Truth Magazine

By P.J. Casebolt

I am persuaded that, in many things, our practice comes perilously close to violating our preaching. The Pharisees and the scribes were good (or bad) examples in this respect (Mt. 23:3). None of us are immune to this tendency and our inconsistency can be seen by others-better than vie-can see it ourselves. Just because our practice does not keep pace with our preaching, this incongruity does not necessarily prove that our preaching wrong, but it surely does play havoc with the effectiveness of said preaching.

The Lord knew what kind of government was best for His church. Christ was to be the head of His church (Eph. 1:22, 23), each congregation was to be autonomous (Acts 14:23; 20:28), and the apostles not only introduced this type of government, but they observed and respected it after its introduction (Phil. 1:1; Acts 21:18). This system was so effective and efficient that the devil lost no time trying to undermine it and, in every departure from the faith, he has had effective assistance from brethren within the church. It would be difficult to stress these truths too much, and we should be suspicious of all efforts to the contrary.

After preaching in a certain county, the preacher returned home and printed a statement in his bulletin that he had just closed a meeting with the only local congregation in that county. There were twenty-five other congregations in that county, and there were several others who knew more about those congregations than did the preacher who made the statement. In fact, some of us knew more about the congregation where he had preached, than did he. By this time, he has probably learned as much, but this untimely assertion did not make it any easier for those who were trying to persuade some of those congregations to take a stand for the truth.

Another preacher located with a congregation which had previously been the center of much confusion and trouble. All preachers, elders, and congregations for miles around knew the history of that congregation, and that its problems had nothing to do with “institutionalism.” Yet, this preacher immediately began to chide other congregations and preachers in the area by means of his bulletin. Maybe some needed chiding and maybe none of them would have taken a stand for truth on the institutional question anyway, but the preacher doing the provoking was in no favorable position to chide anyone.-After a few months, he realized his mistake and publicly acknowledged such in his bulletin. He also exited the congregation from whence he had been making his editorial sallies.

On another occasion, a new congregation had just been started in a certain town. Some of us were reasonably certain that it would eventually embrace liberal positions and practices, but could not prove it at the time. At a social gathering of preachers, one of the preachers asked the rest of the group what we were going to do about the new congregation. My reply was that I had turned over the announcements and information (which I had received), to the elders where I preached and that it would be up to them to make such a decision.

After a few years of supporting a radio program on the local station, the elders where I preached decided to discontinue the program. The program seemed to be doing little if any good, it was expensive, and the elders decided to use the money to help start a new congregation. After the elders made their decision, a former preacher for the congregation, who at this time was preaching for another congregation, complained to me about the decision to discontinue the program. When I told him that the elders had made the decision, he was very emphatic in stating that I should have used my influence to alter their decision. I told him that I not only preached that elders were to oversee the flock, but that I practiced it.

Now, maybe some of these instances to which I have referred do not constitute a violation of congregational autonomy, but I think they are sufficiently related to the subject for us to draw some profitable conclusions from them. First, preachers need to constantly remind themselves that they do not run the affairs of a congregation and, if necessary, the elders need to remind them. And, if elders try to delegate this authority to preachers, the elders need to be reminded that such cannot be done. The Lord has already delegated in this matter, and it cannot be changed.

Secondly, even when other congregations practice things contrary to apostolic doctrine, we still need to recognize the principle of congregational autonomy. This course does not preclude our making a solemn protest against anything that is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Sam. 8:9), nor does it require that we endorse and bid God speed to any false practice or teaching. But, if we violate the principle of congregational self-government, even for what we consider to be a “good cause,” that action may turn to haunt us before too long.

Above all, before we rush into print or into the pulpit with utterances which may adversely affect the very cause we are trying to promote, let us ascertain the validity of those things we write and speak. There will be enough “confusion of face” when we are told to mind our own business, but even more so when our “facts” turn to fiction.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 37, p. 594
September 18, 1980

By Eugene Crawley

Among the many things that Paul wrote to the saints at Rome is the statement: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (1:16). This is only one of the many passages written by this inspired man that testifies to the fact that he was unashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many are the times when he exhibited his stand for the truth against error, even in the face of opposition and persecution.

