Truth Magazine

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

By Mike Willis

One of the common sermons which was preached and one of the common articles which appeared in restoration literature of a previous century was “The Action of Baptism.” The restoration leaders were studying their way out of denominationalism. One of the important truths which they learned was that the action of baptism was immersion, despite the many statements of the confessions written by denominationalists to the contrary.

In recent years, brethren have neglected to preach and write on some of these fundamental themes. The result has been that a unity movement has arisen among some of the more liberal brethren among us which is willing to extend the right hands of fellowship to those who have never been baptized (i.e., they have had water sprinkled or poured on them but have never been baptized). This demonstrates our need to constantly teach and preach on the fundamental themes of the gospel, such as the action, purpose, subject, and element of baptism.

To illustrate the infidelity of some among us with reference to baptism, consider these-statements by Leroy Garrett, heir apparent to Carl Ketcherside’s unity movement:

It frees us from a sectarian concept to realize that wherever God has a child we have a brother or sister, wherever that child may be. Surely we have blood brothers and sisters out there in the larger religious world, people who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ just as we have. They are not our brothers and sisters because they are Methodists or Baptists or Pentecostals or whatever, but because they are “in Christ” just as we are, having believed and obeyed the same gospel we have (“Betrayal of a Heritage,” Restoration Review, Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 228).

Maybe the Methodists obeyed the same gospel as Garrett obeyed; however, they did not obey the same gospel which I obeyed. I was taught that one had to be immersed in water in order to be saved; Methodists were not so taught.

Furthermore, Garrett himself does not believe that baptism is essential for salvation. He wrote,

This method, which in our shallow sectarianism we have all but ignored, would be almost as startling to us. Just to mention a few assumptions that could be questions: how strong is the evidence in Scripture that tongues have ceased? or that a collection is to be taken only on the first day of the week? or that money becomes “the Lord’s money” when it s put into “the church treasury”? or that singing can be only acappella? or that there is congregational singing to start with? or that immersion is essential to salvation? or that drinking per se is a sin? (“The Idols of the Mind,” Restoration Review, Vol. 22, No. 5, p. 83).

One can be saved before and without an immersion in water according to Leroy Garrett. Notice that no scripture is cited; only his bold assertion is given. However, the fact that he knows of Methodists, Presbyterians and Catholics who are his “blood” brothers and sisters in Christ, demonstrates that he thinks that a man can be saved without baptism.

Baptism Is A Part of the Great Commission

One cannot read the Great Commission given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles without reading about baptism. In both Matthew and Mark’s account of the Great Commission, baptism is mentioned; Jesus said,

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world (Matt. 28:18-20).

Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned (Mk. 16:15-16).

Preaching the gospel which Jesus sent men out to preach involved preaching something about baptism. This is confirmed by reading any of the many cases of conversion recorded in the book of Acts. Truly, baptism is part of the warp and woof of the Great Commission.

What Did Jesus Mean By “Baptize”?

The question is raised, “Exactly what did Jesus mean when He commanded men to be baptized?” This is an important question inasmuch as the benefits to be enjoyed as a result of belief and baptism include everlasting salvation. Even as we define the word “believe,” we must also define the word “baptize.”

One of the principles of sound interpretation of scripture is that words must be interpreted on the basis of their meaning. We do not have the liberty of putting any and every definition we so desire on words in understanding written communication. Consider what anarchy would result if every man was allowed to give his own definition of “stop.” “Stop” means “to cease moving, walking, proceeding, etc.; to halt.” Suppose each motorist defined the word as he chose. One man approaches a stop sign and defines the word to mean “hurry on through the intersection.” A second man approaches the stop sign and understands the meaning to be “slow down and proceed with caution.” A third man understands the sign to mean “to halt.” Can you imagine the confusion which would exist if every man was given the liberty of defining a word according to his own preference?

This is exactly what has happened through the years with reference to the word “baptize.” Man has taken the liberty of redefining the word used by Jesus. Webster reflects the meaning of the word “baptize” as it is presently used in twentieth century English. He defines “baptism” to mean “a baptizing or being baptized; specifically, the ceremony or sacrament of admitting a person into Christianity or a specific Christian church by dipping him in water or sprinkling water on him, as a symbol of washing away sin.”

This definition simply reflects what the creeds of men have stated about baptism. To demonstrate this, consider what the following creeds and confession state about the action of baptism:

Baptism may be administered by sprinkling, pouring or immersion, according to the choice of the applicant (Manual of the Church of the Nazarene, 1944, Article 13).

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).

Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person (The Westminster confession of Faith, Chapter XXVIII, No. 3).

