Truth Magazine

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

By Dudley R. Spears

Sometimes when someone is said to be “preaching” one wonders if the “preaching” is to be heard or watched – or both. A number of years ago, this writer sat as a student in the auditorium of David Lipscomb College during a chapel service when a well known preacher and promoter was supposedly preaching on “having fun in the church building.” He said that he liked to have fun and thought it was silly not to have fun, whereupon he jumped as high as he could, clicked his heels and yelped as loud as a Comanche on the warpath. I remember thinking at the time that the right or wrong of the act was covered up completely by the silliness of it.

Preaching is of such nature that the antics of the preacher should not detract from the message. Strutting around and jumping up and down and going through various bodily gyration’ are always detractions. Yes, always! Two brethren y~ere walking away from a meeting house after having heard one of the prancing preachers and one was heard to ask the other, “How’d you like the preaching?” “Well,” drawled the other, “I ain’t right sure – it was a mite too active fur me.” Paul said that he determined not to know a thing among the Corinthians, “save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” Hear him as he describes his preaching. “And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (I Cor. 2:4-5). I suggest that Paul did not demonstrate how well he could prance, strut, jump or click his heels – he just preached.

Sometimes these acrobatic antics betray a weakness on the part of the preacher. He is either weak in knowledge of the scriptures or in his ability to concisely and cogently present an organized lesson. It could be that he is just sort of a “ham” at heart. Whatever it is, it adds no more to the message presented than the antics of the false prophets who did about the same and a little more when confronted by Elijah. Edward J. Young has an interesting comment on what happened.

That the term “to prophesy” had a wide extension of usage, may be seen from the fact that it was applied to the frenzied action of the prophets of Baal upon Mt. Carmel. After describing how these prophets were cutting themselves “after their manner” until they drew blood, the sacred writer continues, “And it came to pass when the noon has passed, that they prophesied until the offering of the minhah (evening sacrifice, DRS)” (I Kings 18:29a). Here it would seem as though the act of prophesying and that of cutting themselves was identical. At any rate there seems to be no doubt that the prophesying here mentioned involved frenzied action. And it is of interest to note that in this instance the word is applied, not to prophets of Jehovah, but to those of Baal (My Servants the Prophets, p. 74).

The “frenzied action” seemed to have been an ingrained part of the false prophet’s mannerism. If there is any correlation at all between the work prophets did in Old Testament times and that which gospel preachers should do now we had best recall that our preaching is not a performance – it is delivering a life and death message, a teaching of the unlearned and the only way to keep the church of the Lord pure.

There are several things one does not need to have in order to preach. Among them is a good collection of jokes, anecdotes and tales. A man does not need to have a good “dance step” in order to get a good lesson across. If he is going to preach, all he needs is some time to study, meditate, pray, memorize and organize what he finds in the word of God and the ability and faith to deliver it. It is downright embarrassing to go hear a man preach who either goes out of his way to be funny, sometimes even vulgar, or who cannot just stand still and preach.

Antics and frolicking in the pulpit may attract some of the giddy and silly who are not thoughtful, but it will not be respected by the sincerely godly folk who want the message of truth stripped of the preachers personality and all that goes with it. When we preach, sometimes we are like the description Mr. Fred B. Craddock gave. We are like the man who hurls javelins into the audience, expecting them to catch them and profit from having caught them. Preaching that is not a performance is a delight to an audience, but a performance is only a delight to those who like to have their ears tickled and be entertained. Let’s all get back to preaching.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 36, pp. 578, 581
September 11, 1980

By Ron Halbrook

After reading Arnold Hardin on “A Real Life Drama” in The Persuader (8 June 1980), published by the Scyene Road Church of Christ in Dallas, Texas, I am persuaded that he will pay my plane fare to Texas. His article follows:

A man lies in the hospital, at this time, here in Dallas near death. Some time back a preacher began studying with him and finally while in the hospital the man wished to obey the Lord in baptism. The preacher relayed the request to the Doctor. The Doctor refused saying that such an action would surely kill his patient due to the circumstances attendant to the illness.

The preacher went back and told the patient the doctor’s decision. But that is not all the preacher told the dying (?) man. He also told him that if he is not baptized, and death comes, he will surely go to hell. The patient became frightened and a terrible mental condition is being experienced.

