Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

(NOTE: Immediately after my article “Why No Fellowship Hall or Gym ” appeared in the 2 Nov. 1989 Guardian of Truth, I received a letter from a young preacher who has already studied his way out of many aspects of institutional liberalism. Being unsure on the matter of fellowship halls, he offered some typical questions and arguments used to defend them. He did not want to appear to be “severe and critical” but explained, “What you have in your hands is the result of many weeks of frustrated study. ” Believing that other honest souls share the questions posed by this good brother, I am publishing my response to him.)

Thank you for your good letter of 3 November 1989. You have both a right and a duty to question all who teach (1 Jn. 4:1-6). When you have Bible questions to pose to any teacher, he has the obligation to give Bible answers (1 Pet. 4:11). Every teacher by the act of teaching invites investigation, criticism, and review, and anyone who complains about it when it comes is not worth his salt. I commend you for being open and not hesitating to question me.

Authority for Church Building

1. Where is there authority for a church building? Every command authorizes automatically the details (time, place, etc.) necessary to carry it out. Details need not be specified.

Bible Command		Includes Details to Facilitate
Build Ark Gen. 6:14		Saws, Hammers, Measuring Line, Etc.
Baptize   Mk. 16:16		Garments, Pool – Baptistry, Etc.
Lord’s Supper   Matt. 26:26-29		Table, Containers, Etc.
Assemble For Worship – Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:17-34		Time, Place (Borrow, Rent, Build, Buy)
Church Provide Social and Recreational Activity   Scripture?????		Time, Which Activities, Facilities (Supper & Party Room Called “Fellowship Hall,” Gym Called “Family Life Center,” Etc. – Hunting Lodge, Fishing Lake, Etc.)

 

The line is drawn at providing an adequate and convenient facility for doing what the church is authorized to do. Bathroom, classroom, etc. facilitate the activities authorized for the church, but supper-party rooms and gyms facilitate social meals and athletics, activities not authorized for the church. If the latter is authorized, put your finger on the passage as we do with singing.

Koinonia: Social Recreation?

2. You imply that “social recreation ” might somehow be included in the New Testament usage of koinonia. Of the passages you listed, which one authorizes the church to conduct social recreation?

a. Hebrews 2:14? Jesus shared the flesh-and-blood body of human nature. Nothing about local church action here.

b. 1 Corinthians 1:9? We are called into a spiritual relationship with Jesus. Nothing about gymnastics or supper parties here!

c. 1 Corinthians 10:16? We share with Christ in the Lord’s Supper. This is church action, but do we facilitate the Lord’s Supper by providing facilities to conduct ball games and ice cream suppers?

d. Philemon 17? Paul and Philemon share a spiritual partnership in Christ as fellow laborers in the gospel (cf. v. 13). Does this mean that through the gospel they were called to sign up for a church league ball team and would be partners in the next church chili cook-off?

e. Philippians 4:15? Philippi shared with Paul’s labors in the gospel by financial help – i.e., supported him to build barbecue grills and basketball courts in the name of the church?

f. Galatians 2:9? Peter and Paul acknowledged their common faith and common labors. They shook hands to start a church football game? They held a common stick over a fire to roast a hot dog at a church party? They agreed to organize church recreational programs among both Jews and Gentiles in preparation for the church-wide olympics?

g. 1 Corinthians 5:9-11? No form of koinonia is used in this whole chapter!

(1) The church acted by publicly turning the sinner over to Satan. Individuals are told not to undermine what the church did by having the sinner as a close associate in social activities.

(2) Does this somehow imply the church, rather than the individuals in their own personal activities, was providing social and recreational gatherings? If so, perhaps the point is that the church should not let the sinner get into the “fellowship hall” for the next ham supper, or to buy a coke from the church’s coke machine, or to play a game of ping-pong in the church’s exercise room. Would this authorize church “bouncers” to police the church’s social activities?

(3) We must call Bible things by Bible names and do Bible things in Bible ways (1 Pet. 4:11). The effort to bootleg the Bible word koinonia into 1 Corinthians 5, and then to bootleg church action into the arena of individual responsibility, all reminds me of hearing a liberal preacher use Hebrews 13:2 to justify these social gospel programs. He defined “entertain” to include everything from parties to athletics, and then assigned it all to church responsibility!

Social Aspect in Acts 2:42?

