Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

The last lesson was the final one in our series on repentance. It is our prayer that all who participated with us in that short study have a deeper understanding of the subject. This week we are beginning a study on the subject of baptism.

This great theme has occupied the efforts of some of the greatest minds and pens of men since the apostles. It is our intention to try to approach the subject just as though there had never been anything written on it, except that penned by inspired writers, and just as though we know nothing about the subject. With open minds we shall diligently investigate the writings of inspired authors, honestly seeking their teaching. From strictly a human standpoint, it does not matter what the conclusion is as to the essentiality or inessentiality of baptism. Baptism is not a difficult command to obey. Therefore one should be able to openly and fairly survey God’s teaching, seeking for the truth, with the sincere intention of doing exactly what the Bible tells him to do. But from the standpoint of one’s relation to God, if it is seen that baptism is a commandment of God, it is a very vital theme, and whether one obeys this command or not is of grave consequence.

In this lesson we want to devote our study to the different kinds of baptisms in the New Testament. Every time the word “baptism” occurs in the New Testament, it does not necessarily refer to the same baptism, since there are several mentioned.

Baptism of John

The first baptism we want to reflect upon is the baptism of John the Baptist. John’s baptism was one that was preached to prepare the people for the reception of Christ, His kingdom and baptism. When one responded to the preaching of John, he was baptized unto the remission of sins. Matthew says, “Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about the Jordan; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (Matt. 3:5, 6). The purpose of the baptism administered by John seems to be to get the people to repent, and to receive the remission of their sins by being baptized, in order that they might be ready to flock to the Lord at the appropriate time. It might be worthwhile to point out that when these men were baptized they confessed their sins, and not their righteousness. When men are baptized today, they are asked by denominational preachers if they have had their sins remitted. They must testify that they have already been saved, and then if they have, they may be baptized. Men under John’s baptism confessed their sins, and were then baptized in order to have their sins remitted, and not because they were already saved.

The baptism of John was not something that one could participate in or not’, and still please the Lord just as well. Men say that one can be baptized if he wants to, but if one should decide that he does not want to be baptized, all is as well. To them, baptism is optional. With the baptism of John, it was a matter of obeying, by being baptized, or perishing. There was no option to it. Luke speaks of certain ones that refused to be baptized like this: “But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected for themselves the counsel of God, being not baptized of him” (Lk. 7:30). Luke says that when these men were not baptized, they were not rejecting John, but they were rejecting God. If one can be saved while he rejects God, then he can be saved without being baptized. To reject the baptism of God was equal to rejecting the counsel of God.

From the baptism of John, one further can see the nature of baptism. The Gospel according to John says, “And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized” (Jno. 3:23). The act of baptism required much water, and therefore John did his baptizing in an area where this much water could be had.

Baptism of Jesus by John

Another baptism mentioned in the New Testament is the baptism of Jesus at the hand of John the Baptist. The record reads: “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John would have hindered him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? But Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffereth him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were. opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him; and lo, a voice out of the heavens saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:13-17). Jesus was baptized, though reluctantly, by John the Baptist. Sometimes we think that Jesus was baptized just like all the rest that were baptized of John’s baptism, but instead of receiving John’s baptism, Jesus received an exception of it. Our Lord is described as having been “tempted in all points like as we, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15), and as Him “who did not sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” (I Pet. 2:22). Since Christ -could not have been baptized for the remission of sins for He had no sin, and John’s baptism was for the remission of sins, then it follows, that even though the immersion was performed by John the Baptist, Jesus did not receive the same baptism as did the others baptized by John. He received an exception of John’s baptism.

It may also be seen by implication from Christ’s baptism, that baptism is immersion, for He came up straightway from the water. Christ was immersed, but we will leave that particular point for a further discussion.

Baptism of Fire

The next baptism that we shall briefly study is the baptism of fire. We are referring to Matt. 3:10-12: “And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire: whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor; and he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire.” Some time ago I heard of a church that was named after the baptism of fire. They maintain that this prophecy of the baptism of fire found its fulfillment on the day of Pentecost when the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit. They read the passage in Acts 2 where it says, “And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them,” and from this they conclude that this was a fulfillment of the prophecy of Matt. 3:10-12. If one will notice the statement in Matt. 3, he will see that the Lord promised two baptisms, one of the Holy Spirit, and one of fire. On the day of Pentecost when the apostles were baptized of the Holy Spirit, one finds a partial fulfillment of the prophecy, but what occurred on Pentecost was not a baptism of fire. The tongues that appeared unto the apostles, and that sat upon them were not of fire, but they were “like as of fire.” If one will but study the context of Matt. 3, he will see that the speaker, John the Baptist, was making two classifications. He spoke of the tree that bore good fruit, and of the tree that did not bring forth good fruit. The useless tree is hewn down and is cast into the fire. Then he also speaks of the wheat’s threshing. The wheat is good, but the chaff is to be burned with unquenchable fire. This baptism of fire is the punishment of hell, or the casting into the lake of fire, and is therefore a baptism that each of us must shun.

