Truth Magazine

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

By Barney L. Keith

A cardinal point of emphasis concerning the Holy Spirit is that he speaks. There are at least two reasons for stressing this fact. (1) Many conceive of the Holy Spirit as an “It” which produces certain feelings or exhilarating sensations that are said to be “better felt than told.” From this misconception comes the false notion that “you can just feel the Spirit moving in their services.” (2) Also, referring to the “speaking Spirit’ puts emphasis on the intelligent, rational personality of the Holy Spirit who has communicated God’s will to men in intelligible language.

Some Pertinent Passages

Jesus informed the twelve as they went forth on the “limited commission” that “it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you” (Matt. 10:20). Jesus told his apostles that when the promised Comforter, the Holy Spirit, should come, “He shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak” (John 16:13). On Pentecost the Spirit-baptized apostles “began to speak . . . as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). “The Spirit speaketh expressly,” Paul affirmed (1 Tim. 4:1). The Spirit said certain things to Philip (Acts 8:29), and he said things to Peter (Acts 10:19, emphasis by BLK). Nothing is said about making these “feel” a certain way. Let it be noted again that the Holy Spirit is seen in the New Testament to be indeed the speaking Spirit.

Of What Has The Spirit Spoken?

It can be correctly stated that the Holy Spirit has spoken everything men need to know about their spiritual condition and needs. “All things that pertain to life and godliness” is an appropriate summary of what he has spoken (2 Pet. 1:4), but we shall consider only a few of these briefly.

Jesus As Messiah

He has spoken about Jesus as the Messiah. “But when the Comforter is come … even the Spirit of truth, he shall testify of me,” Jesus said (John 15:26). In fact, long before Jesus came to earth, the Holy Spirit, through the prophets, had spoken explicit things about him – things which were fulfilled in detail in the life of Jesus (see 1 Pet. 1:10- 12 and Rom. 1:1-4). The scores of fulfilled Messianic prophecies constitute irrefutable proof of the Deity and Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Gospel Of Saving Grace

He has spoken about the marvelous grace of God – grace that moved the Holy One who had created men to show saving compassion to the very ones who had offended him by their sins and who were worthy of death (Rom. 3:23; 5:6-9; 6:23). The Holy Spirit spoke the gospel plan of salvation to a lost, undeserving world through the inspired men of the first century. On Pentecost (Acts 2) it is clear that those who were saved that day were saved because they had heard what the Spirit spoke through Peter. “When they heard this, they were pricked in their heart” (Acts 2:37). Here is the true explanation of how the Holy Spirit works in convicting and converting the lost. It is by his word! It is the Spirit’s word that produces faith (Rom. 10:17). It is his word that shows men how they can be born again (1 Pet. 1:22,23,25). No direct operation by the Spirit on the sinner’s heart is involved. It is by that same word that the Holy Spirit still appeals to men.

The Lord’s Church

The Spirit has spoken about that great assembly of redeemed, the church of Jesus Christ. The Spirit specified that the church was “according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:10,11). It is not only ironic, but also sinful, for anyone to ridicule the church or to denigrate its role in God’s plan for the reconciliation of sinners. Especially is this the case since the Holy Spirit has spoken in precise terms about the church Jesus built, purchasing it with his own blood (Matt. 16:18; Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25). In the Spirit’s speaking can be found the perfect pattern by which it was built, and by which it can be identified even today; The many religious denominational bodies conceived in human minds came long after Jesus had created his blood-purchased body, the church. Men should be satisfied with what the Spirit has spoken about the one body of Christ.

Warnings About Apostasy

The Spirit has spoken about the possibility and the certainty of apostasy from the original pattern Christ gave. Paul warned some elders that “grievous wolves” would enter among them, stating also that “of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29,30). The Spirit gave the Thessalonian church a word picture of the blatant blasphemy that would come about “in the temple of God” by the usurpation of authority by lawless forces (2 Thess. 2:3-7). Widespread digression set in rather early. Incipient forms of Catholicism became visible. Wholesale apostasy became rampant. Digression from the New Testament pattern is always to be resisted by the faithful. The Digression that is evident in our own day will be halted only when digressing people return to the Spirit’s word.

The Christian’s Lifestyle

The Spirit has spoken about the Christian’s manner of life. He has said it is to be conducted “soberly, righteously and godly in this present world” (Tit. 2:12). He has said that such things as adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, drunkenness and others are “works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19-21). “They which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God,” he has said. Rather the Spirit has called us to produce the “fruit of the Spirit” – such things as love, joy, peace, longsuffering and kindness (Gal. 5:22). He has exhorted Christians to “let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ” (Phil. 1:27). How shameful then are the inroads made by worldly lifestyles into the Lord’s congregations. Only when more disciples truly become the “light of the world” and “salt of the earth” can such erosion of morality and spirituality be halted (Matt. 5:13-16).

