Truth Magazine

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

“But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us” (2 Cor 4:7).

The Lord purposely put his gospel “treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us.” These “vessels” were apparently the apostles. However, there is a principle here for all who preach publicly or privately. The Lord wanted attention to go to the treasure (the gospel) rather than the vessel (the preacher). So, he deposited it in plain earthen pottery. Yet, we spend so much of our time polishing and shining the vessel that too much attention is drawn away from the treasure itself.

Did you ever buy a child an expensive toy only to have him set the toy aside and have a ball with a box? It may be that many of us are doing more playing with the box than we would like to admit.

Paul wrote, “And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God” (1 Cor. 2:1).

Faced with sagging interest, dwindling numbers and community rejection in many locales, brethren look for ways to turn things around. Just offering the bare “testimony of God” (the gospel) does not attract enough people. What are we to do? Elders, preachers, and other members wrestle with the problem. Shall we abandon the old gospel truth that we have believed and taught so long? Of course, not! That would be digression, even apostasy! If the meat is not appetizing, we just add spicy dressing to whet the appetite. If one will not buy the product in a plain wrapper, we will jazz up the packaging to grab attention.

So, before long brethren become more concerned with how their approach appeals to a certain age group, a certain educational level, or certain social class than they are in simply presenting the testimony of God and letting it have free course. Preachers are sought, not for being good Bible students, and their ability to share the fruits of their study, but their personal attraction to this or that age, social, economic or intellectual level. Preaching is measured more by its artistic value, entertainment rating and/or the appeal of its rhetorical style than by its biblical content. We can easily rationalize such catering to the fleshly side of man so long as we teach the truth. The problem is that we tend to draw more attention to the dressing and packaging than we do to the gospel itself. One should not detract from the gospel by wrapping it in a rude and crude package (presentation and personality). We have all seen this in some brotherhood “characters.” Neither should one want to wrap it in so pleasingly dynamic packaging that it overshadows the message itself.

Brethren would do well to carefully study Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians I and 2.

We must face the fact that the bare truth of the gospel plainly presented will turn many off. It is not what they are looking for. The Jews wanted a sign. The Greeks sought wisdom. Paul could have given them signs. He did at other times to confirm the word. He was no dummy. He was well-educated. If this would have gotten their attention, why not use it. After winning their attention, then he could have slipped the gospel in to them. He might have reached more of the noble and “better-class” (?) of people this way. Surely such would have been an asset to the church in its early stages.

Why not? It would have shifted attention and emphasis to the wrong place. It would have invited his hearers to place their faith in the wrong things. It would have taken glory away from the Lord (1:31).

The gospel is God’s power to save. It is a stand alone system. It does not need me to dress it up in excellency of speech or with enticing words of man’s wisdom. It doesn’t need the playing up of my dynamic personality (that one that I have been able to keep so effectively concealed) to run interference for it. In fact, Paul indicates that he made a determined effort to avoid dressing it up in any such garb. Such would probably have appealed to the immature (it still does), but the gospel unadorned by such has its own beauty and appeal “among those who are mature” (2:6).

If the Lord’s people will continue to present what the Bible teaches (and support men who will do so) to the world and to the church – unadorned by human wisdom and carnal appeal – souls will be saved. It will not appeal to every one in the community or in the church. It will save some of all classes of people. Their faith will stand in the power of God and not in the wisdom of men (2:5).

There is too much of “I am of Paul” and “I of Apollos” etc. without our encouraging it by using excellency of speech, dynamic personalities, or any other fleshly characteristic as the means of gaining, pacifying and holding members of the church.

Brethren often openly admit that they invite men for local work or gospel meetings because of their personal appeal to certain fleshly classes. He appeals to our young. He appeals to our elderly. He appeals to our singles. He appeals to our marrieds. He appeals to our educated. He appeals to our sports fans. He appeals to our affluent., He appeals to our sophisticated neighbors. On and on ad nauseam.

