Truth Magazine

By Steve Willis

While going through a number of booklets and tracts I had acquired, I found some that must have been handed down to me from the early 1950s (some tracts in the same pile dated to 1946, others up to 1956) 1 found a booklet published by Methodist Evangelistic Materials titled When Methodists Baptize. . ., by F. Gerald Ensley. Studying this little booklet is certainly an eye-opener, when one compares its teachings to the Bible.

In writing about “baptism,” let me say that many religions express beliefs similar to the Methodists about baptism. For example, Henry VIII started the Church of England when the Roman Pope would not allow him a divorce. Henry proclaimed a new church and himself as head – he got his divorce. After the American Revolution, Anglican churches in the U.S. were called “Episcopalian” (after the Greek word for bishop). John Wesley and others started “holy clubs” or “societies” urging a methodical practice of holy life. Wesley’s efforts affected those in the English and Episcopal churches. Those followers became known as “Methodists.” After various divisions and ecumenical movements there are several forms of Methodists, including “Weslyan” Methodists, those striving to hold closer to John Wesley’s teaching. All these groups hold similar beliefs when it comes to the teaching and practice of baptism.

The Methodist Discipline states that “the minister shall take each person to be baptized by the right hand, and placing him conveniently by the font according to his discretion shall ask the name, and then shall sprinkle or pour water upon him, or if he shall desire it, shall immerse him in water.” The booklet When Methodists Baptize. . . says, “the more usual method of sprinkling” is given up if a person wants to be immersed.

This difference of “sprinkling,” “pouring,” or “immersion” may not seem like much, but the question goes back to “Are we doing what God wants us to do?”

Ensley’s booklet asks: “What is the authentic form of baptism? Is it immersion?” Interesting question. If it is not immersion, why will they allow it? If it is immersion, why is the “usual” method sprinkling? Ensley answers, “It [immersion] was certainly practiced early in the history of the Christian Church.” Yes! It was. He then tries to explain away the practice of the early church – immersion – by an appeal to the original Greek word: baptizo. Ensley writes, “Our best scholars inform us that the Greek word for baptism, baptizo, means literally, to ‘wash,’ or ‘moisten’ and is consistent with pouring, or sprinkling, or foot washing. ” Isn’t it interesting that their “best” scholars could not even find it consistent with “immersion” – a practice that they allow?

I am no scholar, but I can use a lexicon (a Greek dictionary) and look into other tools of word study. Listen to the testimony of others:

1. Martin Luther: “Baptism is a Greek word, and may be translated immersion, as when we immerse something in water, that it may be wholly covered.”

2. John Calvin: “The word baptize signifies to immerse, and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church.”

3. John Wesley (note, founder of Methodism): “We are buried with him – alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion” (Wesley’s notes on Romans 6:4).

4. Thayer (lexicographer): “Baptizo: to dip repeatedly, to immerse, submerge.”

5. Liddell and Scott: “Baptizo: to dip in or under water” (in their lexicon).

I have a list of some 70 scholars, many of whom I would disagree with another point of their theology, but here they have not sacrificed their scholarship. They all say baptizo means immerse. One that was especially interesting to me was that Josephus described a ship sinking with baptizo no sprinkling or pouring here – it sunk.

The point is, if God wanted to say “sprinkle,” he could; the Greek word rantizo means sprinkle. There were several words for “pour” in the Greek: ballo, katacheo, ekcheo, ekchuno, epicheo. The Septuagint (LXX) is a Greek translation of the Old Testament (originally written in Hebrew). In Leviticus 14:15,16, God told the priest to pour, dip (immerse) and sprinkle oil: “And the priest shall take the cup of oil and shall pour (epicheo) it upon his own left hand. And he shall dip (baptizo) with the finger of his right hand into some of the oil that is in his left hand, and he shall sprinkle (rantizo) with his finger seven times before the Lord.” You’d better believe that the priest of the Old Testament poured when told to, sprinkled when told to, and dipped when told to dip. God was certainly capable of telling men what to do; the question was and still is will men do it?