3. You refer to the “social aspect, ” apparently to suggest brethren being together in any and every way. Acts 2:42 and Hebrews 10:24-25 do indeed show the importance of being together, but these passages refer to spiritual activities provided in the assembly. Social activities are needed but belong to individual duty and not the work of a local church (Acts 2:46 distinguishes their assemblies in the temple area from their social gatherings at home, as does 1 Corinthians 11:34).

a. Yes, brethren can be taught to extend hospitality to each other in their homes. Let the church teach it, just as we teach the responsibility of parents to earn a living to provide their children’s medical and educational needs, but the church does not operate a business for parents to work in, a school to teach math and science, or a medical clinic or hospital. We can teach people the benefits of social activities and good, clean recreation without obligating the church to provide such activities.

b. As to finding conservative brethren weaker and more divisive than liberal churches, remember that your sampling is rather limited. I travel around the country and find many strong, vibrant churches preserving the distinction between the church’s spiritual realm and the individual’s social realm. I also see many liberal churches with their superficial “social fellowship” which are eaten up with apathy, false teaching, upheavals and controversies occasioned by their social activities (how far to go, who will run them, how to keep them going, etc.), and compromise. A liberal church in San Antonio, Texas recently surveyed all the churches of Christ there and found the conservative churches with no social programs to be far more active and consistent in their work than the liberal churches with their social activities. The study gave special attention to the correlation between “extra activities” and the degree of interest and involvement manifested in the Lord’s work. They found that the more extra social programs a church had, the weaker and less consistent it was!

c. I have lived and preached full time in ______________ (state where young man lives) for eight years. . . . I have many dear friends in the state. Every area of the country has certain strengths and weaknesses. A pronounced weakness among many churches in ______________ is the tendency toward friction and factionalism centered around the great emphasis given by some men through the years to trying to establish certain matters of personal choice as law (head covering, kneeling, a sin to vote, no Lord’s Supper at Sunday PM service, etc.). Patience, forbearance, and teaching on Romans 14 will ameliorate this problem, but introducing the apostate practice of church socials will only compound the problems.

If One Thing Is Unauthorized, What Then?

4. At times you slide toward the approach which says since church buildings seem to be unauthorized and we have them anyway, we can have church socials too even if they are not authorized. This would only prove we cannot have either (1 Pet. 4:11). The church owning a building is not specified but it is authorized because the church is authorized to provide for worship and teaching. Social activities, athletics, and entertainment do not constitute such worship and teaching, therefore the church has no authority to provide a place for such activities – nor to plan them – nor to oversee them.

Revelation Draws the Line

5. The church must make some arrangements for a place or it cannot provide worship and teaching of the truth. The activities authorized are specified, but the arrangements and provisions are not specified. They are authorized but not specified. Therefore, the church can borrow, rent, or build a place for worship and spiritual teaching. If we had authority for the church to engage in social and recreational affairs, it could borrow, rent, or build a place. The line as to what kind of “room” or place is provided must be drawn where the Bible authorizes one activity but not the other.

Revelation Draws the Line!
Build Ark (Gen. 6:14)	Excludes	Build Tower
Gopher Wood (Gen. 6:14)	Excludes	All Other Woods
Lord’s Supper First Day (Acts 20:7)	Excludes	All Other Days
Priesthood – Levi (Heb. 7:14)	Excludes	All Other Tribes
Sing	Excludes	Play
Church – Spiritual Work	Excludes	Social & Secular Activities

Is Social Activity Spiritual Edification?

6. The effort to slip social activities in under the guise of spiritual edification opens the floodgates to apostasy. Some people enjoy suppers, parties, and gyms, but other people enjoy association in golfing, fishing, hunting, camping, working on old cars, wood working, etc. When you said, “. . . it includes a whole host of activities,” you said a mouthful. Can you see all the things the church will have to plan, provide, finance, build, and oversee? If such is truly spiritual edification, why can’t we read of the New Testament churches providing such things (with or without special buildings for it)?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 6, pp. 163-164, 184
March 15, 1990

