Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Mexico: “Would you please comment on the following argument? If baptism is pouring out’ when the Spirit is the element (Acts 2:4, 17), then, baptism is pouring out” when water is the element.”

Reply:

This argument is fallacious because it rests upon the assumption that “pouring out” is baptism. It assumes what must be proven, i.e., that “pouring out” is baptism. Then, it “proves” that “pouring out” is baptism by that assumption.

The Meaning of Baptism

To baptize is to dip, to immerse, to plunge. Baptism is immersion. The element or substance into which an object is immersed is not inherent in the word “baptize.” One may be immersed, dipped, or baptized in water, fire, ink, or buttermilk. A figurative use of baptism is seen in such expressions as baptism of suffering, that is, overwhelmed, covered over with pain. A sports announcer once said that a quarterback was baptized in the opposing team’s defensive line.

Since baptism is immersion, any figurative use of that word should correspond with the original meaning of “baptize.” In Colossians 2:12 and Romans 6:4, Paul used the term “buried.” It is a figurative expression which harmonizes with the literal meaning of the word “baptize.” “In Romans 6:3, 4 is to be found a simile. Now, Webster says a simile is a ‘figure of speech by which one thing, action, or relation is likened or explicitly compared, often with as or like, to something of different kind or quality.’ The `something of different kind or quality’ in Romans 6:3, 4 is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; the ‘action likened or explicitly compared’ is the sinner’s death to sin, his burial in baptism, and his resurrection to a new life, and incidently, the comparatives as and like are both used in the passage” (James R. Cope, Why Not To Baptize By Sprinkling, 60, 61). The figurative description of items emanating from the Holy Spirit, that is, being “poured out” from the Spirit, cannot refer to baptism since to “pour out” does not fit the real meaning of baptism. One employs a figurative use of a term based upon the genuine definition of the word. Thus, “burial” illustrates baptism, but “pouring out” does not. One does not determine the true meaning of a word by a figurative expression. Rather, the figures are used because of the definition. Figures of speech should not be used to define. That is what the argument our querist uses attempts to do.

A Quote From Franklin T. Puckett

“The `outpouring’ of the Holy Spirit is a favorite subject in many denominational pulpits. And the teaching that is heard on the subject is-well, the only word I can think of to describe it is the word preposterous. It is contended that the Holy Spirit himself, the third person of the Godhead was that which was `poured out.’ The idea that one could `pour out’ the divine person of the Godhead, just like one would pour water out of a pitcher, is beyond my ability to accept. And this certainly is not what Joel prophesied … (Joel 2:28-32).

“Peter gave a divine commentary on what Joel had said. The word `afterward,’ as Joel wrote it, means `in the last days’ as explained by Peter. Joel wrote, `I will pour out my Spirit,’ and Peter, being filled with that Spirit, explains that as `I will pour out of (or from) my, Spirit.’ It was not the Spirit himself that was poured out; but was something that was ‘of’ or ‘from’ the Spirit. That is what Joel is saying. The preposition puts the emphasis on the point of separation. The thing that was `poured out’ was something that was separated from the Spirit. It was not the Spirit himself, but was that which came from the Spirit” (Franklin T. Puckett, Vanguard Magazine, June 12, 1975, p. 7).

Truth Magazine, XX:17, p. 2
April 22, 1976

By Roland Worth, Jr.

There is nothing in the world that an excuse cannot be invented to defend. So it is not surprising that in our world of casual morals that there are a number of excuses made for ignoring the plain statements of Scripture. In some cases a little common sense will explode the argument; in other cases the Bible has already anticipated such arguments and attacked them.

“Everybody Is Doing It”

That is about as truthful as the myth of a generation or two ago that “Nobody does it.” The truth of the matter is that the standard of right and wrong is not found in a majority decision. Because an overwhelming majority of Germans hated Jews was it right for Hitler to murder six million of them? Though “everybody” was not personally involved in the crime, practically “everybody” thought nothing of being anti-Semitic.

The Bible expressly warns us against justifying our conduct by a corrupt majority. “You shall not follow a multitude to do evil . . . ” (Exodus 23:2). Christ warned us that because there is a great deal of evil in the world, love for Divine truth will tend to diminish, “And because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold. But he who endures to the end will be saved” (Matthew 24:11-12).

