Truth Magazine

By Robert Jackson

As we continue our study of evangelism, I want you to take your Bibles and follow along with me. Find out exactly what the Bible says about the local church being engaged in New Testament evangelism. In 1 Timothy 1:3 the apostle Paul is telling young Timothy to abide still at Ephesus. Now here we have a Bible example where there was a man located with the church in Ephesus, preaching the word of the living God, and where an apostle said to continue to abide there. There is Bible authority for a local church to have a local preacher. Sometimes I have had people to say, “No, you cannot have a local preacher at a local congregation where you have elders-the man ought to move when there are elders.” But this is not so. The church at Ephesus had elders and Timothy was there, and Paul said, Timothy, I want you to continue to abide there.

But then again, someone might say, “Well, preacher, how do you know that there was not more than one church in Ephesus, and that Timothy was preaching for one where they did not have elders?” I believe that I can give you a Bible answer, if you will turn to the book of Acts 20, and also read in the Revelation letter. When the apostle Paul in Acts 20 called for the elders of the church at Ephesus, he did not call for the elders of the churches. He called for the elders of the church. Therefore there was only one church in that particular city. Where there were a plurality of churches in a city, it was always identified in the plural use, like in Galatians 1, the “churches of Galatia.” There was more than one church, more than one congregation, in that particular area; but in the city of Ephesus, there was only one church. Paul said he called for the elders of the church in Ephesus to come over there to Miletus. The same thing is true when he addressed the church in the book of Revelation. As John was guided by the spirit of God, he addressed “the church at Ephesus.” So evidently there was only one congregation there. They had elders, and Timothy was preaching there, and Paul said to continue to abide there. So then we have established Bible authority for a local church to have a local preacher.

But let us notice something else, and that is the fact that a local church has the God given right to support a man away from that particular work. Open your Bibles to Philippians 4:15. When Paul was writing to the church at Philippi, he said, “No church communicated with me concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.” Alright now, what do we find? We find the church at Philippi supporting the apostle Paul in the preaching of the word of God away from Philippi. Keep in mind that Paul said, “No church communicated with me concerning giving and receiving but ye only.” Now the church at Philippi sent directly to Paul. They did not send it through the missionary society. They did not send it through any other organization. They sent it directly to the man in the field. This is the pattern that we read about in the revelation of Christ. So thus far we have established the fact that a local church may secure the services of a preacher and the preacher may remain in this locality and preach the word of God. Secondly, the local church has the God-given right to support a man away from that field and send directly to that man.

But then there is a third thing that we need to know. In 2 Corinthians 11:8 the apostle said, “I robbed other churches.” Now note your Bibles carefully-“churches”, in the plural. “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them to do ye service.” Now here we find several churches joined together in the supporting of a man of God. But take your Bible and look at it carefully, and you will observe that the churches sent directly to the man. Paul said, “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them to do ye service.” Note that they did not send it through the missionary society, they did not send it through any other institution; they sent it directly to the man in the field. Now, my beloved friend, I challenge you to take your Bible and find out if this is not so. First, that a local church can secure the services of a preacher and the preacher remain in that locality preaching the word of God. That is New Testament evangelism. Secondly, you will find where one church supported a man away from that field and they sent directly to him (Philippians 4:15). That is New Testament evangelism. Thirdly, you will find where several churches supported a man-they sent it directly to him, and he went out preaching the word of God. This is New Testament evangelism.

Now this is the way that it ought to be done today, and any time you find churches either supporting an institution, building an institution where the churches are joined together doing this, then they have violated Bible authority, and they are going to cause division within the ranks of God. Today we have division within our ranks, and why? Some of it is due to the fact of evangelism. For an example, several years ago, some of the brethren came up with the idea that we will have what you call a “sponsoring church.” Now some of these little churches of Christ out here in the rural areas are not able to do very much, so what we need is to gather all these churches together in some way and send out preachers. But, they wanted to stay away from the missionary society-that thing had already divided the brethren and the Christian Church has already formed. So they said, “We don’t want a board of directors and we don’t want a missionary society, so we are going to have a sponsoring church.” Now let me tell you what they labored under: They labored under the impression that if you just put that thing under the eldership of a local church that would make it right. And so they called it a “Sponsoring Church,” and to and behold, the first thing you know, you have got a church out here setting itself up as a motherhood church, a sponsoring church, and all the churches of Christ sending their money into it and then the sponsoring church would send out preachers. I challenge you to find the Bible authority for it. I challenge you to show one time in the word of God where there was ever a sponsoring church, where there was ever one church which received funds from other churches to send on to gospel preachers.

