Truth Magazine

By Earl Robertson

The church of Christ is the greatest and grandest institution in the world. Jesus Christ built it and its existence through the years attest its divine origin and purpose (Matt. 16:18; Psa. 127:1). The church is a people purchased and purified unto God (Eph. 1:14; Tit. 2:14). God has equipped this people that they might be able to do all the work which He assigned the church to perform (Eph. 4:11-16). Perfected saints can do benevolence and build up the body of Christ, says Paul. Some unbelievers declare that the church cannot do the work of ministry, but this verse plainly says it can!

While many churches of Christ vociferously affirm their confidence in the absolute sufficiency of the church of Christ to do all the work the Lord gave it to do, they deny the claim by merely sending ten dollars per month to support a human institution to do the work. They are not buying a service, but are subsidizing the organization itself. They call it pure religion! If the church is truly sufficient within its own framework to do the work of benevolence and evangelism, why should and how can both works be turned over to human boards to be done? Why should we think a human board can do a better work than the church of the Lord? If the church of Christ can underwrite financially a human institution, such as Potter Home in Bowling Green, to do the work of benevolence, why can it not likewise subsidize financially a missionary society similarly organized? This is not a question of methods – how the work shall be done; it is a question of which organization shall do the work. It is not a question as to whether the work must be done. We all agree it should be done. The question is: shall the church do it or a human board? What passage of scripture will the liberals give to authorize a church of Christ to send ten dollars to Potter Home and School? I am just as aware as they are that they are no longer interested in having Bible for what they teach. A young preacher recently left the truth and identified with this liberal movement. I asked what verse of scripture produced this change. He responded, “What verse of scripture!” He was not interested. It is altogether a matter of attitude toward God and His word.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 37, p. 600
September 18, 1980

By William C. Sexton

Mobility in our society today is great, as all observers know. Certain segments of our society are more mobile than others, however. I am working with a group of disciples near Ft. Riley Kansas, a military base, and Kansas State University, so mobility here is much greater than any other place I have ever worked. Events of the last year, since I have been in Manhattan, makes me aware of a need to know.

It is important to the faithful child of God to know where other children of the Father are meeting, so they can meet and worship faithfully, according to the New Testament scriptures (Acts 2:42, 41). It should be the mutual concern of all involved to find faithful disciples when they move to a community and the disciples in the community to receive those coming to the community, so as to be strengthened and to offer encouragement, etc. Consequently, it seems to me that there is a need to be a bit more concerned about letting people know where we are meeting and to help those leaving us find a faithful group of disciples in the community where they are going.

I have found some who came to Ft. Riley and, for a year or more, did not know that there was a group of disciples who were determined to not practice the current elements of liberalism, but were to be governed completely by the New Testament scriptures. I am sure that there are others who have not yet found the information that a “conservative” group is meeting, although we have tried in various ways to get the information around and we shall continue. This is said to arouse attention in you, my brother and sister, to help and be helped!

We have been blessed by three families learning of us from others in the areas where they were before they came, because some there had read our report about the congregation in Manhattan and had been concerned enough to relate to them of our meeting place and phone number (913) 539-0458.

I received a letter a few days ago from a family in Germany who had read our report about a family here who was going to Germany. They asked for their address and if I knew of others in Germany. I have written a number of letters trying to find faithful groups in Germany and in Panama because we have some people who had plans to go there. Yesterday, I received a letter from a sister in Wichita, whose friend from Tennessee had moved to Junction City, Kansas just outside Ft. Riley on the west side; we are on the east side. I went by to see her within a few hours after receiving the letter and the sister was so “glad” that we showed that much interest in her spiritual well-being, she had no knowledge of a “sound, conservative” group meeting nearby prior to our contact and the letter from the sister from Wichita which had arrived just before we did.

Inasmuch as there are a number of people coming to Ft. Riley and moving out, I would like to hear from those who are meeting near military bases so I can tell any who are leaving here where you are. Take note, you who are meeting near a military base, of our address (1112 Pierre in Manhattan Kansas) and inform any military personnel there of our meeting place and/or our personal address (1937 Judson, Manhattan, KS 66502) and phone number which was listed above. Also, you may inform us that they are coming, so we can be expecting them and possibly help them in some way to find a good living quarters, etc.