Webster’s definition simply reflects what English speaking people have understood to be the meaning of baptism; his definition does not reflect the original meaning of the words as used by Jesus.

Those who are interested in understanding what Jesus meant when He commanded a person to be “baptized” need to consider the definition of the Greek word baptizo. The definition of this word is given below according to the most reputable lexicons available on the Greek language; they demonstrate conclusively the meaning of the word as used by Jesus.

Liddell and Scott (a highly respected lexicon of classical Greek): “to dip in or under water.” This lexicon demonstrates the definition of the word by classical usages such as to refer to a sunken ship metaphorically of being “baptized” over head and ears in debt and other similar usages.

Arndt and Gingrich in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: “dip, immerse.”

Thayer in Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: “to dip repeatedly, to immerge, submerge . . . . In the N.T. it is used particularly of the rite of sacred ablution, first instituted by John the Baptist, afterwards by Christ’s command received by Christians and adjusted to the contents and nature of their religion, viz. an immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin, and administered to those who, impelled by a desire for salvation, sought admission to the benefits of the Messiah’s kingdom.”

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. I, pp. 529-545) discusses in great detail the usage of this word in the New Testament after giving the basic definition of the word to be “to immerse” (p. 530).

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology edited by Colin Brown (Vol. I, p. 144) defines baptizo to mean “dip, immerse, submerge, baptize.”

There is no Greek lexicon of any reputation, to my knowledge, which gives any other definition of the word baptizo (to baptize) than these cited in this article. Webster even reflects this fact in giving his definition of “baptize.” He commented that the word was from the Greek “baptizein, to dip under water.” Though he defines the word in its contemporary usage, Webster gives the proper meaning of the word as it was originally used in commenting on the origin of the English word “baptize.”

The Meaning of “Baptize” Can Be Learned Without Greek

The meaning of the word “baptize” as it appears in the New Testament can be learned without a person having a thorough knowledge of the Greek language. By carefully examining his English Bible, the student of God’s word can easily see that Bible baptism is an immersion in water. Here are some evidences that New Testament baptism is an immersion in water.

1. John’s Baptism. John 3:23 relates that John the Baptist was “baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there.” Apparently, New Testament baptism required much water. Furthermore, when Jesus went to the Jordan River to be baptized by John, He went down into the water to be baptized as is apparent from the specific statement that He “went up straightway out of the water”- (Matt. 3:17). The very reasons which keep the modern clergy from going down into the water to sprinkle or pour a little water on a person would have kept John out of the water. He and Jesus went down into the water and came up out of the water because this was necessary for him to administer baptism.

2. The baptism of the Eunuch. Luke records the baptism of the Ethiopian nobleman in Acts 8:36-39.

And as they went on their way, 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 thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Notice that in the Eunuch’s baptism, there was a going down into and coming up out of water. While in the water, Philip baptized (immersed) him.

3. Baptism is compared to a burial. Paul compared baptism to a burial in these passages:

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4).

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead (Col. 2:11-12).

In both of these passages, baptism is compared to a burial. If one can understand that a burial involves being totally covered with dirt, he should be able to understand that a burial in water involves being totally covered with water. If a man does not bury his loved ones by sprinkling or pouring a small amount of dirt on them, he should not be baptized by having someone to pour or sprinkle a small portion of water on him.

These evidences are conclusive in showing that New Testament baptism is an immersion in water. Sprinkling and pouring do not meet the requirements for having New Testament baptism.

When Did Sprinkling Or Pouring Begin?

If there is no Bible evidence that the early church practiced sprinkling or pouring as baptism, when did this begin and for what reason? The book The Form of Baptism by J.B. Briney answers these questions for us. He wrote as follows:

This “most ancient” case gives us a tangible beginning in the history of affusion. Keeping within the facts of history we must say that it began about the middle of the third century, and that its first use was in case of people supposed to be too sick to endure immersion. That its introduction created a sensation and gave rise to controversy, is quite manifest, and it was evidently the purpose of the author of the Didache to quiet the minds of the people on the subject, in giving it as his judgment that pouring would do . . .

It is a historical fact that “baptism by affusion” originated in the third century on the ground of urgent necessity in sickness. Beginning then and thus it held its place on the same ground for a number of years, and then began to be practiced on account of “scarcity of water” . . . .

How the exception became the rule is related by Dr. Schaff thus: “The question now arises, when and how came the mode of pouring and sprinkling to take the place of immersion and emersion as a rule? The change was gradual and confined to the Western churches. The Roman Church, as we have seen, backed by the authority of Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, took the lead in the thirteenth century, yet so as to retain in her rituals the form of immersion as the older and better mode. The practice prevailed over the theory, and the exception became the rule” (pp. 124-126).