Today, we find a lot of people who endorse that idea. They ought to be willing to give book, chapter and verse. They ought to say, “Here it is.” I will tell you one thing: When they give book, chapter and verse, that would help heal the division within our ranks. I will assure you that I would join forces with you when you can show me in the Bible where there was ever a Sponsoring Church which received money four other churches to send out preachers. I challenge you to show me the authority for it.

First of all, there is no Bible authority for it. Secondly, it violates 1 Peter 5, where God told the elders to oversee the flock of God which is “among” them. Now what have you got? You have got a sponsoring church, with elders overseeing people away from them. This violates the very principle God laid down in His word. What is it going to lead to? The same thing as when you had a universal bishop. You are going to have a motherhood church, and eventually, you are going to have someone to control the brotherhood, and it is contrary to the teaching of Christ and contrary to the revelation of Jesus Christ.

After the sponsoring church view came in mind, some of the brethren decided that we needed a world-wide radio program. We needed to preach the gospel to people out there, so then what we needed was a world-wide radio program by the churches of Christ! And to and behold, out in Abilene, Texas, they started one called the “Herald of Truth.” The Abilene church said, “You send us the money and we will put on a nation-wide church of Christ radio program.” Well, this is exactly what they started. Now I ask you, where is the Bible authority for it? I challenge you to give me book, chapter and verse! I want to know where is there any Bible authority for one church to set itself up to have a world-wide radio program by the churches of Christ, to be supported by the churches of Christ, where this church would be the Sponsoring Church? I want to know where is the book, chapter and verse? Now then, if you will give me book, chapter and verse, I will join hands with you. But until then, I am going to stand in opposition to it. What has divided the body of Christ? Why is there division in our ranks? This is exactly why.

How do brethren answer us when we say, Will you please give us book, chapter and verse? What do they say? “Oh,” they say, “You folks are anti, you are just a bunch of antis.” Anti-what? You mean to say that we are antipreachers? If we are anti-preachers, why under the living sun would we support preachers? Why certainly we are not anti-preachers! We are not anti-sending-out-men-of-God. We are just anti the sponsoring church. We are anti the Herald of Truth. We anti anything that sets up this thing and puts it under an eldership where there is not any Bible authority for it! There is not one bit of difference between the missionary society and the sponsoring church except one is under a board of directors and the other is under a local church or eldership. Both of them violate the principle of Bible authority and that is exactly why they are wrong.

But someone might say, “Preacher, you little antis started all this business.” Well, now let me read to you for just a minute. In the 1946 issue of the Gospel Advocate (and most people go by the Gospel Advocate and say that these are the people who stand for the truth and all the rest of them are antis), in the 1946 annual published by the Gospel Advocate, I want to read to you from page 341, in regards to Philippians 4:15-16. Now listen carefully: “Here we see the simple manner in which the church at Philippi joined with Paul in the work of preaching the gospel.” Watch it now. “There was no missionary society in evidence, and none was needed.” Listen. “The brethren simply raised the money and sent it directly to Paul. This is the way it should be done today. No organization is needed to accomplish the work the Lord has authorized the church to do.” Now that is the absolute truth. Now listen again. “When men become dissatisfied with God’s arrangement and set up their own, they have already crossed the threshold to apostasy. Let us be satisfied with tile Lord’s manner of doing things. ” That is exactly right! In 1946 this was where the Gospel Advocate stood, but now she says we can do it in another way, and that is why we are divided. It is shameful, but it is so.

