Truth Magazine

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Denominationalists like to use Acts 15 as their “authority” in attempting to justify ecclesiastical councils and centralized headquarters over their churches. They argue that Acts IS shows that churches from other areas appealed to an authoritative council in Jerusalem concerning a matter of doctrine and that the decision handed down and promulgated in their letter was binding in all the churches. How can it be shown that Acts 15 is not an approved example for ecclesiastical councils and centralized headquarters over the church today? Thank you.

Reply: In no way is Acts 15 a precedent for ecclesiastical councils and centralized headquarters over the church. The doctrinal problem in Acts 15 was whether Gentiles had to be circumcised according to the law of Moses in order to be saved (v. 1). Men had come down from Jerusalem to Antioch teaching this doctrine, but Paul and Barnabas had refuted it. After much dispute it was decided that Paul and Barnabas, along with others, should go to Jerusalem and take -up the matter with the apostles and elders. This was not really necessary in order for the problem to be solved because Paul was an apostle, and he had already taught the truth on the subject while at Antioch. The Holy Spirit revealed the truth to the apostles and they in turn taught it. So, the meeting in Jerusalem only confirmed the truth which Paul had previously taught. It was not Paul’s decision, nor was it the decision of the council. The matter had already been settled by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15: 28). The decree that was delivered to the churches (Acts 16:4) was in reality the decision of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28) and it was ordained or issued by the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem (Acts 16:4).

Church councils have no authority to determine truth. The truth is not determined by a democratic vote, but by the word of God. Men therefore have no authority to set up religious councils or headquarters to issue edicts, enact and amend laws. From the first ecumenical council in A.D. 325 on down to the present day such councils have existed, but without God’s authority. They have been responsible for the creeds of men, which have in turn, brought about division in the religious world.

The decrees which were delivered and were to be kept (Acts 16:4) merely confirmed what had been revealed by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28). Neither Acts 15 nor any other Scripture authorizes religious councils or headquarters. They are devised by men and not by God.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 3, p. 34
January 15, 1981

By Herschel Patton

This beloved nation of ours was founded, and flourished for many years by people who, generally speaking, were motivated and directed by a fear of God and respect for the Bible. “God is” was generally believed. The thought of offending God or not doing His will deterred man in many actions, and pleasing God, with its rewards, motivated him. When men drifted from righteousness, through fleshly lusts and human reasoning, putting the “fear of God” in them was usually sufficient to bring them to repentance. An Old Testament example of this is Jonah’s preaching in Nineveh (Jonah 3).

Then, God spoke through His prophets; now He speaks through the truth – the revealed and confirmed Word given through His apostles and prophets – The New Testament (Heb. 1:1-2; Jn. 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:12-13).

In days past, “The Bible says” was meaningful to most people. It was authoritative and settled the question of right and wrong – what should, or should not, be done. When something was being enjoined, men were quick to ask, “Where does the Bible authorize it?” Whatever the Bible said settled the question of what man’s action should be. This was because the Bible was believed to be God’s complete and final revealed word. Men did what they did religiously because they believed it to be divinely revealed. Preachers would often enter public debates affirming or denying that the Bible teaches this or that.

Now It Is Different

Today, after many years of mental development (education) and material progress, man’s pride and confidence in himself has led him to question, even deny, God and His Word (the Bible). Tell a man that his actions are against God, and he asks, as Pharaoh of old, “Who is God, that I should obey him?” (Ex. 5:2). “How do you know there is a God to whom I must account?” Putting the “fear of God” in such is impossible (Heb. 6:4-6).

Tell one his actions are contrary to the Bible, or unauthorized by Scripture, and his reply is “So what! What is the Bible other than the philosophies of men, like other books?” “How do you know it is God’s inerrant word?” Quoting the Bible to such a person is meaningless.

Why This Difference?

This change in mankind, or we might say, the loss of his faith, has come about through various processes, over a number of years. Each process stems from man’s own self-esteem. The Bible says, “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:22).

As man became more educated and trained in mental exercise, philosophizing became a favored endeavor. He began to reason about his origin and that of the universe, spawned theories about the nature of man and the origin of things. He disclaimed as “fact” or “truth” anything that could not be proven through the senses, yet is inconsistent in that many of his claimed “facts” have never been, and cannot be, thus established. Some of his claimed “truths” of the past have in later years been proven false. Man’s theories, atheism, evolution, and humanism, have been zealously pushed on society through schools and the media in the name of education, creating doubts and destroying faith in God.

