Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

Communication is defined as “an exchange of information.” It involved the transmission of ideas and thoughts. To communicate means that you share with others your concepts, your thoughts and ideas. Most of our time is spent in this mutual relationship by either speaking or listening. This ability to communicate is what makes man the unique creature that he is, with the ability to control and dominate, to build and maintain. Communications is a big thing in America. It is said to be our most vital and largest industry. We are awed by man’s methods of communication. We find them complete in oral, written or visualized form.

In spite of this, communication is a big problem in our lives. Because of human nature, certain barriers exist making the communication process either ineffective or impossible. At times we just do not get through to people. This often results in misunderstanding. Many splits in congregations are due to the communications problem. Brethren have trouble talking to each other, they become estranged and some become enemies. Much of this can be eliminated if we understand some of the barriers to our communication.

Actually we are obligated to communicate as effectively as possible. In the classroom and in the pulpit the gospel of Christ is proclaimed by this action. We are constantly trying to influence others by communicating with them. Because of this we should make an honest attempt to understand the barriers of communication. This will help us to eliminate many of the problems that exist in some areas in our relationship as brethren.

The Barrier of Language

Language is the “systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by vocal sound.” Language involves the use of words and words convey meanings. Each word stands for a common element or a pattern of common elements. Because of this, some words stimulate different mental images and others convey only part of a mental image. We think in terms of images. Consequently we cannot convey our thoughts in their entirety, nor can we capture a total concept through the use of words. We have to keep adding words in our attempt to convey a thought. Our language is limited. For example, walk through the budding woodlands on a warm Spring day and try to put your impressions into words. The extent and limitation of the language used becomes the only means of expressing your impressions You simply cannot convey all that you see. Because of thi: we should strive to be exact and proper in our use o: language. There are certain facts about language that we need to recognize if we are going to destroy the language barrier.

1. Language is regional:’ Words in America have different meanings than those same words in Canada or Great Britain. Even in the North there is a variation in some meanings from the states in the South. Familiar idiom in one region is often a “cuss” word in another.

2. Words undergo change in time: An expository study of the Bible will be based on the unchanging meanings of the original Greek words, but our language in English has and does change. For example, “giddy” originally meant “divinely possessed;” “silly” meant “blessed, happy;” “saddest” meant “full, contented, reflective.” The meaning of many words in the various English translations has changed since those translations were first printed. One can see this by comparing the King James Version of 1611 with the American Standard Translation of 1901.

3. Language is always growing: There are approximately 750,000 words in the English language. Half of them are technical words. More new words are being coined in our age than ever before. Judging the motivation and / or sincerity of a person by the new words he uses can form barriers of communication. Furthermore, a. speaker will wisely use words familiar to his hearer if possible. Words are only “capsules of meaning” and should be spoken and understood in that function. In all of our teaching relationships we should season our words with salt, and look for the intended meaning in the words of others.

The Barrier of Listening

Listening is an art. Not listening well is often a barrier. As listeners we have the advantage over the speaker in that we can listen faster than the speaker can talk. It is a proven fact that we can receive at the rate of 500 to 700 words per minute. A speaker can impart 100 to 200 words per minute. Ninety percent of all communication is oral and this places a great responsibility upon the listener.

Most people listen at only 25% of their efficiency. This is a great problem. Jesus recognized this problem by constantly reminding His hearers to take heed how they hear (Mk. 8:18; 4:9, 23). As speakers, we are often “tuned out” by the listener. The listener hears only part of what was said, and sometimes misunderstands even the part which he hears. When a listener fails to listen carefully a barrier has been erected. This could be avoided if the listener would only assume his responsibility in the process of communication. Research has revealed that there are three major reasons why people do not listen well. They are:

1. Listeners have different word reactions: Some words cause violent reactions in people because some experience is identified with that word. The experience may have been pleasant or unpleasant. The use of a certain word or expression may be like a red flag blowing in the wind, bringing to mind a certain experience. This often results in an emotional expression. For example, mention a person’s name. The very use of this name could cause a feeling of love or even hate to swell up within the listener. The word “war” may cause a veteran to become very upset. The word “mother” may cause a person to become sentimental. The frequent use of the word “lost” may generate a feeling of uneasiness. Very often the emotions excited by the “red Flag” word will be transferred to the speaker. The speaker is “tuned out!” Feeling of hate or contempt dominates the listener’s mind. Every sentence is interpreted by this emotion. A barrier has been erected by the listener.

