Truth Magazine

By Roy E. Cogdill

There is but one action in Bible baptism. The idea that baptism can be performed in either one of three ways is wholly without scriptural warrant. The creeds of men authorize such latitude in their practice but God has not left the question of how to be baptized up to men. There are three lines of evidence that will convince any unprejudiced mind that the action of baptism is always the same and that action is immersion.

The Meaning of the Term

The New Testament Scriptures were written in the Koine vernacular of the Greek language. This language was current in New Testament times but soon ceased to be used and became what men call a “dead language.” By ceasing to be used it became fixed in its meaning and therefore is no longer subject to change. What the word from which “baptism” comes meant when Jesus used it, it means now. Webster defines words in terms of their present usage and English words are constantly changing. But not so with the language in which the New Testament was written. The word “baptism” is not a translation but a transliteration–that is, it is carried over into the English with the Greek ending dropped and an English ending added. Baptism in English is represented by “baptisms” in the Greek (spelled with English letters).

Baptisms in the Greek means “to dip.” Mr. Vines in his “Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words” defines baptisms as follows: “1. BAPTISMA, baptism, consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion, and emergence (from bapto, to dip) . . .” (page 96). With this all real scholars agree. Many could be cited to show this the meaning of the word. None of any repute dissent. No critical commentator, translator, higher critic, or scholar of any recognition in anybody’s church says that bapto means to sprinkle or pour. The action of sprinkling or pouring for baptism is a human substitute for the divinely authorized action of immersion. They cannot be justified by the meaning of the word by which the commandment of the Lord was expressed.The Circumstances Surrounding the Action of Baptism

In the history of conversions recorded in New Testament Scriptures there is uniformity in the circumstances under which the action of baptism was performed. In every recorded case of baptism the subject was in the water when he was baptized. When Jesus was baptized at the hands of John, the Baptist, He was in the water when the action occurred. The record says, “And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the ,water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him” (Mark 1:9-10). The baptism took place “in the Jordan” and when it was accomplished Jesus “came up out of the water.” This could mean only one thing–He was in the water when He was baptized.

In the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, recorded in Acts, chapter 8, the record of his baptism is the same. “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” (Acts 8:36-39). These circumstantial facts are definite. They went down into the water. The baptism took place while both the preacher and the man to be baptized were in the water. When he had been baptized they both came up out of the water. This is strong circumstantial evidence that the baptism was immersion. People do not go down in the water to be sprinkled or poured. This kind of action does not take place while in the water: After sprinkling or pouring they do not come up out of the water.

People have labored long and hard to disprove the fact that the eunuch went down into the water. They have drawn on their imaginations and come up with the objection that this incident occurred in a place that the text says was “desert” and there could have been no water there. But the man said, “See, here is water.” We had just as well deny the “desert” part as to deny the “water” part of the test. More than that, the “desert” applies to the town of Gaza which was a deserted village. Then there are those who imagine that the eunuch pulled out a water bag or jug from underneath the seat of his chariot when he said, “See, here is water.” This is utterly riduculous when the text says that “they went down into the water.” Wherever the water was, they went down into it and the baptism took place while they were in it without making God a liar. Look at the emphasis: They went down into the water; they both went down into the water; they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. This kind of emphasis was not placed upon the fact that they came up out of the water. That fact is simply stated. Why the difference in the divine record? Simply because God knew that no one would ever be silly enough to deny that they both came up out of the water, but He knew at the same time that some men would deny that they both went down into it. So He fixed the matter so that it cannot be denied.

The Description of the Action

The third line of evidence that the action of baptism is immersion and only immersion in the Scriptures is the description God has given us of the action that took place in the water when men were baptized. This action is described as a “washing of the body” (Heb. 10:22). It is described as “the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:26). Paul describes it as “the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5). While water does not wash away our sins for the blood of Christ does that, yet the element in which we are to be baptized is water and by being dipped into the water the action is a washing of the body in water and is so described in the passages cited. We know how to wash things. By the widest spread of the imagination sprinkling or pouring do not represent a washing nor can a washing picture either sprinkling or pouring. Peter tells us that the purpose of the washing of our bodies in the action of baptism is not to get the body clean but through our obedience to obtain the cleansing of our hearts from an evil conscience (1 Peter 3:21; Heb. 9:13-14).