By Terry W. Benton

All men would like to be happy. The problem is that we are not quite sure what happiness is. At times we feel better than at other times. There are times when we feel great. But, even then we are not quite sure if this is all there is to happiness. It seems to be an elusive dream of total satisfaction, but it often stays just out of reach, leaving us feeling empty and dissatisfied. We want to find some significant reason to live and it seems to boil down to a few things. We imagine that these things must surely deliver on the promise for happiness, else so many people would not keep on seeking happiness in these things. To have a dream and then to pursue that dream seems to be the main reason for our existence. The dream is for riches, popularity, or prestige. To have other people acknowledging our importance is what life is all about, because we often have a hard time convincing ourselves that we are as important as we want other people to think. We want to think that we fit in and are considered meaningful to others. We entertain the thoughts of the ages on how to get people to acknowledge our significant contribution to meaningful existence. The odd thing about our chosen pursuits is that even in these things there seems to be an underlying futility. The very things we hope to give us meaning and satisfaction bring a crop of problems we had not anticipated or dreamed. So, the dream of life is always just out of reach. It is like striving after the wind. It is vexing to the soul. Right when we think we have captured the things that will give us a sense of total meaning and satisfaction, we are presented with a whole new set of problems that tend to take away at least a little of the total satisfaction. Is this elusive dream for total happiness unreasonable? Why does life seem so futile?

The futility of life under the sun is stated in Ecclesiastes as a feeling that is common to the human experience. The various avenues through which man tries vainly to realize total happiness are dead-end streets. The alluring mirage pulling millions down each avenue will disappear. Each adventure will end in futility.

1. Life is futile if spent trying to find happiness through worldly wisdom. The wisdom of Solomon had a new way of adding adventure to his life, but there were also new ways of experiencing much grief and sorrow (Eccl. 1:16-18). The hopeful dream that scholarship or vast amounts of knowledge and wisdom will cause others to acknowledge our significant contribution to life here and thus leave us with a feeling of total satisfaction, is only a mirage. The completely remarkable scholar does not feel that he has learned everything he needs or wants to know. The perfect amount of knowledge is elusive. It is never quite fulfilling. Some of his knowledge is even depressing. Some people are ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 3:7).

There are times when the newspaper leaves us feeling depressed, and we wonder if it wouldn’t be better not to know anything. But, ignorance isn’t bliss either. It has its own set of problems. Great amounts of wisdom and knowledge have landed great achievements among the human race. Even in the technology of the most elaborate computer is no ability to fill that void in the soul of man. Even the genius whose knowledge engineers that computer must ask himself, “Is my life only to build computers?” The great accomplishments of knowledge still do not fill the real need of the soul and spirit of man.

2. Life is futile if spent seeking worldly pleasures and riches. Solomon said, “I said in my heart, Come now, I will test you with mirth; therefore enjoy pleasure; but surely, this also was vanity” (Eccl. 2:1). To some, alcohol and drugs are a way of showing off among peers. Showing off is an act from an insecure person who seeks to be acknowledged by others. It is important to be liked by others, because this gives us a sense of importance. This person does not like his sober self, and is afraid that others will not like the real “me” either. Drunkenness and getting high on drugs is a pleasure that does two things for this person. It releases the inhibitions and gets a few laughs from the peers. In all of this there is still the emptiness of knowing these people do not love the real “me.” To others, alcohol and drugs are used to escape having to deal with reality. Either way, the pleasure is temporary, and the pain and futility is still there to haunt them. As Solomon, we may pursue every kind of pleasure imaginable, but we will still come up with the same expression of emptiness, “vanity of vanities, all is vanity and a striving after the wind.”

Even the accumulation of nice possessions brings with it extra work, concern, and care. Along with these we view the futile prospects of what will happen to it all when we die. The wealthy man must consider and be suspicious that others are envious and feign friendship, hoping to get in on his wealth. He knows emptiness with his wealth. He wonders if these same “friends” would be there if it were not for his money. He feels empty because the wealth brought pleasurable externals, but did not bring meaning and satisfaction to the soul.

3. Life is futile if spent working hard only for more things. The hard worker is better than the sluggard, but total fulfillment is still elusive. Like Solomon, this man must ask himself why he works so long and hard. How long will he be able to enjoy the results of his work? What will happen to it after he leaves? Will it be left to a person who surely didn’t appreciate the hard work that went into that inheritance? Solomon said, after thinking this over, “Then I hated all my labor in which I toiled under the sun, because I must leave it to the man who will come after me. And who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool?” (Eccl. 2:18-19) All the hard work brings a little temporary pleasure, but still does not fill the emptiness of the soul.