This great apostle should be an example to us, not only in this, but in a number of other things in his faithful, consecrated service in the Master’s kingdom. One should be “ashamed to be afraid” and “afraid to be ashamed” of the gospel of the Son of God; yet such seems to be the case with many in the world today, and not a few in the church of our Lord. The many schemes, campaigns and promotions to draw the crowd, instead of the simple and powerful message of Christ, the gospel, proves that some have lost respect for the gospel and its power. Paul’s love for the truth and the souls of men led him to not be ashamed or afraid of the “power of God to save.” And, so it should be with men today, and so it is with all who have the proper love and respect for both the truth and the souls of men and women. This love will prompt men to stand for the truth at every opportunity, and will cause them always to appeal to truth, not to human prejudice nor the devices of men. They will also welcome the opportunity to defend the truth which they proclaim.

Truth has nothing to fear, is aggressive and unrelenting, and those who hold to the truth for the love of the truth, have no fear of that which they have embraced. “But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God” (John 3:21). Thus, where there is any difference, doubt, or question, truth will deal with it openly instead of trying to conceal it. The very fact that folk try to conceal (or keep a matter quiet) is evidence that they are in doubt about the matter for which they claim to stand, and are afraid it will not stand the test of the Scriptures.

When a man’s aim is to know and abide in truth, he is willing to hear any truth, and is also willing to have his teaching examined and discussed openly. This is so, for if he does not have all the truth, he wants to have and desires that everyone else have all the truth; for he knows that only the truth, yet all the truth, is the only thing that will make men free from sin. Our Lord said, “For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds be reproved” (John 3:20). This is the reason some fear investigation, and refuse to defend their cause, even claiming not to believe in debates. When one finds this to be true, he can know that such are afraid of their position, their teaching; they cannot afford to have the light of truth turned upon their teaching and practice. All should become suspicious of those who so act, and should investigate the word of God so as to know the truth that makes one free from sin.

It is truly worth repeating that truth has nothing to fear; those who refuse open study and discussion of any teaching, especially when they claim to preach the gospel, are by their actions saying they are either ashamed or afraid of the gospel. Are you ashamed of the gospel of Christ? Remember, it is the power of God to save and, thus, the only means by which one can be saved from sin. Then, are you willing to learn the truth? You can by studying, investigating, the word of God. In fact, you can have all the truth that anyone else can have on every religious subject. You have access to the same Bible in which it is to be found. Why not resolve then to study it, learn the truth, obey it, and stand for that which is the will of God? Be neither ashamed nor afraid of the gospel, God’s truth, for it will stand forever (1 Pet. 1:25).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 37, p. 593
September 18, 1980

By Jack H. Kirby

The issues that arose in and divided the Lord’s church in the 1950s and 60s had their beginning back in the 1930s. In 1938, brother G.C. Brewer, at the Abilene Christian College Lectures, made a statement that the church that did not have ACC in its budget had the wrong preacher. Brother Brewer had advocated church support of the colleges operated by brethren as far back as 1935. In the August 1, 1935, issue of the Gospel Advocate, he wrote that the church where he preached had put ACC in their budget for $1000 per year.

Prior to that time it was generally understood that there was no authority for the church contributing money to any human institution. Brother Brewer’s contention was immediately challenged, and brethren did not accept his suggestion.

Before 1938, little had been said about church supported orphan’s homes. There were only three or four, the oldest established in 1909. After the college question was defeated, its promoters began a new issue, the orphan home question. They argued that church support of colleges and orphan homes was directly parallel. Now they had an emotional appeal, the “poor little ragged, hungry, cold, orphan.” This was a smart move on their part. They had been defeated on the college question, but now with emotion they contended that if the church could support an orphan home they could support the college. They failed to give biblical authority for either.

In 1947, the colleges again started a drive for church support. Brother Robert M. Alexander began speaking to churches urging their support of ACC’s post-war building program. Again brethren rose up in opposition, and the attention again went to the orphan home question. Brethren generally refused to accept the “college in the budget” idea, but many were convinced that the church could support orphan’s homes. Much discussion was carried in the Gospel Advocate and the Bible Banner.

