Truth Magazine

By Phil T.Arnold

A Landmark Missionary Baptist publication entitled The Baptist World has a monthly feature entitled, “What Baptists Believe.” In an article concerning baptism under the subheading “What Is Scriptural Baptism?”, the article states that there are four essentials for scriptural baptism. The very first of these being “the candidate for baptism must be a saved person.” Is baptism for the saved or is it for the sinner?

The condition of the sinner in God’s sight is set forth very plainly in the Scriptures. The sinner is lost and without salvation. He lives his life in iniquity and gropes in darkness. He exists in this world without God (separated by his own sins), without Christ, and as a result without hope. Who will deny that this is the condition of the sinner (Jn. 12:46; Rom. 3:23; Eph. 2:12; Rom. 6:23; Isa. 59:1,2)?

On the other hand, what is the condition of the saved? The man who is saved has salvation. He has had his sins forgiven and washed away. He has been redeemed in Christ and through Christ he has become a new creature. The saved individual has been justified by the blood of the Lamb and is freed from the power of sin (2 Cor. 5:17; 2 Tim. 2:10; Eph. 1:7; Rom. 5:9; 6:22).

Now, which of those two individuals is in need of receiving baptism – the sinner or the saved? To find the proper answer to that question, simply lay aside any pre-conceived ideas which you might have, turn away from the doctrines and teachings of men, and sit down with your Bible and see what purposes are ascribed to baptism. When you do this, I think the answer will be clear and simplicity can be restored to Mark 16:16 which says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned. ” Where did Jesus place salvation? Before or after baptism? Is baptism then for the saved or sinner?

What does the Bible teach about the purposes of baptism? The Bible teaches that baptism is for salvation. “The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21). Baptism is for the remission of sins, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. . . ” (Acts 2:38). Baptism washes away sins. “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins . . . (Acts 22:16). Beyond this the Bible reveals that baptism puts one into Christ and into his death where his blood was shed (Rom. 6:3-5). Those who are baptized have obeyed the form of doctrine which frees them from sin and allows them to begin a new life having put on Christ (Rom. 6:17,18; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:27). The sinner is in need of all these things which are attributed to baptism, and the saved person already is in possession of all that the Bible attributes to baptism. The sinner can and should be baptized to receive the promises which accompany it. But why baptize a man who already has these promises? What is it that baptism can do for the saved?

If a candidate for baptism “must be a saved person,” then the N.T. uses some strange language in reference to these individuals. It calls upon them to be baptized ‘!for the remission of sins” and that they might “wash away thy sins.” This is confusing language to use to one who is a “saved person.” Such statements could only be made to an unsaved person.

The Lord in Mark 16:16 did not teach that a “candidate for baptism must be a saved person” and neither does any other Bible passage. To agree with the doctrine and beliefs of many, Mark 16:16 must be changed to eliminate conflict. To satisfy them it must read, “He that believeth is saved and then he can be scripturally baptized.” The very obvious difficulty with this is simply that this is not what Jesus said. Jesus harbored no thought of salvation being a requirement for scriptural baptism, for he declared that the exact opposite is true.

Leave Mark 16:16 and all of the gospel in its simplicity. Do not be guilty of making it confusing. Accept it for what it says, and render obedience. Be baptized and be saved! For “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk.16:16).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 13, p. 395
July 2, 1992

By Andy Alexander

You’re walking in the downtown area of a major metropolitan city and notice a tattered man lying against the wall in a semi-conscious state with a bottle of cheap wine in his hand. A little further down the street flashing lights catch your eye and upon investigation you discover paramedics loading a body into its rear compartment and in no hurry for the body is dead due to an overdose of drugs. You continue your walk and are approached by several young ladies who look much older than they actually are offering their bodies to you for a price. Beneath the heavy application of makeup, cheap frilly clothes, and loud boisterous talking you can sense an emptiness in their life. What is occurring in all of these cases is the natural process of reaping what is sown. Reaping can be a very pleasant experience or, as in the lives of these people, a tragic heartache.

The sot in the gutter probably began drinking in high school and his parents just laughed it off as sowing a few wild oats. The overdosed drug user succumbed to peer pressure and, anyway, he knew he could stop anytime he got ready. The prostitutes had various backgrounds that brought them to their life of sin. One had children to support which she had given birth to while in junior high and she had to drop out of school. Another had given her body to any body who came along and no one would even consider her for marriage so she began to sell herself. Another had never received any love at home, in fact she did not really have a home and she desperately sought affection from anyone. Multitudes of cases could be repeated, but the results are the same. People sow to their flesh, they live for the short-lived pleasures in this life and they reap corruption.