2. Listeners have different background experiences: Education, position, experience, etc. all affect the way a person hears. Each listener has some form of background experience which is present when he listens. It is impossible to completely divorce our listening habits from our experiences of life. But we must try to understand why we may misunderstand. Communication often breaks down because of our own notions and personal experience, rather than by what has actually been said.

3. Listeners have different temperaments: Personalities and temperaments differ. Most people have periods when they are on the “moody” side and act differently at one time or another. A speaker may say something at the wrong time and this could cause hard feelings on the part of the listener. The barrier is not in what was said, but in the listener’s reaction to it. We certainly would be better listeners if we understood our moods better.

We all need to give more attention to the how of our hearing. Action from listening is determined by how we hear. Therefore, “acquiring sensitivity to the implicit content of conversations requires practice. When you listen to others talking or are engaged in conversation yourself, get into the habit of asking yourself, why is he saying this? What is implied?” 2 There are four levels of listening:

1. Level of importance: We tend to hear what we want to hear and listen to whom we want to listen. We tend to give more attention to people of importance. If a person is our equal, or even our inferior, we will give him less attention than we give our superiors. Can any good thing come out of “Nazareth” is the attitude of too many listeners. This ought not to be our attitude. The Bible says, “. . . but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil. 2:3). All should be considered our superior.

2. Level of comprehension: Jesus, on one occasion, taught His disciples about His death and resurrection (Mk. 9:31). “But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him” (Mk. 9:32). They no doubt could have repeated every word the Lord had spoken, but they did not understand any of it. Something, be it prejudice or preconceived notions, had so filled their minds that their understanding was darkened. Many things tend to fill our minds today. Malice, envy, hatred, prejudice, etc. cloud the mind so that having ears, we hear, but do not understand. This is a serious barrier to communication.

3. Level of Exclusion: The prejudiced person has prejudged all things. The speaker cannot add one bit to his knowledge. He will not even give- you the courtesy of listening to you. Not only does he create a problem in communicating, but he limits his own learning and spiritual growth.

4. Level of no action: In this case the listener understands the message completely, but does nothing about it. Perhaps Felix was in this level when he said; “go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee” (Acts 24:25). People will say today, “yes, I know you are right, but . . . .” His problem is that he does not have the courage to act on his convictions or he is dishonest. He may love the “praises of men more than the praises of God” (Jno. 12:43).

Loss In Transmission

The final communication barrier that we will give attention to in this article is the loss that occurs in the transmission of information. Tests have proven that in the field of oral communications there is often a loss of 80% of the original information from the speaker to the hearer. This is a great problem, but it can be overcome by such things as asking questions, note taking and reviews. Every effort should be made to get the information correct. Those who are seeking to impart information should see the value of visual aids as it relates to this problem and strive to use them effectively.

Conclusion

There are other barriers that could be considered. But these three are among the major barriers and are worthy of careful consideration.

Footnotes

1. G. R. Holton, “Barriers to Communication.” Firm Foundation (Dec. 13, 1966), 787.

2. Jessie Nirenberg, Getting Through To People (New Jersey: 1963), 79.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:29, p. 12-14
May 23, 1974

By George T. Eldridge

The religious world is filled with Protestant churches, denominational churches, independent churches, Jewish faith, and the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.” All of those false churches have influenced responsible people to hole to one idea on the purpose of baptism: remission of sins is received before baptism. These false teachers are at times bold in teaching the penitent believer that baptism is not for (in order to obtain) the remission of sins.