Brethren, the gospel simply presented convicts and appeals to the spiritually minded of all classes of humanity. It has its own power of persuasion by the sheer force of the truth of it. It has its own appeal to those who honestly consider it. We need to get back to using it as the drawing power. Study it, preach it, teach it, and point to it as the attraction rather than the personal and fleshly traits of brethren, We who preach would do well to project less of ourselves, seek to be less dynamic or dramatic, seek less to make a personal impression, study less rhetoric (developing excellency of speech) and spend more time with the Book, learning its contents and simply telling folks what it says so they can be saved and remain faithful to the Lord. We might even become less concerned with impressing folks with our oratory, rapport, wit and wisdom and more concerned that they clearly see the wisdom of God – the wisdom revealed in the Scriptures. If we could just preach so that people will exclaim, “What truth!” or “What a Savior!” rather than “What a preacher!” or “What a delivery!” then we will be coming closer to the kind of preaching that will get the job done that God wants done.

If we do this and leave the results to God, it will attract and keep all that God wants attracted and kept and “no flesh should glory in his presence” (1:29).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 19, pp. 588-589
October 1, 1987

By Alex Ogden

Many good articles have appeared in publications such as this on the subject of abortion. Abortion has become a national tragedy, killing more than 18 million babies since January 22, 1973, when abortions were first made legal by the Supreme Court in the Roe vs. Wade decision. Several million are killed each year by abortion around the world.

In this article I will consider a form of abortion we hear little about but is much more tragic than the abortion legalized by the Supreme Court. I have reference to what I call spiritual abortion, or the destruction of those yet spiritually unborn. Whether we realize it or not, each of us who claims to be the child of God may have at one time or another performed a spiritual abortion by saying or doing something which closed the minds of the lost to the message of the gospel. We destroy whatever desire they may have for spiritual life and, therefore, contribute to their eternal death.

Just as the abortionist in the clinic makes use of various methods to destroy the unborn, as Christians we abort the spiritually unborn in different ways. Here are some of them:

An ungodly example. Peter tells us we are to live so that the world will be caused to glorify God (1 Pet. 2:11-12). If we live in any other way God will not be glorified but rather reproached. We may be a poor example in our language, hobbies, entertainment, attendance at church services or our involvement in spiritual matters in general. If we set an improper example, the lost will not glorify God and our efforts to convert them to Christ will be hindered if not destroyed.

Failing to see and heed opportunities to teach the gospel. Children of God should seek opportunities to teach the gospel but, because we so often set our attention on things of this life, those opportunities which come to us are never seen. This reminds me of trips to Florida as a kid playing “Bingo.” We would look for Volkswagon Bugs along the way and the first to say “Bingo” could count it. The first to spell bingo won. If we started talking about something else, however, a Bug could pass and no one notice. If you are looking for something, you must keep your mind on what you are looking for. We must not allow opportunities to teach the gospel to go unnoticed or unheeded. Let us seek opportunities to teach the truth, being ready to teach when the opportunity is found (1 Pet. 3:15).

Several methods that abort the spiritually unborn deal with our teaching.

Teaching false doctrine. If the lost are being taught things which do not conform to the word of God, they will not be brought to the new birth. Paul told the Colossian brethren the result of false teaching. He said, “Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (2:8). Error will not produce life but will make spoil of the one receiving it. In another place Paul stated that from false teaching “cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth” (1 Tim. 6:3-5). If truth is not taught, the lost will remain in bondage to sin since it is the truth which sets us free (Jn. 8:31-34). Let us be careful to teach only what we know to be truth.

Bad attitudes. Occasionally our efforts to convert the lost will be destroyed by our attitudes. In working with the lost some seem to have the attitude they really do not care whether the lost obey the gospel or not and, therefore, do not really care about their lost souls. Our prospects should understand from the way we study with them that we are truly concerned for them and where they will spend eternity. If they sense we are there out of duty or some motive other than an interest in their soul, they are less likely to listen.