Also, we would like to hear of congregations meeting near college campuses, so we can inform any student that is transferring there. If you have any who are coming to KSU, be sure to let them know of us. The parent would surely manifest a Christian concern who helps the son or daughter learn of a congregation which is faithfully working under the Lord and encourage them to be a part of it. A failure to be concerned and make the effort manifests either a lack of knowledge or love for the child. Disciples must remain faithful till death, if the eternal well being is to be secured. Such requires serving – being active in the Lord’s word and seeking to interest and motivate others to be faithful.

So, as the disciple Onesiphorus “sought” Paul out “diligently, and found” him and was not ashamed of his “chain” (2 Tim. 1:16-18), each child of God today must show an equal concern for truth and God’s disciples. Can we help? Let us hear from you. You can help us help others by letting us know of your presence and determination to serve God faithfully.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 37, p. 599
September 18, 1980

By Donald P. Ames

To find a-good study Bible is not always an easy task. In my opinion, the recent Royal Bible (later published under the name of the Zondervan Cyclopedic Reference Bible both are now out of print) was one of the very best in the KJV, while I am still looking for a NASB with a concordance of any real depth. Since the Royal Bible is no longer available, I have had several people ask me what I would recommend, and the selection is not very easy.

In checking with others, several have highly commended the Open Bible (published by Nelson, available in both KJV and NASB), especially so one could profit by the cyclopedic reference in the front of it. Others have mentioned the Ryrie Study Bible (also available in both KJV and NASB), and it too has extensive footnotes, etc. in it. The latter is also carried in the latest issue of Truth Magazine’s catalog.

Frankly, I am not comfortable with either one of them. What one does not learn until you secure a copy is that both Bibles advocate the doctrine of salvation by faith only (which in and of itself could perhaps be overlooked to gain the other benefits). This would make me especially cautious in recommending it to a weak brother or someone who has not yet learned the truth.

But, even more dangerous than the false doctrine of salvation by faith only being advocated in them is the open teaching of the doctrine of premillennialism! For years brethren have strongly spoken out against the Scofield Bible because of its heavy premillennial footnotes, and now, because of a few good features, we are letting both the Open Bible and the Ryrie Study Bible slip in with the comment “you need to watch it closely in Revelation, where it does advocate premillennialism.” If we are going to use it, then why object to the Scofield Bible?

What we need to remember is that premillennialism is a system of interpretation. Brother Rodney M. Miller in his fine book The Lion And The Lamb quotes from a premillennialist, J. Dwight Pentecost, `The basic differences between the premillennial and amillennial schools and between the pretribulation and posttribulation rapturists are hermeneutical, arising from the adoption of divergent and irreconcilable methods of interpretation” (p. 17). Now that is it in a nutshell -and freely admitted by a premillennialist. Premillennialism is not confined to the book of Revelation, but is going to affect their notes and cross-references throughout the whole of the O.T” and especially in the study of the prophets -both major and minor prophets! In fact, the whole Bible needs to be “watched closely.” Even in areas such as the sermon on the mount such notes and cross-references are going to affect one’s interpretation.

Perhaps your immediate reaction is, “Well, I know the difference – I could separate such from the truth.” Perhaps -and perhaps not. I have learned, in recent years, that many brethren are not as clear on this subject as they might think they are, and some have begun accepting parts of the theory of premillennialism in one form or another without even thinking they were doing so. Now, how much easier (and likely?) will that become with the use of such texts as the Scofield, Open Bible and/or Ryrie Study Bible? Many people, and especially new or weak converts or people not yet even taught the truth, will accept such cross-references as “gospel.” To question them is to question the “unquestionable”! Many people are buying them, totally ignorant of the fact they do advocate premillennialism (and faith only) in their notes and crossreferences (and a few have been keenly disappointed in them as they slowly discovered the facts). Such confusion is not good, and is opening the door to many more problems in the near future. Brethren, I do not, and will not, recommend any of the three, and feel they need to be exposed and branded for being premillennial in their handling of the text of both the KJV and NASB. Let’s not let people swallow the doctrine unawares while we are fiddling on the roof-top.

