Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Most of the denominational creeds and manuals specifically state that sprinkling, pouring or immersion are suitable modes of baptism. Webster’s Dictionary defines baptism as “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.” Hence, the large majority of religious people today believe that there is no importance attached to the mode of baptism, whether it be administered by sprinkling, pouring or immersion. What saith the Scriptures?

Baptism Defined

Although it is true that Webster’s Dictionary specifically defines “baptism” to mean sprinkling, pouring or immersion, one must remember that Webster’s defines the word according to its contemporary usage. There is at least a possibility that the word “baptism” has experienced a change in meaning in the many years of its usage. Hence, in defining the word “baptism” we need to be careful to find out, not what the word means in twentieth century usage, but what the word meant which Jesus used when He said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”

The lexicons are quite clear in defining the word. Here are several definitions for the word as given by reputable lexicons:

. . . properly to dip repeatedly, to immerge, submerge . . . (Thayer, p. 94).

. . . dip, immerse . . . (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 130).

. . . to dip, immerse . . . (Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 65).

. . . baptism, consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion and emergence . . . (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. I, p. 96).

I know of absolutely no lexicographer of any reputation who defines the word group bapto, from which baptisma and baptizo are derived, in any other way than the above lexicons of the Greek language define it. Our own Webster’s Dictionary mentions that the English word is derived from the Greek word bapto which means “to dip.”

As a matter of fact, our English word baptism is not a translation of the Greek word baptisms; it is a transliteration. The difference in a translation and a transliteration is this: a translation gives the word equivalent in one language which corresponds to the meaning in another language; a transliteration simply brings the word in one language into another language, letter for letter. Hence, the word baptisma was not translated in our English Bibles into the English word equivalent, “immersion.” Rather, it was transliterated; hence, we have the English word baptism to represent the Greek word baptisma.

To further show the contemporary usage of the word baptisma in the time of Christ, consider these evidences. The following quotations were cited in The Form of Baptism by J.B. Briney (pp. 22-23); he cited the following evidences:

Pindar (522 B.C.): “For, as when the rest of the tackle is toiling deep in the sea, I, as a cork above the net, am unbaptized in the brine.”

Polybius (205 B.C.): “And even if the spear falls into the sea, it is not lost, for it is compacted of both oak and pine, so that when the oaken part is baptized by the weight, the rest is buoyed up, and is easily recovered.”

“They passed through with difficulty, the foot-soldiers baptized as far as to the breasts.”

Josephus (37 A.D.): “Continually pressing down and baptizing him while swimming, as if in sport, they did not desist till they had entirely suffocated him.”

These citations of the common usage of the word as used in the time of Christ, demonstrate that the words baptisma (baptism) and baptizo (to baptize) were understood by the first century Christians to mean “an immersion” and “to immerse.”

Scriptural Evidence Confirming These Definitions

Two specific baptisms recorded in the Scriptures demonstrate that the action of New Testament baptism was immersion. For example, read the following passages:

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him . . . (Matt. 3:16).

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 (Acts 8:38-39).

These recorded cases of New Testament baptism demonstrate that New Testament baptism required both a “going down into” and a “coming up out of” water. The very same reasons which prevent those who practice sprinkling and pouring from going down into and coming up out of water in the twentieth century would have prevented those in the first century. The action of baptism was immersion!

The things to which baptism is compared also demonstrate that the action of New Testament baptism is immersion. It is compared to (a) a burial (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12). If one buries a thing by sprinkling a little dirt on it or pouring a little dirt on it, then one might appropriately baptize by sprinkling and pouring. However, if burial is administered by totally covering the object with dirt, then baptism is an immersion in water. (b) Planting (Rom. 6:5). The New Testament compares baptism to a planting; where I grew up, when we planted something, we covered it with dirt. Hence, baptism is a covering. with water, an immersion.

Conclusion

The testimony of lexicons, contemporary writers, and the Scriptures themselves is harmonious. All of the existing evidence demonstrates that the meaning of the word baptisma is immersion. Hence, when Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” He meant, “He that believeth and is immersed shall be saved.”