4. Life is futile if viewed as an end to itself When we view the multitudes of oppressed people in the world, a certain grievance toward mankind in general arises within us. Why must the oppressors live on in their vain existence, and what do the oppressed hope to live for? Why must their tears continually fall? Why do they still want to live? They have no one to comfort them. Not even their rich, oppressive governments enjoy their vain existence. Solomon moaned, “Yet, better than both is he who has never existed, who has not seen the evil work that is done under the sun” (Eccl. 4:3). If our existence were confined to this place, it would be better if we had never been born. Surely, if we were to view this world as an end to itself, we would rather not have entered into this vain and sorrowful existence. Our soul yearns to know the meaning of this vain life under the sun.

5. Life is futile if we become deceived into thinking that money can buy happiness. As with our second point, that riches cannot completely satisfy, so money cannot buy whatever else we want to fill the void in our spirit. What the soul needs is not material, but spiritual. The soul needs to know where it is going. Money cannot buy its destiny. The soul needs real purpose. Money cannot buy the real purpose for which we have been created. The soul was not designed to take with it an accumulation of material wealth. The soul will not be happy until it can latch on to its real purpose. Solomon said, “He who loves silver will not be satisfied with silver; nor he who loves abundance, with increase. This also is vanity” (Eccl. 5:10). As we plow our way through the various promising avenues to a vanishing mirage, we reach Solomon’s wisest of all conclusions about the whole purpose or duty of man under the sun. “Fear God, and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Eccl. 12:13-14). Somewhere in this summary about our whole duty, God designed the answer to our searching needs of the heart, mind, and soul.

It becomes clear that the only thing that we can truly enjoy now and take with us when we die is the righteousness of faith that locks us into the reverent fear of God. Only through such hunger and thirst for righteousness can man really be filled. Such a hunger will ultimately bring us to Jesus who gives us the thirst quenching rivers of living waters. Only through such a respectful acquaintance with the one who loved us and gave himself for us can we feel that sense of importance and that sense of belonging that we need but knew not where to find. Life under the sun is futile and vain until we seek God and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. If we must seek for the reason for our existence, why not look in the most obvious places? An inward emptiness is a spiritual problem. Look for the spiritual answer. This road points to Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 5, pp. 147-148
March 1, 1990

By Johnie Edwards

There is a movie entitled “Land Before Time” and all sorts of gadgets to sell folks, especially our young people, on the theory, that there was a creation of life, even billions of years before the days of Adam and Eve in the Genesis account of Genesis 1. Such reasoning comes from thinking that the Bible teaches a re-making from a previous existence.

Create and Make

Because God uses the word “create” and “make,” men have concluded that there is a difference in the terms as used in the book of Genesis. Actually the words are used interchangeably. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). “And God made two great lights” (Gen. 1:16). “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:26-27). “God created great whales” (Gen. 1:21). “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind” (Gen. 1:25). Later it is said, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is” (Exod. 20:11). But remember that Genesis 1: 1 said that “God created” them! When Jesus referred to the creation, he said, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female” (Matt. 19:4). The Psalmist said, “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth” (Psa. 33:6). When God created, he made and when he made he created!

Consistency

If some things were created from nothing and some made from pre-existing matter, there is no consistency in God’s creation. The Bible says, “God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good” (Gen. 1:21). Then it was said concerning land animals, “And God made the beast of the earth” (Gen. 1:25). Is the origin of the sea creatures and birds of the fifth day different from the land animals on the following day? Who can believe there is?

No Gap

We are told that there is a gap of maybe billions of years between Genesis 1:1 (“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”) and Genesis 1:2 (“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep”). God simply created the earth without form and void, at the beginning. Isaiah said, “For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord” (Isa. 45:18). God created the earth to be inhabited and he made it into such a place, A careful reading of Genesis 1:1 and 2 will show that the two verses are connected together by the word “and.”

No Man Before Adam

If there was pre-existence before Adam who was he? What was his name? The Bible teaches that Adam was the first man. “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul” (1 Cor. 15:45). Furthermore Adam introduced sin into the world. “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Rom. 5:12). If there was a pre-existence there was no sin there.

No Woman Before Eve

There were no women before Eve for she is called “the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20). For a while Adam was alone and God said, “I will make him an help meet for him” (Gen. 2:18). Eve was created a full-grown woman as God starts things with a miracle and from then on things continue by a different process (Gen. 2:21-24). You might also observe in this story the use of the words “formed,” “make” and “created” as used in Genesis 1:27.

