Truth Magazine

By Olen Holderby

In the October 1971 issue of Plain Talk brother Dan Shipley had a splendid article under the above title. His article is dealing with how well we are carrying out the instructions of the Great Commission (or failing to do so). That was 28 years ago, but the points which he made are worthy of further consideration. For, it appears to me that we have the same problems today.

Brother Shipley said, “While the need for pulpit and classroom teaching cannot be discounted, it is simply not enough. We need to get out of our own ‘front yard’ with the incorruptible seed that can save souls!”With this statement I wholeheartedly concur. I think the need is well expressed in the second paragraph of brother Ship- ley’s article, “We must go because many will not come. Relatively few non-Christians are attending worship services and Bible classes. Those who do attend seldom do so with any regularity and even then are not likely to hear lessons that are most appropriate to their needs. Let’s face it, most who need the gospel are not coming to our front yard to get it. If they are to be reached it will take more than the pulpit, and it will take more than the man who stands in the pulpit.”

There can be no doubt that the Lord intended that ev- ery qualified member of his church be about the business of teaching others the gospel (2 Tim. 2:2). Surely we ac- cept this as being true. Yet, we continue to hear some say that they will not or cannot do what they seem pleased to call “door-knocking.” I have personally heard this come from the lips of some preachers as well as others. More recently some are quoted as saying that the emphasis in the gospel was on pulpit preaching. My studies have not found this to be the case. While there may be some disagreement on what Bible examples might be classed as pulpit preaching, I have tried counting them with the following results: In Matthew there are ten examples of what might be called pulpit preaching, as compared to 49 examples of other arrangements more closely resembling what is called “personal work” or “cottage classes” today. In Mark the ratio is eight pulpit and 54 others; and, in Luke it is nine to 71. John gives five examples of public preaching to 47 that are less than public. Acts presents the same sort of picture, giving a 29 to 60 ratio. Even al- lowing for a margin of error in judgment, the claim that gospel emphasis is on pulpit preaching does not appear to be justified.

Most of the teaching done by Jesus and his apostles was done under circumstances which permitted ques- tions and answers to repeatedly pass back and forth, and this does not resemble pulpit preaching of today. I believe it would be more accurate to say that the emphasis is on “teaching,” and all these avenues are open to us and should be used.

I am aware that the command to teach is generic and that many methods may be used; but, it would appear that apostolic example would furnish the most effec- tive way or combination of ways for this being done. “. .

. I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house” (Acts 20:20). Both these methods should be utilized by every Christian, including preachers. I am not so naive as to think I can spell out the abilities or limits of my preaching brethren in this matter of door knocking, but I am criticizing the attitude that prevails in some quarters.

In 2 Timothy 4:1-4, we have Paul’s instructions to Timothy to “preach the word.” Should Timothy follow Paul’s example in doing this, what would he do (Acts 20:20)? Who would Timothy “reprove, rebuke, and ex- hort”? Would it be only those in regular attendance at the public services? From the pulpit members are urged to do this “door knocking” and this is as it should be. However, Timothy was told to be an example to believ- ers (1 Tim. 4:12).

If any one member of the church is to do such work, all are to do it, limited only by opportunity and ability. And, with effort, both opportunity and ability can be enhanced.

It appears to me that very poor judgment is being used in choosing a man to begin or to build up a new work. To choose a man who is, admittingly, not very effective in any way except in the pulpit is normally to add to the length of time necessary for “outside” support for such a work. I personally know of no such work that has been built upon pulpit preaching alone. Someone simply had to do some “door knocking” (as to new converts). It does not do the cause of Christ justice by choosing to labor in a place where strong talents are needed that one simply does not possess. Another quote from brother Shipley fits just here, “For these, and other reasons, it would seem a wise redemption of time for us to become more involved in this house-to-house kind of teaching. We need more kitchen-table lecterns and sofa-pews!”

And again, “Let’s get out of the ‘front yard’ to do the sowing.”