Truth Magazine XXI: 18, pp. 277-279
May 5, 1977

By Mike Willis

On several occasions, Jesus preceded His remarks to certain individuals with the phrase,) “O ye of little faith.” We have tended to think of these passages in relation to our denominational friends who deny that baptism is essential to salvation to such an extent that most of us have never made serious application of these words and their contexts to our own personal problems. Could it be possible that we might be of little faith?

Jesus’ Usage of The Phrase

In order to properly understand what attitudes Jesus was condemning when He said, “O ye of little faith,” let us study the various contexts in which these words appear. Here are the various places in which the words occur:

1. Mt. 6:30; Lk. 12:28. The context of these two quotations is the Sermon on the Mount. The discussion had turned to the point at which Jesus insisted that man should not make the attainment of money his primary goal in life. Rather, he should obey God and trust in Him to provide for his physical needs. Here are the statements leading up to this phrase:

“Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? Any why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: and yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?” (Mt. 6:25-30).

Notice that the one described as one of “little faith” was the man who was anxious over the material things of this life and did not trust in God to provide him with his material needs.

2. Mt. 8:26. In this passage, the disciples were with Jesus in a boat crossing the Sea of Galilee. After a hard day of teaching the people, Jesus lay down in the boat and fell asleep. Soon a squall arose on the sea; the waves began to cover the boat. Jesus continued to rest in peaceful slumber. Finally, the disciples awakened Him saying, “Lord, save us: we perish.” Jesus replied, “Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith.” Notice again, that littleness of faith is associated with lack of trust in God to take care of His disciples in times of danger.

3. Mt. 14:31. The occasion when Jesus uttered these words was most unusual. He had fed the 5000 with five loaves and two fish the day before. When the multitude tried to take Jesus by force and make Him their new king, Jesus sent the disciples away (perhaps they were caught up in this as well). They were told to cross the sea by boat; in the meantime, Jesus retired to the mountain to pray. During the night, a storm arose on the sea and the disciples were having great trouble in crossing the sea because of a strong head-wind. Soon Jesus finished his prayer and began walking on water across the sea. The disciples saw Him and thought that He was a ghost. Jesus identified Himself to them after which Peter said, “Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.” Jesus said, “Come.” “And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand and caught him, and said unto him, “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” Notice again, that “littleness of faith” is associated with the failure to trust in God.

4. Mt. 16:8. Here is the last context, I want to study with you. “And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?” Notice that their littleness of faith was marked by their worry about bread.

What Is Faith?

These verses refer to an aspect of faith which we tend to forget. Faith is a term used in a number of ways in the Scriptures. It is used to refer to a “body of doctrine” (Jude 3); it refers to mental assent to a set of propositions (cf. Jas. 2:19; Jn. 12:42-43-“to believe” is taken from the same root word as “faith”). It can even mean obedience (Jn. 3:36). Whereas we have zeroed in on the usages of faith which show that one must obey God to have faith in Him, I fear that there is one aspect of faith we have tended to neglect.

Faith also involves an implicit trust in God. Our failure to apply this aspect of faith has resulted in some poor conclusions. The man who is doctrinally correct on the right issues is considered a “strong man of faith,” even if he worries and frets himself sick to the point that he develops an ulcer or two. Do not misunderstand what I am saying; a man must believe the right facts about Jesus in order to have a strong faith. However, he must also have the proper trust in the Lord to have a strong faith. America is suffering from a serious shortage of both aspects of faith.

Statistics indicate that 20,000 times each year here in the United States someone takes his own life. That is fifty-five people every day, more than one every half hour. Suicide has become the tenth ranking cause of death in our nation. Psychiatrists and psychologists have their offices filled with people who cannot cope with the problems of life. Doctors are giving pills to their patients as a method of coping with life’s problems. Is this the way that the man of God is supposed to cope with life’s problems? Can you imagine Abraham running off to his psychiatrist to get some Valium to help him cope with his problems? Was David to take his problems to God in prayer or to his local, resident psychologist?

Faith in God implies that one believes several facts about God. He believes that God is still in control of this world (Acts 14:17; 17:28). lie believes that God is still providing for man’s spiritual, physical and emotional needs. Until we become convinced that such dispositions as worrying and fretting spring from lack of faith (trust) in God, we will do little or nothing to change.