The Importance of Listening to the Spirit

Nothing that the Holy Spirit has spoken is unimportant. Anything beyond what he has spoken is a perversion of truth (Gal. 1:69). Since he has revealed everything men need for salvation, our hearts should be full of gratitude. Our lives should be demonstrations of joyous obedience to his message. We need to remember, too, that the Spirit has spoken about the eternal home of the soul, heaven. Our only hope of reaching heaven is to listen to the Spirit, learn from his speaking, and obey from the heart his word. His description of heaven with its surpassing beauty and its never ending blessedness for the redeemed should evoke in every sensitive heart a strong desire to go there. May all of us listen to the speaking Spirit.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 6, pp. 161, 183
March 15, 1990

By Larry Ray Hafley

I. Introduction:

A. Fifty years ago, a prominent preacher warned:

The ship of Zion has floundered more than once on the sand-bar of institutionalism. The tendency to organize is characteristic of the age. This writer has ever been unable to appreciate the logic of those who affect to see grave danger in the missionary society but scruple not to form organizations for the purpose of caring for orphans, and teaching young men to be gospel preachers. Of course it is right for the church to care for the fatherless and widows in their affliction, but the work should be done by and through the church with the elders having the oversight thereof (Guy N. Woods, A CC Lectures, 1939, p. 54).

B. Using commonly accepted terminology as employed in the quote above, the Scriptures shall be our authority in this study of institutionalism (2 Tim. 1: 13; 2 Jn. 9; 1 Pet. 4: 11; Col. 3:17; Matt. 28:20).

C. Topics to be discussed:

1. Is there a Bible pattern?

2. How is scriptural authority established?

3. What is the church?

4. What is the work of the church?

5. What is the issue?

II. Discussion:

A. Is there a Bible pattern?

1. Noah had a pattern (Gen. 6:22).

2. Moses had a pattern (Exod. 25:8,9,40; 26:30; 27:8; cf. Acts 7:41,44; Lev. 10:1,2; 1 Sam. 15).

a. “Works of their own hands” (Acts 7:41 vs. God’s, v. 44).

b. “Obey better than sacrifice” (1 Sam. 15:22).

c. Cf. Jereboam – “devised of his own heart” (1 Kgs. 12:33).

3. New Testament pattern (2 Tim. 1:13; 2:5; 3:16,17).

a. For gospel obedience (Rom. 6:17,18; 1 Tim. 1:16).

1. If not, cannot bind baptism.

2. If not, cannot forbid infant baptism.

3. If no order, no disorder.

b. For worship (Col. 3:16,17).

1. If not, Lord’s supper on Saturday.

2. If not, piano, beads, candles.

3. If no order, no disorder.

c. For organization (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5; 1 Pet. 5:2).

1. If not, one man pastor plan of Protestants?

2. If not, accept priestly caste of Catholics?

3. If no order, no disorder.

d. Some want to pick and choose which patterns they will follow – “Lazy Susan” patternism.

e. Others use the Bible to show there is no pattern! Is the Bible a pattern for “no patternism”?

B. How is scriptural authority established?

1. Direct command, statement – “Take, eat” (1 Cor. 11:24-26) – Observe Lord’s supper.

2. Approved apostolic example – “Upon the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7) – When to observe Lord’s supper?

3. Necessary Implication – “Upon the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7; Exod. 20-8) – Frequency of observance.

4. Generic and Specific authority:

 

C. What is the church?

 

1. Universal body of all obedient believers (Matt: 16:18; Eph. 1:22,23; 2:16; 4:4; 5:23; 1 Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:27,28).

2. Local congregations (Rom. 16:16; Gal. 1:2; 1 Cor. 1:2; Rev. 1:11,20).

3. Cf. Eunuch and Saul – both members of the church, but a member of no local church (1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 1: 13; Acts 8:26-40; 9:26; 2:47).

4. A plurality of local churches did not move, act or work in concert as a single unit – no “churchhood” concept.

a. If so, cite head, organization, work, treasury. b. If so, what are entrance qualifications? Officers qualifications? How appointed?