The final outcome is not known at this time. I wish I could talk to members of the church all over this country and get a first hand view of this situation. Do you see anything wrong here? Do you believe, as this preacher, that under such “death circumstances” this man would indeed go to hell if death overtakes him without his being able to be baptized? Would you question in any way the teaching processes of this preacher? Do you feel that God could never forgive a believing penitent under these circumstances over which he has absolutely no control? We all agree, do we not, that under normal circumstances a believing sinner reaches the forgiving grace of God, made possible by the blood of Christ, only at the point of faith being embodied in that one’s burial and resurrection spiritually with Christ?

I would be happy to hear from any as to your own views concerning such a matter. How do you view it? Could God forgive the dying thief in a dying situation, but not such a believing penitent as this man? If you would like to express yourselves we will not mention your name. Others, I believe, will enjoy having your views.

The reason Arnold will pay my plane fare to Texas is so that I can sprinkle water on the man who needs baptism. Being older than I, Arnold is too tradition-bound, legalistic, and prejudiced to perform a sprinkling. Only those who are younger can be uninhibited in carrying out the principles which he preaches. We all agree that “under normal circumstances” a person must upon penitent faith be baptized for the remission of sins. But under “death circumstances” a person may be justified to substitute forgiveness “at the point of faith” only – or, why not at the point of sprinkling? There are an equal number of passages assuring forgiveness at both these points.

In keeping with the well-known maxim, “God accepts the intent for the act,” sprinkling would be a wonderful manifestation of a dying man’s intent. This would provide an impressive testimony of his intent to all who witness the act, saints and sinners alike. It is a sure way to remove the distraught dying sinner’s anxiety, fear, and mental disturbance. Who could believe that “God could never forgive a believing penitent under these circumstances?” Surely not Arnold Hardin. Who could deny a dying man this token of assurance? Surely not Arnold Hardin. If he will just send the plane fare, I will be there pronto! Will our readers kindly urge him to do so? We prefer to fly first class.

We suggest Arnold Hardin get his readers’ opinions on the following dilemmas:

1. What about the dying skeptic who has been brought to the point of doubting his skepticism and fully intends to believe the gospel if sufficient evidence is given? Who could believe that “God could never forgive” a dying skeptic “under these circumstances”? Why not offer him some assurance rather than have him suffer “a terrible mental condition” under such “death circumstances”?

2. What about the believer whose sorrow is advancing but has not yet advanced to the point of godly sorrow and repentance? The doctor warns that further discussion would irritate the suffering and “would surely kill his patient due to the circumstances attendant to the illness.” “Do you feel that God could never forgive a believing almost penitent person under these circumstances over which he has absolutely no control?” Keep in mind that we all agree repentance is required “under normal circumstances.”

3. What about the penitent believer who has not yet had the courage to confess Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God? “Under normal circumstances” we must teach him the necessity of doing so unto salvation. But under “death circumstances,” is this man really in danger of hell if the doctor fears that further study with the patient will bring on a state of fear and mental anguish leading to death? “Could God forgive the dying thief, in a dying situation, but not such a believing penitent as this man?”

Since Arnold asks our views on the conditions of forgiveness under various circumstances, we offer all the information God has given us on the subject “under normal circumstances” or any others:

1. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Rom. 10:17).

2. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that beliveth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16).

3. “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38).

4. “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10).

5. “He that beliveth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16).

Certainly, anyone facing death without obeying the gospel is tragic. It is equally tragic to teach that people can die in the blessed hope of the gospel without obeying it, in the absence of any revelation which teaches this. Such teaching is nothing more or less than human speculation! Would Arnold Hardin also ask his readers whether we should send people into the great eternity embracing for their hope a human speculation? We can preach the necessity of man meeting. the conditions of pardon because they are plainly revealed. Speculation about God setting aside the conditions of pardon offers man the delusion of a hope for which we have not one line of positive Divine revelation.

It is our job to preach the conditions of pardon – for the alien sinner and for the erring child of God – along with the consequences of not meeting them. That is written and is too plain for anyone to misunderstand. It is not our job to pronounce clemency. That will be God’s job in judgment and He has not given us one line of revelation from which we can pronounce the clemency. Let us preach the gospel with all its facts, commands, and promises just as it is revealed in Scripture. This gives people all the assurance which Divine revelation gives – no more and no less. We really do not know anything about God’s character, will, or forgiveness except what is written.

If we can deviate from Divine revelation, what do our readers think of Arnold Hardin paying our plane fare to Texas for a sprinkling service? “If you would like to express yourselves we will not mention your name. Others, I believe, will enjoy having your views.”

Truth Magazine XXIV: 35, pp. 570-571
September 4, 1980