The sprinkling or pouring of a small quantity of water over a person’s head is not Bible baptism. Regardless of what good intentions the subject or administrator might have had when they participated in this ceremony, they were simply not obeying the word of the Lord. Not having obeyed the conditions laid down by Christ for salvation, there is no promise to such persons that salvation is given to them.

My friends, if you have been led to believe that something someone did to you as an infant, when they sprinkled a few drops of water in your face as you resisted their actions with all of your might, will suffice to meet the conditions of the gospel for receiving the benefits of Christ’s blood, you need to realize right now that there is not one piece of scriptural evidence that it will be accepted by the Lord God Almighty. Will you humbly submit to immersion in water for the remission of your sins in order that you might receive the remission of your sins?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 19, pp. 307-308
May 10, 1979

By Irven Lee

The doctors and other concerned citizens of our country, are trying to arouse the public with the fact that child abuse is very brutal and very widespread, Thousands of children are killed or maimed for life by angry parents who do not love them. The details of this war are not reported daily because no one knows the complete story, and the casualties are not lying along the street of some city or camp that was the point of the attack. The dead and wounded are scattered from coast to coast, and almost all of them are kept out of sight.

The victims of this war are unarmed, and they have no bomb shelter where they can hide and be in relative safety. Those destroyed by this insane slaughter are the innocent children of the land, and they suffer generally at the hands of drunk, atheistic parents who have been told since they were children that they are products of blind evolution rather than descendants of parents who were created in the image of a loving heavenly Father who would have all men come to repentance and live by the wonderful wisdom of His counsel. They are without hope and without God in this world (Eph. 2:12).

The frustrated parents were never taught to love children (Titus 2:3-5). They may have learned to look for pleasure in that which is contrary to nature rather than that which is in fellowship with God and His family. They are to be pitied as well as the unwelcome children that come to live with them. If there were some way to convert these parents to Christ so that His example and teaching could have free course in their lives, the homes would immediately turn toward the “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance” (Gal. 5:22, 23). There is no law against these traits, and people who have them would harm no one. Conversion would bring about a change which is beyond description, and this change would enrich the lives of those converted and all whose lives they touch. The children would be loved and protected rather than neglected, starved, and beaten.

“Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come” (1 Tim. 4:8). The unselfish and faithful followers of Christ shall receive now in this time an hundredfold, with persecution, and in the world to come eternal life (Mark 10:28-20). The helpless children cannot teach their parents. They are destined to die early or become the vicious criminals and animal-like people of the next generation. They will learn only hate from their environment.

There are wonderful people who would delight to have these children when they first come into the world, but the children are carried into the “war zone” without their choice arid beyond the knowledge and reach of (hose who would love them. It is amazing how soon such little ones learn rebellion, hate, and ugly attitudes in the dirty homes into which they are born, it is almost impossible to remove the evil, scars of such unholy environment– and treatment that they receive early in wife even if the courts find them and make them available to wise and loving couples who desire children. The effort to help them is worthy. The physical scars are less serious then the spiritual scars of these unfortunate abused children.

It is also very difficult to get the cruel, animal-like parents with the gospel which is God’s power to change them into .saints and heirs of heaven: It is very much in order for the courts to mete out severe punishment to the guilty parents when they learn of their heartless treatment of their own children, and it is proper for the neighbors to report such criminals to the authorities because this may deter some from such conduct. The ideal is for the gospel to reach them, but they are not listening for the truth, not searching the Scriptures. These murderers of children are products of the atheism and modernism that is taught in textbooks, on television, and even in the pulpits of some of the older denominations.

Neglect of children is often found in more respectable homes. Parents are too busy in their search for money and pleasure to notice the little ones who are so hungry for attention and affection. Children from such homes may become the drug addicts, thieves, and abusers of their children in the next generation. Time spent in teaching and showing affection for children is well used. It pays great dividends.