Then what is there to recommend? That is a good question, and if any of you preachers out there have come across some real good study or reference Bibles in the KJV and/or NASB, it would be good to pass such information on. Holman publishes a “Key KJV Study Bible” which has some very good material and references in it, including a good topical index. Although the “plan of salvation” in the notes in the back passes salvation off as “by faith” (without mention of baptism), it is very ambiguous in its introduction of Revelation and actually avoids taking any real position on it – which is better than taking premillennialism (but far short of the good, firm stand taken by the Royal Bible). Holman also publishes a NASB reference Bible which includes a 220 page topical index (4414XRL) edition, which I have not yet seen, but assume to be fairly similar to the Key KJV Study Bible. So far, that seems to be my best choice to date. The only problem here is that I have heard rumors Holman may be in the process of discontinuing their Bible line also. So, the search is continuously on; but let us beware of accepting trouble in the future in some bad footnotes and cross-references in such Bibles as published in the Scofield, Open Bible and Ryrie Study Bible. And, let’s pass the word so others will not be drawn in unawares.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 37, p. 598
September 18, 1980

By Mike Willis

As the restoration leaders began to study themselves out of denominationalism, they found that what they had previously believed about baptism was wrong. In addition to discovering that the action of baptism was immersion, they also found that the only proper subject to be baptized was a penitent believer. This was contrary to the former beliefs and practices of many of the leaders among them. Nevertheless, they were committed to following the Bible rather than human creeds and traditions. Consequently, they committed themselves to the word of God and rejected their creeds for the Bible.

Particularly was this the case with Alexander Campbell. On 13 March 1812, Campbell’s wife gave birth to his first child whom he named Jane. Prior to this time, Campbell had not made the careful examination of the Scriptures which he needed to make in order to find out what they taught on this subject. However, he was now faced with the question of whether or not he should have his infant sprinkled. Soon he became convinced that there was no Bible authority for infant sprinkling. Robert Richardson records the history of Campbell’s change;

. . . Admitting that infant baptism was without warrant, the question began to assume quite a different aspect, and was no longer, “May we safely reject infant baptism as a human invention?” but, ‘May we omit believers’ baptism, which all admit to be divinely commanded?” If the baptism of infants be without warrant, it is invalid, and they who receive it are, in point of fact, still unbaptized (Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, Vol. I, pp. 393-394).

Campbell became convinced that he had not been baptized. Soon Campbell contacted Matthias Luce to baptize him and several other members of his family. At that time, he became convinced that infant sprinkling was unauthorized of God and that those who received it needed to be baptized in obedience to Christ’s commandment.

One hundred sixty-eight years have passed since that event. Already signs are beginning to manifest themselves that this truth, discovered and expounded for so many years, is beginning to be lost. I make this statement on the basis of the writings of some among us who are stating that those who have never received an immersion in water as a penitent believer shall nevertheless receive salvation. Writers in Restoration Review, Ensign Fair, Mission, and some other periodicals openly admit that they are prepared to extend the right hands of fellowship to those who have simply received infant sprinkling. Whether openly admitted or not, such statements result in the affirmative position that one can be saved without being immersed in water and that baptism is acceptable in the sight of God without being preceded by faith and repentance. Though no one to my knowledge has avowed infant sprinkling among us, several are ready to extend fellowship to those who do.

As testimony that several are willing to extend fellowship to some who preach infant sprinkling, consider these statements from Leroy Garrett.

When I say this is no problem to me, I simply mean that I do not conclude that a brother necessarily rejects Christ when he leaves what we call the “Church of Christ.” Going to the Presbyterians might be a matter of conscience, not a lack of it, an act of faith and not faithlessness (Restoration Review, Vol. 21, No., 4, April, 1979, p. 77).

And I realized more than I was able to 30 years ago that these Presbyterians are also my sisters and brothers in Christ (Restoration Review, Vol. 20, No. 9, November 1978, p. 168).