In the October 23, 1947 issue of the Gospel Advocate, brother N.B. Hardeman, president of Freed-Hardeman College, wrote:

I have always believed that a church has the right to contribute to a school or an orphanage if it so desired . . . . The right to contribute to one is the right to contribute to the other. Note the parallel: (1) The school is a human institution; it has a board of directors; it teaches secular branches in connection with the Bible. (2) An orphan home is a human institution; it has a board of directors; it teaches secular branches in connection with the Bible. The same principle that permits one must also permit the other. They must stand or fall together.

Bro. Hardeman contended that they both did the work of the church.

The fight began to rage, and emotions were high. Hardeman’s article had hit the heart of the issue and pointed up wide-spread inconsistency. Many churches were sending token support to orphan homes. It was an excellent strategy on Hardeman’s part. It took the heat off the schools, and put the light on poor little hungry, cold, orphans. When some brethren opposed church support of the homes, they were charged as being orphan haters. Institutional thinking brethren saw in this issue an opportunity to soften opposition to churches contributing to human organizations.

Brother A.B. Barrett, co-founder of ACC wrote in the Gospel Advocate, July 9, 1931 issue:

There were no “brotherhood colleges”, “church papers”, “church orphanages”, “old folk’s homes”, and the like, among apostolic congregations . . . the churches established by the apostles did not contribute to any organization other than a sister congregation. All “church” movements should be kept under the local congregation.

Foy E. Wallace, Jr., the leading opponent of this new apostacy wrote in the July 2, 1931 issue of the Gospel Advocate:

If it were “permissible” to have a Bible college as an adjunct to the church in the work of education and an orphan’s home in the work of benevolence, we quite agree that it would also be “permissible” to have a missionary society in the work of evangelization. But the question assumes the point to be proved. Nothing is “permissible” as an auxiliary of the church which is not Scriptural.

Wallace argued that there was no way the church could delegate its work to any board or human organization other than the local church.

Other Issues Arising

Other issues were arising during this time, such as congregational cooperation, church furnished entertainment, youth meetings, church dinners, etc. Following World War Il, the Broadway church in Lubbock, Texas, had become the “sponsoring church” for “missionary work” in Germany. They began in 1947 to receive funds from other churches to support brother Otis Gatewood in Germany. The Union Avenue church in Memphis, Tennessee, became the sponsoring church for the work in Japan, and the Brownfield, Texas church for the work in Italy. Thus the autonomy of the local church began to be violated.

Brother Hardeman had strongly condemned this type operation in his Nashville Tabernacle Sermons in 1928 (Vol. III, page 78). He said:

Every congregation known to the Bible is a unit within itself. The autonomy of each individual congregation is as clearly taught in the Book of God as any other one thing therein found. And there is no such thing as a blending, or forming of any kind of an alliance or relationship between one congregation and another. A cooperation is taught in the Bible. Organization other than the individual congregation is unknown to God’s book.

He clearly showed that.the “sponsoring church” arrangement was erroneous almost twenty years before it began to be popular.

Church-Furnished Entertainment

Another issue that began to emerge was that of churchfurnished entertainment and recreation. More and more in the late 1940s, new ideas about local church programs were evident. One of them was that we have to do something special for the young people, or we are going to lose them. The denominations had set the pace with all kinds of social and recreational programs for their youth, so our brethren followed their lead. This idea was also attacked by brother Hardeman in his Tabernacle Sermons, and the books were widely read. He specifically condemned the practice in his 1943 series. He said:

I have failed to find anywhere in the Bible where there is a difference made in teaching or church work between a young fellow and an old one. Just where is the passage which intimates that the church should be divided according to years?

The Gospel Guardian

In the spring of 1949, the Gospel Guardian was again put into print. It had been published back in 1935 by Foy E. Wallace, Jr., but had been suspended in favor of the Bible Banner. This paper began to question the “brotherhood-wide” arrangements and “sponsoring churches. ” Church support of colleges, the national radio program sponsored by the Highland church in Abilene, Texas, called The Herald of Truth, sponsoring churches, etc. were all discussed upon its pages. The Gospel Guardian kept its columns open for the presentation of both sides of these issues, but the Firm Foundation in Austin, Texas, and the Gospel Advocate closed their pages to those they called “anti’s,” those who opposed the collective arrangements. The Gospel Advocate called for a quarantine of all preachers who would oppose these arrangements.