“If You Haven’t Tried It, Don’t Knock It”

Life is far too short to do everything. We learn (if we are half as smart as we think we are) from the experiences of others!

The person who presents this kind of argument to us will seldom want to go out and see what it’s like to kill someone in the heat of war. Nor is he likely to want to go out and let someone shoot at him for the pleasure of seeing what it’s like. Yet Winston Churchill once remarked that there is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at and be missed! A truly unique thrill! But not one that we would recommend to others on the grounds that “If you haven’t tried it, don’t knock it!”

If this kind of reasoning were true a man being tried for murder could say: “You have no business being on my jury because you’ve never killed a person.” Would his objection be valid? Why then should a person be considered right when he makes the same argument concerning morals? In one case a person has violated human law and in the other divine law. If we would not tolerate such reasoning in regard to human offenses how much less we should tolerate it as an excuse for violating the law of God!

“It’s None of Your Business”

First, it is God’s business by right of His creation of mankind.

Second, it is your parent’s business by right of the fact that they gave birth to you.

Third, it is a preacher’s concern because it affects your relationship to God.

So let’s not talk about whether it is someone else’s business. Instead, let us address the real issue: Whether you are doing the right thing in God’s sight.

“It Doesn’t Hurt Anyone”

I suppose that Adam could have said the same thing in the Garden. Yet because of his sin death entered the world and plagues us to this very day. So stop and think for a minute: Your action may set in motion a chain of circumstances far beyond your ability to imagine.

Furthermore, it does hurt someone: You! Sin separates from God (Isa. 59:2) and any immorality you commit places that much more distance between you and Him.

“I Love The Person”

Nothing derogatory is intended but I can’t help but recall the worldly-wise words of the lady I once knew who had been through three marriages: “There is no such thing as love at first sight; there is only lust at first sight.” If you stop to think about it that statement has a lot of truth in it. You may be sensually attracted to a person by their looks but to call that love is a wee bit misleading!

Furthermore, the question is not so much whether you love the person. The more important question is do you love Christ more? “If ye love me keep my commandments” (John 14:15) and among the commandments He taught was abstention from sexual immorality (Matt. 15: 15-20).

Conclusion

Don’t be conned by a smooth talker. You can put a beautiful label on a bottle of cyanide but it will kill you just the same when you drink it. The same it true of sin.

Truth Magazine, XX:16, p. 13-14
April 15, 1976

By Ron Halbrook

For the truth’s sake, we need to guard the tongue. “It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison” (Jas. 3:8). Every power for good is also a power for evil when misused. And, the tongue is a great power, either way it is used. “Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!” (v. 5). The tongue is used to “bless … God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be” (vv. 9-10).

Cursing, swearing, profanity, and vile speech of every kind have become the order of the day for many people. Such speech often uses the name of God in a degrading way, to strengthen cursing and profanity. And, generally, such speech expresses extreme bitterness, disgust, or a desire for harm toward another person (for some real or imagined injury). The speaker sometimes even directs such expressions toward himself (for some weakness or mistake he has made). All such speech shows a lack of respect for God, self, and others!

The solution is threefold. (1) We must exalt God in our hearts–“love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” (2) We must have a proper regard for ourselves. As spiritual beings, we are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). Man is the crowning work of God’s creation. God “made him a little lower than the angels, and halt crowned him with glory and honour” (Ps. 8:5). In view of his eternal destiny, man is of greater value than all material things combined. “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Matt. 16:26). (3) Just as we are to love (seek the good of) ourselves, we are to love others. “Thou shah love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matt. 22:39). Proper regard for God, self, and others stops vile speech of all descriptions.

“Polite” cursing and compromise with profanity are found in the form of euphemisms. Euphemisms are substitutes for direct cursing. To damn, in profanity, is to curse. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1975) defines “darn” and “darn” as “damn: a euphemism for the curse.” “fleck” is “an exclamation used as a euphemism for hell.” “Blamed” is “a substitute for damned.” Others include “gosh” (“euphemism for God”), “gee” (“euphemistic contraction of Jesus”), “golly” (“euphemism for God’), “doggone” (“an imprecation, or perhaps a euphemistic remodeling of God Damn”), and “confound” (“damned, a mild oath”).