Only recently I heard a reforming Methodist, laboring within his own context for that one, great, spiritual community of God on earth. Praise God that he is using this man where he is! He is talking to Methodists, in their language and out of their history, of a better and more spiritual way. It would be folly for me to try to take him from his own people, converting him to the Church of Christ . . . . I met with a group of Roman Catholics a few times recently, some of them being business associates of ours, who are really turned on to Jesus. In their own “sanctuary,” with their priests sitting with us, I laid before them a long view of the scheme of redemption in scripture, God’s eternal purpose in Christ. These folk want their people to get with it and turn to Jesus, and they are working to that end in various mini-meetings. How foolish it would be for me to try to bring them into “the Church of Christ. . .” ( Restoration Review, Vol. XVI, No. 9, November 1974, p. 367).

Notice that Garrett and those who accept what he teaches are willing to extend the right hand of fellowship to those who have never been immersed into Christ for the remission of their sins. He is willing to extend fellowship to those who follow the creeds of men with reference to infant sprinkling.

Infant Sprinkling And The Creeds

The creeds of men are the best authority that can be found for infant sprinkling. They are very specific in granting to men the right to have their children sprinkled and admitted into covenant relationship with God on the basis of the parents’ faith. Here are some sample creeds:

Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXVIII, No. 4).

Let every adult Person, and the Parents of every Child to be baptized, have the choice of sprinkling, pouring, or immersion (Discipline of the Methodist Church, 1940, p. 602).

13. We believe that Christian baptism is a sacrament signifying acceptance of the benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ, to be administered to believers, as declarative of their faith in Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and full purpose of obedience of holiness and righteousness.

Baptism being the symbol of the New Testament, young children may be baptized, upon request of parents or guardians who shall give assurance for them of necessary Christian training (Manual of the Church of the Nazarene, 1944, p. 30).

In the book Facts of the Faith by Monsignor J. D. Conway, which contains the Catholic imprimatur, the following statement about infant baptism is made:

It is because of the essential necessity of this sacrament that the Church insists on the Baptism of little children as soon as possible after their birth. If the tiny child is in any serious danger of death, he should be baptized at once, and any person who knows how to do it and who wants to do it can baptize. If there is time, of course the priest should be called. He is the regular minister of baptism. If there is not time, then a lay person may do it. All he has to do is to pour water on the head of the child and say while pouring it, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The church naturally prefers that a Catholic person do the baptizing, but if a Catholic is not available, then a baptized Protestant may very well do it, and if no baptized person is available, then the Baptism can be given by a non-baptized person. It is not even necessary that he believe personally in Baptism. It is only required that he perform this ceremony properly and that he intend to do what the Church wishes done in Baptism.

In spite of all the care that we may use, it does occasionally happen that a baby dies without Baptism. What happens to that baby? As far as we can know, it has never received the life of heaven into its little soul, and without the life of heaven it cannot get into heaven. It does not have the capacity or ability to see God or to live in union with God. Its little human soul is not capable of living in the rarefied spiritual atmosphere of heaven. It would be lost if it got there. We must keep in mind that heaven is a free gift of God, that no one has a claim to it. Since our nature is not adapted to it, we make no natural demand for it.

Of course we know that Almighty God in his goodness and justice will not punish anyone unless he is personally guilty of sin. No baby will suffer positive punishment or the loss of natural happiness because of the sin of Adam, or the sins of the human race. But that does not mean that the unbaptized child will be able to live above its nature and perform functions of which it is naturally incapable.

It is the traditional belief of Catholic theologians that Almighty God has provided a place of natural happiness for these children who die without Baptism. For want of a better word, we call the place Limbo (pp. 142-143).

These creeds and statements of belief give us some idea what the denominational world is teaching about infants receiving baptism. These are the doctrinal beliefs held by those to whom some of our brethren are willing to extend fellowship.

What Saith The Scriptures?

Having read the doctrinal statements of those who teach that baptism can and should be administered to babies and noticing that some of our more liberal brethren are ready to extend fellowship to those who so teach, we now turn to the Scriptures to find out who is the proper candidate for baptism.