Because the Bible, God’s will, is not a flesh and pride satisfying way of life, men have attacked it, seeking to discredit and minimize its influence. They have questioned its inspiration, sought out “seeming” contradictions, and “imagined” errors. They have argued that a fixed law for one generation cannot be suited for a later, and more enlightened, one. They contend that human wisdom and self-fulfillment must not be curbed by an “antiquated” system or laws. The zeal characterizing these efforts, coupled with the “self-pleasing” nature of man, have led many to doubt the Bible as inspired and the necessity of rigid compliance. With the loss of this faith, there is no end to what men will do and yet feel satisfied and safe.

Here are the basic causes for violence, immorality, divorce, juvenile delinquency, homosexuality, dishonesty, alcoholism, and every other crime. It is the cause of digression and liberalism in religious circles – even in the Lord’s church. From those who “don’t care what the Bible says” to those who say “We don’t have to have Bible, or follow it in everything,” there is a manifest loss of faith in God and the Bible. These are no longer determining forces in their lives.

The Tragedy Of It

The tragedy of this loss of faith is in the fact that “God is,” the Bible is “His Word,” and man is accountable. In other words, man’s loss of faith does not change these facts or exempt him from eternal destruction.

Evidences for the existence of God and “the creation” (verses evolution) abounds. Many of the world’s greatest scientists have, and do, freely admits this. There just is no logical explanation for the origin of things, including man, purpose, and design, apart from God. Scientific proof is impossible, for this comes. from examining the material things that exist, and unless that scientist can find in what exists proof of its origin, which he cannot do, then his speech and writings in this area are nothing more than philosophical theories. This is why, if the evolution theory is going to be taught in our schools (and it is a theory, not scientific fact), then “creation” should also be taught as an alternative theory. Neither can be established as scientific fact, but are religious or philosophical questions, not scientific. And, there is much more, and sounder, evidence for creation than there is for evolution.

Likewise, both external and internal evidence for the inspiration of the Bible abounds. Every effort to find errors or contradictions in the Bible has miserably failed. In spite of all the efforts made to destroy it, the Bible still stands untainted as the abiding, inspired word of God. When one doubts and rejects the Bible, he exchanges something proved and enduring for “shifting sand” – man’s own thoughts and ways.

What a tragedy! Millions have and others are daily “professing themselves to be wise, become fools,” and are destined to eternal damnation. Beloved, examine yourself: Do you really believe in God? You may not be an atheist, but have you made God “such an one as yourself” (Psa. 50:21), so that there is no reason to fear Him as long as you are pleased? Do you condone and “go along with” unscriptural practices, having convinced yourself – or been convinced by others – that “no one is perfect,” so strict adherence to God’s way will not be required if you are sincere, and mostly good?

Listen to God’s Word. “Whatever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Col. 3:17). “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (2 Jn. 9). “And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15:14). “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who bath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know Him that hath said, vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, the Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:26-31).

“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man” (Eccl. 12:13).

Guardian of Truth XXV: 3, pp, 33, 43
January 15, 1981

By Don R. Hastings

In the Beatitudes, Jesus told us the characteristics which we must possess to be truly happy. The beautiful disposition of meekness is essential to be happy. The “poor in spirit” are, also, meek.

The disposition of meekness is greatly misunderstood. Many think that a meek person is one who is spineless, weak and cowardly (one who is so timid that he is too afraid to speak out and take a stand for anything). He is devoid of strength and courage. Such a concept of meekness is completely in error as we shall see.

“Blessed Are The Meek”

Let us define the word “meek,” which is translated from the Greek word praus. Thayer defines this Greek word as “gentle, mild, meek.” Webster defines the word “meek” as follows: “mild of temper; not easily provoked or irritated; patient under injuries; not vain, or haughty, or resentful; characterized by mildness of temper or patience.” David Lipscomb stated, “Meekness is a quiet and forbearing spirit that suffers wrong without resentfulness but firmness and unyielding devotion to right.” W. E. Vine states, “described negatively meekness is the opposite to self-assertiveness and self-interest . . . it is not occupied with self at all” (Expository Dictionary for New Testament Words, p. 56).

William Barclay writes, “. . . used of animals which have been tamed, and which have learned to accept discipline and control …. A horse obedient to the reigns, a dog trained to obey the word of command . . .” (Flesh and Spirit, pp. 113, 114). It is not the absence of strength, but strength brought under control! It is strength and gentleness perfectly combined for it takes strength to be angry at sin and yet treat the sinner with gentleness! It is being aggressive in defense of God’s word, but reluctant to retaliate for injuries brought upon self!

Meekness toward God is shown by our submissiveness to Him (Gal. 2:20). A meek person has brought himself under God’s control and is, therefore, “meet for the master’s use” (2 Tim. 2:21). “The meek Christian accepts God’s dealings with him as always for his good” (The Beatitudes, by James Tolle, p. 39). (See Job 1:21; 1 Sam. 3:18; Lk. 1:38; 2 Cor. 12:7-10.) It causes us to sincerely say, “Thy will be done.” Meekness is the disposition which causes us to humbly admit our ignorance and seek understanding from the word which is able to save our souls (James 1:21; Psa. 25:9).