It was in 1952 that we first heard of a new departure, the aforementioned Herald of Truth. The first broadcast was on February 10, 1952. One thousand churches were urged to send funds to the Highland church to support the radio broadcasts. It had originated in Iowa with two young preachers, James Walter Nichols and James Willeford. After starting it, they began to seek out a church to take the oversight and, finally, the Highland church agreed to sponsor it. Little was said in opposition to the program until Glen L. Wallace, preacher for the College church in Abilene, asked some very pertinent questions about its scripturalness in the Gospel Guardian, December 17, 1953 issue. Wallace questioned the size of the budget, the amount of overhead, the sectarian name, the human organizational arrangement, and the “world-wide brotherhood activity” feature. He stated that he had always preached that an organization larger than a local church is larger than a New Testament church, and is, therefore, not a New Testament church.

Brother Wallace’s article was the beginning of a storm of opposition to the Herald of Truth. It then became a part of the raging discussion of congregational cooperation occasioned by the sponsoring arrangements of Broadway, Union Avenue, Brownfield, and the other sponsoring churches.

During this time there was a constant undercurrent with reference to orphan homes and the Herald of Truth. Churches began to divide as a result of brethren forcing the support of these things into the treasury of the local church.

Yellow Tag Of Quarantine

In the Decemeber 9, 1954, issue of the Gospel Advocate, one writer suggested that certain opposers to brotherwise projects be quarantined. The statement was given space on the editorial page. Here are his words:

I trust you will not consider me presumptuous if I suggest that perhaps the writers for the Gospel Advocate might wisely spearhead a movement to quarantine those preachers who today are sowing seeds of discord among the brotherhood and to thus prevent further division.

The preachers referred to were the opposers of church support of colleges, orphan homes, Herald of Truth, and other human institutions and arrangements supported by local churches. This along with another significant event that happened almost at the same time, started the forcing out of brethren from churches where they had worked, in some cases for a lifetime.

On October 17, 1954, brother G.H.P. Showalter died. He had been editor of the Firm Foundation for over forty years. He was a fair man, and allowed both sides to be heard in his paper. Soon after his death, brother Reuel Lemmons became its editor, and strong positions favoring human institutions began to appear. These two events marked the beginning of many church divisions. Brethren were forced to leave buildings and congregations that they had helped build, and were forced to start over from scratch. This was the pattern all over the country. Preachers were being “fired,” and gospel meetings of these preachers were being cancelled. When the problem arose in a church, someone who was trying to promote the orphan home, college, or sponsoring church into the budget would repeat some misrepresentation of some preacher or members in the area or in the congregation. This is what many used to win support for their positions instead of scripture.

Debates

Debates soon began to be conducted between brethren over these issues. One of the first was between brethren Charles Holt, W.L. Totty, and Sterl A. Watson. It was in Indianapolis in October, 1954. Perhaps the largest from standpoint of attendance were the two debates involving Yater Tant and E.R. Harper. Tant was the editor of the Gospel Guardian and Harper was the preacher for the Highland Church in Abilene, Texas. These debates were held in Lufkin, Texas in April, 1955, and in Abilene, Texas, in November of that year. One thousand preachers were in attendance, and the crowds numbered upwards of 1700 people.

Another debate was between Cecil Douthitt and Thomas. W. Warren. It was conducted in Houston in October, 1956. Douthitt raised a question in his first speech that set up an obstacle that Warren could never surmount. It was “Where shall we stop in the sponsoring church arrangement?” Just how many sponsoring churches shall we have? Shall we stop at the diocesean level, or go to the national or international level? Warren would never answer this.

Support Of Colleges

In 1958 the college question was re-opened in an attempt to get the colleges in the church budgets. Brother J.D. Thomas, Professor of Bible at ACC, wrote a book called We Be Brethren, in which he contended that churches can scripturally make contributions to “Christian schools.” With the majority of the churches swept up in the rush to originate and support human organizations, and with the exodus of the conservative element from most churches, the colleges generally achieved their goal. Churches all over the country are now supporting the colleges from their treasuries.

