Truth Magazine

By Bill Crews

In Ephesians 4:5 the New Testament teaches that there is “one baptism” (in the same context, vv. 4-6, we are also told that there is one God and Father, one Holy Spirit, one Lord, one faith (the gospel), one body (the church, the spiritual body of Christ) and one hope (the hope of eternal life). Each accountable person needs to be certain that he has received the one baptism of this passage. In Acts 19:3-5 we read of twelve men at Ephesus who were “baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” by the apostle Paul. These men had already been baptized “into John’s baptism,” but John the Baptist (or baptizer) had been dead for more than thirty years, and his baptism was no longer to be practiced or received (see also Acts 18:24-26). There are many today who have been baptized, but who need to be baptized again.

If I honestly believed that Baptist baptism as identical to New Testament baptism, I would certainly say so and be willing to accept it. But I know for a surety that it is not. By New Testament baptism I mean the baptism commanded by Christ is his new covenant. I have a book of Baptist Confessions of Faith written by Baptist preachers, church history books by Baptist preachers, and tracts and articles, and a Baptist encyclopedia. I know what Baptist churches teach, and I would not knowingly misrepresent them. Baptist churches reject infant baptism because they believe that baptism is for believers and that infants are incapable of being believers. In this they are right. In the first place the New Testament neither states nor necessarily implies that any infants were ever baptized. In the second place it clearly teaches that those who are baptized must be taught and must believe that teaching. Please read Mark 16:15-16; Acts 8:12,35-38; 18:8, which all show that teaching and faith precede New Testament baptism.

Baptist churches reject the practice of sprinkling or pouring water upon a person for baptism and insist that baptism is the immersion of a person in water. In this they are right. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, and all Koine Greek lexicons define the word for “baptism” (actually a transliteration of the word) as “immersion, submersion, dipping, plunging, washing, overwhelming, etc.” and never as “sprinkling” or “pouring” (other Greek verbs had those meanings). Furthermore references to baptism and actual descriptions of baptizings clearly show that New Testament baptism is immersion in water. When the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized, he and Philip came unto a certain water, he and Philip both went down into the water, he was baptized by Philip, and he and Philip both came up out of the water (by faith) buried with Christ and raised with Christ (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12). Baptism involves a burial of a person in water and a resurrection of a person from water; it is to bring to mind the burial and resurrection of our Lord. Sprinkling or pouring of water upon a person is not New Testament baptism.

So far I have agreed with the teaching and practice of Baptist churches on baptism. Wherein do I disagree? In these five points:

1. Even though Baptist churches rightly teach that prospects for baptism must be capable of hearing and understanding the gospel and must be believers, in practice they baptize very young children who cannot comply with these conditions. The New Testament also shows that baptism is for people who are lost due to their own sins against God and that they must be convicted of their sins (Rom. 6:16-18,14). Baptist churches, though they will not baptize infants, teach that everyone is born lost because they come into this world with the guilt of Adam’s sin upon them. This the Bible does not teach (Ezek. 18:20; Eccl. 7:29; Lk. 18:15-17).

2. Baptist churches not only teach that one must be a believer before he can be baptized. They teach that one must believe that he is already saved before he can be baptized; they put salvation at the point of faith; they teach salvation by faith alone. They put salvation from sin before baptism; the New Testament puts it after baptism (Mk. 16:15-16; 1 Pet. 3:21). They put remission of sins before baptism; the New Testament puts it after baptism (Acts 2:38). They put discipleship before baptism; the New Testament puts it after baptism (Matt. 28:18-20). They put the washing away of sins before baptism; the New Testament puts it after baptism (Acts 22:16). They put being in Christ before baptism; the New Testament puts it after baptism (Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:3-4).

3. Baptist churches teach that one must be accepted by the members of a congregation before he can be baptized; in times past they actually had the matter put to a vote. In the New Testament no one was ever brought before a congregation for approval before he could be baptized; in the New Testament churches did not vote upon receiving anyone for baptism (please read the example in Acts 8:26-39; the Lord adds one to the church, Acts 2:47; God sets the members in the spiritual body which is the church, 1 Cor. 12:18).