What is the advantage(s) in house-to-house teach- ing? Brother Shipley expresses this very well, “We need to take the gospel to the lost because in their homes is often afforded the most favorable of teaching situations. There the student is not lost in the crowd; the lessons have a more personal flavor. Where else could a student feel more “at home” and feel free to ask pertinent ques- tions without fear of embarrassment? There, he relates himself to the subject more readily; he hears lessons most relevant to his needs. With home studies the prevalent problem of absenteeism is almost nil. Many will keep an appointment with a teacher at home who won’t do so at a church building. What better arrangement for teaching Bible truth?”

Some will criticize the idea of “door knocking” while they reap the benefits of the “door knocking” of others; and this certainly comes with poor grace. I am not urging indiscriminate, uninformed, and unprepared house-to- house efforts. I do, however, insist that we need a great deal more of this type of teaching, by both members and preachers.

It has been my experience that where there is a pro- gram of house-to-house teaching, involving preachers, elders, and members, the most conversions, the greatest ratio of faithfulness, and less difficulties will normally be found. When folks have their hands full of working for the Lord, there simply is not time to introduce divisive situations into the church. There seems to be a problem for many — where do I find prospects? This problem will not go away simply because we do not do the work. So, we must find a solution and put it in operation. There are still plenty of people who “would give anything in this world” for what the Christian has if he only understood it. No, we cannot make a horse drink by merely leading him to the water, but we can labor to make him as thirsty as possible! Then, he will drink! Of course, all whom we teach, will not accept, but we will at least have given them a chance of making an informed decision. It is God

The word of the Lord recognizes how much we need each other. The church was purposed in the mind of God before time because the All-wise saw the need for it in human relationships. Loneliness can be a terrible and destructive thing. Other human contact, especially if it is with like-minded people with a desire to do the right thing, can be entirely wholesome and good. This is what the church as an organization and agency in human society is mostly about. As the Scripture says, “Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their labor. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow; but woe to him that is alone when he falleth, and hath not another to lift him up” (Eccl. 4:9-10).

So, two are better than one because when one falls, the other can help him again to stand. We must remember this, when we consider why the church must be a part of our lives, and why we must not let this precious coopera- tive relationship slip from us by abandonment.

Two are better than one because one may help to bear the burden of another. How many times have you heard someone say, “This is almost more than I can bear.” Often we can sympathize that what they must bear is nearly more than one person can deal with alone. But the wonderful thing is that we never ought to have to bear our burdens alone. Of course, we know the Lord helps up at such times. But it is a great boon to our souls to know that we have brothers and sisters in Christ who share our grief and pain, and help to love us through those trying times. As Paul wrote: “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). Observing the law of Christ involves sharing the burdens so heavy upon our fellow Christians.

Two are better than one because the prayers of one may benefit another. Those who pray for us are our “help- ers.” They may be confined to a bed or wheelchair, but if they are supportive of the work we are doing through their prayers, then they are friends of the first order. Paul spoke of the prayers which the Corinthians uttered on his and his fellow laborer’s behalf, with fond appreciation and deep love: “Ye also helping together on our behalf by your supplication; that, for the gift bestowed upon us by means of many, thanks may be given by many persons on our behalf ” (2 Cor. 1:11).

Two are better than one because the great work of the gospel is too much for any single individual to ac- complish. Paul spoke of the work that he and Apollos did together, even though they were at Corinth at different times and under wholly different circumstances. Still he viewed himself and Apollos as working together toward a common goal. Paul had converted the majority of those whom Apollos later instructed: “I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase” (1 Cor. 3:6). “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common” (Acts 4:32).

Two are better than one because there is moral and spiritual strength in numbers. The presence and encour- agement of our brothers and sisters in Christ is a source of spiritual strength to those of us who attend the wor- ship activities with regularity. One who is a member of the body of Christ feels that he is a part of something wonderful and good. There is a feeling of belonging to something important. And there is a feeling of being associated with someone (Christ) who is worthy of all of our praise and admiration. Being a member of the church is a thing to be thankful about, grateful for, and ever overflowing with thanksgiving because of. As Paul stated: “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12).

