Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Infant baptism is practiced by a number of denominations. However, the Scriptures do not assume the rite. Rather, they are filled with presumptions against the ceremony. The New Testament presumes the immersion of penitent, adult believers. Before we labor to sustain our thesis, let us notice some facts which do not forbid the baptism of infants.

Non-Exclusionary Items

Several aspects of baptism do not exclude infants.

Element. Baptism is in the element of water (Matt. 3:16; Jn. 3:23; Acts 8:36-38; 10:47), but that fact alone does not forbid infants as subjects of the ordinance.

Agent. Man is the agent, the administrator, of baptism (Matt. 3:131,14; 28:19; Jn. 3:23; 4:1,2; Acts 8:38), but the agency of man does not presume either for or against infants as candidates for baptism.

Action: The action of baptism is immersion, a burial (Matt. 3:16; Jn. 3:23; Acts 8:36-38; Rom. 6:3,4; Col. 2:12), but the process itself does not preclude infants. (One may object that infant baptism is actually sprinkling. True; and that is an abuse of the action, but it does not mitigate against the inclusion of infants. If a Catholic priest corrected his practice and immersed a baby, would that make it scriptural? No, for the action itself does not tell us whether or not infants should be baptized.)

Design: The purpose of baptism is the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Mk. 16:16). That aim does not deny infant baptism. Once the true nature of sin and guilt is shown and known (1 Jn. 3:4; 5:17; Jas. 1:13-15; 4:17), the purpose does exclude infants, but the purpose itself, alone, does not.

Passages Which Presume Adults

(1) Romans 6. (A) The persons in these text had lived in sin (v. 2), and they could have chosen to “continue” to do so (v. 1). Infants are precluded, for they could not so decide. (B) Those baptized were to “walk in newness of life” and “henceforth . . . should not serve sin” (w. 4-6). (C) These Romans had yielded and obeyed sin; later, they obeyed “from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered” to them and “became the servants of righteousness” (vv. 16-18). Babies cannot have doctrine delivered to them, nor can they obey it “from the heart. ” (D) They were “now ashamed” of what they -had done and subsequently were to yield themselves “to righteousness unto holiness” (vv. 19-21). All of this is a. presumption against infants as the ones who were “baptized into Jesus Christ.”

(2) Galatians 3:26-29. (A) These baptized believers had been brought “unto Christ by the law (v. 24). (B) They were children of God by faith (v. 22). They had “run well” (5:7). (C) They had been called by the gospel into God’s grace (1:6,7). (D) They were adults who had been entangled with the yoke of bondage, but were now to let their faith work by love (5:1-7). The book of Galatians is a presumption against infants as the ones who were ‘ ‘baptized into Christ.”

(3) Colossians 2:11-13. (A) The Colossians who were “buried with him in baptism” were adults (1:5,6; 9-11; 21-23; 2:4-8). (B) They had been risen with Christ through the faith of the operation of God. Infants cannot have faith in the operation or working of God when they are baptized. (C) Those baptized Colossians had sins forgiven which they had committed (1:21; 2:13; 3:5-7; they had “lived in them”). This precludes infants. (D) After their burial, in baptism, the Colossians were to “seek” and “set” their mind on “things above” and deny the lusts of the flesh (3:1-5). Infants could not do that.

(4) Acts. (A) Those baptized in Acts 2 were old enough to hear, believe and repent prior to their baptism (2:6,14,22,36-41). (B) The Samaritans were “men and women” who heard and believed prior to their baptism (8:5-12). Observe, too, that they were old enough to have been deceived by Simon the sorcerer for a “long time.” (C) Cornelius and his household were of sufficient age to hear the words of Peter, fear God, believe, repent, work righteousness, obey commands and speak (10:2,35,43,46-48; 11:14,18). (D) The Philippian jailer’s house heard, believed, ate food and rejoiced in the events surrounding their baptism (16:25-34). (E) The Corinthians and Ephesians were not infants for they heard, reasoned, trusted and believed (18:4,8; 19:1-7; 1 Cor. 2:1-5; 4:15; Eph. 1:13). Also, they had formerly committed sins that only adults could commit (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:22).

This brief treatise shows that the Bible presumes against infant baptism. It certainly does not assume it.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, p. 332
June 4, 1987

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Please explain Daniel 9.24-27. What are the “seventy weeks”?

Reply: This passage is one of the most difficult to interpret in the Old Testament. There are many interpretations of these verses that are given by commentators. First, let us read the passage.

“Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy Holy City, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy. Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: it shall be built again with street and moat, even in troublesome times. And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined. And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate” (Dan. 9:24-27).

Daniel was in the seventy years captivity which had been prophesied (Jer. 25:11). Toward the end of this captivity, Daniel prayed to God, confessing his sins and those of Israel, and asking the Lord to be merciful and forgiving. While Daniel was speaking and praying, the angel Gabriel approached him and gave him the message which is contained in the above quoted verses.

The period of time covered by the “seventy weeks” was from the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until “the anointed one” (Christ), followed by events and then the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. These “seventy weeks” are symbolical and not to be interpreted literally. If a week is seven years (believed by most commentators) is correct, then the span would be 490 years. There is some question in determining when the 490 years began – which decree to restore the temple and rebuild the city is meant. Some believe that the “seventy weeks” started with the decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah (445/4 B.C.) It seems that more in harmony with the context, is the earlier date, the decree of Cyrus (539/8 B.C.) – the very year of Daniel’s vision. If it be argued that Cyrus did not mention the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and therefore the decree must be later, we simply refer back to the prophecy in Isaiah 44:28. Jehovah, predicting the role of Cyrus, said: “He is my shepherd, and shall perform my pleasure, even saying of Jerusalem, She shall be built; and of the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.” Also, that the earlier date is in harmony with the context, is the fact that Daniel asked the Lord in his prayer not to defer his request (v. 19). It is not plausible that the Lord would detain this action for 100 years! Chronological difficulties must only be explained by considering the period of “seventy weeks” (490 years) as being symbolical, not literal. To sum up the period of time covered by the “seventy weeks” . . . “they relate to the whole period between the proclamation of Cyrus and the end of the Jewish commonwealth” (see Foy E. Wallace, Jr., God’s Prophetic Word, p. 515).

The “seventy weeks” is broken up into a pattern of 7 — 62 — 1. The first seven weeks embrace the period of the restoration and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple. The sixty-two weeks that follow include the time when sin would be restrained and prophecy would be sealed (validated, or fulfilled). This would be brought about by “the anointed one, the prince” (Christ), who would bring in everlasting righteousness” (v. 24). The remaining week of the “seventy weeks” is the period in which “the anointed one” would be “cut off.” This took place when the enemies of Christ put him to death and he made atonement for the sins of the world. At the end of this last week of the “seventy weeks,” Jerusalem and the temple would again be destroyed. The Jewish nation would end. This series of events fits into the projected goals, as set forth in the Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy and this interpretation is void of speculation. In fact, it is noteworthy that when Jesus was foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem, he alluded to this prophecy. Speaking to his disciples, he said: “When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place. . . ” (Matt. 24:15). The destruction of Jerusalem – the end of the Jewish nation, is the terminating point of the “seventy weeks” in Daniel 9:24-27.

The prophecy under study is a “sugar stick” for premillennialists of different kinds, including Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Dispensationalists have postponed the seventieth week until “the rapture” takes place. They have waited for about 2,000 years for the seventieth week to be fulfilled. They believe that at the future coming of Christ, the saints will be taken up with him into heaven (a seven years rapture), and coexistent with seven years of tribulation on earth. According to this view, the last 3 V2 years of tribulation on earth will be the Great Tribulation, followed by the battle of Armageddon. This view of the “seventy weeks” has been popularized by Robert Anderson in his book, The Coming Prince (pp. 119-129). Of course, the Dispensationalists believe that the end of the seven years “rapture” in heaven and the tribulation on earth, Jesus will return to earth with his saints and will rule upon earth in Jerusalem for a period of one thousand years. At the end of this millennial reign, the final judgment will take place. They believe that all prophecy is to be literally fulfilled in the physical nation of Israel. Obviously, the view is based upon mere assumptions, in the absence of scriptural proof.

The Bible is clear as to what will occur at the second advent of Christ. (1) Both the wicked and the righteous will be raised from the dead (Jn. 5:28,29); (2) the earth will be destroyed (2 Pet. 3:10); (3) all will be judged (Rom. 14:10-12). There is no intervening period between the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked, not one day, much less 365,000 days. The resurrection of all the dead will take place at “the last day” (Jn. 6:44). If it is “the last day,” no more will follow – not one day – a thousand years is eliminated. In view of this, the premillennial interpretation is false because it is contrary to the Scriptures.