The Baptists Teach

As representative of that one idea, please read this quotation:

“Note 8. – Baptism is not essential to salvation, for our churches utterly repudiate the dogma of baptismal regeneration” (Edward T. Hiscox, The Standard Manual for Baptist Churches, Philadelphia, 1961, p. 20).

Baptists, like other religious people of the past, had a great deal of interest in and much concern for defending the scripturalness of their practices and teachings. Men, for example, like D. N. Jackson (Baptist), J. B. Moody (Baptist), Ben M. Bogard (Baptist), John Walker (Presbyterian), William L. McCalla (Presbyterian), Robert Owen (Atheistic Socialist), John B. Purcell (Roman Catholic Bishop of Cincinnati), Nathan L. Rice (Presbyterian), Charles Smith (President, American Association for the Advancement of Atheism, New York City), B. Sunday Myers (Pentecostal Church of God), E. R. Vaughn (United Pentecostal Church), Morns Butler Book (Christian Church), Eric Beevers (Roman Catholic), Kenneth E. Farnsworth (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), David F. Smith (Seventh Day Adventist), and J. R. Scherling (Congregational Church) would debate their beliefs with preachers from churches of Christ.

A Moment of Thought

For the most part, only the churches of Christ encourage religious discussions, seek debates, and openly solicit questions about their teachings. Churches of Christ are not denominational, Jewish, Protestant, or Roman Catholic. They are the church you read about in the New Testament. Jesus Christ founded the church of Christ. The apostles persuaded men to enter the church by being baptized. The point of view today expounded by preachers and practiced by churches has shifted from “whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” to curing the poverty, social injustices, unhappiness and unrest of mankind (Col. 3:17). This new teaching makes the church an entertainment club, recreation center, and social institution! This new teaching is not authorized by God’s Word; therefore, churches of Christ do not practice it or encourage it.

The purpose of baptism is still a Bible subject of great importance, even though most people never examine what the Scriptures teach with reference to its purpose and denominations do not practice Bible baptism! Listen to the Word of God. It teaches that water baptism to the penitent believer is for (in order to obtain) the remission of sins. Kind reader, remission of sins is not received before baptism.

Mark 16:16

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Divine law, spoken from the lips of Jesus, says salvation is after the baptism of the believer. What kind of believer is saved? The believer that is obedient, a baptized believer. Under the N. T. law, there is not one exception where an individual had salvation before baptism! The term “saved” in Mark 16:16 is used in exactly the same sense in which “remission of sins” is used elsewhere in the New Testament. Luke, the physician, records the Great Commission in these words: “Thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations” (Luke 24:46-47). The term “saved” in Mark 16:16 is parallel to the term remission of sins in Luke 24:47. Based upon Mark 16:16, how could any person fail to teach that water baptism of the believer is for (in order to obtain) the remission of sins?

Acts 22:16

“And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Paul was not saved on the road to Damascus. His sins had not been washed away because he had not yet heard and obeyed what Ananias told him to do. Paul ‘was instructed to “go to Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do” (Acts 22:10). In the expression “wash away thy sins,” the purpose of water baptism is again given. Water baptism will “wash away thy sins” provided you are “calling on the name of the Lord.” Why are religious people not able to see that truth?

Final Word

The popular, teaching that remission of sins and the blessing of salvation is received before baptism was not (1) instituted by Christ, (2) practiced by His apostles, (3) known in apostolic churches, or (4) sanctioned or recognized in the Bible. Our plea is for you to accept God’s gift of remission of sins through faith by being baptized (Eph. 2:8). Through faith, do what God teaches. Through faith, “be baptized, and wash away thy sins.”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:29, p. 11-12
May 23, 1974

By Jeffery Kingry

Scriptures reveal that on the day of judgment, when all that is of a physical nature shall be burned up (2 Pet. 3:1012), then mankind will stand in judgment on an individual basis (Rev. 20:12-15). There will be no institutions such as home, school, church, or nation to stand at the judgment bar: merely individuals. Yet, this fact does not negate the importance of God ordained institutions in this present life. The home was created by God to provide the natures of man, woman, and child with the ideal environment in which to develop their unique and different characters. The church exists by the command of God as a people of God, to build up the saints and to teach the gospel (Eph. 4:11-13). The nation is ordained by God to protect the innocent and to prosecute the evil doer. Government is God’s minister to those that live a law abiding life as a protector, sustainer, and a rewarder (Rom. 13). To be sure there is a continual corruption of these institutions and a prostitution of their ideal purpose, but the abuse does not eliminate their true function.