Suggestions For Handling Life’s Problems

I would like to conclude this article by making some suggestions for how the Christian is to cope with life’s problems; here are some suggestions:

1. Pray about them. Peter said, “. . . casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you” (1 Pet. 5:7); Paul added, “Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God” (Phil. 4:6). 1 am afraid that we have not only forgotten what God’s word has said about taking our problems to Him but do not even pay attention to what some of our own poets have said; one said,

What a friend we have in Jesus,

All our sins and griefs to bear;

What a privilege to carry

Everything to God in prayer.

Oh, what peace we often forfeit;

Oh, what needless pain we bear;

All because we do not carry

Everything to God in prayer.”

— “What A Friend We Have In Jesus.”

2. Trust God. When we have cast our cares upon the Lord, then we need to patiently trust Him and wait for His answer. David said, “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me” (Psa. 23:4). Similarly, Jesus has promised to be with us today (Mt. 28:20). The psalmist found a refuge in God during the times when the storms of life were about to engulf him. To what do you resort when life begins to fall in on you? Do you resort to pills, worry, fretting, etc.? Is God really your “Rock of Ages” in whom you hide?

3. Accept what must be accepted. The things which we can change should be changed; the things which we cannot change must simply be accepted. Paul had to accept the fact that he had to live the rest of his life with a “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:1-10). There was simply nothing that he could do about it; hence, he had to accept it. The things which happen to us in life might not be the things we would like to happen to us; however, if we cannot change them, we simply must accept them.

4. Live one day at a time. Jesus said, “Take no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof” , (Mt. 6:34). In A Way of Life, Sir William Osler said, “If the load of tomorrow be added to that of yesterday and carried today, it will make the strongest falter. Live in day-tight compartments. Don’t let yesterday and tomorrow intrude on your life. Live one day at a time. You’ll avoid the waste of energy, the mental distress, the nervous worries that dog the steps of the man who’s anxious about the future.”

Conclusion

If Jesus were to look at your life, would He be forced to describe you as one with “little faith”? We must be careful in our opposition to modern denominationalism, that we do not leave undone some of the things relevant to our personal character which are demanded by God.

Truth Magazine XXI: 18, pp. 275-277
May 5, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Ohio: “If the seventy week prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 is continuous with no gap between the 69th and 70th week, then how do you account for the destruction of Jerusalem taking place after the 69th week and not the 70th? In simple words, if our Lord fulfilled the whole 70th week, then why doesn’t it say the destruction would take place after the 70th week?”

Reply:

The text in question: “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place. So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate” (Dan. 9:24-27; NASB).

These verses refer to the work of the Savior. It would be difficult to find clearer expressions of the Messiah’s mission and ministry than those given in verse 24. (1) Transgression is finished (Heb. 9:26); (2) Sins are ended (1 Jn. 3:5); (3) Iniquity is forgiven (Isa. 53:6; Heb. 10:17); (4) Everlasting righteousness is brought in (Rom. 1:16, 17; 10:4; Phil. 3:9; Heb. 10:12-14); (5) Prophecy is fulfilled (Acts 3:18; 13:27; 24:14; 26:22); (6) The most holy is anointed (Heb. 6:20; 9:24; 10:19-22).

The seventy weeks are divided into three sections: 7-62-1. During the first period of seven weeks, Jerusalem, which then lay in ruins, was to be rebuilt. This was accomplished when Zerubbabel was governor over Judah. Ezra and Nehemiah chronicle the history of these “times of distress.” Next, the Messiah was to be “cut off” after the sixty-ninth week or during the seventieth week. This is the death of the Christ (cf. Isa. 53:8). Finally, in the midst of the seventieth week, the covenant was to be confirmed. As a result, sacrifice and oblation were to cease.Our Querist’s Objection

Our querist raises an objection. If Jesus’ death and the glory that followed fulfilled the events of the seventieth week, “then why doesn’t it say the destruction of Jerusalem would take place after the seventieth week?” The destruction of Jerusalem is definitely contemplated within the seventieth week (cf. Dan. 9:26, 27: Matt. 23:38; 24:15). The seventy weeks were declared and decreed “upon thy people and upon thy holy city (Jerusalem).” This is significant. It involved the people and the holy city with its sanctuary. Our querist assumes that the Lord’s death on the cross fulfilled “the whole seventieth week.” Ultimately, of course, He did fulfill the prophecies concerning His person and work, but the destruction of the city of Jerusalem was also decreed and declared and determined within the scope of the seventy weeks.