All details of the Daniel prophecy may not be fully understood, but we can be safe in concluding that nothing in the span of “seventy weeks” extends beyond the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, pp. 325, 342
June 4, 1987

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Since I have never been asked to sing a solo or in a quartet (in fact, I was once asked to sit at least four pews back so the song leader could sing), I thought I would tackle the thorny problem presented by my friend and brother Weldon Warnock in the April 2, 1987 issue of Guardian of Truth on the above subject.

In this article, “Confusing Law and Expediency” of which the above title was a subheading, brother Warnock said some good things that need to be said. I commend most of the article. He is a good writer and stirs our thinking at times when it needs to be stirred.

On the matter of solos and quartets in our worship assemblies, I suspect that there is not a nickel’s worth of difference, if that much, in what I encourage and practice and what brother Warnock encourages and practices. He says, “I doubt there have been many preachers in the last 25-30 years who have been more outspoken against choirs, quartets and other ‘specials’ in the church than I have.” I have not heard Weldon speak on the subject, but knowing him as I do, I can imagine that he has spoken with force and in no uncertain terms. So, if you are thinking of soliciting Weldon Warnock to help you get the brethren to let you have a choir, quartet or solo singer – you would be ringing the wrong number. You won’t get any encouragement from him.

Now, having said all of that, what is the problem? Why do I feel the need to reply to his aticle? Where do I differ from brother Warnock?

Brother Warnock believes solos, quartets and choirs are lawful (authorized in the New Testament) and objects to them only on the ground that they are inexpedient with grave danger of abuse.

I believe there is another reason to object. I do not know a passage that clearly establishes their lawfulness – brother Warnock’s observations notwithstanding.

He bases his case on one verse – 1 Corinthians 14:26. He says, “1 Corinthians 14:26 plainly shows solos were sung in the assemblies of the first century church, even at the same time that Paul wrote Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. These passages in Ephesians and Colossians did not condemn and preclude what I Corinthians 14:26 allowed, namely, solo singing, and neither do they today” (all emphasis mine, EOB). He follows then with a paragraph showing why he believes 1 Corinthians 14:26 applies today. He then assumes what I believe he has yet to prove: “It is strange to me that solo singing was scriptural for the first 65 to 70 years of the New Testament church, but sinful today. It is also strange that Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 allowed solo singing then, but not now. Indeed, it is strange.”

You see, he interprets any difficulties (?) in Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19 in the light of his plain (?) passage of 1 Corinthians 14:26. It seems to me that it ought to be the other way around. It is not at all plain as to what use was made of the psalm in 1 Corinthians 14:26. The only way that one can know that it was sung before the assembly as a solo is to assume it. The passage simply does not say what the brother who had it did with it. He may have simply passed it along to the congregation for them to sing. It is listed with several other things miraculously received by members of the Corinthian church who had spiritual gifts. The following verses tell about the use of tongues, their interpretation, and prophecies. They were to exercise these gifts “each in turn” or “by course” with others keeping silent. But, not one word is said about the psalm. Yet, brother Warnock says it was plainly sung as a solo and assures us that such was done during the first 65 to 70 years of the New Testament church. A few times in my life I have received a good song (a piece of sheet music) and carried it to the assembly. It was pasted in the front of the song book and we learned and sang it. It was not given to me by the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless when the church came together I had a psalm. I did not sing it as a solo (to the relief of a lot of brethren), but simply passed it on to the assembly for all of us to sing.

1 Corinthians 14:26 is dealing with things being delivered to the church by inspiration. Various members would have various types of inspiration. Some, no doubt, received psalms from the Holy Spirit. They could deliver these songs to the congregation without necessarily standing before the congregation and singing a solo. To say that this is a clear example of solo singing in the first 65 to 70 years of the New Testament church is to assume more than the passage says or necessarily infers. I believe that such an interpretation contradicts what is clear, to me at least, in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16.

The Ephesians passage says, “speaking to one another (heautois) in psalms.” The Colossians passage says, “Teaching and admonishing one another (heautous) in psalms.” In both passages Berry’s Interlinear renders the pronoun, “each other.” This is a reciprocal pronoun. Of “reciprocal,” Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language says, ” 1. done, felt, given, etc. in return; as, reciprocal tolerance. 2. on both sides; each to the other; mutual: as, they felt reciprocal affection. . . . 5. in grammar, (a) expressing mutual action or relation: as, each other is a reciprocal pronoun.” Reciprocal pronouns describe action that is reciprocated. It is not a one way street. The same action is returned by the other party.

Both Thayer and Vine point out the reciprocal nature of the pronoun (heautou) in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16:

“3. It is used frequently in the plural for the reciprocal pronoun alklou, allelois, allelous, reciprocally, mutually, one another: . . . Col. iii. 13,16. . . ” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, J.H. Thayer, p. 163).