Baptism is also described in the scriptures as a burial and a resurrection. “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” (Romans 6:4). Here the action of baptism is plainly set forth under the figure of a burial and a resurrection. Even the most prejudiced mind should be able to readily see that a burial and resurrection cannot represent sprinkling or pouring. There can be no resemblance between sprinkling and pouring and a burial and resurrection. But when the body is dipped beneath the water in the obedience of baptism and raised up out of the water there is a burial and resurrection in form and God says this is what baptism is in its action.

Moreover, in the same passage Paul describes baptism as a “planting and a coming forth” (v. 5). This reenforces the fact that baptism cannot be sprinkling or pouring, for in no way can that action represent or be represented by a planting and a coming forth.

Heaven has authorized baptism, Christ has commanded it, every responsible person throughout this age is responsible for it and God will accept no substitute. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially substitute sprinkling for immersion until the council of Ravenna in 1311 A.D. The first case of sprinkling history records was Novation in 250 A.D. Later the Catholic Church refused to make him a saint until his bones were taken out of the grave and immersed. There is no Bible authority for sprinkling or pouring. Protestant denominationalism has inherited it from Roman Catholicism. There is not a passage either in the Old or New Testament in which God has commanded plain, unmixed (pure) water to be sprinkled on anybody for any purpose. No one should satisfy his conscience that he has been scripturally baptized when he has only been sprinkled or had water poured on him. Baptism is one in action and God has not left that action to the “convenience and preference of the candidate,” as denominational creeds teach.

Truth Magazine XXI: 17, pp. 268-269
April 28, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Georgia: I would like to ask your help on a problem I am now facing. The “‘problem” concerns the Christian’s attendance when the church comes together. Of course, this centers around a dispute on the meaning and application of Hebrews 10:25. Enclosed is a sketch of both sides of this issue as it relates to the work here. I would appreciate your analysis of the problem along with any suggestions which you might have on how to handle the problem. I have done quite a bit of study on this subject as has the brother with whom I disagree. We have come to a stalemate, and, therefore, it is my feeling that a third party might be able to help us in our study.

“His Position:

1. Hebrews 10:25 cannot be applied to missing only one service, because the word “assembling” (which is in the plural) is used.

2. The word ‘forsake’ in the context of Hebrews 10 means and is limited to (1) ‘sinning willfully’ (v. 26), (2) ‘trodding underfoot the Son of God’ (v. 29), (3) ‘counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing’ (v. 29), and (4) ‘doing despite unto the Spirit of grace’ (v. 29). In other words, it involves quitting with no intention of coming back.

3. Hebrews 10:25 is not the rule because there are no exceptions to it.

4. Therefore, a Christian can miss services for a fishing trip, hunting, watching television, etc., and not be sinning, provided he takes the Lord’s supper on Sunday at one service.

“My Position:

1. Hebrews 10:25 is the rule concerning regular and faithful attendance.

2. Even though Hebrews 10:25 is the rule, there are some exceptions. (Jesus recognized unstated exceptions to the law of Moses-Matthew 12:2-5, 11,12.) However, these exceptions involve a conflict in God-given duties (Matt. 23:23). As an example of this conflict, being sick during service time may involve a conflict in the duties of taking care of my body (Eph. 5:29) and attending the services (Heb. 10:25). Another illustration would be sitting with the sick, which involves showing mercy (Matt. 23:23). Any exception involves personal judgment as to which is the weightier of the God-given duties.

3. If any Christian puts anything except a God-given duty ahead of the services, he has violated Hebrews 10:25.

“Questions:

1. Can Hebrews 10:25 apply to missing one service?

2. In practical terms, what constitutes ‘forsaking?’

3. Is Hebrews 10:25 a rule? If so, are there exceptions to the rule? If there are exceptions, how does one determine them?

4. If Hebrews 10:25 is the rule, are we commanded to assemble? If we are not commanded to assemble, then why do we assemble?”

Reply:

The text in question: “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching” (Heb. 10:25).

“His Position”

1. Suppose one stood before a large audience and inquired, “Will everyone who has children please stand up?” Should one who has only one child stand up? Yes, even though children is plural.