The feminists who seek to destroy the home, the university professors who scoff at the Bible, modern vulgar entertainers who destroy the sense of moral values, and the modernistic preachers who undermine respect for the Scriptures are the productive engineers who train the soldiers in this cruel army that is engaged in this undeclared war on innocent children. If active precious faith could be instilled in the heart of every American, child abuse would stop at once. Let the truth of God be sent out in all directions to all people with all haste. Some will listen with reverence, and when they do they will glorify God and befriend the innocent. Such is the infuence of the Bible. The more abundant life is for the faithful servant of God and not for the servant of the devil. These Christians find happiness and share it with others. The unbelievers who think thay are animals are without hope, and they tend to understand only the rule of force.

Those who are guilty of child abuse are the very people who show no respect for the lives and property of adults about them. They are a selfish people with no respect for the law of God or man. Sin grows in clusters, and when one heinous crime comes to the surface it is usually accompanied by, many ,ether evidences of rebellion against the God of heaven.

Let all who have obeyed the gospel realize that their great mission in life is to encourage others to do the same. We need not expect some political party to stop the crime wave. If it is done, it will be accomplished by those who understand and obey the gospel and teach. it to others. Let us be as the salt of the earth and the light of the world.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 19, p. 306
May 10, 1979

By Earl Robertson

The church of Christ is different! And the fundamental reason why this is true can be stated quite simply: we believe that the New Testament is a divine blueprint for what the church ought to be in every age, and it is our responsibility to build according to this pattern.

God has a pattern. God has always had a pattern for His great institutions. When God gave Moses instructions for the building of the tabernacle, He said, “According to all that I show thee, the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the furniture thereof, even so shall ye make it” (Ex. 25:9). Centuries later, when God selected Solomon to build the temple, “David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch of the temple, and of the houses thereof . . . and the pattern of all that he had by the Spirit” (1 Chron. 28:11, 12). And David told Solomon, “All this have I been made to understand in writing from the hand of Jehovah, even all the works of this pattern” (v. 19).

If God was so concerned about the temple and tabernacle (physical buildings) that He gave His people a pattern and demanded that they build according to the pattern, could He be so unconcerned about the church (a spiritual house) that He had no blueprint for it? The tabernacle is a “copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses is warned of God when he is about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith He, that thou make all things according to the pattern that was showed thee in the mount” (Heb. 8:5). The tabernacle was a shadow; the church is the reality! Since the shadow had a pattern, the reality must also have one.

We have a duty. Since God has a pattern for the church, we have a corresponding responsibility. Our duty is to judge every item of faith, every practice, by God’s pattern. This explains why churches of Christ are concerned about many questions which seem “silly and childish” to the average denominationalist. When we insist that one must be immersed in water for the remission of sins to become a member of the Lord’s church, there are many who reply, “What difference does it make?” We reply, “God’s pattern shows just how one becomes a member of the church and this pattern includes baptism.”

We must judge every item of faith engaged within the church, and every practice, according to God’s pattern. We never have scriptural recourse from such action. God requires water baptism for salvation and entrance into the body of Christ, which is His church; from this divine requirement there is no recourse!

Often we are asked why we do not use instrumental music in our worship. When asked, we reply, “The divine blueprint does not authorize it.” If the divine blueprint-the word of God-does not include it, who is man to presumptuously include it within the plan? Preachers cannot add it to the divine plan with impunity. All such high-handed acts will be answered for in judgment!

The religious world long ago left the Bible. We are now pleading for a return to the word of God; a restoration of the ancient order-restoring the things of God according to God’s way. This commitment allows action only upon the basis of what God’s word says-“according to the pattern” (Heb. 8:5).

Of course, most religious folk are making this claim. But compare their religious actions with this claim! Some churches of Christ make the claim that the church is only the spiritual body of Christ with a spiritual mission, but most of their time is spent in a social mission. Their religion has to do with this world rather than involving itself with actions that pertain to the world to come. Just recently the East Frayser church in Memphis built a quarter million dollar gymnasium. The preacher says, “The objectives for the building will be Bible instruction and community service through fellowship and recreation. We will have supervised recreation for youth, adults and senior adults.” How many churches would either object to this action or give instructions from the divine pattern to authorize the same?