Why Baptize

Why is a person baptized and what does baptism accomplish? Let me give the Methodist Discipline’s statement: “Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. The baptism of young children is to be retained in the church.” What this means is a person who is already a Christian is baptized, and not that one is baptized in order to be saved. Ensley says: “To believe that the washing of a man’s skin somehow cleanses his soul is magic, . . . And ocean of water cannot affect a spiritual change. No sacred words or symbolic acts can make a person a disciple. What baptism does depends on the inward response to the outward symbol. . . . What does baptism do? Nothing in itself. ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,’ says John’s Gospel (3:5), ‘he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.’ Water alone does not save.”

The problem with this position seems to be that water immersion does nothing! They claim it is an outward sign that someone is already saved. What does the Bible say?

Matthew 29:19: “Go, therefore and make disciples (teach) of all the nations, baptizing them in (into) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” How does this verse teach one is made a disciple? When does one come under the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Mark 16:16: “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” What two conditions must be met before one is pronounced “saved”? If a person does not believe, will he be baptized, thereby gaining salvation?

John 3:3,5: “Truly, truly I say unto you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . Truly, truly, I say unto you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Can one enter the kingdom without being born again? What two things make up the new birth (hint. one thing we touch, one thing we cannot touch physically)?

The above verses were words of Jesus. Ensley says Jesus “does not seem to have required baptism for admission to his fellowship.” Is this true? Read John 3 again about admission into the kingdom. If Christ did not require baptism for admission to this fellowship, why do Methodists – and others – require what they do not believe Jesus required, so that one can be counted a Methodist? This question could be asked of other religious bodies as well.

The apostles continued teaching for Christ:

Acts 2:38: “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” What two things are here required to receive forgiveness of sins? Can a person be a Christian without having his sins forgiven? Did anybody heed the word of Peter (see v. 41)?

Romans 6:3,4: “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” What act brings us into contact with the death of Jesus – where his blood was shed that we might receive forgiveness of sin? Is sprinkling or pouring like a “burial”? Is “newness of life” before or after baptism? Can a person be a Christian without beginning the new life?

1 Peter 3:21: “And corresponding to that (i.e., water in v. 20), baptism now saves you – not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience – through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. . . ” Is baptism involved with the salvation of an individual? Is a person saved before baptism? Must we make an appeal to God in the act of baptism (compare baptizing babies who seem only to appeal to eat and have diapers changed)? It is Jesus Christ who saves us when we are baptized?

There are many other passages in the Bible about being baptized. Let us realize that believers are given the right to become children of God (Jn. 1: 12) and that we are born into God’s family upon expressing that belief when we repent and are baptized. When we are moved to be baptized in water and follow the words of the Spirit then we can say we have been born again. In a similar way the church is made up of those “cleansed . . . by the washing of water with the word.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 451-452
August 3, 1989

By Ronny E. Hinds

It has been my observation over the years that there are some people who have great difficulty in following rules. It do not know why, maybe something about their personality or character, but they do have the problem.

I have been reminded of this again by a couple of incidents. Most recently my daughter was telling me of the difficulty she has on her job of getting people to follow directions. She is involved in solving computer program problems. They will call her for solutions and then they will not follow instructions. Often it is the same people over and over.

In another instance a preaching brother of mine told me about editing a paper in which the articles were to be of certain length. While the majority “followed the rule” there were always those who sent in articles too long.

Now, whether or not the specific individuals mentioned above have this problem I do not know. I do know that both illustrate my point. Do you have problems with following the rules? Maybe you have never thought about it. Do you find yourself usually thinking you know a better way to do it? In following certain procedures do you usually have to change them just a little? Think about it.

I know all of us do such things from time to time, so those questions hit us all. But what concerns me is such can become a habit and affect our attitude and obedience of God’s rules. We get to thinking we can alter this a little and ignore something else a little and it won’t hurt anything. And when we do such, nothing “zaps” us, so we get careless, perhaps indifferent.