Six Days

“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is” (Exod. 20:11). This passage excludes a prior creation. If these things had previously been created why did God have to do it all over?

24 Hour Day

The evolutionary theory gave birth to the day-age theory. We are told that one day may have been billions of years. So one false doctrine creates another one. The days of Genesis I are divided into light and darkness just like a day that you and I know (Gen. 1:4-5). “And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Gen. 1:5). There are some real problems if these days of creation were long periods of time. Plant life was created before the sunlight and it would have been impossible for plant life to survive without light all of those years (Gen. 1: 11; 14-19)! Another problem with this concept is the age of Adam. Adam was created on the sixth day, lived through the seventh day and into at least a part of the eighth day. If these days were billions of years, how old do you think Adam was when he died? The Bible says of Adam’s age, “And all of the days that Adam lived were nine hundred, and thirty years: and he died” (Gen. 5:5).

Conclusion

There was no land before time! It is said concerning Christ: “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist” (Col. 1:16-17).

The Hebrew writer declared, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Heb. 11:3).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 5, pp. 139, 151
March 1, 1990

By Jefferson David Tant

The Testimony of Historians

“It is without controversy, that baptism in the primitive church was administered by immersion into water, and not by sprinkling; seeing that John is said to have baptized in Jordan, and where there was much water, as Christ also did by his disciples in the neighborhood of these places. Philip also going down into the water baptized the eunuch” (Ecclesiastical History, Chap. I, Sec. 138).

“Immersion, and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original form. This is shown by the very meaning of the words baptizo, baptisma, and baptismos used to designate the rite” (History of the Apostolic Church, Schaff, p. 488).

“The practice of the Eastern Church, and the meaning of the word, leave no sufficient ground for question that the original form of baptism was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters” (History of the Eastern Church, Stanley, p. 34).

“The Greek Church in all its branches does still use immersion, and so do all other Christians in the world, except the Latins. All those nations that do now, or formerly did submit to the Bishop of Rome, do ordinarily baptize their children by pouring or sprinkling. But all other Christians in the world, who never owned the Pope’s usurped power, do and ever did dip their infants in the ordinary use. All the Christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one-third in Europe are of the last sort” (History of Infant Baptism, Wall, Vol. II, p. 376, 3d ed.).

“In this century (the first) baptism was administered in convenient places, without the public assemblies, and by immersing the candidate wholly in water” (Ecclesiastical History, Century 1, Part II, Chap. 4, Mosheim).

“From the thirteenth century sprinkling came into more general use in the West. The Greek Church, however, and the church of Milan still retained the practice of immersion” (History of Doctrine, Hagenbach, Vol. 11, p. 84, note 1).

The first record of pouring or sprinkling is that of Novatian in 251 A.D. Eusebius, the father of church history, describes it: “He (Novatian) fell into a grievous distemper, and, it being supposed that he would die immediately, he received baptism, being besprinkled with water on the bed whereon he lay, if that can be termed baptism.”

Comment: We could go on for page after page citing such quotations, but these will serve our purpose of establishing the unanimity of thought on the part of historians. One might wonder how the word “baptize” ever came to be used in the English text, rather than the translation “immerse” or “dip,” Perhaps a bit of historical background will be of interest.

When King James (Church of England) authorized the translation of the Bible, which was completed in 1611, he gave the scholars some fourteen rules to follow. Two of these rules were: 1. “Old ecclesiastical words must be kept, as, the word church must not be translated congregation, etc.” 2. “The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the originals will permit” (see Lewis’ history of the English translation of the Bible).

It was during this time that the controversy over immersion vs. sprinkling was heating up, and it was in this atmosphere that the King James translation was made. Some of the Bishops had gone before parliament affirming that “the devil of immersion ought to be legislated out of the realm, it was so troublesome.” When these men came to the word baptizo, they had a problem. If they were to translate the word by its accepted meaning of immerse or dip, it would effectively serve to “legislate the devil of immersion” into the realm, rather than legislating it out.