The New Testament is the pattern for New Testament churches. Every church must build according to this pattern. If we do not build according to this blueprint, then by what shall churches be built? Do not be afraid to ask for divine instructions for the things the church is doing where you worship. Your soul is involved and you will most assuredly give answer to God for whatever you have engaged in as spiritual service offered unto him. Make sure of what you do!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 18, p. 300
May 3, 1979

By Don Willis

Cecil Willis engaged Mr. G. M. Bowers of the Seventh Day Church of God in a public debate on the Sabbath question. The debate was conducted at the Southside church of Christ building in Huntsville, Texas on March 5-6 and 8-9.

Many have been concerned in recent months relative to the health of Cecil Willis. The family also expressed concern as he entered the debate. There have been so many circumstances to affect Cecil in recent months, that his nervous system has almost been taxed to the limit. However, Cecil was amply prepared (as has always been his custom) for this discussion. He entered the debate with around 140 charts dealing with almost every conceivable argument that Bowers desired to present. Cecil was assisted by his two preaching sons: Steve and Dave; and I helped some.

Bowers would deny no affirmation that Cecil suggested; thus, Bowers was in the affirmative for four nights. The proposition read: “Resolved: The Scriptures teach that the Ten Commandments are not part of the Old Covenant, that all Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament, including the Sabbath command, and that Sunday worship is of pagan origin, and comes to us through the Catholic Church.” Bowers had no local endorsement. The nearest Seventh Day Church of God published an article repudiating Mr. Bowers, and they did not attend the debate.

Bowers chief affirmative was that there is a difference in the Commandments and the Ordinances (Judgments) found in the Old Testament. He affirmed that the Commandments were the Ten Commandments (and certain other injunctions chosen by Bowers by his own ipsi dixit; e.g., laws regulating Diet, Worship, Social Conduct, Charity, Sanitation and Business). thus, every time Bowers would find the statement, “keep the commandments” or “keep the law” (cf. 1 Jn. 3:4; 5:3, etc.), he always related this to the Ten Commandments.

Cecil showed the uses of terms such as commands, statutes, judgments were all used for the Ten Commandments (Deut. 5:1 ff). He further proved that the Ten Commandments were not from the beginning, for they were not made with the Israelites’ “fathers,” but with you who are alive this day (Deut. 5:3). Further, Cecil convicted Bowers of being a Judaizer of Judaizers. Bowers simply held up a finger signifying he was “Number One”Judaizer.

Second, Bowers affirmed that Heb. 4:9 commanded the Christians to keep the Sabbath. Christians need to be acquainted of this passage and the use made by Sabbataraians. “It is therefore the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath” (Heb. 4:9, Peshitta Translation by Lamsa).

Several translations of Heb. 4:9 were printed manifesting the inaccuracy of the Lamsa translation. Cecil had one chart showing that sabbaton was the Greek word for the Seventh Day Sabbath; sabbatismos is the word used in Heb. 4:9. Therefore, Heb. 4:9 is not teaching a seventh day sabbath, but a future rest. Bowers had so stated this identical point in his book Faith and Doctrines of the Early Church.

Third, Bowers affirmed that the Catholic Church ordained Sunday as the day of worship, borrowing such from Pagan Sun worship. Cecil attempted to get Bowers to tell when the Roman Catholic Church had its beginning. Bowers refused! Cecil had used Acts 20:7 and I Cor. 16:1-2 specifying the first day; plus quotes from the early writings all the way back to 90 A.D. that the first day was observed by New Testament saints. The Roman Catholic Church was not in existence, therefore could not have begun the practice!

Bowers was inept as a debater. Brother Willis was amply prepared on all phases of the proposition, and answered all of his arguments and presented the truth relative to Divine Worship. Truth has never suffered at the hands of Cecil Willis. I rejoice in being his brother in the flesh, and with you can rejoice that Cecil Willis is back to his old self ip ability and sharpness!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 18, p. 299
May 3, 1979