We are to show “all meekness toward all men”(Tit. 3:1, 2). We must show meekness in answering those who question our hope for eternal life in Christ (1 Pet. 3:15). A gentle answer will do the questioner more good than trying to ram our faith down his throat. Our answer should never be accompanied with scorn and contempt.

We must show meekness in reproving those who have gone astray (Gal. 6:1 KJV). “Correction can be given in a way which entirely discourages a man and which drives him to depression and despair; and correction can be given in a way which sets a man upon his feet with the determination to do better and with the hope of doing better” (Flesh and Spirit, by Win. Barclay, p. 117). “Meekness is the spirit which makes correction a stimulant and not a depressant, a means to hope and not a cause of despair” (Ibid).

We must show meekness in correcting those who teach error for such a disposition is far more effective than harshness. It is far more effective than an argumentative disposition” (2 Tim. 2:24, 25).

We must show meekness by refusing to avenge ourselves of the suffering and injuries which others have brought upon us (Rom. 12:19, 21). If we can learn to suffer wrong without becoming filled with hatred and bitterness, we will be a lot happier. Meekness produces peace for it will cause one to let another have his coat instead of fighting for it. He does not let trivial things upset him (Matt. 5:38-42). It takes far more strength to refuse to retaliate than to go ahead and strike back.

Two great examples of meekness in the Scriptures are Moses and Jesus. “Now the man Moses was very meek . .” (Numbers 12:3). The context of this verse proves the meekness of Moses for he was patient with those who opposed him (Numbers 12:1-15). Moses was not a spineless person, but a man of great strength and courage.

Jesus was “meek and lowly in heart” (Matt. 11:29; 21:5; 2 Cor. 10:1). Meekness is one of the ways in which Christ was like Moses (Deut. 18:15; Acts 3:22). In His meekness, Christ was both the “lamb of God” and the “lion of the tribe of Judah” (John 1:29; Rev. 5:5). As a lamb, Christ was submissive to God’s will (Mt. 26:39; Jn. 5:30). As a lamb, Christ was gentle and forgiving to those who treated Him cruelly (Lk. 23:34; 1 Pet. 2:23; Isa. 53:7). As a lion, Christ rebuked sharply the Pharisees and scribes for they were “blind guides” (Mt. 23). As a lion, Christ drove out those who were making His “Father’s house a house of merchandise” (John 2:13-17).

“For They Shall Inherit the Earth”

The premillennialists believe this will be fulfilled when Christ comes again. They are wrong (2 Pet. 3:10). The word “inherit” implies that the earth is not bought, stolen, or earned, but given to the meek by God (Psa. 37:9-11, 22, 29, 34). The meek may not be actual title holders of the land, but they realize that the earth’s is Jehovah’s and all its beauty and riches are theirs to enjoy (Psa. 24:1; 1 Cor. 3:21-23). Who is richer, the man who owns ten houses, or the one who can knock on a hundred doors and be received with joy (Mark 10:29, 30)?

Meekness is essential if we are going to behave ourselves as true children of God (Col. 3:12; Eph. 4:1, 2; 1 Pet. 3:3, 4). The world would encourage you to develop an aggressive, domineering disposition which places itself above others. This attitude may help you obtain your worldly goals, but it will not make you really happy! The meek are happy because they are submissive to God. They are under His control. They are contented and at peace with God, their fellow man and themselves. Will you meekly obey the Lord?

Guardian of Truth XXV: 2, pp. 26-27
January 8, 1981

By Dennis G. Allan

Since baptism is mentioned about a hundred times in the pages of the New Testament, it is understandably the subject of constant discussion. A huge portion of current religious division is the result of misunderstandings and perversions concerning the action of baptism.

To fairly present the evidence concerning the action of baptism, the historical proofs will be mentioned first, followed by a brief look at the meaning of the language found in the Bible to describe baptism. Finally, consideration will be given to the final authority – the examples of baptism in the Bible.

The Voice Of History: Immersion

A study of historical proofs shows very clearly that baptism in the early church was performed by immersion. J.W. Shepherd(1) and T.W. Brents(2) both present rather extensive documentation to show that history establishes immersion as the action of baptism in the early church. The really interesting evidence, however, is that provided by writers who defend the current practices of sprinkling and pouring for baptism. Several religious groups have embraced this error, the most notable being the Roman Catholic church.