Two are better than one because when we work to- gether with one another in the church, we are working together with God. At times we tend to view the church as a wholly human relationship, a segment of the overall community or society that we live in. But it is not so. The church is his fold, his holy temple, his royal priesthood of believers, his blood bought and Spirit filled body. It was his intent that through this means men and women might enter into covenant relation with the Father and serve as spiritual stewards in common cause with the Lord himself: “And working together with him we entreat  also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain” (2 Cor. 6:1).

By Bobby Graham

The Spirit of truth would remind the apostles of Jesus’ teaching and give them additional truth — all truth. If Jesus’ teaching before his ascension would not be operating in the church, why did he provide for their be- ing reminded of it and place it on such a par with the rest of revealed

The basic position being reviewed in this study was set forth by Robert Adams of Jenkins, Kentucky in his tract called “A Study on Baptism.” Adams, who has preached in the mountains of Easter n Kentuck y for many years, is a member of the Mayking Church of Christ at Ermine, Kentucky. This writer preached in gospel meetings for this group before brother Adams began pro- moting this particular teaching.

A Brief History

When the members of the Mayk- ing congregation became convinced of this doctrine, they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ on March 23, 1993. A letter published and distributed by Adams in November of 1998 claims that others believ- ing similarly are found in Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, and Missouri. It then appeals for others preaching Acts 2:38 and baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins to identify with them. The author distinguishes between those who have disrupted the plan of salvation set forth by God for saving the world, designated by him as a “FORM of the True Church,” and the “True Churches of Christ.” Fairly lengthy correspon- dence on this matter has taken place in recent years between this writer and the tract’s author. As far as this writer knows, there is no evil intent on the part of either of us; and this re- view of his position is as impersonal as this writer can make it.

The Position Stated

The position states that Jesus set in place a different order of baptism for that period leading up to Pente- cost from the one that he established for the time after Pentecost. The preface of the tract says that the apostles were not allowed to use the order stated in Matthew 28:19 on Pentecost, and for that reason we must not use it today. In fact, people today are urged to leave Matthew 28:19 where the Lord left it — out- side the church. A later statement on page 13 says that the only power capable of opening the door of the church (the key given to Peter by Jesus) was the name of Jesus Christ. It is further concluded on page 14 that we do not have the order of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit when we baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, because Jesus never gave that order of Matthew 28 after his ascension. “Matthew 28:19 in its Galilean form was never used during the ministry of the apostles and should not be activated today into God’s plan of salvation.” In view of the foregoing, Adams urges on pages 18 and 19 that we go back to the early church and do as did the Ephesians in Acts 19. He means that we need to be baptized in the name of Jesus and to burn whatever books or writings are contrary to this position. Brother Ad- ams declares, “If the name in which we are baptized isn’t the right name, then it will not matter what else we do and how we do them.” He further says, “Being baptized in a name that was not revealed by the apostles in the setting up of the church and after the church was established will void everything.”

A Review of the Position

The error involved in this scheme of teaching will become obvious in the following examination.

1. It disrupts the harmony in Jesus’ commission to the apos- tles. The different accounts of the Great Com- mission given by Jesus in Matthew 28, Mark 16, and Luke 24 harmonize with each other. They came from the mind of God and the teaching of Jesus. For this reason no conflict ex- ists among them. What Jesus taught here was designed to apply fully, not partly, to the time of the church. He was not making a piecemeal ap- proach, intending of these passages to apply to the time leading up to the church and the rest to apply to the church. Notice the common element found in them: teaching all nations, preaching to every creature, preaching among all nations. If Mat- thew 28 related only to the people before the church’s establishment, as the tract says, then it directed the apostles to go to all nations before Pentecost. In other words, in that pe- riod of fifty days they were to teach and baptize all nations, only to have to go back and repeat the process after Pentecost in keeping with the order established by Jesus in Mark and Luke — “in the name of Jesus Christ.” Such an impossible task is the result of arbitrary interpretation of Scripture, not of clear teaching of the Lord by command, example, and necessary conclusion.