They decided not to translate the word at all, but rather transfer it from the Greek into the English language. They dropped the Greek letter omega (o) at the end of the word, by which the ancient Christians, received their baptism.” replacing it with the English letter e. So from baptizo in the Greek we have baptize in the English. Therefore, the Bishops did not translate the word at all, but left it in the Greek, to cover up their pious fraud. Those who read could then assign whatever meaning they wanted to this new English word.

As earlier indicated, all historians of whom I am aware are unanimous in their statements concerning the practice of immersion by the early church, which, we remember, was under the direct and inspired guidance of the apostles.

The Testimony of the Church Fathers

Basil the Great, A.D. 370: “The bodies of those baptized are as if buried in the water.”

Barnabas, A.D. 119: “We indeed go down into the water.” Again, “Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water” (Epis. XI, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 144).

Origen, A.D. 184-254: “Man, therefore, through this washing is buried with Christ; is regenerated” (Comment on Matthew).

Gregory, A.D. 240: “He who is baptized in water is wholly wet.” Again, “Immerse me in the streams of Jordan, even as she who bore me wrapped me in the children’s swaddling clothes” (Ante-Nicene Father, Vol. 1, p. 70).

Chrysostom, A.D. 347: “To be baptized and to submerge, then to emerge is a symbol of descent to the grave, and of ascent from it” (Hom. 40 in 1 Cor. 1).

Canon of the Council of Calchuth, A.D. 816: “Let the presbyter also know, that they may not pour the holy water over the infants’ heads, but let them always be immersed in the font.”

Comment: The early church fathers lived and wrote while the Greek was still a living language, and history furnishes us with not even one example in all their writings where baptizo is ever used as meaning sprinkle or pour. Even in later years, after infant baptism had been introduced, immersion was yet the practice, as evidenced by the decree of the Council of Calchuth in 816 A.D.

The Testimony of the Scholars

MacKnight (Presbyterian): “In baptism the baptized person is buried under the water. Christ submitted to be baptized, that is, to be buried under the water.”

Luther (Lutheran): “Baptism is a Greek word and may be translated immerse. I would have those who are to be baptized to be altogether dipped.”

John Wesley (Methodist): “Buried with him in baptism – alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion.

Wall (Episcopalian): “Immersion was in all probability the way in which our blessed Savior, and for certain the way by which the ancient Christians, received their baptism.”

Brenner (Catholic): “For thirteen hundred years was baptism an immersion of the person under water.”

Calvin (Presbyterian): “Whether the person baptized is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the latest consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive church” (Institutes, 4:15:19).

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, article on “Baptism (Non-Immersionist View)” Vol. I, pp. 388-394:

(1) Immersion – “It may be admitted at once that immersion, where the whole body including the head is plunged into a pool of pure water, gives a more vivid picture of the cleansing of the soul from sin; and that complete surrounding with water suits better the metaphors of burial in Rom. 6:4 and Col. 2:12, and of being surrounded by a cloud in 1 Cor. 10:2.

(2) Affusion – “The two usages (immersion and affusion – JDT) which were recognized and prescribed by the beginning of the 2d cent. may have been in use throughout the apostolic period although definite information is lacking.

(3) Aspersion – “It was in the early cents. exclusively reserved for sick and infirm persons too weak to be submitted to immersion or affusion. There is evidence to show that those who received the rite in this form were somewhat despised . . . it was long of commending itself to ministers and people, and did not attain to almost universal use until the 13th cent.”

Prof. Moses Stuart: “Baptizo means to dip, plunge, or immerse into any liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this” (Essay on Baptism, p. 51; Biblical Repository, 1833, p. 298).

“Catholics are fully aware that the early practice of the Church (cf. the baptism of Christ, Matt. iii. 16, Mark i. 10; that of the eunuch, Acts viii. 38, 39, and St. Paul’s symbol of burial and resurrection, Rom. vi. 4, Col. ii. 12) was to immerse, and that this custom prevailed in both East and West in the solemn administration of the sacrament till the end of the thirteenth century” (Question Box, 364, 1913 edition).

Bishop Bossuet, celebrated French Catholic: “To baptize, signifies to plunge, as is granted by all the world” (See Stennett and Russen, p. 174).

Calvin (Presbyterian): “The Church hath granted to herself the privilege of somewhat altering the form of baptism, retaining the substance, that is, the words.”