Another attitude we sometimes express is that we know everything and our prospect knows nothing. Granted, you likely know more about the truth than they, but if we reflect the attitude that we have all of the answers and our prospect can only come to an understanding of the truth through us, we have erred. We should enter such a study with the attitude that the Bible has all the answers and through a mutual study of the Bible we can both increase our understanding of God’s will for us.

Proper attitudes can only promote the process underway to convert your prospect. Bad attitudes can only hinder the process.

Trying to teach something you really do not know yourself. The effort to teach a lost friend or neighbor can be greatly damaged if we attempt to teach something we do not understand ourselves. This problem may be most common among new converts. They seem to be the most enthusiastic about teaching the gospel but they are the least prepared. Peter’s exhortation to “be ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15) involves, first, studying the word of God. You cannot be ready to give an answer if you haven’t spent time in study and preparation. If we are prepared, the prospect can only learn. If we are not ready, our prospect will not be convinced that what we are trying to say is true.

Trying to teach too much too fast. Some, in their eagerness to convert their prospect, have made the mistake of trying to push them to accept or do more than they were ready for. In the Parable of the Sower (Lk. 8:4-15) the good ground was that which had been cultivated or prepared to receive the seed. But who cultivated it? Did it cultivate itself?. Of course not. Did the seed cultivate it? All four types of ground described in the parable received the seed, but only the good ground brought forth fruit. Why? Because it had been prepared prior to the planting of the seed. The sower, or someone for the sower, prepared the ground for the reception of the seed. So from this parable we should learn the importance of first preparing our prospect before planting the seed of God’s word within them. If the proper preparations have first been made, their heart will be more receptive to the truth.

As the farmer patiently works days or even weeks just to prepare the ground to receive the seed, we also must be patient as we cultivate the heart of our prospect (2 Tim. 4:1-2).

Very little fruit comes from uncultivated ground. Let us be certain we do not try to harvest the fruit before the ground is even ready for the seed.

We could note other methods of this form of abortion but the point has been made: often we destroy the spiritually unborn by the things we say or do. Let us be keenly aware of our responsibility to bring the lost to Christ, but let us also be careful of what we say or do among the lost lest we become spiritual abortionists.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 19, pp. 594-595
October 1, 1987

By Jimmy Tuten

Near Kentucky Lake a few years back, a thin, elderly man was cautiously pulling his bass boat behind a well-used pickup truck. Suddenly there appeared behind him one of Detroit’s latest with a young driver eager to show its capabilities. The fishing rig was moving too slowly and holding up traffic. So in his frustration the young man zipped around in front of him and brought his car to a halt crosswise in the road. He then jerked the older driver out of the pickup, threw him to the pavement and proceeded to beat him in the face, using the old gentleman’s own wrinkled fists with which to do it. He was sued and in court pleaded self-defense. As strange as it may seem, there is a moral to this story: Satan takes man’s own natural instincts and perverts them, thus bringing his downfall.

The Bible teaches that there are two forces at work in our society: one is the devil and the other the cause of Christ (Eph. 2:1-6). Even man is a dual being made up of an outward man and an inner being (2 Cor. 4:16). Because of his flesh man is a feeding animal and has a natural appetite for bread. The inward part of man is a higher life, the true self and is more than a being dependent upon bread. Because of this man needs more than physical bread to sustain him. He needs the Bread of Life (Jn. 6:33-35). Man can feed his soul on the Bread of Life while his body is fasting (Jn. 6:35,48).

While hunger is not in itself an evil in the sense of being sinful, the satisfying of that perfectly innocent appetite in a manner unworthy of one seeking to please God can result in sin. There is a clear distinction between food which simply supplies bodily hunger and appetite, and the food which nourishes emotion, affection and cultures the conscience and the will. Satan knows full well that the nobler part of man is nourished by faith in the Word of God and that he who feeds the soul will feed the body also (Jn. 6:33). He seeks to subvert this principle with devices of his own. In his cunning craftiness he often bases his force and plants an attack in the form of temptations aimed at the weakness that lurks in the bodily appetite. Man is so gullible and easily deceived into thinking that happiness comes through indulgences of the flesh.