We are not to forsake the act of assembling as some customarily and habitually do. It is “the assembling,” not the assemblies, that is not to be forsaken. According to our brother’s position, the Hebrew writer should have said, “Not forsaking the assemblies.” However, he said, “the assembling,” or “the act of assembling” (M. R. Vincent). “Some expositors have understood the word here rendered assembling . . . as meaning the society of Christians, or the church; and they have supposed that the object of the apostle here is, to exhort them not to apostatize from the church . . . . But the more obvious interpretation is that which is commonly adopted, that it refers to public worship. The Greek word (the noun) is used nowhere else in the New Testament, except in 2 Thess. ii.l, where it is rendered gathering together. The verb is used in Matt. xxiii.37; xxiv.31; Mark i. 33, xiii.27; Luke xii.l ; xiii.34, in all which places it is rendered gathered together. It properly means an act of assembling, or a gathering together, and is nowhere used in the New Testament in the sense of an assembly, or the church. The command, then, here is, to meet together for the worship of God, and it is enjoined on Christians as an important duty to do it. It is implied, also, that there is blame of fault where this is ‘neglected.'” (Albert Barnes, comments on Heb. 10:25).

2. Admittedly, the context, as cited by our brother, is to be considered, but let us note all the context. Hebrews 10:23 says, “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering.” Granting our brother his assumptions, we conclude that missing an occasional service is the beginning of wavering and apostasy. We are not to abandon completely, but neither are we to waver. So, if verses 26 and 29 do not forbid purposeful non-attendance, then verse 23 does.

Our brother’s conclusion is, “it involves quitting with no intention of coming back.” However, this is prohibited by the fact that the forsaking was a frequent habit of some. If the forsaking was “quitting with no intention of coming back,” how could the writer say, “as the manner of some is?” It is like the man who said, “It’s easy to quit smoking. I’ve done it a hundred times!”

In Matthew 27:46, Jesus cried, “My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?” God forsook Christ only once. Did that make it not a true forsaking? Was Jesus mistaken about the fact of being forsaken? Did the Father forsake Christ “with no intention of coming back?” Though the Father abandoned the Son only one time for a brief time, it was still an abandonment, a forsaking. The frequency and duration had nothing to do with the fact of it. So, when one willfully neglects the assembling, though he does it once, he has still done it.

3. There are exceptions. “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” ,(Matt. 5:23, 24). Though the text deals with the law, the principle is the same under the New Covenant. Therefore, “Hebrews 10:25 is the rule because there are exceptions to it,” to use our brother’s line of reasoning. There are no exceptions to Mark 16:16. Is it not the rule?

4. In view of the review of his three points designed to establish this his fourth, we conclude that a Christian cannot miss a service in order to go hunting and fishing, etc. Other passages apply. “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matt. 6:33). “Set your affections on things above, not on things on the earth” (Col. 3:2). “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever” (1 Jn. 2:15-17).Questions Answered

1. In light of the remarks above, Hebrews 10:25 can apply to missing one service.

2. W. E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words provides practical definitions of what constitutes forsaking, “To forsake, abandon, leave in straits, or helpless.” The verb form of the word “forsake” means “to desert” (Cf. Matt. 27:41; Acts 2:27; 2 Tim. 4:10, 16). The text itself affords some definition. Observe the contrast in the verse:

“Not Forsaking-But-Exhorting”

The exhortation was the thing saints received when they assembled, but when they forsook the act of assembling, they did not exhort nor receive exhortation in the assembly which was needed in view of the day approaching. There was the danger of “wavering” (v. 23) and of complete apostasy from their confidence (vv. 35-39), so, the saints were not to forsake the assembling of themselves together, as some were doing, lest they deprive themselves of the necessary exhortation.

3. See the answer in section three above under His Position. Hebrews 10:25 is a rule. There are exceptions which one determines by the Scriptures (Matt. 5:23, 24).

4. The questions in this section cannot be answered by anyone except the brother who opposes the position set forth in this article. The question is based on a “no” answer to query three immediately above, but the answer was “yes,” so this question is rendered void.

Truth Magazine XXI: 17, pp. 267-268
April 28, 1977

By Thomas Icard

Gossiping sins are listed in 2 Cor. 12:30: “. . . debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults.” These sins can cause one to lose his soul, just as lying, stealing, and fornication can. “Gossip” is defined by Webster as “an idle tattler or carrier of tales; mere tattle; groundless rumor” (p. 373, Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1969 edition). Gossip is referred to in the Bible as whispering. It “occurs in an evil sense in Romans 1:29 . . . is used of secret slander in 2 Cor. 12:30” (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 212).