Our Situation Today

By the mid-1960s, division in the church was practically a total reality. Those who were contending for Bible authority in all things generally had to leave their home congregations in order to worship God in all good conscience. The others who favored the institutional approach generally kept the buildings, and moved more and more into liberalism and the social gospel. It is not unusual at all now, in fact it is the rule, to see fellowship halls, kitchens, game rooms, etc. in buildings owned by these churches.

These are heading more and more toward total denominationalism. Churches and preachers are joining ministerial alliances with denominations. These are exchanging pulpits on Sundays and other days with denominational preachers. One preacher even spoke to the Methodist church in his home town on how to build up their membership. History alone will record just how far these will go in the path of denominationalism, but every indication shows that they are travelling the same path those traveled in the last century who eventually became the digressive Christian Church.

Admonition To Conservative Brethren

While we must always be on guard that we do not practice or advocate anything that is not,,authorized by God’s word; yet we must realize that we are not just to be against departures, but are to advocate and practice active, positive New Testament Christianity. We must not degenerate into a faction of fanatics always opposing and never advocating. We must never let negative thinking rule our minds and lives to the extent that we do nothing positive for God. We should utilize all the resources at our disposal to promote the cause of Christ to a lost and dying world.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 36, pp. 585-587
September 11, 1980

By Ronny Milliner

The largest Protestant group in the United States is composed of those who take the name Baptist. Their total membership in 1971 was estimated to be 27,527,471.

The Bible tells us to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 Jn. 4:1). Jesus warned us that there would be some who come to us “in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Mt. 7:15). It is our purpose in this study to “test” the Baptist Church in light of the Scriptures as the Bereans put Paul’s teaching to the test of the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). We do so with no hatred in our hearts toward those who may be Baptists, but sincerely seek to compare their teaching and practice with the teaching of the Word of God.

History

When talking with some Baptists about when their denomination started, they affirm that it had its beginning with John the Baptist. Yet if this fact was so, it would be established before Jesus had built it. It was after John’s death (Mt. 14:1-12) that Jesus said, “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it” (Mt. 16:18). The church here was still future. It had its establishment on the first Pentecost after the death and resurrection of Christ (Acts 2).

Historians tell us that the Baptist Church arose out of the Anabaptist branch of the Reformation movement. The first Baptist church was started in Holland by John Smyth in 1609. Frank S. Mead, in his book Handbook of Denominations, wrote on page 36, “John Smyth, was completely captured by the Mennonite argument (Anabaptists were called Mennonites in Holland after their leader Menno Simons, RM). He rebaptized himself and his followers in the Anabaptist, or Baptist, faith and with them organized the first English Baptist Church in 1609.” Robert Baker, a Baptist historian, wrote concerning the beginning of the Baptist, “The group of New Testament Christians which emerged in England was given the name `Baptist’ by 1644. Before this time they had called themselves `baptized churches of Christ’ and `baptized congregations gathered according to the primitive pattern.’ Their enemies first called them Anabaptists, but that name they vehemently rejected . . . . The first step toward the formation of a New Testament church in England was taken by John Smyth, a well-educated and deeply spiritual minister of the Church of England . . . . Renouncing the baptism of infants, Smyth, in 1609, baptized himself and the rest of the company and organized what is believed to be the first English-speaking church that stood for the baptism of believes only” (The Baptist March in History, pp. 41, 43-44). Even one of their own manuals agrees with this fact. “During the period of the Reformation (1520-1555), there sprang up all over Central and Western Europe in great numbers Christians who were called Anabaptists, because they rejected both the baptism of the Roman Church and infant baptism, and insisted that all who came into the fellowship of their churches should be scripturally baptized . . . . Anabaptists held to the complete separation of church and state, liberty of the individual conscience, and the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice . . . . The Baptists of the last three hundred years are the direct descendants of the true Anabaptists of the period of the Reformation” (A New Baptist Church Manual, pp. 17-18). Generally, Roger Williams is credited for founding the Baptist Church in this country at Providence, Rhode Island in 1639. (Some, however, suggest John Clarke started the Baptist Church in the U.S. at Newport, RI, but this effort was probably a year or two later.)

The church of the New Testament was built by Jesus Christ (Mt. 16:18) on the first Pentecost after His death in Jerusalem (Acts 2). Thus, the Baptist Church was established by the wrong person, at the wrong time, and in the wrong place to be the church of the New Testament.