D. What is the work of the church?

1. Preaching (1 Thess. 1:8; Acts 11:22).

2. Edification (Eph. 4:12; 1 Cor. 14; Acts 11:22-26).

3. Benevolence (Acts 6:1-6; 1 Tim. 5:16).

4. Recreation, Entertainment? No Scripture.

a. “For the church to turn aside from its divine work to furnish amusement and recreation is to pervert its mission. It is to degrade its mission. Amusement and recreation should stem from the home rather than the church. The church, like Nehemiah, has a great work to do; and it should not come down on the plains of Ono to amuse and entertain” (B.C. Goodpasture, Gospel Advocate, May 20, 1948).

b. “Building recreation rooms and providing and supervising recreational activities at the expense of the church is a departure from the simple gospel plan as revealed in the New Testament” (Gospel Advocate Annual Commentary, 195 1, p. 229).

E. What is the issue?

1. In evangelism:

a. The issue is not.

1. Should preaching be done.

2. “How” preaching should be done (means, methods).

3. May churches cooperate.

4. May a place be maintained.

b. The issue is: May churches of Christ build and maintain missionary societies to do work God gave the church to do.

 

2. In edification:

 

a. The issue is not:

1. Should saints be edified.

2. “How” edifying should be done (means, methods).

3. May churches cooperate.

4. May a place be maintained.

b. The issue is: May churches of Christ build and maintain colleges to do the work God gave the

church to do.

 

 

3. In benevolence:

a. The issue is not:

1. Should needy receive care.

2. “How” should care be done (means, methods).

b. The issue is: May churches of Christ build and maintain benevolent societies to do work God gave the church to do.

 

 

III. Conclusion:

A. Compare principles above to church sponsored recreation.

1. Note a “what if” comparison:

 

2. Church does the work, provides gym, games, toys, coaches.

 

3. Not this:

 

 

4. If the church is not a “home” and must contribute to a benevolent society, as some argue, then since the church is not a gymnasium, must it contribute to YMCA’s to play?

B. The local church is all-sufficient to do the work God assigned it to do.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 5, pp. 142-143
March 1, 1990

By Edgar J. Dye

Introduction

As we indicated in the first article in this series, 2 John 6-11 serves as our text and in view of the pertinent points declared therein suggests to one and all what our attitude toward error should be.

The cry is heard repeatedly that we must have the proper attitude and is one with which we agree provided the attitude called for is in harmony with the doctrine of Christ. There always has been and always will be a need for that kind of attitude. Unfortunately, what some have in mind when they raise their voices in this cry is not at all in harmony with the doctrine of Christ and biblical principles. Therefore, our need to study this matter.

Position of the Church in the World

Our first article (which see) dealt with the correct understanding of the position of the people of God – the church – in the world, which is necessary if we are to develop and maintain the proper attitude toward sin and error. In that article we noted that the church is the “called-out” body of people belonging to the Lord by right of purchase – a “called-out” and “purchased” people; each member of that “called-out” body has been called and chosen of the Lord by means of the gospel of Christ, which is God’s power to save and which all the apostles were commissioned to preach; each member is blood-bought; thus the whole body is a people of God’s own possession, a peculiar people, a purchased people; God’s people are people who are in the world, but not of the world; they are a people who must be separate from the world and every evil work or every form of evil; they are a people who must not be fashioned after or conformed to the world, but transformed; a people identified as “the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world”; they are a people who have learned, believed and obeyed the truth by which they are made free from sin and its condemnation; they are a people who “hunger and thirst after righteousness,” and hate every false way; a people identified as God’s spiritual family – God’s born-again sons and daughters, the church of God; they are a people identified as saints, who are sanctified unto the Lord – a saved, purified, justified people by “the washing of water by the word . . . a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing . . . holy and without blemish” to be presented to the Lord; also, that they are a people who are identified as Christians, adherents of the Lord who are to be holy as he is holy.

The Father and the Son’s Attitude Toward Error

We now turn our attention to the attitude of both the Father and the Son toward error, without a knowledge of which we can neither determine nor maintain the right attitude toward it.

The Father’s attitude toward those who teach falsely is revealed in Jeremiah 23:30-32, where he said, “I am against the prophets that steal my words every one from his neighbor; I am against the prophets that use (marg. “smooth”) their tongues, and say, He saith; I am against them that prophesy false dreams, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies and by their lightness . . . therefore they shall not profit this people at all.” (Sounds as if the Father was somewhat of an “Anti,” doesn’t it?) In Deuteronomy 18:20 he said, “But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.” In Deuteronomy 13:5 he demanded that his people put all such “evil away from the midst of thee.” In Proverbs 6:16-19 he reveals that speaking falsely is one of the seven things which he “hates,” which “are an abomination unto him.”