Although the tongue is one of the body’s smallest members it has a great influence over the body. It is often the cause of our troubles. James talks about its power in James 3:3-12. We should be able to control such a small member of the body, yet this is one of the hardest things we find to do. The apostle Paul said of his body; “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection; lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway” (Cor. 9:27). Jesus tells us the body is the territory of sin. “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell” (Matt. 5:29-30). The source of sin is not in the members of our bodies. Jesus uses this illustration to show the extent one should sacrifice to rid a moral evil of the mind,

Jesus told the Pharisees where the source of sin was; He said, “O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, that every idle word that man shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matt. 12:34-37). Everyone of us, from the time he is born, has formed his heart (mind) with a storehouse of thoughts-those he believes to be valuable, good or bad. From this inward man we form our convictions and make our judgments of every situation. Our tongues only convey to others our inward thoughts.

Gossip is evil and slanderous. Those who gossip sow discord and do much harm. “An ungodly man diggeth up evil, and in his lips is a burning fire. A forward man soweth strife; and a whisperer separateth chief friends” (Prov. 16:27-28). Gossipers usually put much work in their evil purposes. Their lies produce strife and contention between some of the most peaceful and loving friends. This is why Paul wanted to see the younger widows married so they would not have time to fall into such situations. He described gossipers as “. . . not only idle, but tattlers also and busy bodies, speaking things which they ought not” (1Tim. 5:13). He gives the secret of preventing gossip: overcome it with a busy life and mind proper things.

Those who are not Christians look upon us as first hand examples of Christ-like people. If they see that gossip and other sins are characteristic of our lives, then we are not “shining lights” to the world. “But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evil doer, or as a busy body in other men’s matters” (1Pet. 4:15). When we gossip, we are meddlers in other people’s business. We show others that we are covetous, unwise, and misguided. Paul said, “. . . let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints” (Eph. 5:3). Let us let our lips be “a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service” (Rom. 12:1).

Truth Magazine XXI: 17, pp. 265-266
April 28, 1977

By Johnny Stringer

Some have decided that the worship in most congregations is not sufficiently spiritual, that it is stilted and formal. They seem convinced that the way to solve this problem is for the congregation to change whatever order is followed in the worship. Many of these brethren want to engage in the same scriptural actions, but they want to change the order in which these actions are done. Some, in fact, would even have us destroy whatever order is being followed and replace it with no orderly procedure whatever, thereby creating a disorderly assembly (1 Cor. 14:33, 40).

All must admit that, for too many brethren, worship is merely a formality which they go through-a routine obligation they feel they must fulfill to avoid hell. Their hearts are not involved, their worship is not in spirit (John 4:24) and they receive no spiritual benefit from it. This is sad. But the question is: Is this condition due to the fact that the congregation follows the same orderly procedure? Will changing the order or destroying the order solve the problem?

Certainly, there is no order prescribed by the scriptures which must be followed in performing the scriptural expressions of worship. It surely is wrong for brethren to reach the point that they believe the order they follow is the only way it can be done. There is absolutely nothing wrong with replacing one orderly procedure with another orderly procedure. Sometimes a change in order serves a useful purpose. But those who are crusading for change under the impression that a change in the order of procedure is going to make the worship more spiritually meaningful are laboring under a strong delusion. Their proposed solution betrays shallow and superficial thinking.

If the worship of certain brethren is mere formality, if it is not spiritually meaningful to them, it is not because of the order in which the acts of worship are performed. In those same assemblies which are so dull and formal and meaningless to some brethren, there are other brethren who are deeply involved and greatly blessed-and they are following the same order of procedure that the bored formalists are following! If the worship is but a meaningless formality for a person, that person himself is responsible; he must not try to justify himself by shifting the blame to the fact that the congregation follows a certain established order.

What matters is not what order is followed, but whether or not one’s heart is involved in the worship. A Christian’s heart can be involved regardless of the order. If a Christian meditates upon the spiritual thoughts expressed in the songs, the singing will be meaningful and edifying to him, no matter where they come in the order that is being followed. One can pray just as intensely and sincerely even if the praying has been done immediately after the third song for twenty years. The Christian cannot help but be stirred by meditating upon what the bread and fruit of the vine represent. All who listen intently will be helped by the preaching of God’s word. If a person wants to find the one who is responsible for the fact that the worship is but an unmeaningful formality to him, all he has to do is find a mirror, look in, and behold the culprit!

The solution to cold formalism in worship, brethren, lies not in changing the order of procedure, but in changing the hearts of brethren. The meaningfulness of worship depends upon the hearts of those involved. If they are spiritually minded and their hearts are involved in what they are doing, the worship will be for them a wonderful, beneficial experience; otherwise, it cannot be but a boring formality, unless it is artificially made interesting by gimmicks and constant changes for novelty.

Truth Magazine XXI:17, p. 265
April 28, 1977