One can see this form of temptation in the case of Jesus (Matt. 4:14). The whole point of the temptation of Christ lay in the suggestion and the solicitation of the satisfying of a perfectly innocent appetite in a manner unworthy of the Son of God. But take note of the fact that Jesus could do what we wouldn’t do. His action reminds us that we have no right always to do the thing for which we may have the resources of abundant might. For example, man says, “I have the right to do what I please with my money,” when in reality it is not what he likes that he can lawfully do with it, but what is right. He has the right only to do what is proper with his money. The same is true in other areas. How much happier the world would be if it thought more of what is ethical and less about what they think is their right.

Satan appeals to the flesh of man, the outer man, while God appeals to the inner man, the spirit (1 Jn. 2:15-17; 2 Cor. 7: 1). While Satan uses perfectly innocent desires through which to destroy man (Eph. 4:14; 2 Cor. 4:2), God appeals to the heart. The reason for this is that when the inner man is nurtured and matured he will control and bring under subjection the outer man so that both his body and soul find acceptance with Jehovah. Look at it: “let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord” (2 Cor. 7:1). Therefore, we are to love God with all our heart (Matt. 22:37), we are to believe in our heart (Rom. 10:10), we are to obey from the heart (Rom. 6:17), etc. Everything begins with the heart. When the nation’s people have their hearts right with God, the nation will be at peace. Peace begins in the heart of each of us.

When will man learn the deception of thinking that happiness comes from certain indulgences? When will we ever talk less about things that make us happy and more about obedience to God? True and lasting happiness cannot be had without entertaining God in our hearts. We cheat ourselves when we think we can have it without him. Without God enthroned in our hearts the happiness we think we have found is the same as that found by lowly animals. More succinctly, the pleasures of sin “are but for a season” (Heb. 11:25). “Not on bread alone shall a man live” (Matt. 4:4). Where is the strength of man apart from that supplied by the armor of God to stand in the “evil day” (Eph. 6:11)? Not even human wisdom can bring us into a right relationship with God (1 Cor. 1:19,21). Only the gospel of Christ can do that (Rom. 1:16-17). Because the gospel alone saves and sustains us the nation cannot be holy without it (Rom. 1:16-17). “Blessed are the pure in heart” (Matt. 5:8).

Let us then feed our souls and rest in assurance that the fed soul will put into safe and wise regulation all feedings of the bodily appetite. The food of the spiritual is spiritual, “for to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace” (Rom. 8:6). The temptations of man can only be mastered by religious principle. With an “it is written” in our hearts and on our lips we overcome the forces of Satan in whatever form they take. Temptation is possible without sin. Until the will of man consents, sin is not committed (Jas. 1:12-15). Likewise, until men consent to the principle of “not by bread alone,” will discipline exist in our society. Failure to accept this biblical fact can lead only to defeat.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 19, p. 581
October 1, 1987

By Luther W. Martin

“Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution, and the recognition of it which followed somewhat later, as an apostolic tradition, serves to confirm this hypothesis. Irenaeus is the first church teacher in whom we find any allusion to infant baptism” (Neander’s History of the Christian Religion and Church, Vol. 1, p. 311). (Irenaeus lived 130-200 A.D.)

“There is no proof or hint in the New Testament that the Apostles baptized infants or ordered them to be baptized” (The First Age of Christianity and the Church, J.J.I. Dollinger, p. 325).

“As the Apostle said, children are already holy, if their fathers or mothers are Christians; that is, they are already distinguished from the mass of Heathen and Jews by the mere fact, which alone proclaims God’s will of having a Christian parent. They are already destined for sanctification and capable of it; from their earliest age the Christian profession and life of their family has a sanctifying effect on them; they grow up under the religious influence of a father’s or mother’s prayers and example” (Ibid., p. 326). (J.J.I. Dollinger was a German scholar, a faculty member in a Catholic University, who opposed the dogma of papal infallibility, in 1870.)