2. It breaks the continuity between the commission and its execution. The three accounts of the commis- sion already noted also harmonize with Acts 2:38. We need to remem- ber that when Jesus was on earth, he was teaching in preparation for the coming kingdom (Matt. 4:23). In giv- ing instructions to the apostles in the commission, he was directing them in the work that they would begin on Pentecost. While they had preached earlier, the preaching to all nations would begin at Jerusalem. Isaiah prophesied all nations submitting to the rule of Christ in Isaiah 2:4, and Jesus directed that this teaching to them be done in Acts 1:8. The Spirit would make such possible (Acts 1:5; Mark 9:1). The commands given in Acts 2:38 correspond to the instruc- tions of the Great Commission. Baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ is equivalent to what Jesus said in Matthew 28:19. Baptizing “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” is the wording in the American Standard Version. It means baptizing people into a relationship with all three persons of the Godhead. That is still the case, because when one is baptized ac- cording to New Testament teaching, he enters into a different relationship with all three. God is then his Father, Christ is his Savior, and the Spirit is his teacher. In addition, he is baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” (by his authority, in submission to him). It is a colossal mistake to separate these two passages and to view them as presenting two different orders or formulas to be spoken at baptism. Jesus was not within a thousand miles of dealing with what must be said in either Matthew 28 or Acts 2. It is what must be done in baptism that Jesus addressed in both verses.

3. It changes submission into a formula. Focus for a minute on the expression “in the name of Jesus Christ” in Acts 2:38. Because it is re- lated to the authority of Christ, now ruling on his throne (vv. 30, 33, 34,

36), the requirement to be baptized in his name is a test of one’s willing- ness to yield to Christ’s rule. The very people who heard Peter in Acts 2 with an attitude of rejection of his deity and dominion, upon presen- tation of sufficient evidence, were then challenged to acknowledge his deity and power in the command to repent and be baptized. The context of the command demands this un- derstanding, not that some formula be stated at the time of baptism. What Peter was here teaching was the consequence of the commission given to all the apostles in Matthew 28 and its parallel accounts. Contrary to Adams’ charge that men have “brought in” the meaning of “by the authority of ” for “in the name of ” to justify their use of Matthew 28:19 as a verbal statement at baptism, a brief study of Acts 3:6, 12; 4:7, 10, 12 will show that to do something in the name of a person is to do it under that one’s authority.

4. It destroys Jesus’ promise with its insistence on another order of baptism. Possibly the strongest point that can be made from the disputed passage in Matthew 28 is Jesus’ promise in verse 20, where he said he would be with the apostles and added his approval of their work to the end of the world or age. What Jesus was here directing was to be worldwide in scope and age — last- ing in duration. It must then follow that Jesus left no room for another system or order of teaching/baptism. Jesus’ very promise shows the tract’s line of reasoning to be flawed.

5. It makes future revelation less important than Jesus’ teaching. It has often been the case that God has caused additional revelation to supersede earlier revelation (as the New Covenant did the Mosaic Covenant), but Jesus placed his own teaching on a par with the Spirit’s future revelation, not lower than it in John 14:26; 16:13. The Spirit of truth would remind the apostles of Jesus’ teaching and give them additional truth — all truth. If Jesus’ teaching before his ascension would not be operating in the church, why did he provide for their being reminded of it and place it on such a par with the rest of revealed truth?

In view of these considerations, is it not clear that the position being reviewed is a flawed one, taking into account less that the entire picture.

There’s a beautiful garden in Heaven,
A garden no mortal has seen;
In the midst grows the sweet rose of Sharon
That is shining thru eternity.

There’s a beautiful garden in Heaven,
Where the life-giving stream ever flows,
Pouring boundless and free from Mount Zion,
More precious than any I know.

There’s a beautiful garden in Heaven,
Where Jesus is walking all day,
And He talks with the saints and the Angels
Telling them I’ll be home some glad day.

’Tis the beautiful garden in Heaven,
Where my Lord is awaiting for me
In a land where the sun shines forever.
O how happy with Him I shall be.