Unfortunately, in dealing with any controversy, there always seems to be two extreme sides to the pendulum swing. In a study of the Christian’s relationship to his government, there are two extreme positions that are equally erroneous. There is one side that views governmental action on a par with divine revelation. These individuals ignore or “explain away” the ungodly acts committed in the name of the government as righteous acts authorized by Romans 13:4. As Foy E. Wallace puts it, “It is not primarily a question of participation in carnal warfare but of the performance of the duties of carnal government, for all civil government is carnal; and all law enforcement is war” (Foy E. Wallace, Sermon on the Mount and the Civil State, p. 140). On the other side of the swing we find the complete political pacifist that views the kingdoms of this world on an equal footing with the domain of the Prince of the Air. In the words of one of these adherents, “There are only two kingdoms-the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the devil” (Lee M. Rogers, God and Government, p. 83). Both views miss a very obvious point: Government, like home or church, can be evil or good ‘as those individuals that make it up are evil or good. But whether government commits an evil deed by “framing mischief through statute” (Ps. 44:20), or the home becomes the adversary of the godly Christian (Matt. 10:36), or the church becomes a corrupted degenerate (Rev. 3:15-17), the ideal principles ordaining each are still valid.

There is a universal principle that applies to nations, “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). Government has a responsibility to be not only civilly correct, but morally correct as well. The ideal situation would be one in which the civil government would be as morally correct as the individual Christian. Of course, in practicality, this will never come to pass (Jas. 4:4). This ideal has not been realized even within the church. For this reason, a more reasonable command was given to us by God, “Ye are the salt of the earth …ye are the light of the world.” Both salt and light are things that through active involvement change the environment about them. Salt, by just being salty, when added to food produces a flavor unobtainable without salt. Light, by merely shining forth, illuminates dark corners far removed from the light source. Christianity is like a drop of dye in clear water, its presence colors the entire thing.

Recognizing the relationship of these things, we can with pride look to the influence the Bible and it’s concepts had in the setting up of our form of government.’We can pray with all zeal, that the Bible might have free course in this nation again as it did in the beginning. While I may not be able to condone every one of the following men in the light of the scriptures for the kingdom of God’s sake I heartily recommend the influence of these men on our nation.

“It is impossible to govern the world without God. He must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligation”-George Washington.

“The Bible is the best book in the world. It contains more of my little philosophy than all the libraries I have ever seen” John Adams.

ASo great is my veneration for the Bible, that the earlier that my children begin to read it, the more confident will be my hopes that they will prove useful citizens to their country, and respectable members of society” John Quincy Adams.

“Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of our liberties; write it’s precepts on your hearts, and practice them in your lives. To the influence of this book we are indebted for the progress made in true civilization and to this we must look as our guide in the future”-U. S. Grant.

Our nation, with all of its mistakes and atrocities, was founded on the belief that man is created in the image of God, and the nation has a responsibility to preserve and encourage the full development of man. While there are inherent dangers in practice of that ideal, and many failures to live up to it, the United States stands where it is today in prosperity, security,, and strength because of that ideal: “When a land transgresses it has many rulers;” David said, “But with men of understanding and knowledge its stability will long continue” (Prov. 28:2). It is for this reason that we as Christians are commanded to “offer supplications; prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks for all men; for kings and all in authority: That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour” (I Tim. 2:2, 3).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:29, p. 10-11
May 23, 1974

By Donald P Ames

Reviewing the “Confession of an Ex-Campbellite”

Recently a tract came into my hands by Jim B. Miller of Box 1313, Brenham, Texas, who claims to have been “formerly affiliated with your denomination,” but is presently the minister of the First Assembly of God in Brenham. Since this tract was placed beneath the windshield wipers of every car in the parking lot of the South Houston church in Houston, Texas, I am sure Mr. Miller will have no objections to my making its contents public and examining some of the points he has to offer.