“The principle rites in the early Church were Baptism and the Lord’s supper. Baptism, it is now generally agreed among scholars, was commonly by immersion. Whether infants were baptized in the Apostolic age, or exactly when the custom arose of administering this rite to them, is a controverted question on which the New Testament writings furnish no direct information” (The Beginnings of Christianity, George P. Fisher, p. 565).

“Irenaeus – who was born about A.D. 130 – implies that infants were baptized in his time. Origen, a child of Christian parents, and born A.D. 155, was baptized in infancy, and regarded infant baptism as an Apostolic institution” (Ibid., pp. 565-566).

“Lord Palmerston was once severely attacked for having said ‘Children are born good.’ But he, in fact, only said what Chrysostom had said before him, and Chrysostom said only what in the Gospels had been already said of the natural state of the unbaptized Galilean children, ‘Of such is the kingdom of Heaven… (Christian Institutions, Arthur P. Stanley, D.D., Dean of Westminster, p. 22).

“In the Apostolic age, and in the three centuries which followed, it is evident that, as a general rule, those who came to baptism came in full age, of their own deliberate choice. We find a few cases of the baptism of children; in the third century we find one case of the baptism of infants. Even amongst Christian households the instances of Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Ephrem of Edessa, Augustine, Ambrose, are decisive proofs that it was not only not obligatory but not usual. All these distinguished personages had Christian parents, and yet were not baptized till they reached maturity. The old liturgical service of Baptism was framed for full-grown converts, and is only by considerable adaptation applied to the case of infants. Gradually the practice of baptizing infants spread, and after the fifth century the whole Christian world, East and West, Catholic and Protestant, Episcopal and Presbyterian (with the single exception of the sect of the Baptists before mentioned), have adopted it. Whereas, in the early ages, Adult Baptism was the rule, and Infant Baptism the exception, in later times Infant Baptism is the rule, and Adult Baptism the exception” (Ibid., pp. 19-20). (Stanley was Dean of Westminster, in the Church of England, a century ago.)

“. . And now what of infants? Before speaking of any conditions relating to their baptism, let us ask this question: is it right to baptize them at all? There is no direct answer to this-question in the Scriptures, but there is no mistaking the directness of the answer supplied from tradition. Origen spoke truly in saying that the church received this custom from the Apostles. Even those who, like Harnack, deny the apostolicity of this custom, are none the less obliged to admit that it was a widespread custom in the time of Tertullian, who was born about the year 160” (The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Edited by George D. Smith, p. 794).

“But immediately after Irenaeus, in the last years of the second century, Tertullian appears as a zealous opponent of infant baptism; a proof that the practice had not as yet come to be regarded as an apostolic institution; for otherwise, he would hardly have ventured to express himself so strongly against it. We perceive from his argument against infant baptism, that its advocates already appealed to Matt. 19:14, a passage which it would be natural for everyone to apply in this manner. ‘Our Lord rebuked not the little children, but commanded them to be brought to him that he might bless them.’ Tertullian advises, that in consideration of the great importance of the transaction, and of the preparation necessary to be made for it on the part of the recipients, baptism, as a general thing, should rather he delayed than prematurely applied, and he takes this occasion to declare himself particularly opposed to haste in the baptism of children. In answer to the objection drawn from those words of Christ, he replies: – ‘Let them come, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are being taught to what it is they are coming; let them become Christians, when they are susceptible of the knowledge of Christ. What haste, to procure the forgiveness of sins for the age of innocence?” (Neander’s History of the Christian Religion and Church, Vol. 1, p. 312).

“Infants are to be baptized very soon after birth, but no definite rule as to time is laid down by canon law. Non-Catholic infants in danger of death may be baptized even against their parents’ wishes” (Catholic Dictionary, Attwater, p. 254).

“The Church has always taught that unbaptized children are excluded from Heaven but has defined nothing as to their positive fate” (Ibid., p. 255).

“Unbaptized children are buried without liturgical rites in a special part of the cemetery” (Ibid., p. 255).