Christians who love God, self, and others properly will avoid all such speech. Sinners need to obey the Gospel of Christ to be forgiven of such speech; they must believe in Christ, repent of sins, confess Jesus Christ, and be baptized in water for remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16, Rom. 10:10, 1 Pet. 3:21). “their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more,” God promises (Heb. 8:12).

Truth Magazine, XX:16, p. 11-12
April 16, 1976

By Irvin Himmel

`Most denominations teach and administer some kind of an act which they call baptism. In some cases, the truth is set forth about the action of baptism but not about its design. Some do not follow the New Testament regarding either the action or design.

A lot of folks have submitted to denominational baptism (whatever kind or purpose), and it is hard for them to see why they need to be baptized in the name of the Lord. When attempts are made to teach them, a familiar response is, “Well, I am satisfied with my baptism.”

The fact that someone is satisfied with his baptism does not prove that it is right. (Some are satisfied with their condition without anything that is even called “baptism.”) The important question is not, `Am I satisfied?’ The vital question is, ‘Have I satisfied God?’

Sprinkling and Pouring

Some preachers pour a dash of water on a person’s head, or it may be a mere sprinkle, and they call that action baptism. The person who has submitted to sprinkling or pouring may say, “I am satisfied with my baptism.”

God is not satisfied with sprinkling and pouring. How do I know? I know, not because I am playing God or sitting in judgment, but because His word plainly says we are “buried” in baptism (Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12). We cannot substitute an action of our own choosing for that which God has prescribed and expect to find approval with Him.

John’s Baptism

Paul found some men at Ephesus who had been baptized (Acts 19:1-5). They were perfectly satisfied with their baptism until Paul raised some questions. He correctly made them dissatisfied so they would want to obey the Lord. Their problem was not in the kind of action to which they had submitted; they needed teaching on the purpose of baptism.

Paul’s questions brought the admission that these people had been baptized unto John’s baptism. John baptized for the remission of sins (Mk. 1:4). He taught the people to believe on the Christ who would come after John. Paul explained the difference between this baptism and that commanded by Jesus (and which is New Testament baptism). The result: “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord.”

Some men of the twentieth century would have argued with Paul, “That is not enough difference to amount to anything. I am satisfied with my baptism.” Fortunately, the men at Ephesus did not so reason.

Common Misconceptions

A lot of people think they have been baptized “for the remission of sins” when the fact is that they have not. Some think baptism is essential to salvation but only in the same sense that one must partake of the Lord’s Supper or perform some other duty to please God. They do not understand that sins are washed away by Christ’s blood when one is baptized, and not before baptism.

Some denominations make baptism essential to membership (in that denomination) but deny that it is essential to salvation. This kind of baptism is an institutional act, a denominational baptism, not the baptism taught in the New Testament. One who has submitted to such baptism may be satisfied with it, but where is the scriptural evidence that God is satisfied with it?

The Purpose of Baptism

If one knows that baptism is designed to put him into Jesus Christ in order that he might obtain remission of sins, why would he submit to baptism into a denomination which teaches salvation before and without baptism? Foy E. Wallace, Jr., writing on the purpose of baptism, put it this way: “If one is baptized into the Baptist church, he is not baptized into Christ, because Christ is not in the Baptist church and the Baptist church is not in Christ. If he is in it, one might be baptized into it and get into him; or if it is in him, one might be baptized into him and get into it. But he is not in it, and it is not in him, therefore no one can be baptized into him and get into it, nor be baptized into it and get into him” (,Torch, Nov.-Dec., 1950, p. 28).

New Testament baptism is not designed to put one into a false religion. If one has been baptized into a man-made religion, a denomination, or a cult, he has not been baptized for the purpose taught in the Bible. Baptism is “for (unto) the remission of sins” or to “wash away” sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16). Remission is found in Christ, not in a denomination, therefore we are “baptized into Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Furthermore, we are “baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). That one body is the church of Christ, not a denominational body (Col. 1:18). And the body of Christ is not the lumping together of all the denominations!

Have I truly obeyed God in baptism? Is He satisfied with my baptism? One must be taught right on the subject of baptism to be baptized scripturally. Let everyone examine himself by the Bible and make sure of God’s approval.

Truth Magazine, XX:16, p. 10-11
April 16, 1976