Organization

As stated previously, the Baptist denominations make up the largest Protestant group in the United States, yet it is divided into many different associations or conventions. There are at least 27 different Baptist groups in the U.S. with many independent Baptist churches. Among the larger and more well-known groups are: American Baptist Association (founded in 1905), American Baptist Convention (1907), Baptist General Conference (1879), Conservative Baptist Association of America (1947), General Association of Regular America (1932), General Baptists (1907), National Association of Free Will Baptists (1727), National Baptist Convention of America (1880), National Baptist Convention of U.S.A., Inc., National Baptist Evangelical Life and Soul Saving Assembly of the U.S.A. (1921), National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A. (1907), North American Baptist Association (1950), North American Baptist General Conference, Primitive Baptists, Southern Baptist Convention (1845), United Baptists (1801), and The United Free Will Baptist Church (1870).

Commenting on the organization of Baptist churches, Mr. Mead wrote, “Baptists have insisted upon freedom of thought and expression in pulpit and pew. This has made them one of the most democratic religious bodies in America – and one in which liberal and conservative doctrine is preached freely. They have insisted, too, upon the absolute autonomy of the local congregation; each church arranges its own worship, examines and baptizes its own members . . . . Baptist churches are commonly found grouped into associations, local and state, for purposes, of fellowship. National conventions are established among many of them to carry on educational and missionary work and to make pension plans. Most state conventions meet annually, with delegates representing all Baptist churches in the given area. They receive reports and make recommendations, but they have no authority to enforce their decisions” (Handbook of Denominations, pp. 38-39).

This democracy also is found in the local churches. The Baptist Church Manual states that in the government of the local congregation there is “the right of a majority of the members of a church to rule, in accordance with the law of Christ. The will of the majority having been expressed, it becomes the minority to submit” (p. 102). Another Baptist creed book agrees, “This church is an autonomous body, operating through democratic processes under the Lordship of Jesus Christ” (Broadman Church Manual, p. 45).

But the Lord’s church is not a democracy; it is a monarchy. The church is a kingdom with Jesus as its absolute Ruler (Col. 1:13; 1 Tim. 6:16). In exercising His authority in local congregations, Jesus has designed that there be a plurality of elders or overseers to rule and shepherd the flock of God (Acts 14:23; 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4).

Baptists confuse the work of the elder and the work of the preacher. The New Baptist Church Manual states, “In the organization of a church, Baptists recognize only two church officers as required by the New Testament, viz: Pastor (called also Bishop, Evangelist, Overseer, Elder, Presbyter) and Deacon” (pp. 28-29). It is true that pastor, bishop, overseer, elder, and presbyter all refer to the same man as these terms are used interchangeably (Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). But a pastor and an evangelist are distinguished by Paul in Eph. 4:11, “And He gave some apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers.” While a pastor can be an evangelist, a man can be an evangelist yet not be qualified to be a pastor. Baptists confuse the terms and often refer to the preacher as the “pastor.” But pastors or elders had to meet certain qualifications (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9). One of these qualifications is that he be the husband of one wife, yet the Baptist “pastor” that moved to Middlebourne after I did was unmarried. There was also a plurality of pastors in New Testament churches but not always so in modern-day Baptist churches (Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1).

Doctrine

Since there are so many different Baptist groups one can expect to find some variance in their teaching. But there are, of course, many things on which about all Baptist churches agree. It is to two of these doctrines that we want to limit ourselves in this study.

Baptists generally teach that one is saved by faith only. The Baptist Church Manual reads, “We believe . . . that justification . . . is bestowed . . . solely through faith” (p. 48). On the preceding page (p. 47), we find the statement, “We believe that the salvation of sinners is wholly of grace.” We would wonder how something could be “solely through faith” and yet at the same time “wholly of grace.” But this problem is common to those who leave the plain teaching of Scripture to write or establish their own beliefs. James clearly tells us, “You see that a man is just by works, and not by faith alone” (Jas. 2:24). Those who deny works in salvation confuse the works of man and the works of perfect obedience with the works of God. Paul did say, “For-by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9); but, he went on to say, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should ‘walk in them” (Eph. 2:10).