Ignoring the rules of the world brings only worldly consequences. But ignoring the rules of God brings eternal consequences. We need to carefully, thoughtfully consider that.

Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). Acceptable service to God is based on the doing of his will and not ours. Many think otherwise. But recognizing him as Lord is not sufficient. We have to do his will. That is what the Scriptures teach and that is the way it is. We must “follow the rules”!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, p. 462
August 3, 1989

By Mike Willis

The following articles are an exchange between Weldon Warnock and Jerry Bassett on 1 Corinthians 7:15. The exchange is the result of an article which I wrote, published in the 21 July 1988 issue of Guardian of Truth. In a review of the book Not Under Bondage written by brother James D. Bales, I made the following statement:

James D. Bales’ book Not Under Bondage was published in 1979 and already its influence is being felt among conservative brethren. (For example, see the 18 October 1987 issue of Coburg Road Bulletin published by the church which meets at 1005 Coburg Rd. in Eugene, Oregon, in which Jerry Bassett took the same position as brother Bales.)

Brother Bassett sent me an article replying to my material on 1 Corinthians 7 and charging that I had misrepresented him and the Coburg Road church by that statement.

Letters immediately began to be exchanged to provide opportunity for a discussion in Guardian of Truth. I had no intention of misrepresenting the Coburg Road church or brother Bassett and still do not believe that I have done so. However, this exchange provides the reader opportunity to decide for himself. Brother Passett’s first article is the article to which I referred in my editorial which charged that brother Bassett takes the same position as James D. Bales.

The exchange also emphasizes the fact that some brethren among us are teaching that alien sinners are not amenable to God’s law of marriage revealed in Matthew 5:32; 19:9. The consequences of this are clearly demonstrated in the exchange: alien sinners who have divorced and remarried for reasons other than fornication can be baptized and continue living in their second (third, or fourth) marriage. This issue will not go away. We need not pretend that it does not exist. We live in a society which practices divorce and remarriage for any causes; we have some preachers among us who are preaching that aliens are not amenable to Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. Because of these two facts, brethren need to be awakened to this danger which threatens the church. To accomplish this purpose, my initial articles were written. To promote further study, this exchange is published. May God bless each of us as we study these issues.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, p. 463
August 3, 1989

By L.A. Stauffer

May 25, 1989 marked the end of the long controversial life of a talented, influential, well-known preacher among Churches of Christ and Christian Churches. After spending the day in volunteer work at the Cornerstone Fellowship, a religio-social communion that distributes to the needs of the poor, and the evening in Bible study at the Oak Hill Chapel, his home congregation, W. Carl Ketcherside of St. Louis, MO, who suffered from heart trouble the past few years, apparently died in his sleep. He was 81. Leroy Garrett of Denton, TX, Ketcherside’s closest associate, a friend of 37 years, preached the funeral May 28. Burial was “back home” in Farmington, MO.

Ketcherside, according to Garrett, began preaching at age 12 or, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, age 13. Soon thereafter, friends report, he became an award-winning championship debater in a Kansas high school. The development of his talent both as a speaker and a polemicist equipped him well to persuade and move hundreds, even thousands of people to his way of thinking. Friend and foe alike attest to his power in the pulpit and on the debate platform. The name “Ketcherside,” first attached to his followers as arch-conservatives and later as extreme liberals, testifies to the attractiveness of his person and the eloquence of his speech. These qualities served his purposes well during nearly 70 years of preaching.

The preaching life of Carl Ketcherside divides itself into two nearly equal parts. He devoted the first 30 to 35 years of preaching to opposing what was commonly called “located preachers” and “Christian colleges.” My first acquaintance with Ketcherside came through the published debates he conducted with G.K. Wallace in discussion of these issues. He then denied the right of preachers to receive stipulated wages and to locate with one congregation under the oversight of elders. He likewise denied parents and interested individuals the right to build and support “Bible” colleges in which to educate their children. He drew the circle of fellowship tightly around those brethren who opposed these practices and shut out of his communion all who disagreed. His views were cogently argued and skillfully penned in Mission Messenger, a monthly periodical he published for 40 years or more.