Notice these statements by Catholic writers in books declared by Catholic officials to be “free of doctrinal or moral error.”(3)

To “baptize” means to wash with, to immerse in water. The water is ordinarily poured on the person’s forehead, but baptism car. also be given by immersing the person in water while saying the words – the ordinary way it was done in the early centuries – or by sprinkling water on the forehead while saying the words (emphasis mine – DGA).(4)

In discussing incorporation into the Catholic church, John A. Hardon, S.J. explains in The Catholic Catechism:

They begin by entering what the councils call “the door of the Church,” whose name was derived from the fact that the more common manner of administration was by immersion (Greek baptizein, to dip in water) (emphasis mine – DGA).(5)

Even these proponents of other modes of baptism readily admit that the original meaning and the early practice of baptism was immersion. Their understanding is correct though their practice and teaching is faulty.

The Voice Of The Original Language: Immersion

A necessity in understanding any form of communication is to understand the symbols used. In comprehending the original language of the New Testament, we must understand the symbols, or words, used. The word “baptize” is not a truly English word, but simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo.

Omitting his references and parenthetical remarks, one finds Thayer’s basic definition of baptizo to be:

1. Properly, to dip repeatedly, to immerge, submerge.

2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water.

3. Metaphorically, to overwhelm.(6)

Professor Moses Stuart, as quoted by T.W. Brents, is very emphatic in his statement that “Bapto and baptizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerse into any thing liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this.”(7)

Some theologians, in their attempts to stretch the language to justify sprinkling, have argued that baptizo takes on a secondary meaning from its root, bapto, so that it could mean to “sprinkle.” Rather than becoming involved in tracing the origin and definitions of the root and derivatives involved, it will suffice to notice this response penned more than a century ago:

Language has no law that is better established than that derivative words inherit the radical form and primary meaning of the words from which they are derived.(8)

Applying this principle to baptism, one must recognize that baptizo (I baptize) is a derivative of bapto, which has a primary meaning of “to dip, plunge, or immerse.”

A comprehension of the Greek language is not, however, essential to understanding the proper action of baptism, as shall be seen in the next section.

The Voice Of Scripture: Immersion

On any matter of this nature, questions should always be answered with the teaching of scripture. In 1893, J.W. McGarvey observed:

It is a mistake to suppose that it requires scholarship in any dead language to determine what baptism is. And I am inclined to believe – I do believe, that every man who has ordinary common sense can take his own English Testament, and learn from the careful study of it, what God requires of him in order that he may live a life well pleasing in the sight of his Maker.(9)

Noticing a few passages with this intention will be profitable. Quotations are from the ASV.

When Jesus was baptized, he “went up straightway from the water” (Mt. 3:16), or as Mark presents it, “up out of the water” (Mk. 1:10). The implication is that he went down into the water before he came up out of it. This fits with John’s statement of the reason John the Baptist was baptizing in Aenon: “because there was much water there.” (Jn. 3:23).

Luke leaves no room for reasonable doubt in the narrative of Acts 8:38-39. There Philip and the eunuch “went down into the water” and “came up out of the water.” What possible reason could all these men have for soaking themselves in water if merely sprinkling would have been satisfactory to God? Surely one of these men would have understood that sprinkling was sufficient! The very fact that all of them, including Jesus Christ, chose baptism (immersion) instead of sprinkling should be sufficient evidence for the open-minded reader.

In Paul’s comments concerning baptism, he. assures it to be understood that it was immersion. In Colossians 2:12, he speaks of being “buried with him in baptism” and “raised with him through faith.” The same illustration appears in Romans 6:3-6. Men do not even entertain the thought of burying a body by throwing a shovel-full of dirt on it, yet millions of well-meaning people are content to try to bury the old man of sin by pouring a few ounces of water on one’s head. Before such people can truly walk with Christ, they must obey God by completely burying that old man of sin. Better understanding the meaning of the command to be baptized will better equip one to convince those who are still living in sin.

Endnotes

1. J.W. Shepherd, Handbook on Baptism, Nashville, Tennessee: Gospel Advocate Company, 1950, pp. 39-65, 183-216.

2. T.W. Brents, The Gospel Plan of Salvation, Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1874, pp. 302-313.

3. See the explanation of the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur in the front of nearly any Catholic book.

4. Anthony J. Wilhelm, C.S.P., Christ Among Us: A Modern Presentation of the Catholic Faith, New York: Paulist Press, 1973, p. 191.

5. John A. Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, New York: Double day and Company, Inc., 1975, p. 446.

6. Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978, p. 94.

7. Brents, p. 223.

8. Brents, p. 211.

9. J.W. McGarvey, McGarvey’s Sermons, Delight, Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Company, 1975, p. 110.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 2, pp. 25-26
January 8, 1981