4. Baptist churches teach that one can only be baptized by one who is authorized to do so, usually a “licensed” and “ordained” “minister,” who is a Baptist. Some teach that that authorization must go back in an unbroken chain all the way to Christ and his apostles before the baptism can be valid. The New Testament places no significance upon the identity of the one who does the baptizing. The important thing is whether or not the individual who is baptized has been taught and convicted and is from the heart obeying the truth (Rom. 6:17-18). When anyone at Corinth began to place significance upon who baptized him, Paul wrote that he thanked God that he did not baptize that person (1 Cor. 1:10-17).

5. Baptist churches teach that baptism puts one into a local congregation and makes him a member of that local body. In the New Testament we do not read anywhere that baptism put anyone into a local church or congregation. We rather read that baptism puts one into Christ and into the spiritual body of Christ, the church (“the church” in that sense is all the saved and not some local congregation as in Matt. 16:18; Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22-23; 3:10,21; 5:23; now please read 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:26-27 and Rom. 6:3-4, which show that we are baptized into Christ and into the spiritual body of Christ, the church).

This is why I know that anyone who has received Baptist baptism has not received New Testament baptism. Please be honest; it is not all “just a matter of interpretation.” It is rather a matter of Bible teaching and the salvation of precious souls.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 20, pp. 618-619
October 15, 1992

By Greg Littlejohn

The most precious gift that God has given to us is the sacrifice of his only Son for our sins. But what would be the next greatest gift that he has given us? Answer: The second greatest gift given to us, his children, is our own children, “Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from him” (Psa. 127:3). With this in mind, let’s take a look at what God’s word says about our children.

Israel. The Israelites are often times condemned by modern Christians for their lack of faith, and for turning against God even though he had just performed some miracle for their benefit. And although this criticism may be deserved, one of the major causes of Israel’s lack of faith stemmed from a problem that is most prevalent today. They failed to instruct their children in the ways of the Lord. This failure is evident from their history.

At many points in their history, the children of Israel turned away from God. One such instance is recorded in the second chapter of the book of Judges, “After that whole generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation grew up, who knew neither the Lord nor what he had done for Israel. Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord and served the Baals” (Judg. 2:10-11). The previous generation’s failure properly to teach its children about the effect of God’s guiding hand on the nation of Israel is doubtlessly a heavily contributing factor in the latter generation’s departure from God. If the nation as a whole had properly educated its young about the grace of God and all that he had done for them, this radical departure almost assuredly would not have taken place. Because of this failure to teach their children and their resultant turning away, Israel, in this instance, was plundered by raiders (Judg. 2:14). Similar scenarios occur throughout the books of Judges, I and 2 Kings, and other books in the Old Testament as well.

Thus, the entire nation of Israel suffered many times throughout its history because of the older generation’s failure to teach the younger generation. No doubt, much of their suffering could have been avoided had parents taken more time to teach their children about God and everything that he had done for them.

Today. Although the Old Testament is recorded for our learning, many people who do not learn from history subsequently are condemned to repeat it. The failure of Christian parents to educate their children about God today will result in serious problems for the children of today as it did for the generations who turned away from God in the Old Testament. However, instead of a danger of being savaged by another country, the children run the risk of losing their souls . . . a much greater loss to be sure.

Training. Few books in the Bible are a greater source of timeless wisdom than the book of Proverbs. In Proverbs, we see the effect of educating a child, “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it” (Prov. 22:6). Obviously, no matter how well a parent teaches a child, some children will stray from the path. But no single influence in a child’s life is greater than that of a parent. For this reason it is vital that we as parents teach our children the truth about God and what he has done for us.

Discipline. Over the past few decades this country has seen a gradual decline in family values and morality. This decline has in part been caused by the erosion of discipline. Noted psychologists attempting to improve on parenting offered new methods of rearing children. One such theorist suggested that parents refrain from telling a child “no.” Others said that any form of physical punishment is wrong. But God’s word gives us instruction in the rearing of children that does not agree with these “new and improved” ideas. “Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die. Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death” (Prov. 23:13-14). Furthermore, “The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself disgraces his mother” (Prov. 29:15). There can be no doubt that a child needs the active participation of both parents to discipline him. All one has to do today is look at the world around him and he will quickly see the effects of a lack of discipline on this country. Crime, poverty, nonexistent public morality, lack of respect for elders and others, the list goes on and on. And a large percentage of each of these problems can be attributed to a lack of parental discipline.