The Father’s attitude toward those who believe not the truth and live wickedly is that “your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear” (Isa. 59:1-5). “The face of the Lord is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth” (Psa. 34:16; cf. Jer. 44:11). “The Lord is far from the wicked” (Prov. 15:29). He will laugh at the calamity and mock the fear of those who refuse his call, who set at naught his counsel (Prov. 1:24-28). His wrath “is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness”; and those who “commit such things are worthy of death” (Rom. 1:18-32). (See also Rom. 2:1-11; 1 Cor. 10:5-10; Heb. 3:7-19; 11:6.)

The Son’s attitude toward error will remind us of what ours must be. Through the apostles he demands that we preach the truth and condemn error (2 Tim. 4:1-5); we rebuke them that sin, one and all (1 Tim. 5:19,20; Eph. 5:1-11; Tit. 3:10,11; cf. Acts 5:1-11); we endorse no one in error (2 Jn. 6-11); we try the spirits (1 Jn. 4: 1; Rev. 2:2); we stop the mouths of vain talkers and deceivers (Tit. 1:9-11). This is not done by force or deceitful pressure tactics, but by the word of God, the Sword of the Spirit. We must not condemn, cut off, disfellowship, mark or quarantine anyone before first proving false teaching and ungodliness against them (Tti. 3:11). When repentance does not take place after such has been proved, we have no choice in the matter but to do the Lord’s will; for he already has decided for us (I Tim. 5:19-21; Rom. 16:17,18; 1 Cor. 5:1-7,13; 2 Thess. 3:6). He also demands that we recognize all perverters of the gospel as accursed (Gal. 1:6-9).

On the other hand, Jesus himself warned us to beware of false prophets in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15-20); condemned transgression of the commandments of God by following human tradition (Matt. 15:1-9); twice cleansed the temple and publicly rebuked those who would make his Father’s house a house of merchandise (Jn. 2:13-17; Matt. 21:12,13). In Matthew 23 he exposed the religious leaders of Israel of his day as false teachers, hypocrites, blind guides, fools, and unclean persons full of iniquity. Unlike Jesus, we can’t look on the heart and immediately know one has improper motives. Proper attitude today demands that we give one the benefit of the doubt and count him as honest until we have definite proof to the contrary. But whether it is a case of ulterior motive or being honestly mistaken, one must be exposed for his error. For the Bible is filled with examples of those who were wrong, but had pure motives, were honest and sincere, and were highly religious (Acts 8,9,17). Whatever we do we must not assume one is unteachable simply because he is zealously devoted to error; Saul of Tarsus wasn’t!

Jesus himself employed various ways of exposing error and the need of repentance. The Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well is one example (Jn. 4); the Pharisees and the adulterous woman, another (Jn. 8:1-11). Since he used various ways to expose and correct error, so must we. Sometimes error can be corrected by merely preaching the truth on it. Sometimes error has to be exposed, but it may not be necessary to name the propagators of the error. However, sometimes error can’t be properly exposed without exposing the man or men who are teaching the error, due to the proneness of some people to. follow their favorite preacher, preachers of reputation, or because of close ties of friendship which blind some to the error they are teaching.

N.B. Hardeman forcefully expressed himself on this matter in Hardeman’s Tabernacle Sermons (Vol. IV, pp. 119, 120), where in substance he said: Christ was crucified because he condemned error and exposed wrong, not for preaching the truth. Opposition of the religious world is not aroused by merely preaching truth, but by exposing their false doctrines. . . When exposed they seek first to ignore you. Next they want to debate the issue, and finally they want to put you to death. Paul did not suffer merely because he preached the truth, but because he exposed the errors of his day (Acts 13:6-10; 1 Tim. 1:19,20; 2 Tim. 4:14,15).

Conclusion

By this we can hardly misunderstand the attitude of God the Father or of God the Son toward falsehood, error and sin. Of course, both the Father and the Son are longsuffering and also require us to be (Rom. 2:4; 1 Pet. 3:18-20; 2 Pet. 3:9-15; Acts 20:30,31; Gal. 6:1,2; Eph. 4:1,2; 2 Tim. 4:1,2; Rev. 2:21).

Our attitude toward sin and error is one thing and our attitude toward the one sinning is another (Psa. 119:104,127,128; Matt. 5:43-48; Rom. 12:18-21). Both the Father and the Son love people – all people (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8). But both hate every false way. So must we! For our attitude toward error must be the same as the Father and the Son. If not, why not!

Our life declares the thoughts of our heart – the attitude we possess: Wrong action, wrong attitude; right action, right attitude. If we have the attitude the Lord expects us to have we will study to prepare ourselves and to save our own soul; we will give of our time, talent, and money to preach the gospel -, the whole truth – the plain truth – to the lost that they may be saved; we must fight the good fight of faith hating error and loving truth and righteousness.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 5, pp. 137-138
March 1, 1990