Baptism of Suffering

There also was another baptism, which we shall call the baptism of suffering. This baptism is not called the baptism of suffering in the Scripture, but his certainly is that to which it refers. Jesus Christ had long since been baptized of John’s baptism, and then He referred to another baptism that would come upon Him. He was thinking about the things that were before Him, in the way of physical pain and suffering. “Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, worhiping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and one my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given by them for whom it is prepared of my Father” (Matt. 20:20-23, K.J.V.). Christ was about to endure the pain and suffering of a death on the cross, and he told these two disciples that they may also be baptized with the same baptism with which he was to be baptized. So we see that there is another New Testament baptism which refers to the sufferings and agonies of our Lord on the cross.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit

We now come to discuss a baptism probably referred to more times by denominational preachers of today than all these other baptisms combined. This baptism, of course, is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This was the promise of Christ unto His disciples. It should be remembered that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is always a promise, and is never a command. It is impossible to find one single individual who was ever commanded to be baptized of the Holy Spirit. Some where told that they would be, but none was ever commanded to be baptized of the Holy Spirit. John the Baptist said, “I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than 1, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire” (Matt. 3:11). While the Lord was yet on earth, but was preparing for the ascension, he promised the apostles that he would send them a comforter. “But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you” (Jn. 14:26). Further Christ said, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come” (Jn. 16:13). The Holy Spirit baptism was a special gift of Christ to the apostles, that was to help them in their deliverance of His teaching to the whole world. Thy Holy Spirit was to guide them in all truth, and to bring to their remembrance all that he had said unto them. The apostles were not to begin their preaching until they receive power from on high (Lk. 24:49) and they were to receive the power “after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you” (Acts 1:8), and so when the Holy Spirit came upon them on the day of Pentecost, they all began to “speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” The Holy Spirit, promised to them by Christ, before His ascension, had come and was doing the very thing for which He had been sent. Holy Spirit baptism was restricted to the apostles, and possibly to the household of Cornelius. The purpose of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was never to save anyone. People who claim to have the baptism of the Holy Spirit completely misunderstand His mission when He did come upon the Apostles.

Baptism Commanded by Jesus

We further want to mention the baptism as commanded by Christ. We have mentioned but briefly these last two baptisms, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the baptism commanded by Christ, for we shall give them further consideration in following articles, the Lord willing. Christ was baptized by John, but then He later gave a baptism of His own. After His death, and just prior to His ascension into heaven, Christ charged the disciples that they were to go into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He then informed them what they were to preach, and what they were to do. Matthew says, “And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: 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). Mark reads, “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:15, 16). Christ commanded that they preach to every man, baptizing all those who believed for the remission of sins. This is the baptism that we shall study considerably in the weeks before us.

Truth Magazine XX: 34, pp. 531-534
August 26, 1976

By Clarence R.Johnson

James writes, “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works” (James 2:18). Is it possible to show faith without works? Consider the 11th chapter of Hebrews. The only way Noah could show his faith was to “move with fear” and build the ark (vs. 7). The only way Abraham could show his faith was to obey God (vs. 8). The same is true of the other “heroes of the faith” mentioned in this chapter. Can any man give evidence of faith without actively serving God? I deny that such is possible. I challenge anyone to show real evidence of his trust in God outside of the deeds he does in submission to God’s will.

Some say they have faith in the promises of God (Matt. 18:20; John 12:26), yet fail to attend most of the Bible classes and the Sunday evening evangelistic services. Does their absence show faith? Or does it not rather show a lack of faith? Show me your faith without works (Can it be done?) and I will show my faith by my works.

Virtually all brethren say they believe that it is important for an individual to study and understand the will of God, then to obey it. Do you agree? And do you do it? Or do you “say and do not” (Matt. 23:3)? Do you pass up most opportunities to study the Bible with other Christians, then fail to even read the scriptures at home, or, at best, only read occasionally and haphazardly? Do you neglect private prayer? Does your family give thanks at meal-time? Are you as concerned that your children prepare their lessons for the Bible classes as you are that they complete their homework assignments for school? “Show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.”

Does your language show that you are a Christian? Have you put away lying, slander, etc.? Do you use God’s name only in reverence? Or does thy speech betray thee?

Is your life a continual confession of your faith in Jesus Christ? He warns that to be ashamed of Him in this wicked and adulterous generation is to cause Him to be ashamed of us in the day of judgment (Mark 8:38). Do you show your faith by your works, or do the actions of your life betray a lack of real Bible faith? Are you a doer of the word, and not a hearer only (James 1:22ff) or do you “say and do not”?