The nuclear family, which used to be the norm, has become a dying breed. With the split of the nuclear family, even those still in existence are marred by a myriad of problems which all stem from a lack of parental love for children. Even Hollywood has identified the problem. Note the following quote from a recent blockbuster movie where a mother is watching her son talk to a cyborg. “Watching John with a machine, it was suddenly so clear. The terminator would never stop. It would never leave him. And it would never hurt him. Never shout at him or get drunk and hit him. Or say it was too busy to spend time with him. It would always be there and it would die to protect him. Of all the wouldbe fathers who came and went over the years, this thing, this machine, was the only one who measured up. In an insane world, it was the sanest choice” (Terminator 2: Judgment Day). It has become a truly sad day when a machine could ever be viewed as a better father than a person.

What to teach? Parents need to teach their children about God. This sounds perfectly simply, and it is! Paul’s concern for parenting is evidenced in his letter to the saints in Ephesus where he wrote, “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). But just what is “the training and instruction of the Lord?”

As parents, we must teach our children everything that we know about God. And in order that we may be able to know as much as we can to teach them, we must study God’s word regularly. This does not mean that we should be satisfied with being prepared for Sunday morning Bible study. That is just a starting point. Our study must go beyond that to other topics or areas of concern tht we face in everyday life. Furthermore, we must never lose sight of the basic, fundamental principles of God’s word, which would include, among other things, God’s plan of salvation and the sacrifice that Jesus made for us.

Proper biblical authority must also be emphasized. The denominational world has run afoul many times simply by virtue of a failure to find proper biblical authority for their actions. We must stress the importance of proper authority for everything that we do in our worship of God and in living our lives. Failure to search for proper authority can lead well-intended individuals down a slippery slope that ends far away from God and what he wants us to do for him. Thus, we must always emphasize to our children that we have the proper authority for doing everything that we do.

God’s greatest gift to us was given out of his love for us. We must be certain that we never forget that everything that God does for us he does out of his love for us. and we must never forget to emphasize this great love that God has shown for us to our children. When we explain to our children how God’s great love has affected our lives in a very positive manner, they will understand why we love him. In turn, they will be able to love God when they see everything that he has done and will do for them.

God’s love for us manifests itself in the blessings that he bestows upon us. We must tell our children about all the blessings that God has given us, both physical and spiritual. These blessings range from the sacrifice of his Son on the cross for our sins to the food on our tables, the clothes on our backs, and the roofs over our heads. Yet another great blessing, one I believe to be under-emphasized by most Christians, is that of prayer. It is a blessing to know we have the opportunity to go to our Father in prayer at any time of the day and he will always listen to us. Futhermore, we know that he will answer our prayers, although not always in the way that we may want if we ask for something that we should not ask for or something that is not in our best interests.

Furthermore, we must be certain to teach our children the gospel plan of salvation (hear, believe, repent, confess, be baptized, and remain faithful) so that when they reach the age of accountability, they will be able to act on their faith. What good would it be to know everything else if a person did not know how to act on his faith? After all, faith without works is dead (Jas. 2:26).

How to Teach? How to teach is more important than what to teach because if we do not teach our children in the correct way, it will not matter what we teach because they will not learn.

First, we must teach in word. We must always be teaching them about God, not just helping them with their lessons on Saturday night. Our instruction should be ongoing, similar to Paul’s instruction to the saints in Thessalonica to “pray continually” (1 Thess. 5:17). Whether you are home or away, day or night, weekday or weekend, instruction about God is a must.

Second, we must teach by our actions. If a parent says one thing and does another (i.e. a hypocrite), a child will soon learn that what mom or dad says does not really matter. You just say what they want to hear and then go off and do whatever you want. However, if a child hears you talking about God and then sees you acting upon your beliefs, this will re-enforce what you have taught. And, as James wrote, “Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.”