Refuses to Debate

Like so many others who do not like to have their doctrines publicly exposed to the word of God before a mixed audience which is able to determine who is setting forth the truth of God’s divine word, Mr. Miller goes out of his way in this tract to note: “Let me make it plain that I will not debate with any Campbellite believer believing as I do that debate is a sinful practice loved by reprobate men (Rom. 1:28-29; 2 Cor. 12:20).” (Italic his-DPA). If Mr. Miller had taken a little more time to study the above passages, he would have discovered that the word “debate” in both passages is translated “strife” in the New American Standard Bible and other later translations, and refers to the idea of bitter quarrels with personalities, rather than an honest investigation of the word of God within the confines of a proper atmosphere. Even the apostles themselves “argued” (Acts 6:9), “debated” (Acts 15:7), “reasoned” (Acts 17:2), and showed such was to be done (Jude 3, I Thess. 2:2, etc.). Jesus’ many exchanges with the various leaders of Judiasm are still further evidence that such is expected of all who would defend the whole counsel of God.

However, after his bold statement of why he refused to engage in a debate, Mr. Miller then goes on to say that such “does not mean that I will not welcome your disputation or criticism.” Now, I wonder if that means that he would answer such with what he believes the word of God teaches? If so, he has a debate (“a rose by any other name is still a rose”), and if done in the proper spirit, would be doing exactly what the apostles and our Lord did-and if not, it would be done in the manner which was condemned. I trust we can conduct this study on the high plane God would have it.

Formerly A Member

Mr. Miller says he was formerly a member of the Shaw Street Church of Christ in Pasadena, Texas, being baptized in 1962. He claims he “remained with them long enough to objectively compare their teachings with the plain teaching of the Bible,” and that as a result of careful study, promptly left again in 1963. He then objects to the plea to “Speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where it is silent;” saying that in many cases, “the Church of Christ often speaks where the Bible is silent and remains silent when the Bible speaks-especially in regard to their pet doctrines!” Since I know nothing about the Shaw Street Church of Christ itself nor Mr. Miller, I hope he will not think me rude for being equally as blunt in assessing the situation as I see it. It seems quite obvious to me that Mr. Miller did not remain “long enough” to fully understand what the word of God actually teaches, or else never fully understood it in the first place. In reading the material within his tract, I note he himself is very guilty of “speaking where the Bible is silent and remaining silent where the Bible speaks.” If I am wrong in such an assessment, I welcome his efforts to show me such from the word of God. However, his statements serve as pretty good evidence that he went out from among us that it might be made manifest that he was not of us (1 Jn. 2:19).

“One Scripture Only, Please”

Listing 30 challenges against the “pet doctrines” of the body of Christ, Mr. Miller calls for “one Scripture only, please.” His argument is that anything requiring more than one scripture is unscriptural. Such logic does not follow, and I am sure I could readily demonstrate such to be true about the doctrines of the First Assembly of God as well. Nevertheless, I shall seek to give him some very plain Bible answers that ought to satisfy anyone seeking to do the will of God. This, we shall seek to do by placing his challenge first, and then the answer to follow.

1. That “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” is not valid without water baptism (Acts 16:31). Jesus answered this in Mark 16:16 when He Himself placed the additional restriction “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” on to the plan of salvation. Since “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17); it follows that the jailer had to believe before he could do anything else, thus Paul spoke the word of the Lord to him to produce that faith (verse 32), that ,he might be saved. James 2:19 notes that even the demos believe, however, that does not mean they are saved, because one must also “obey” in order to be saved (Heb. 5:9). No one can “obey” a command to believe, hence that is still further testimony that something more is required (Acts 2:38). Mr. Miller might also note that nothing is said in that passage about repentance either (Acts 17:30) nor of confession (Rom. 10:9-10), yet he would not exclude either because they are not in that one verse. No one passage within the word of God contains all the plan of salvation, yet one cannot be saved without doing all that is required by God.