One “follower of God” who continually sets the wrong example before others can do more harm to the cause of Christ than 1,000 atheists actively opposing God with all their might. Christ warns, “Woe unto you. . . hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in” (Matt. 23:13).

Truth Magazine XX: 33, pp. 525-526
August 19, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Alabama: “The church I attend has been in existence for nearly 30 years. We don’t have elders and have never had them. This bothers me. Shouldn’t a church have elders after 30 years?”

REPLY:

It is not the purpose of this column to pronounce judgment on local situations. It is difficult for an “insider” to know all the facts and circumstances. An “outsider” like myself cannot be expected to accurately and correctly diagnose and deal with a specific point of reference. However, a few general thoughts may be helpful.

What The New Testament Teaches

The New Testament teaches that churches should have elders (Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:5; 1 Pet. 5:2). God’s order is for a plurality of scripturally qualified men to feed, lead, watch, and warn souls in each local church (Acts 20:28; 1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:2, 3). The work charged to elders reveals that no flock of God can be perfect or complete until it has elders or overseers (Titus 1:5). Therefore, no church of God should be satisfied without elders whether it be 30 months old or 30 years of age.

No Qualified Men

The New Testament clearly teaches that only a certain class of men can be bishops or elders (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1). Qualifications necessarily make it impossible for every church to appoint men as elders. God does not place standards in operation and expect that each church will always be capable of meeting them. For example, there must be two or more men willing to serve (1 Tim. 3:1, 2; Acts 14:23). These facts eliminate some small churches. As only qualified men should serve, it follows that a church should not appoint men when they have none who meet the scriptural specifications.

Excuses Or Extenuating Circumstances?

After an indefinite period of time, it appears a church should grow and develop men as elders. Surely, after 30 years a church might be expected to have elders, but there may be various reasons and excuses. Some are justifiable while others are suspect at best.

First, some churches have a high population “turnover” rate. The membership is not the same for very long due to families moving in and out every few years. Second, divisions, both the necessary and the unnecessary kind, may be instrumental in stripping a church of potential eldership timber. Third, some congregations never seriously consider the need for elders. Unappointed “leaders” become old and feeble. Meanwhile, young people are marrying and moving away. Now, most all that are left are a few sweet elderly widows and several failing and feeble older couples. The younger couples who do remain are wondering, “Why have we never had any elders here?” The truth is that the church just did not seek the New Testament pattern with respect to elders. Fourth, no teaching is ever done to encourage a man to become an elder. Is it a sin to urge a young, faithful man to consider the office or work of a bishop? Waiting until a man is 45 years old before asking him to “consider being an elder” is foolish and wasteful. We guide men to equip themselves as preachers, so why not as elders? Fifth, some churches can find no men who desire the work of elders. Why is it that able and generally faithful men to not aspire to preach or be elders? Does the fault lie within me? Often men may be discouraged because of the abuses they see heaped on elders by tyrannical preachers and mean members of the church.

Four Classes

Essentially, there are four classes or kinds of church organization. A church may be:

1) Scripturally Unorganized: This condition exists where there are no men qualified to serve and none are serving. This was the early state of the churches mentioned in Acts 14:21-23. At first, the new converts were likely not in accord with the qualifications of elders. Upon Paul’s return, certain ones were appointed, but prior to this time they (the churches) were scripturally unorganized.

2) Scripturally Organized: A church is scripturally organized when it has qualified men who desire to serve and who are appointed. This was the status of the Philippian church (Phil. 1:1). This level of development is no accident. It is the result of purposeful and prayerful teaching and living. Not every church that has men called “elders” and “deacons” is scripturally organized. They have men who are merely going through the motions, but who are not watching for souls. Their elders are elders in name only. They wear a title, but they do no work. As it takes more than the name “church of God” to make a church of God, so it takes more than “elders and deacons” to have a scripturally organized congregation.

3) Unscripturally Organized: A church is unscripturally organized when it has no men qualified to take the oversight but who are doing so nonetheless. This was the sad plight of the church where Diotrephes ruled and reigned (3Jn. 9). That church was unscripturally organized. This is why many churches have no elders. A dictator or a clique runs the church, or else the church has always relied on a pastor-preacher to be chairman of the board. This is a sad situation. It restrains many churches from progressing to scriptural organization.

4) Unscripturally Unorganized: A church may be termed unscripturally unorganized when it has men who are qualified to serve but who are not appointed and laboring. Jealousy, envy, and apathy are often the causes of a church’s being unscripturally unorganized. When men are not submissive to the leadership of elders, when they fear the subjection that is required, they will see to it that a church remains unscripturally unorganized by dictatorially forbidding the appointment of elders. This they do through party-power politics.