Jerusalem’s destruction took place after the sixty-ninth week. Therefore, the events that led to the final judgment against the city occurred during the seventieth week. The Lord’s reference to Daniel 9:27 makes the happenings of the seventieth week include the destruction of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was left desolate, in a measure, even before Jesus’ death (Matt. 23:38). By spurning Jesus, they sealed their doom. The final, ultimate judgment against Jerusalem was announced during Daniel’s seventieth week (cf. Lk. 23:28-31). Jesus taught that His death marked the end of the Jewish nation (Matt. 21:33-43). This transpired during Daniel’s seventieth week. During this last or seventieth week, Jerusalem’s overthrow was sealed or determined by its rejection of the Christ. In this sense, it was accomplished, though the actual desolation was not carried out until Titus came with the Roman armies in 70 A.D.

Quotes From Halley And Wallace

Brethren do not establish the truth, but the observations of brethren Hailey and Wallace are worthy of consideration. Homer Hailey has written, “Whatever may have been meant by Gabriel as he spoke of the `seventy weeks,’ an analysis of the portion of the passage that is clearly Messianic, and that part used by Jesus of the destruction of Jerusalem make it clear that the expression had a symbolic meaning of the time from the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the return under Zerubbabel, until the death of the Messiah, the cessation of the sacrifices, the making of a covenant, and the coming of the prince who completely destroyed Jerusalem and the old order” (The Preceptor,

September, 1972, p. 23). Foy E. Wallace, Jr. has stated that, “The destruction of Jerusalem was the terminating point of all the events within the seventy weeks of Daniel, covering the conclusion of the exile, the ushering in of the gospel times, the consecration of the Messiah to his redeeming office, and the end of all the temple services with the termination of the Jewish state” (God’s Prophetic Word, p. 518).

Truth Magazine XXI: 18, p. 274
May 5, 1977

By Roy E. Cogdill

There is but one action in Bible baptism. The idea that baptism can be performed in either one of three ways is wholly without scriptural warrant. The creeds of men authorize such latitude in their practice but God has not left the question of how to be baptized up to men. There are three lines of evidence that will convince any unprejudiced mind that the action of baptism is always the same and that action is immersion.

The Meaning of the Term

The New Testament Scriptures were written in the Koine vernacular of the Greek language. This language was current in New Testament times but soon ceased to be used and became what men call a “dead language.” By ceasing to be used it became fixed in its meaning and therefore is no longer subject to change. What the word from which “baptism” comes meant when Jesus used it, it means now. Webster defines words in terms of their present usage and English words are constantly changing. But not so with the language in which the New Testament was written. The word “baptism” is not a translation but a transliteration–that is, it is carried over into the English with the Greek ending dropped and an English ending added. Baptism in English is represented by “baptisms” in the Greek (spelled with English letters).

Baptisms in the Greek means “to dip.” Mr. Vines in his “Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words” defines baptisms as follows: “1. BAPTISMA, baptism, consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion, and emergence (from bapto, to dip) . . .” (page 96). With this all real scholars agree. Many could be cited to show this the meaning of the word. None of any repute dissent. No critical commentator, translator, higher critic, or scholar of any recognition in anybody’s church says that bapto means to sprinkle or pour. The action of sprinkling or pouring for baptism is a human substitute for the divinely authorized action of immersion. They cannot be justified by the meaning of the word by which the commandment of the Lord was expressed.The Circumstances Surrounding the Action of Baptism

In the history of conversions recorded in New Testament Scriptures there is uniformity in the circumstances under which the action of baptism was performed. In every recorded case of baptism the subject was in the water when he was baptized. When Jesus was baptized at the hands of John, the Baptist, He was in the water when the action occurred. The record says, “And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the ,water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him” (Mark 1:9-10). The baptism took place “in the Jordan” and when it was accomplished Jesus “came up out of the water.” This could mean only one thing–He was in the water when He was baptized.

