vas you dere, Charlie? “

Non-Canonical Writings of the Jews

The Modernist makes a great deal of the absurdities of the non-canonical Jewish writings concerning demonology. The modernist states that Jesus got his doctrine of demonology from His Jewish heritage. He further states that since the Jewish superstitions are so absurd as to be patently false, then the New Testament writings concerning demons is likewise merely superstitions of an ignorant age and people.

Let’s give ourselves to an examination of these objections presented by the Modernist and see if they are so.

It is absolutely correct that the Jews (as well as the gentiles) had many absurd and ridiculous ideas concerning demons, but their misconceptions in no way invalidate the actuality of the existence of demons, no more than the existence of many false religions would invalidate the divine origin of Christianity, or the Book of Mormon invalidate the truth of the Bible. In fact, a study of the Jewish ideas as compared with the New Testament teaching on demonology will only serve to prove the validity of the New Testament testimony.

To say that Jesus’ teaching concerning demons came from the Jewish ideas is absolutely false. The difference in the Jewish concepts and His is as the difference between black and white. Alfred Edersheim stated, “Those who contend that the representations of the Evangelists are identical with the popular 3ewish notions of the time, must be ill acquainted with the latter.” (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, I, p. 482.) He adds, “Greater contrast could scarcely be conceived than between what we read in the New Testament and the views and practices mentioned in Rabbinic writings.” (Ibid., II p. 776.)

The statement that Jesus and his disciples were mistaken in their belief in the existence of demons that they “seem rather to have shared in the popular demonology, although they never committed themselves to the absurdities which marked some of the rabbinical teachers.” (A New Standard Bible Dictionary, Funk & Wagnalls Co., pp. 176-177), leaves the wrong impression. It was not a matter of “some” of the rabbis teaching errors. The whole rabbinical library is “riddled” with absurdities and errors.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume II, gives an excellent contrast in four different points between noncanonical writings and the New Testament testimony on demonology. This I shall present with additional materials from other sources.

“The most marked and significant fact of New Testament demonology is that it provides no materials for a discussion of the nature and characteristics of demons.

The presence among New Testament writers of an influence curbing curiosity and restraining the imagination is of all things the most important for us to discover and emphasize. In four of its most vital features the New Testament attitude on this subject differs from all popular conceptions: (a) in the absence of all imaginative details concerning demons; (b) in the emphasis placed upon the moral character of demons and their connection with the ethical disorder of the human race; (c) in the absence of confidence in magical methods of any kind in dealing with demons; (d) in its intense restrictions of the sphere of demoniacal operations.” (Louis Matthews Sweet, I. S. B. E., II, p. 828.)

The Contrast

1. The origin, nature, characteristics or habits of demons. The New Testament tells us practically nothing. In contrast with this reticence of New Testament writers is not only the heathen writers, but the non-canonical writings of the Jews, and even the church Fathers (see article one). The Book of Enoch states that demons are fallen angels, while Josephus holds that they are the spirits of the wicked dead. In rabbinical writings speculation has run riot as to their origin, nature and habits. Demons “are represented as the offspring of Adam and Eve in conjunction with male and female spirits, as being themselves sexed and capable of reproduction as well as performing all other physical functions. Details are given of their number, haunts and habits, of times and places where they are especially dangerous, and of ways and methods of breaking their power. Full sweep is also given to the imagination in descriptive narratives, oftentimes of the most morbid and unwholesome character, of their doings among men.” (Ibid.)

Edershiem mentions, from among the rabbinical writings, that “their number can scarcely be limited, since they propagate themselves, resembling men in this as well as in their taking of nourishment and dying… like the Angels they have wings, pass unhindered through space, and know the future… they are produced by a process of transformation from vipers, which, in the course of four times seven years, successively pass through the forms of vampires, thistles and thorns, into Shedim (demons).” (Edersheim, Op. cit., II, p. 710.) These Shedim may take the form of man, but they will not reflect the same likeness as of a man. Some of the Shedim have defects. Those who live in the caper bushes are blind. Trees; gardens, vineyards and ruined and desolate houses are their favorite abodes, and they especially like dirty places. Nighttime and before the cock crowing are their favorite time of appearance. It is dangerous to go to their habitations alone, and dangerous to sleep in a house alone. They are especially dangerous on the eves of Wednesday and the Sabbath. But they have no power over that which has been counted, measured, tied up and sealed. They could be conquered by the “Ineffable Name” and they could be banished by the use of certain formulas, which, when written and worn, served as amulets.

“Legions of demons lay in waiting for any error or failing on the part of man. Their power extended over all even numbers. Hence, care must be had not to drink an even number of cups, except on the Passover night, when the demons have no power over Israel.” (Ibid., p. 762.)

“As Shedim have cock’s feet, nothing more is required than to strew ashes by the side of one’s bed, when in the morning their marks will be perceived.” (Ibid., p. 763.)

The Talmud gives the infallible means whereby one can see the demons. “Take the afterbirth of a black cat which is the daughter of a black cat–both mother and daughter being firstborn–burn it in the fire, and put some of the ashes in your eyes. Before using, the ashes must be put into an iron tube, and sealed with an iron signet.” (Ibid.)

So much for the first point of contrast. The next article will continue with a contrast between uninspired ideas of demonology and the New Testament teachings, beginning with the second point of contrast.

Truth Magazine VI: 7, pp. 9-11
April 1962