2. That if we love the brethren but have not been baptized we cannot pass from death unto life (I John 3:14). We readily acknowledge no man can love God and hate his brother (1 Jn. 4:20), but is that the plan of salvation? John 3:16 alone is more than enough to answer this argument, since the above passage says nothing about believing, repenting, or confessing-all of which even Mr. Miller would admit is essential. That which proves too much proves nothing, and again Mr. Miller is caught within his own contradiction by denying the rest of the word of God to lift one verse and try to base his whole argument upon it alone.

3. That the term “born of water” (John 3:5) really means “born of baptism” (John 4:14, Isa. 12:3). Since neither Isa. 12 nor John 4 even mention being “born” at all, Mr. Miller is caught groping in the dark for a mere play on words, as Jesus was merely using the situation at hand in John 4 to illustrate a spiritual lesson, as he also did in John 6:54. The proper parallel to this passage readily identifies baptism as the thing under consideration when one looks at either Titus 3:5 or Eph. 5:26 where the word “regenerate” means to be “born anew” and refers back to the very idea in John 3:5.

4. That “whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” is not valid without baptism (John 3:16). Again, we could just ask the same thing about repentance (see point No. 1). Note the following from the NASB in John 3:36, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” Belief often includes the idea of obedience, and that includes repentance and baptism as well, thus he who believes “should not perish” because he should go ahead and obey (Heb. 5:9, Acts 6:7, etc).

5. That “the just shall live by faith” includes water baptism and works (Rom. 1:17). What faith? The word of God itself is what is under consideration, and all that is included therein (Rom. 1:16). There is a difference in the works of men and the works of God that we might also point out too. In Jn. 6:29 belief is referred to as a “work” of God. Only by faith in the word of God to do all that it requires can any righteous man live-and that includes the whole of the plan of salvation.

6. That the “works” of James 2:14-20 is water baptism. Who ever said it was? The “works” here refers to an obedient faith as contrasted with a professed faith (vs. 1819). That simply means true faith is manifested in obedience, or doing the “works of God” which He has instructed. Thus one passage refers to Abraham as being justified by faith (Heb. 11:7), while another speaks of it by works (James 2:21). But again, the works were not works of man’s merits, but works’in obedience to the will of God, by which we are justified by Him (vs. 21, Heb. 5:9).

7. That Saul of Tarsus was not saved in Acts 9:6 before his baptism in water (I Cor. 12:3). If so, he was saved while he still was in his sins (Acts 22:16), and since sin cannot enter heaven, neither could Paul until he was saved, redeemed from his sins! As for the term “Lord,” it merely refers to a title of respect for a higher power (sometimes translated “sir”-see also I Pet. 3:6), and did not mean Paul was saved (Matt. 7:21, Luke 6:46). Paul was well aware something greater than himself was present (hence the term “Lord”), but he did not know who until Jesus answered him. “By the spirit” within the context of 1 Cor. 12, does not mean “one who is a Christian,” but rather refers to the guidance and planning of the Holy Spirit in fulfilling the purpose of God (Mark 16:20, Heb. 2:4) and thus is totally unrelated to this subject.

8. That what Paul Amust do” (Acts 9:6) was to be baptized rather than suffer Agreat things”(v. 16). Who said either was excluded? I wonder if Mr. Miller actually thinks Paul could have become a great spokesman for God in pointing men to Christ and the remission of their sins if he was still in his own sins? (Acts 22:16) Obviously it had both an immediate anti future application.