In the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, recorded in Acts, chapter 8, the record of his baptism is the same. “And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip” (Acts 8:36-39). These circumstantial facts are definite. They went down into the water. The baptism took place while both the preacher and the man to be baptized were in the water. When he had been baptized they both came up out of the water. This is strong circumstantial evidence that the baptism was immersion. People do not go down in the water to be sprinkled or poured. This kind of action does not take place while in the water: After sprinkling or pouring they do not come up out of the water.

People have labored long and hard to disprove the fact that the eunuch went down into the water. They have drawn on their imaginations and come up with the objection that this incident occurred in a place that the text says was “desert” and there could have been no water there. But the man said, “See, here is water.” We had just as well deny the “desert” part as to deny the “water” part of the test. More than that, the “desert” applies to the town of Gaza which was a deserted village. Then there are those who imagine that the eunuch pulled out a water bag or jug from underneath the seat of his chariot when he said, “See, here is water.” This is utterly riduculous when the text says that “they went down into the water.” Wherever the water was, they went down into it and the baptism took place while they were in it without making God a liar. Look at the emphasis: They went down into the water; they both went down into the water; they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. This kind of emphasis was not placed upon the fact that they came up out of the water. That fact is simply stated. Why the difference in the divine record? Simply because God knew that no one would ever be silly enough to deny that they both came up out of the water, but He knew at the same time that some men would deny that they both went down into it. So He fixed the matter so that it cannot be denied.

The Description of the Action

The third line of evidence that the action of baptism is immersion and only immersion in the Scriptures is the description God has given us of the action that took place in the water when men were baptized. This action is described as a “washing of the body” (Heb. 10:22). It is described as “the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:26). Paul describes it as “the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5). While water does not wash away our sins for the blood of Christ does that, yet the element in which we are to be baptized is water and by being dipped into the water the action is a washing of the body in water and is so described in the passages cited. We know how to wash things. By the widest spread of the imagination sprinkling or pouring do not represent a washing nor can a washing picture either sprinkling or pouring. Peter tells us that the purpose of the washing of our bodies in the action of baptism is not to get the body clean but through our obedience to obtain the cleansing of our hearts from an evil conscience (1 Peter 3:21; Heb. 9:13-14).

Baptism is also described in the scriptures as a burial and a resurrection. “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4). Here the action of baptism is plainly set forth under the figure of a burial and a resurrection. Even the most prejudiced mind should be able to readily see that a burial and resurrection cannot represent sprinkling or pouring. There can be no resemblance between sprinkling and pouring and a burial and resurrection. But when the body is dipped beneath the water in the obedience of baptism and raised up out of the water there is a burial and resurrection in form and God says this is what baptism is in its action.

Moreover, in the same passage Paul describes baptism as a “planting and a coming forth” (v. 5). This reenforces the fact that baptism cannot be sprinkling or pouring, for in no way can that action represent or be represented by a planting and a coming forth.

Heaven has authorized baptism, Christ has commanded it, every responsible person throughout this age is responsible for it and God will accept no substitute. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially substitute sprinkling for immersion until the council of Ravenna in 1311 A.D. The first case of sprinkling history records was Novation in 250 A.D. Later the Catholic Church refused to make him a saint until his bones were taken out of the grave and immersed. There is no Bible authority for sprinkling or pouring. Protestant denominationalism has inherited it from Roman Catholicism. There is not a passage either in the Old or New Testament in which God has commanded plain, unmixed (pure) water to be sprinkled on anybody for any purpose. No one should satisfy his conscience that he has been scripturally baptized when he has only been sprinkled or had water poured on him. Baptism is one in action and God has not left that action to the “convenience and preference of the candidate,” as denominational creeds teach.

Truth Magazine XXI: 17, pp. 268-269
April 28, 1977