The brethren in Galatia were warned by the apostle Paul that those who practice the works of the flesh “shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21). He went on in the same letter and taught them as follows:

Be not deceived, God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting (Gal. 6:78).

This fact can be seen in the agricultural realm. A farmer plants corn expecting to reap corn in accordance with the laws of nature that God set in place from the beginning of time.

We Cannot Slip One Over on God

When Paul tells us not to be deceived he is informing us that we can deceive ourselves into thinking that we are going to reap a home in heaven, a spiritual reward, while sowing to our flesh in this life. Sometimes there are people who profess to live a spiritual life, but they actually are serving themselves rather than God. “Hypocrite” is the term for these erring Christians and our Lord knows their spiritual state even when we fail to recognize and deal with it. They do fool the brethren from time to time but they never fool the Lord in heaven who sees all (Heb. 4:12-13).

We can be deceived into thinking that a little worldliness will not hurt us such as a little bit of alcohol, a small amount of smut in our entertainment, or the wearing of immodest apparel in the name of athletics. The Word of God teaches us about the captivating qualities of sin and Christians must take heed to these warnings (Rom. 6:16-17; 2 Pet. 2:20). If we sow to the flesh we will of the flesh reap corruption. Sin will lead to more sin and eventually to eternal death unless genuine repentance is made.

There is no such thing as a small sin in God’s sight. Nadab and Abihu were destroyed for offering strange fire, Uzzah was smitten for touching the Ark, and the man gathering wood on the Sabbath day was stoned to death (Lev. 10:1-2; 2 Sam. 6:6-7; Num. 15:32-36). In our eyes these may seem to be very minor offenses and something that should just be overlooked, but God did not view them in this light and these are lessons from which one can and should learn how God sees and reacts to sin (Rom. 15:4). If we believe that God will overlook sin in our lives then we are deceiving ourselves and we had better take the cure that our Lord prescribes – confession, repentance, and prayer (1 Jn. 1:9; Acts 8:22).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 13, p. 394
July 2, 1992

By Harry Osborne

At this writing, an intensive effort to preach the gospel in Lithuania is under way. On April 29, Steve Wallace, Kieran Murphy and Harry Osborne went to Vilnius with intentions to help establish a faithful congregation in that city. A good start has been made towards that end, but help is urgently needed to continue these efforts. After working in Vilnius for one month, Harry Osborne has returned and reports that Steve Wallace and Derek Chambers are remaining in the work for two more weeks. However, when these brethren leave in mid-June, no one has committed to follow up in this field.

Much of the logistical arrangements necessary have already been made. Housing has been located which will cost only $20 to $30 a month. A centrally located place to have Bible lectures and a question-answer session has been rented for $10 a week. A printer has been contracted who will print 2,000 two-sided copies for $15. Literature in Russian and Lithuanian (the two languages used) has been translated on a variety of subjects and print ready copies are available for reproduction. Additional material is being proofread and made print ready at this time. A number of very good interpreters into both Lithuanian and Russian have been located. In short, the fields are white unto harvest, but laborers are desperately needed. Can you help for a month, two months or even longer? It is not an easy place to live, but it has many people who desire to hear the simple truth of the gospel. Brother Wallace who lives in Germany could return to Vilnius for a short time with anyone interested in the work in order to help with the transition. If you could help, please contact Harry Osborne at 713-331-9305 (home) or 713-331-4953 (office). Brother Osborne can give further details to those interested and will publish an extended report regarding the efforts in Vilnius.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 13, p. 393
July 2, 1992

By Irvin Himmel

Dreams of unity have motivated actions that are noble and other efforts that are disgraceful to the name of the Lord. Ironically, some unity movements have brought forth new divisions and deepened existing cleavages.

The search for happiness is an honorable quest, but true happiness can be found only in submission to God. This truth is expressed vividly in the book of Ecclesiastes. The search for eternal life is a virtuous quest, but the abundant, unending life that men desire can be obtained only through allegiance to Jesus Christ. This is the essence of the New Testament message. In like manner, the search for religious unity is a commendable quest, but the unity for which our Master prayed in John 17:20,21 can be attained only by loving loyalty to him in doctrine and in practice.

Some people are so enamored by visions of unity that they compromise New Testament teaching with religious error in order to have oneness. They surrender what is written and accept human traditions for the sake of broader fellowship. Matters of faith are shifted to the realm of opinion in order that doors of enlarged participation may be opened to them.

The Spring 1992 issue of One Body gives a good example of how far some will go in the quest for harmony with their religious neighbors. Founded by Don DeWelt, One Body promotes unity between Christian Churches and Churches of Christ. A report from Steve Bishop of Burlington, Mass., includes the following:

On December 22 the Bedford Christian Church and Burlington Church of Christ, churches not more than 13 minutes from one another, united for a Christmas Candlelight Service. The service was held in Bedford’s building and used a capella and instrumental music. The instrument being played by a member of the Burlington Church of Christ! Joining in this service was the Brookline Church of Christ.