Comment: Surely there is no need to go on, page after page, citing such quotations from men of learning, recognized by their peers and others. Calvin’s remarks were most enlightening. In the first reference, he admitted that it “is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive church.” But this is of no consequence to him, as churches “should be at liberty” to make their own laws, as his second quote infers. Is there to be no respect for the laws of him who is “King of kings,” nor for the meaning of the words spoken by the-only one who can save us – Jesus Christ?

The Testimony of the Commentators

“This passage cannot be understood unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion” (The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, Conybeare and Howson [Episcopal], Rom. 6:4).

“The candidate says to himself, Now I enter into fellowship with the death of Christ; I am to be buried with Christ in the immersion, and in the emersion I rise with Christ to newness of life” (Meyers, commentary on Rom. 6:4).

“Here is a plain allusion to the ancient custom of baptizing by immersion; and I agree with Koppe and Rosenmuller ‘ that there is reason to regret it should ever have been abandoned in most Christian churches; especially as it has so evident a reference to the mystical sense of baptism” (Rscens. Synop. Romans 6:4, Bloomfield).

“Verse 4. We are buried with him by baptism into death i It is probable that the apostle here alludes to the mode of administering baptism by immersion, the whole body being put under the water, which seemed to say, the man is drowned, is dead; and, when he came up out of the water, he seemed to have a resurrection to life; the man is risen again; he is alive!” (Adam Clarke [Methodist Protestant Church], Commentary on Rom. 6:4, published 1836)

“‘4. Therefore we are buried, &c. It is altogether probable that the apostle in this place had allusion to the custom of baptizing by immersion. This cannot, indeed be proved, so as to be liable to no objection; but I presume that this is the idea which would strike the great mass of unprejudiced readers” (Albert Barnes [Presbyterian], Commentary on Rom. 6:4).

Comment: These commentators, along with multitudes of others, recognized as scholarly men, were all of denominations that did not practice immersion. Their statements, though, show their understanding of what the New Testament teaches, even though they did not choose to follow this teaching in their personal lives, although there is evidence that some of them were immersed.

It is interesting to note the comment of Barnes that immersion “is the idea which would strike the great mass of unprejudiced readers.” In other words, just the simple, unadorned word conveys the idea of immersion. But if minds have been prejudiced by custom, tradition, or creeds of men, the conclusion might be different.

Conclusion

Although volumes could, and have been, written on this subject, perhaps it has been helpful to sift through the multitude of material and collect some of the more significant and cogent thoughts for consideration herein.

Is it not noteworthy that the combined testimonies of authorities in the Greek language (the language of the original writings of the New Testament), of biblical scholars and commentators, of church historians, of the church fathers, of the encyclopedias, and yea, of the biblical text itself, all agree? They all agree that the Apostolic teaching was immersion, that our Lord himself was immersed, that the early Christians practiced immersion, and that sprinkling as a substitute was not generally accepted until the 13th Century.

Therefore, if I am convinced that baptism is an essential part of my obedience unto the Lord, and I have a choice in the matter, which should I choose – that which all the evidence recognizes is the biblical practice (immersion), or that which has been invented by men through the passing years (sprinkling or pouring)? Remember the words of the Lord: “In vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men” (Matt. 15:9). Furthermore, Jesus said, “Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21).

Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). If, as the evidence supports, a correct translation of that verse is “He that believeth and is immersed shall be saved. . . ” (and there have been some translations on the market so reading), then what hope is there for those who have obeyed “He that believeth and is sprinkled shall be saved. . . “? If we are at liberty to change the manner (immersion to sprinkling), then why cannot we give approval to those who have changed the element (water to rose petals), or even to those who have changed the command itself to “He that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved?

Questions to Ponder

1. Have I been baptized into Christ for the remission of my sins according to the biblical pattern? (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:4). ___ Yes ____ No

2. If I have had sprinkling or pouring administered to me, do I have any assurance from the Lord that this is acceptable to him? ____ Yes ____ No

3. If baptism is an essential part of my salvation, can I have fellowship with a denomination or church that does not teach or practice the “teaching of Christ” in this regard? (2 Jn. 9-11) ___ Yes ____ No

4. Can I afford to allow men to tell me which of the Lord’s commands are important and which are unimportant? (Jn. 6:63; Matt. 4:11). ____ Yes ____ No

5. Is it permissible for anyone to change or alter any of the teachings of the Word of God? (Gal. 1:6-8) ___ Yes ___ No

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 5, pp. 144-146
March 1, 1990