Conclusion. As parents, we love our children intensely and want only what is best for them. And what could be better for them than giving them the knowledge about God and the opportunity to be pleasing to him? Or instead do we want to keep them ignorant or confused and risk the loss of their souls for eternity? Would a truly loving parent willfully put his child in harm’s way for no good reason? Therefore, we should teach our children about God because we love him and we love them.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 20, pp. 620-621
October 15, 1992

By Brooks Cochran

“So when Pilate saw that he prevailed nothing, but rather that a tumult was arising, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man; see ye to it. And all the people answered and said, His blood be on us, and on our children” (Matt. 27:24-25).

Note, in the verses above, two attitudes expressed toward accepting responsibility. Pilate wanted and tried to rid himself of any and all responsibility toward Jesus. The Jews were willing to accept that which Pilate wanted to “wash his hands” of; i.e. responsibility. In the end both were wrong for their actions.

There are two extremes, in this case, which should be avoided:

1. Pilate’s. Attempting to rid oneself of any and all responsibility he may feel he has and/or not accepting that which is his to do and cannot be transferred (cf. Gal. 6:5).

2. The Jew’s. Accepting any and all responsibility for some course of action without first considering the consequence (cf. Prov. 14:12). There is a safe course of action which lies between these two extremes.

One must realize that in his service to God, he cannot rid himself of that which he is responsible. The one talent man attempted to rid himself of his obligation to his master and in the end was punished (Matt. 25:24-30). “Pilate was warned by his sense of justice, he was warned by his conscience, he was warned by the dream of his troubled wife; but Pilate could not stand against the mob; and Pilate made the futile gesture of washing his hands” (William Barclay, Matthew, Vol. 2, p. 333). We cannot, like Pilate, just “wash our hands” of any and all obligations we have to the Lord and his cause. Yet, many are doing that very thing; thinking that compromise is the solution to doctrinal problems. They exhibit the fear of the one talent man and in the final day will be condemned.

One must examine the work and/or course of action for which he is willing to accept responsibility. He must be sure that it is the right course to follow. No doubt many of the Jews, on that occasion, were more than willing to accept responsibility for their conduct. Many were blindly following the crowd. However, they were still responsible and God held them accountable (cf. Acts 2:22-24,36-38; 3:13-17). Others, after some time, no longer wanted to accept the responsibility for their actions and became upset when thus accused (cf. Acts 5:27-28). But they were still responsible for their actions! Jesus warned of the consequences of blindly following the crowd (cf. Matt. 15:14).

Let us not be like Pilate or the Jews. Accept all responsibility that is expected of us; but only after we have made a careful examination that the course we intend to follow is right in God’s sight. To do otherwise will condemn us with Pilate and the Jews.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 20, p. 619
October 15, 1992

By Ron Daly

It is often alleged that those who propagate false doctrine must be “marked” because of the reading of Romans 16:17-18 in the King James and American Standard Versions of Scripture. Many assume that, inasmuch as the word “mark” is the term which was selected in translation to convey the meaning of the Greek skopeo, that it means “to designate, to point out, to label, to brand, or to stigmatize.”

In English usage there are several more definitions for “mark” than merely “to brand or label,” one of which is “to take note of” (American Heritage Dictionary, 767). It is not ever an appropriate procedure to arbitrarily choose word meanings which suit our purpose without giving due consideration to word usage in context, for most words have multiple meanings.

I do believe that the New Testament authorizes the people of God to designate, to point out, label, and name teachers of heresy and damnable error, but not because of the use of the word “mark” in Romans 16:17. Rather we learn that such is sanctioned by God through: (1) Apostolic example. The Holy Spirit through Luke records the name of BarJesus, Elymas the Sorcerer, and calls him a false prophet (Acts 13:6-8); Paul informs Timothy that “Hymenaeus and Alexander” made shipwreck concerning the faith, and they were delivered to Satan (1 Tim. 1:19-20); Paul also states that “Hymenaeus and Philetus” were men who concerning the truth have erred (2 Tim. 2:14-18). Finally, Paul designated “Alexander the coppersmith” as one who did him much evil, and as one who greatly withstood our words (2 Tim. 4:14-15). (2) Implication. The fact that we are to “turn away from (ekkiino apo) those who are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling contrary to the doctrine ye learned” (Rom. 16:17b), and since Paul exhorted Titus to put the brethren in mind of various obligations, one being, “a factious man after a first and second admonition refuse” (paraiteomai, Tit. 3:10), indicates that in order to “turn away from” and “refuse” we must know who the class of persons being discussed is, whether by personal observation, or someone else’s unbiased and just labeling.