In 1957 Ketcherside, after repenting as it were in “sackcloth and ashes,” began more than 30 years of preaching new views on the meaning and extent of “fellowship.” In 1961 1 met and talked with W. Carl Ketcherside for the first time at a “Unity Forum” in Chicago. He assured me that his biblical views had not changed, except in the broadening of his ideas of fellowship. He then believed what he had always believed, including opposition to mechanical instruments of music in worship and church support of missionary societies. He could now, he said, fellowship all Churches of Christ and Christian Churches in matters on which he and they agreed without endorsing any views he rejected. He used the pulpits of both to spread his concepts on fellowship among all who had been baptized into Christ.

In 1974, at Indianapolis in a second conversation, “Carl,” as he was usually addressed, told me that his former ideas were unimportant to both him and God. He by this time had concluded that baptism need not be “for the remission of sins” and that “Jesus Christ didn’t come all the way to earth and die on a cross to concern himself with issues of whether men should use instruments of music in worship.” In reply to a question about the breadth of fellowship he brusquely refused to acknowledge that anyone among “Disciples of Christ” denied the bodily resurrection of Christ. In time he drew the circle of fellowship wider and wider – including even those who claimed devotion to Christ but denied the nature and necessity of baptism.

Leroy Garrett’s eulogy at the funeral included what he assured the audience was Ketcherside’s favorite poem and favorite Scripture. Both are appropriate in summation of his life and its impact. The poem relates to drawing circles of fellowship. It tells how one man draws a small circle of fellowship that shuts men out and another man draws a larger circle of fellowship that takes the first man in. The Scripture: “For David, after he had in his own generation served the counsel of God, fell asleep” (Acts 13:36).

Garrett’s application of the poem, in the first place, alluded to men who on the basis of scriptural authority refuse to have fellowship with those who accept instruments of music in worship (see Eph. 5:19; 2 John 9) and with others who outrightly reject baptism as essential to salvation (see Mk. 16:15,16; Acts 2:38). When Ketcherside accepted those men and either propagated or encouraged their views, strict biblicists drew lines or circles of fellowship that excluded him. He then with his patented “I love you” drew his circle around them and said, “I fellowship you.” But biblically, “I love you” must not be confused with “I fellowship you.” God loves the whole world but has fellowship only with those who walk in the light (see 1 Jn. 1:5-10). Christians who draw circles that exclude men from fellowship – love those men, whether they be W. Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, Billy Graham, or Pope John Paul II.

And yet Garrett’s poem is a fitting description of W. Carl Ketcherside’s life. He first drew small circles to shut men out, then larger circles to take men in. His life was one of extremes, and at both ends of the spectrum the power of his personality and charisma moved men.

Garrett also assessed Ketcherside accurately – that he sought to serve his own generation and then fall asleep. He neither built nor left any permanent institution to carry on his work. Even Mission Messenger was laid to rest when he had said what he wanted to say in its pages. He did not leave it to a younger editor to further his goals.

No one, however, not even Garrett, believes that the influence of W. Carl Ketcherside will end with the generation he served. His works will follow him and he being dead will yet speak. He will especially speak thorugh the generation he served – through the vast array of men and women who have left the simplicity of the gospel to find their way into modernistic, charismatic, denominational, evangelical religious bodies who are dominated by either “faith alone,” t4social gospel” concepts, or both.

Yes, the Scripture Garrett quoted truthfully depicts Ketcherside’s will and what is theoretically true. A man can serve only his own generation and must then fall asleep. But the legacy he leaves that generation and the fruit it bears constitute an echoing voice for which he is responsible whether for weal or woe.

The life and teaching of men with charisma, such as W. Carl Ketcherside, who move and influence others on extreme ends of religious spectrums remind us that “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:32). When men speak, regardless of how powerfully and persuasively, we must be found “examining the scriptures daily, whether these things” are so (Acts 17:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 453, 455
August 3, 1989