By teaching salvation by faith alone, Baptists deny the necessity of baptism for forgiveness of sin. According to their own Baptist-Church Manual, “Regeneration is the spiritual process by which we become new creatures in Christ – are born again – born of the Spirit – born of God – quickened together, with Christ – renewed after the image of God, etc., etc. . : . This being the case, regeneration does not occur in baptism” (p. 11). Yet, Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jn. 3:5). A tract entitled “When You Join the Church,” published by the Southern Baptist Convention, states on page four, “Baptism does not help a person to be saved or to become a Christian.” However, Jesus told His apostles, “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:16). In another tract called “What Is a Baptist Church?”, the Southern Baptist Convention would have us believe, “It is utter irony to baptize a person in order that he may be saved – in other words, before he is saved” (p. 5). But, Peter told lost sinners, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). The Baptists make it harder for people to get into the Baptist Church than to get into Heaven for they say, “To become a church member you must be baptized” (“When You Join the Church,” p. 4). By accepting a false position, Baptist doctrine infers that there will be disobedient people saved in heaven, for it teaches, “Baptism may not be essential to salvation, but it is essential to obedience” (The Hiscox Guide for Baptist Churches, p. 87). Despite all the arguments and objections raised by Baptists to the necessity of baptism for salvation, 1 Pet. 3:21 still reads, “baptism now saves you.”

The other doctrine to which we want to give brief attention is the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints or the impossibility of apostasy. This doctrine is that once one is saved he is always saved, or as stated by one of the Baptist creeds, “All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end” (Broadman Church Manual, pp. 44-45). Though not all Baptist churches accept this doctrine, a good many do. This doctrine, like salvation by faith only, is in plain opposition to the statement of Scripture. Gal. 5:4 reads, “You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.”

Our continuance in God’s grace and final salvation is conditional. Peter teaches that we “are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:5). We are protected or kept by God’s power, and certainly God will not fail us. But we are also kept through our faith. We can make shipwreck of the faith (1 Tim. 1:19), we can fall away from the faith (1 Tim. 4:1), we can deny the faith (1 Tim. 5:8), and we can wander away from the faith (1 Tim. 6:10). Baptist doctrine would have us believe that there will be disbelievers in Heaven. The only time the Bible says that we “will never stumble,” is when it also adds “as long as you practice these things” (2 Pet. 1:10). The doctrine “once saved, always saved” is not of God.

Conclusion

If space permitted we could consider Baptists’ use of instrumental music in worship to God (Baptist Church Manual, p. 39, compared with Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), their voting to receive candidates for baptism (Baptist Church Manual, pp. 17-18, compared with Acts 2:38-41, 47), their quarterly observances of the Lord’s Supper (Broadman Church Manual, p. 81, compared with Acts 2:42; 20:7), and other unauthorized practices. But we believe that if our readers will consider these things already presented, they will see that they are sufficient to convince the honest and good heart of the errors of the Baptist Church. Good friends, remember that if you follow a false teacher you will be eternally condemned in hell with them. “And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit” (Mt. 15:14).

Questions

1. Who is claimed by some Baptists to be the founder of the Baptist Church? Why is this claim false?
2. Who actually is credited with founding the first Baptist church? When and where?
3. Who were the Anabaptists and what were some of their beliefs?
4. What kind of organizations do the Baptist denominations have?
5. What kind of government is found in local Baptist churches?
6. What two works in the church do Baptists confuse?
7. Why is the doctrine of justification by with only unscriptural?
8. How do Baptists confuse what the Bible says about works?
9. What is the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and why is it unscriptural?
10. List other errors of the Baptist Church of which you may be aware.

Bibliography

Baker, Robert A. The Baptist March in History. Nashville, Tennessee: Convention Press, 1958.

Foshee, Howard B. Broadman Church Manual. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press; 1973.

Head, E.D. “What Is a Baptist Church?” Nashville, Tennessee: Southern Baptist Convention, 1951.

Hiscox, Edward T. The Hiscox Guide for Baptist Churches. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press, 1964.

Mead, Frank S. Handbook of Denominations. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1975.

A New Baptist Church Manual. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press, 1895.

Pendleton, J.M. Baptist Church Manual. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1966.

“When You Join the Church.” Nashville, Tennessee: Southern Baptist Convention.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 36, pp. 582-582
September 11, 1980