“(b) different forms of the plural of heautou ‘of himself,’ used as a reciprocal pronoun, e.g., Eph. 5:19, RV, ‘one to another’ (KJV, and RV marg., ‘to yourselves’; . . . ” (W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson Publishers, pp. 446,447).

So, any effort to obey these two passages needs to include the idea of reciprocity. If there is to be singing that does not include that element – the authority will have to be found elsewhere. Any arrangement (solo, quartet or choir) that precludes it does not fit these two verses. These verses are talking about reciprocal action.

Thayer gives other passages to illustrate the reciprocal nature of the pronoun. Here are the references as translated in the New King James Bible: “And they reasoned among themselves” (Matt. 16:8).

” . . .they said among themselves” (Matt. 21:38).

” . . . And they were astonished beyond measure, saying among themselves” (Mk. 10:26).

“And they said among themselves” (Mk. 16:3).

“And they reasoned among themselves” (Lk. 20:5).

“. . forgiving one another” (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13).

“. . having fervent love for one another” (1 Pet. 4:8).

“. . minister it to one another” (1 Pet. 4:10).

So, it seems to me that 1 Corinthians 14:26 is the more obscure passage to be interpreted in the light of these two plain passages, instead of the other way around.

When brother Warnock receives a psalm, we will be glad for him to bring it to the assembly where I attend – but he will have to do it so as not to violate the reciprocal action of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16.

Too be sure, brethren, congregational singing fits into what is authorized in these verses – beyond the doubts of anyone that I know. Even brother Warnock says that solos, quartets, etc. should not be used in our assemblies. Brother Warnock and I will continue to encourage brethren to practice only congregational singing in our worship services. So, don’t anyone get excited that we are about to part ways over this “issue.”

It has been simply my purpose to show why I believe that solos and quartets should be opposed on grounds other than that they are merely inexpedient. I do not believe that anyone has proven them to be scriptural. While those who oppose them only because of abuses may presently strongly object to their use – I fear that the seeds of justification are being sown by their writings for the next generation to use them, having been convinced by the writings of this generation that they are indeed lawful. They may not perceive the abuses and dangers as we do. Brethren, think about it.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, pp. 326, 342
June 4, 1987

By Norman Midgette

When we talk with others about the Bible we often refer to numerous passages of Scripture from different places in the Bible. This is true whether we are speaking of the Lord’s supper, studying about the church or discussing baptism. The objection sometimes encountered, especially on the subject of baptism, is this: “You just skip all over the Bible for your verses and put them together making them teach what you want.” How do you counter this?

While there are two or three approaches you might take, one of the best is to show where the same thing was done by the apostles in the New Testament. Since it was done by them it is an inspired procedure that is right before God.

In Romans 15:9-12 Paul proved from the Scriptures that it was God’s intention to include the Gentiles in the gospel of Christ. In these four verses of continuous quotes he referred to Psalms 18:49 first, then Deuteronomy 32:43, followed by a quote from Psalms 17:1 and concludes with Isaiah 11:10. These verses are all in context and are used showing the many places in the Old Testament God taught the same thing about His plan for the Gentiles.

Peter used the same divine approach and did the same thing in 1 Peter 2:6-8. In showing God’s plan for Christ as the foundation of the gospel and church, he quoted from three Old Testament verses in rapid succession. He first referred to Isaiah 28:16, then Psalms 118:22 and, in conclusion, Isaiah 8:14.

James did the same in James 2:20-23. In using Abraham as our example of one saved by faith and works, he first referred to an event in Genesis 22, the offering of Isaac. Then in one sentence he combined two widely separated passages recorded over 700 years apart. James stated, “. . and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.” The first part of the sentence is from Genesis 15:6 and the last expression, “. . . and he was called the friend of God,” is found in Isaiah 41:8 and 2 Chronicles 20:7.

All of the verses used by these men are taken in context and are used to teach only what they taught where they are found in the Old Testament. It is a perfectly scriptural procedure to amass many Scriptures from different writers in different ages to prove what you are teaching as long as they are used to teach what they taught in their original context.

When you can “skip around in the Bible” and find numerous Scriptures proving the same point you should rightly be commended not criticized. It just shows you know your Bible and that God has given evidence to prove your point, not once, but several times.

If this is a good and accepted pattern for the apostles in their writings it shows God approves this being done. Keep up the good work.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 10, p. 303
May 21, 1987