1. Baptism is for the sinner. Inasmuch as baptism has for its purpose the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Mk. 16:16), it is assumed that the person to be baptized is guilty of sin. Sin is not something which is inherited (Ezek. 18:20); it is an action of an individual in which he disobeys the law of God (1 Jn. 3:4). Consequently, the infant is not in need of baptism inasmuch as he has not violated God’s law and, therefore, is not a sinner.

2. A person must be taught before he is a proper subject far baptism. The Scriptures clearly teach that one is drawn to Christ by teaching. Jesus said, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (Jn. 6:44-45). Notice that no one can come to Jesus without being drawn to Him by God; one is drawn by God through hearing and learning of the Father. Inasmuch as a child cannot hear and learn, he could never be a proper subject for baptism. Infant sprinklers teach that one can come to God without being drawn by God! In the Great Commission, Jesus said, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them . . .” (Matt. 28:19). One must be taught before he can be baptized.

3. A person must believe in Christ before he can be properly baptized. Jesus “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved . . .” (Mk. 16:15-16). The gospel must be preached and the person must believe it before he is ready to be baptized. Obviously, an infant cannot do this; consequently, he is not qualified to be baptized.

When Philip preached the gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch, “they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If though believest with all thine heart, thou mayest” (Acts 8:36-37). Notice that Philip told the eunuch that one must believe before he can be baptized. An infant consequently cannot be properly baptized inasmuch as he cannot believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.

4. A person must repent of his sins before he can be baptized. On the day of Pentecost, Peter preached the first gospel sermon. Peter charged those who were present with participating in the murder of Jesus Christ. Apparently he convinced them of their sin because they were “pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:37-38). Notice that one had to repent of his sins before his immersion in water did him any good. We have properly understood this for many years, teaching that one simply gets wet if he is immersed without genuinely deciding to quit practicing sin.

For the subject of infant baptism, we notice two things: (1) an infant has no ability to repent and (2) and infant has no sins of which he needs to repent. Consequently, an infant could never be a proper subject of baptism inasmuch as he cannot repent of sins.

5. A person must confess his faith in Christ before he can be baptized. Christ has only authorized a person to baptize believers. The only way that I have of knowing that a person is a believer is for him to tell me that in some way. Inasmuch as an infant has no ability to believe and no ability to indicate that he believes, he cannot be considered a fit subject for baptism.

Inherited Sin And Infant Sprinkling

The testimony of the Scriptures and the testimony of the early Christians show that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. The belief that baptism was essential to salvation was coupled with the doctrine of inherited sin to produce the practice of infant sprinkling. In the years after the close of the New Testament canon, the doctrine arose that the sin of Adam was transmitted to the entire race. A person was supposed to have been born guilty of the sin of Adam; this was taught in spite of the fact that Ezek. 18:20 teaches otherwise, Infant baptism was started to grant forgiveness of the guilt of inherited sin. Read the following statements:

The theorist of baptism who has been influential for succeeding ages in S. Augustine . . . . The first effect of baptism is the forgiveness of sins, which extends itself to all sins, both to all actual sin and also to original sin. This latter sinfulness, inherited from Adam, would indeed alone suffice, without actual sin, to bring man to damnation, as too, infants dying unbaptized are excluded from the Kingdom of heaven in consequence of original sin, and live in the world beyond in some form of perdition, even if of the mildest kind. Baptism has effect upon original sin, in the sense that it takes from it is character of guilt; thereby free access to God and His heavenly kingdom is opened . . . . (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1944 edition, Vol. III, p. 84).

The early controversies regarding infant baptism seem to have centered on whether or not infants needed baptism (M’Clintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. I, p. 648). As the view of Augustine prevailed, baptism was administered to infants to take away the guilt of Adam’s sin.

Conclusion

Bible baptism was never administered to infants! The person to be baptized in the New Testament was always an individual who had heard the gospel preached, believed it, and repented of his sins. No one who had not done these things was considered a proper subject of baptism.

Those among us who are willing to extend fellowship to those who teach and practice infant sprinkling are compromising on what the Scriptures reveal about salvation and baptism. They may state that they personally do not believe in infant sprinkling but so long as they are willing to fellowship those who do, their statements to the contrary are rather hollow.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 37, pp. 595-597
September 18, 1980