Briney’s work, as well as that of L.C. Wilson entitled The History of Sprinkling are significant works to demonstrate that sprinkling and pouring came to be substituted for baptism years after the death of the apostles. They were additions to the word of God and stand outside the realm of those things authorized in the New Testament.

Conclusion

The action of Bible baptism is immersion in water. Sprinkling and pouring are no more baptism than running is stopping! Consequently, we utterly reject sprinkling and pouring as scriptural actions for baptism.

Those among us who are willing to extend the right hand of fellowship to those who have never been immersed in water for the remission of sins might give lip service to the doctrine that Bible baptism is an immersion in water but their words will have little impact so long as they are willing to accept as a faithful Christian those who have never been baptized (immersed) and who teach that baptism can be administered by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. Theirs is a compromising position that will eventually lead to the total abandonment of the position that baptism must be an immersion in water.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 36, pp. 579-581
September 11, 1980

By Irven Lee

Every true Christian is eager to see the truth spread and cover the earth. All who read the New Testament carefully understand that the great mission or commission under which we work is to teach all nations. The gospel is to be preached to every creature (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15, 16; Luke 24:47).

We are allowed much liberty to use many available means of teaching just as we may use different means to travel. The apostles never traveled by car, train, bus, or plane, but we do not sin by using such means today in going to various places to preach the word. He told us to “go teach,” but He did not specify a method of travel or a method of teaching. He did specify what we are to teach. He specified that we preach or teach the gospel, including all things that He commanded us (Matt. 28:20). The method of teaching or traveling are general or generic commands, but the Lord was very specific in giving the content of the message.

Some useful teaching is done by sermons delivered to the assembly. The audience on such occasions may be aliens or saints. We should not go beyond that which is written, but there is much truth to cover if we would preach the whole counsel. We should use the best judgment we have in selecting the part of His counsel that is most needed when and where we preach. If one is to speak time after time to practically the same audience, he should try hard to get to the whole counsel sooner or later (Acts 20:26, 27). This is very important. The congregation should be fed a balanced spiritual diet and not be given the same few lessons over and over again. Repetition is important, but there are many things to emphasize by repetition.

Some of the most effective teaching is done privately. On such occasions it is possible to learn of the special needs of the one being taught so that time will not be consumed on those things that are already understood. One can deal with the special prejudices and special needs of the listener, and he can deal with the questions that the learner is ready to ask. When one preaches to a large audience, he does not expect to complete the task in one lesson. In a similar way, many hours of study may be necessary to convert one friend or neighbor, but the value of one soul and the joy of accomplishment make it worth every hour that is used in converting one person.

The New Testament itself is an example of teaching by means of written material. Much is accomplished in our generation by written material. One way that even the babe in Christ can help in spreading the truth is by handing printed sermons to those who might read. It is unfortunate that our nation is not a nation of readers. Recreation, television, or two jobs for earning more money cut down on the time for reading. Many complain that the school system graduates many illiterate people today who find reading difficult and unpleasant. There are many that may be taught much truth by the printed page. Let us use this method freely. Why are there not more homes with religious periodicals, or good books, or tracts handy for the family?

Whom are we to teach? Every creature in all the world. What are we to teach? The whole counsel of God. Should we be discouraged by thinking of the amazing assignment? It would not be as impossible as it sounds if we could capture the spirit of the early Christians. When one was taught, he was to begin his struggle to become a teacher. (Heb. 5:12-14; 2 Tim. 2:2; Acts 8:4.) In a few decades, the word had been carried from nation to nation in a persecuting world that offered only slow means of travel and with no radio, television, or printing press. Look at what they did and marvel (Col. 1:23). A snowball that a person can hold in his hand can become huge by rolling it in the snow. When Paul and one companion would start out to go into a pagan world, the number of skilled workers would start multiplying. There would soon be Timothy, Luke, Titus, and many others along with the two who went out from Antioch (Acts 20:4; Phile. 1, 2, 23, 24). Too many continue to sit and be taught rather than to become teachers.

Teachers of the word are not all men who spend their whole time preaching to assemblies while receiving full support from the church. Each church needs elders that are apt to teach, and there is a need for qualified teachers for the classes. Many of us have been helped very much in well-taught classes. On the other hand there are many classes that are not well taught. Those who are excellent teachers of the word do both public and private teaching (Acts 20:20). Should not each faithful man become a teacher? Should women forget their job to teach women and children (1 Tim. 5:14; 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15; Titus 2:3-5)?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 36, p. 578
September 11, 1980