“Babies deceased without baptism. On the fate of these little ones, some doctors expressed themselves too rigorously. Others with too great indulgence. St. Augustine (followed by St. Gregory the Great, St. Anselm, Gregory of Rimini, the torturer of infants, Bossuet, Berti) taught that they are damned, although punished with very light suffering” (Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Parente, Piolanti and Garofalo, p. 27).

“Marriage is not the cause of the sin which is transmitted in the natural birth, and atoned for in the new birth; but the voluntary transgression of the first man is the cause of original sin” (Augustine 354-430 A.D., Quoted in The Teachings of the Church Fathers, Edited by John R. Willis, p. 276).

“Let no one promise for the case of unbaptized infants, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven, some middle place of rest and happiness, such as he pleases and where he pleases. For this is what the heresy of Pelagius promises them” (Ibid., Quoting Augustine, p. 278).

418 A.D. – The First Decree Concerning “Original Sin”

Two religious teachers, Pelagius and Coelestius, maintained that “man’s nature was not corrupted by the fall of Adam, and that even where Christianity was not known men might render themselves by the power of their own wills proper subjects of divine grace” (History of the Christian Church, by Dr. Charles Hase, professor of Theology in the University of Jena, p. 122).

These two men were anathematized by the Council of Carthage, Canon 2:

“Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers; wombs ought not to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration, whence it follows that in regard to them the form of baptism ‘unto the remission of sins’ is understood as not true, but as false, let him be anathema” (The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Denzinger, p. 45).

“‘If anyone denies that infants newly born from their mother’s wombs are to be baptized,’ even though they be born of baptized parents, Cor says they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration’ for the attainment of life everlasting, whence it follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is understood to be not true, but false: let him be anathema” (Ibid., p. 247).

Conclusions Based Upon the Foregoing Historical Excerpts

1. Baptism was administered only to adults in the New Testament church.

2. Children were held to be innocent and holy in the first age of the church.

3. Infant baptism was neither taught nor exemplified in the New Testament.

4. The first implication of infant baptism was during the life of Irenaeus, who was born about 130 A.D.

5. Origen, born about 155 A.D., asserted that infant baptism was apostolic.

6. A.P. Stanely, Dean of Westminster, an Anglican churchman, concluded that there was a few instances of infant baptism in the 3rd century.

7. A Catholic author, George D. Smith, states that the Scriptures give no direct answer to the question: “Is it right to baptize them (infants) at all?”

8. Notice that the modern Catholic Dictionary (Attwater), asserts that the Church (Roman Catholic) “has always taught” that “unbaptized children are excluded from heaven.”

9. Council of Carthage, 418 A.D. issues a decree on 44original sin”; this was done in anathematizing those teachers who denied “original sin.”

10. Later church councils repeated and strengthened their support of the doctrine of “original sin.”

11. The denominations that directly split from the Roman Catholic Church, nearly all continued the doctrine of “original sin.” This, in turn, produced the practice of infant baptism.

12. Even the Wesleys who started the Methodist Church fostered infant sprinkling and held that infants were born in a state of condemnation; that is, until 1910 A.D., when they modified their position in their Book of Discipline.

Summary and Conclusion

In the early years of the Apostate Church, when they practiced infant baptism, for a time their theologians insisted that it was also necessary for infants to partake of the “Holy Eucharist,” on pain of condemnation.

Also, there were controversies as to the depth or degree of punishment that awaited the unbaptized infant, after death. The subject of “Limbo” has been bandied about by Catholic scholars (?) who suggested that God would not cause “pain” to the unbaptized infant, in the hereafter, but that these infants would be denied the “Beatific Vision”; that is, be denied being in the presence of God.

I am not aware of any equivalent controversies on this subject that plagued the Church of England, Lutherans, Methodists or Presbyterians . . . like were experienced by the Catholic Church. However, none of the posterity of Catholicism developed the idea of “original sin,” and consequent “infant baptism” themselves, they all imitated their ancestry (ponder Revelation 17,18).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 19, pp. 584-586
October 1, 1987