Brookline has been participating in missions funding and other joint projects with the Christian Church for many years but for Burlington this was the first time in ten years that the churches had been together. And it was the first time the Christian Church had actively participated in a service with the Burlington Church. You see ten years ago, the Churches of Christ invited Bedford to their Fifth Sunday Worships but would not invite them to participate in any leading role. That barrier was broken this year!

For those of us in the Burlington Church and the Brookline Church instrumental music is a non-issue. We believe it is a matter of opinion, so there is really nothing to stop us from enjoying one another’s fellowship.

There is absolutely no authority in the New Testament for a Christmas Candlelight Service. When the Burlington and Brookline congregations agreed to participate in that kind of service they left the teaching of Jesus. I am unable to find anything in the apostolic writings either by example or by command that would warrant such a service. One must go to the traditions of Catholicism and denominationalism to find services of this kind. In those human traditions he also finds Easter Sunrise Services, Lenten Services, Good Friday Services, Laymen’s Day Services, Thursday Night Communion Services, and other observances that are foreign to the New Testament.

According to Steve Bishop, the Burlington and Brookline congregations have concluded that instrumental music is a I inon-issue” or “matter of opinion.” If the New Testament reveals the kind of music that we are to use in worship, and it does, how could this be a matter of opinion? If Burlington and Brookline decide that sprinkling is a matter of opinion, they can enjoy the fellowship of more of their religious neighbors. If they decide that the purpose of baptism is a matter of opinion, they can stretch their fellowship to greater lengths. If they decide that praying to Mary is a matter of opinion, presto! they can fellowship a larger company.

Since the New Testament teaches us how to worship, the invention of other ways is not to be regarded as a “nonissue.” We are taught in the word of the Lord that the action of baptism is a burial, therefore the substitution of sprinkling is not a “non-issue.” Anything that is contrary to New Testament teaching is a serious matter; to dismiss it as a “non-issue” ignores its seriousness.

The venerable J.W. McGarvey wrote in the Millennial Harbinger (Nov., 1864):

In the early years of the present Reformation, there was entire unanimity in the rejection of instrumental music from our public worship. It was declared unscriptural, inharmonious with the Christian institution, and a source of corruption. In the course of time, individuals here and there called in question the correctness of this decision, and an attempt was occasionally made to introduce instruments in some churches.

Outlining his reasons for objecting to instrumental music in worship, McGarvey noted:

. . . Seeing that in different dispensations there are some differences in the acts of acceptable worship, we cannot know what is acceptable under a particular dispensation, except by express statements of revelation with reference thereto. We cannot, therefore, by any possibility, know that a certain element of worship is acceptable to God in the Christian dispensation, when the Scriptures which speak of that dispensation are silent in reference to it. To introduce any such element is unscriptural and presumptuous.

In the Harbinger (Apr., 1868), McGarvey conceded:

This question of instrumental music is becoming a serious one. There are many who favor it, and who will listen to no argument against it. By the cry of progress and conformity, it is making its way over the heads and hearts of many of our best brethren and sisters.

There was unity on the music to be used in worship in the days of the apostles. Mechanical instruments were conspicuously absent. There was unity on this point in the early years of the Restoration Movement, when, as McGarvey expressed it, “there was entire unanimity in the rejection of instrumental music from our public worship.” Division came when mechanical instruments were introduced and a variety of attempts made to justify their presence in worship.

In Lard’s Quarterly (Oct., 1867), there appeared a long article by Dr. H. Christopher of St. Louis, Mo., giving historical facts about the use of instrumental music in worship, and pointing to the follies of innovations and corruptions. Christopher insisted that introducing instrumental music in worship violates principle. “It can not be done without abandoning our ground and giving up our fundamental principle,” wrote Christopher.

Moses E. Lard commended Dr. Christopher’s article, adding a few comments of his own:

The question of instrumental music in the churches of Christ involves a great and sacred principle. But for this the subject is not worthy of one thought at the hands of the child of God. That principle is the right of men to introduce innovations into the prescribed worship of God. This right we utterly deny. The advocates of instrumental music affirm it. This makes the issue.

To wave the hand and pronounce instrumental music in worship a “non-issue” is to sidestep a fundamental point. Compromise of principle in order to have unity places one in a trade-off position. If we can trade one principle for unity, how many other principles can we surrender for broader unity? What good is a united body of people without principles?

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 13, pp. 387-388
July 2, 1992