Conclusion

Scriptural congregational organization should characterize every church. But even after 30 years do not appoint men hastily. If you think a church without elders is bad and unscriptural, just appoint unqualified, half-hearted servants. Two wrongs do not make a right. Churches suffer without qualified elders, but they are doubly pained if they select men just for the sake of saying, “Well, now we have elders.” Further, remember that it is a work, not a political office, that you are appointing men unto. It is an awesome task and should be approached with reverence and godly fear.

Truth Magazine XX: 33, pp. 524-525
August 19, 1976

By Raymond E. Harris

In Ezekiel 34, God calls the leaders of Israel to account for their contribution to the sin and ruination of His people. The shepherds of the flock of God have been negligent. Their unskillfulness, unfaithfulness, inefficiency and treachery is exposed and rebuked.

The shepherds of the Master’s flocks have the great responsibility to “feed the flocks.” However, in this text Jehovah charges that the shepherds had rather feed themselves. The shepherds have drunk the milk (1 Cor. 9:7), eaten the flesh and clothed themselves with the wool of the very sheep they were to care for. They selfishly had advanced and enriched themselves at the expense of God’s own. They had indulged and gratified their own appetites while completely ignoring the needs of the sheep. They were so ignorant, lazy, slothful and unfaithful, that God’s sheep were scattered and became as those that had no shepherd. God’s sheep became “the prey of all the beasts of the field” and “they wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill.”

Further, the Lord God charged that the shepherds had not bothered to strengthen the diseased, heal the sick, or bind up that which was broken. They had not “brought again that which was driven away,” or sought that which was lost. But rather he says that they had 11 with force and cruelty” ruled them.

In this dispensation it is the will of God that every flock (local congregation) have its own shepherds (Acts 14:23). In spiritual Israel shepherds (elders) are to feed the church of God (Acts 20:28). Their responsibility is to “all the flock” over which they have been made overseers (Acts 20:28). They are to “feed the flock of God which is among” them (1 Pet. 5:2). And this feeding is to be garnished with unselfishness, willingness to serve the Great Shepherd and a Christlike example in life.

We believe some parallels can be drawn between the failures of shepherds in Ezekiel’s day and the failures of shepherds in many congregations today.

(1) To begin with, over the past 20 years shepherds in many places have selfishly led the sheep to barren pastures and empty wells by allowing the pulpit to become a circus ring rather than a horn of spiritual nourishment. Theology, psychology and institutional ideology replaced the green pastures of speaking as the “oracles of God.” College presidents, editors of papers and silver-tongued promoters became the sources of authority rather than Peter, Paul and John. Hence, countless numbers will cry out eternally in the torments of hell. They will charge indifferent shepherds with allowing the flocks’ very souls to decay and rot as a result of a constant diet of syrupy sermons, honey coated appeals and frosted promotions. Woe be to the shepherds of Israel!

(2) Meanwhile many shepherds have drunk the milk, eaten the flesh and worn the wool of the sheep. By inviting the promoters for meetings, giving God’s money to the institutions of men and by glorifying the pseudointellectuals in Zion, they enhanced their own stature. Payments were promptly received. Elders who had previously been unheard of and unknown were invited to sit on panels at college lectureships. They were introduced before large audiences at orphan homes and heralded as giants for the cause of Christ in national papers. But why all the attention? The answer is simple: They had put the Herald of Truth, the orphan home and the college in the church budget! Woe be to the shepherds of Israel!

(3) Meanwhile back at the sheepfold, the flocks began to deteriorate spiritually. In a short time many became diseased with Pentecostalism, sick with Calvinism and broken with Modernism. The unfaithful shepherds were reveling in their new found popularity and brotherhood prominence. They had neither the time, knowledge or inclination to “strengthen,” to “heal” and to bind up.

By this time shepherds had turned the flocks over to professional “hirelings.” They had really lost control and pride prohibited them from reversing their course. One false word and they would have been stamped with that incomparable stigma “Anti!” Woe be to the shepherds of Israel!

(4) Hence, the die was cast! For most of these unfaithful shepherds there was no turning back. They were enslaved and chained by brotherhood pressure, popular preachers, powerful institutions and their own weakness.

They have not brought back that faithful remnant that was driven away. They have not sought that which is lost. Rather, many shepherds, skillfully manipulated by forces behind the scene, have crudely ruled “with force and with cruelty.” Woe be to the shepherds of Israel!

(5) Therefore, in many quarters God’s flock is scattered spiritually and doctrinally as sheep without a shepherd. They with anxiety and bewilderment wander through the mountains and high hills of the vicissitudes of life. They have become a prey to the beasts of the field as their starvation diets over the past years have left them weak and unable to discern, much less ward off, the false doctrines of men. Woe be to the shepherds of Israel!

Truth Magazine XX: 33, pp. 522-523
August 19, 1976