But, this is not the meaning of “mark” in the Romans text. The Greek word from which the English term is derived is skopein, present active infinitive of skopeo. Skopeo means “to note, to keep an eye on, to look out for, be on watch for, to notice carefully.”(1) For similar uses of the word skopeo in the papyri documents of the first century see the work of James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.(2)

The use of the word “mark” in some of the older versions is appropriate and legitimate, provided, that the student of the text is aware, that the meaning is “to take careful notice,” or some equivalent expression. We have a similar use of “mark” in our vernacular, such as in the following example, “Tom, mark this statement well, do not cross the old bridge, it is treacherous.” That is, “Tom, take careful note of this statement.”

Skopeo is used six times in the Greek Text of Nestle-Aland, 26th Edition.(3) In the ASV, it is translated “Look” (Lk. 11:35), “Mark” (Rom. 16:17), “Look” (2 Cor. 4:18), “Looking” (Gal. 6:1), “looking” (Phil. 2:4), “mark” (Phil. 3.17). In neither text does skopeo have the connotation of branding. The translation variation between “look” and “mark” is based upon contextual usage.

Please take special note of the fact that the translators of the KJV and the ASV, use “mark” to translate skopeo in both Romans 16:17 and Philippians 3:17. This is significant in that it is not likely that the apostle is using skopeo differently, i.e. with a different meaning in the two texts. It is agreed by nearly all that in Philippians, skopeo does not mean “to brand,” but “to keep an eye on,” or “to take careful notice of” with a view of imitating their example, giving them due association, but in the Romans text they are to “keep an eye on” or “take careful notice of” those who are causing the divisions with a view of having no association with them, but rather “turning away from them. ” Mark the similarity in use and structure between the Romans and the Philippians texts.

In order to convey to the modern reader, the scriptural idea underlying the word skopeo in Romans 16:17, some of the older, versions and most of the more recent ones use a word or phrase that is not as likely to be misinterpreted as “mark” normally is.(4)

As stated earlier, the idea of “marking” i.e. pointing out, designating, labeling, and identifying those who teach error and cause divisions is taught in the New Testament, but that is not the meaning or use of the word “mark” (skopeo) in Romans 16:17.

It is possible that those who were “causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine” were the Judaizers (Rom. 2,3,4), yet they might have been those who caused dissensions by their opinions (Rom. 14). Nonetheless, Paul’s admonition is, “watch them closely.”(5) So, the obvious sense in which “mark” (skopeo) is used in the Romans’ text is “look after, consider, keep your eye upon, not in a malignant way, but in the way of precaution.”(6)

May God bless us with the knowledge and wisdom to use the correct texts and words to teach, uphold, and defend the truth, without misapplying his sacred word.

Endnotes

1. Cf. the following Greek-English lexicons of The New Testament, Louw and Nida, Volume 1, page 280, Section 24.32, Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testimenti, Translated by J.H. Thayer, p. 579, Bauer, Arndt-Gingrich, p. 764, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance, Ethelbert W. Bullinger, p. 482, A Reader’s Greek-English Lexicon, Sakae Kubo, p. 147, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 7, p. 415.

2. The Vocabulary of The Greek New Testament, 1976 Reprint, p. 579.

3. Concordance To The Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland, Published by Walter De Gruyter, Berlin, 1987.

4. The NEB says “keep your eye on,” Weymouth says “to keep a watch on,” Moffatt says “to keep your eye on,” The New Berkeley says “to keep an eye on,” Williams New Testament says “to keep on the look out for,” NASV “keep your eye on,” McCord’s New Testament “watch out for,” NRSV “to keep an eye on,” NIV “to watch out for,” NKJV “note.”

5. An American Commentary on The New Testament, Volume IV, Acts and Romans, p. 308.

6. Commentary on Romans, William S. Plummer, p. 640.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 20, pp. 628-629
October 15, 1992