9. That a person “contacts the blood in the waters of baptism. ” Since we are saved by the blood of Christ (Eph. 1:7, Rev. 1:5), maybe Mr. Miller would like to show me the verse that says we contact it in faith only. Christ’s blood was shed in his death (Matt. 26:28), and in the watery grave of baptism we come in contact with his death (Rom. 6:3-7) where the blood washes away our sins and we come forth with a clean conscience (1 Pet. 3:21). The same parallel exists in the cleansing of the leprosy of Naaman in 2 Kings 5-full obedience was required to obtain the blessings, and not that the water itself was miraculous or that one must find literal blood.

10. That a man cannot be justified by faith without baptism (Rom. 3:8). I suspect the real passage he has in mind is Rom. 5:1, and no one denies we are saved by faith, just like we are justified by works (James 2:24). What Mr. Miller assumes in this passage is that we are saved by faith only (reread James 2:24). A rereading of points No. 1 and 4 will answer his point here also.

11. That the “one baptism” of Eph. 4:5 is water baptism (1 Cor. 12:13). Since the disciples were told to “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them ” (Matt. 28:19), he has his answer. No one but God can baptize one with the Holy Spirit, but Jesus told his disciples to do the baptizing. We note that “water baptism” was what they practiced (I Pet. 3:20-21, Acts 10:47, Acts 8:37-39), and there is no reference of them commanding anyone to be baptized in the Holy Spirit or that Holy Spirit baptism was to save anyone. As for 1 Cor. 12:13, we have here another parallel to John 3:5, Eph. 5:26 and Titus 3:5-under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (through the word-Eph. 3:5), they were all baptized into the one body. Mr. Miller has no case at all for Holy Spirit baptism in this passage if he keeps it within the context of 1 Cor. 12, which he tries so hard not to do.

12. That the word ‘for” in Acts 2:38 means “in order to” and not “because of” as in 1 Cor. 15:3, etc. For one who claims to have searched carefully to learn what God has taught, Mr. Miller shows a great lack of comprehension with this argument. The word “for” in Acts 2:38 is from the Greek word eis, and is rendered “in order to” by every reputable lexicon in print. It is a forward looking word, and does not look backwards. Jesus used the same Greek word eis in Matt. 26:28 when he said his blood was being shed “for the remission of sins.” Did he mean “because of?” When Mr. Miller finds the answer to that passage, he will find the answer to Acts 2:38. As for the word “for” in 1 Cor. 15:3, Mr. Miller shows poor research. The Greek word here is the word gar, and is correctly rendered “because.”

13. That baptism is not a ‘figure” (1 Pet. 3:21) and ‘likeness” (Rom. 6:5) but a means of salvation. Again Mr. Miller is guilty of mixing his figures and substituting in order to suit his man-made doctrines. The “figure” in 1 Pet. 3:21 is between the water that separated Noah from the lost and dying world during the days of the flood and the water of baptism which separates the Christian from the sinner today. And in Rom. 6:5 the “likeness” is in the burial of Christ in the grave and the burial of baptism as the old man of sin is done away and we are raised to walk in “newness of life . . . freed from his sins.” The figures and likenesses do not do away with the purpose itself, but merely serve to illustrate its nature and purpose.

14. That `form” in Rom. 6:17 refers to water baptism. The word “form” means “a mold or pattern,” and refers to the results of the teaching of the doctrine of Christ molding us into a creature of His will when we have become “freed from sin” (v. 18)-which was accomplished when we were buried with Christ in baptism (Rom. 6:3-7). Again, the context itself serves as the answer to Mr. Miller.

15. That observance of a weekly Sunday communion is commanded. Using his own logic, perhaps he would also like to show where a weekly contribution is commandedyet he would not think of abolishing it. By apostolic example we find the disciples meeting on the first day of the week to break bread (Lord’s Supper-Acts 20:7), and since every week has a first day, we know this is the pattern (as is also verified by history-see also 1 Cor. 11:20). As the “seventh day” meant weekly, so does the “first day.” Here again, not only does Mr. Miller follow an example (1 Cor. 16:1-2) for giving, but violates it in partaking of the Lord’s Supper any time other than weekly.

(More to follow)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:29; p. 8-10
May 23, 1974