Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

In ancient times soldiers fought with swords. The sword was but a tool in the hand of the warrior. The action performed through the agency of the sword was credited to the soldier. God’s word is the Spirit’s sword. Paul instructed Christians to take “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Eph. 6:17). Some want to lay down the sword and have the Spirit fight for them in a supernatural way. This is not God’s plan.

In Eph. 5:18, 19, we are instructed to be “filled with the Spirit,” speaking to ourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. The parallel passage, Col. 3:16, says, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly . . . teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs . . . ” Considering these two passages together, we conclude that to be “filled with the Spirit” necessitates letting Christ’s word “dwell” in us. Some people suppose they can be filled with the Spirit apart from the word. This is not God’s plan.

Many preachers teach that there must be a direct operation of the Spirit on the heart before one can be converted. In the Bible, in every case of conversion, the word of the gospel was preached as the means of bringing the sinner to God. This leads to the conclusion that the Spirit operates through the word to convert the lost.

The word was revealed by the Spirit and is the Spirit’s instrument for converting the lost, leading the children of God, producing the fruit of the Spirit, and filling our hearts. Denominationalism makes the Spirit’s work mystical, inexplicable, and irresistible. Whatever the word of God discloses about the Spirit’s workingwe should accept, but let no operation be chargedto the Spirit unless the word teaches it. All we can know about the Spirit and His functioning is what we learn through the word.

Truth Magazine XX: 49, p. 779
December 9, 1976

By Ron Halbrook

For the truth’s sake, members of churches of Christ must respect what God revealed about the organization of the local church. Either there is a pattern revealed in the Bible for local church organization and function, or there is none. If there is no pattern, then no organizational arrangement under the sun could violate the pattern! Everything from intercongregational “steering committees” to full-grown missionary societies to diocesan bishoprics to denominational conventions to the papal system itself would be scriptural! In fact, that is the very viewpoint widely advocated today. Where there is no law, there is no sin.

But there is a pattern for the organization of the church. Where is it found? In the New Testament. The Scripture completely furnishes us unto “all good works.” The things written were meant to be kept “always in remembrance,” even after the apostolic men died. These things were to be committed to faithful men, “who shall be able to teach others also.” Yes, the New Testament Pattern for the Church is binding for all ages-and we are not too “smart” today to be exempted from that pattern. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught” in God’s Word (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:15; 2 Tim. 2:2; 2 Thess. 2:15).

In the New Testament days, as soon as there were qualified men, there were to be “elders in every church.” Acts 20:17 and 28 show that “elders” are the same as “overseers” (same word as bishop), and they are to “feed” or tend or pastorize (function as a pastor or shepherd) the flock. The qualifications for elders are specified in Scripture, and there was never one pastor or elder or presbyter over one church but always a plurality over each church. The local eldership had a tremendous responsibility, but that work was limited to overseeing the local church. There were no outside organizations latched on to the church, nor sub-organizations within the local church, nor did the eldership of one church ever oversee the work (or any part of the work) of other churches (Acts 14:23; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2; Phil, 1:1).

In the early 1800’s, there was a return to the simple New Testament pattern. This effort to restore the Gospel and the Church to their original purity was called “The Restoration Movement.” But in 1849, representatives from many churches came together to form the American Christian Missionary Society-thus creating an inter-congregational organization outside the local church. That led to a great falling away from the Bible pattern for the work, worship, and organization of the church; the Christian Churches and the Disciples of -Christ denominations resulted. Many churches of Christ are headed down the same road of apostasy today. The present Nashville “Let Freedom Ring” Campaign is just one sign of apostasy. It is directed by an inter-congregational “steering committee” made up of representatives of many churches, latched on to the Radnor church of Nashville, but capable of “pulling up stakes” and latching on to another church or just existing independently.

Remember, brethren: Either there is a Bible pattern, or there is not. Which is it? Look before you leap!

Truth Magazine XX: 49, pp. 778-779
December 9, 1976

By Hoyt H.Houchen

How often have we seen the above statement in Isa. 1:18 used by brethren as an invitation to others to come and study the Bible? It frequently appears as a motto at the bottom of church ads in newspapers, on bill boards, and on business cards of preachers. We would not at all discourage any Christian from inviting others to study with him; in fact, he should be encouraged to do it. But Isa. 1:18 should not be used as the invitation. It is just another passage which brethren frequently misapply.

What is the context of Isa. 1:18? It is an appeal by God to His people to consider a choice. The prophet Isaiah had declared the sins of the people in his day. They are described as a “sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that deal corruptly” (Isa. 1:4). They were estranged from Jehovah, and He, through the prophet Isaiah, was pleading with the people to return to Him. Having rebuked apostate Israel, the prophet exhorted this nation to wash and be clean from her defilement and to be submissive to God. Hear him: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Isa. 1:16,17).

Then comes the plea. “Come now, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool” (Isa. 1:18). Now, what is the choice? God has offered cleansing to His people. It is a matter of Israel either choosing to be willing and obedient (vs. 19) or to refuse and rebel (vs. 20). The choice belonged to the people. If they chose to do the former they would eat the good of the land. That is, they would not be invaded and strangers would not eat their crops. (“The good of the land” commonly referred to its produce, Gen. 45:18,20; Ezra 9:12; Neh. 9:36; Jer. 2:7). But if the people chose to do the latter, they would be devoured with the sword.

The words of Isa. 1:18 are actually a challenge to Israel to a formal trial. One expositor has called this chapter “a trial at law” but he suggests that it is far more a personal than a legal controversy.(1) Delitzsch states that the Hebrew word nocach is used in a reciprocal sense, and with the same meaning as nishpat in Isa. 43:26.(2) The idea is, that like a court of justice, the parties reciprocally state the grounds of their cause. In Amos 4:12, God employs the imagery of battle and challenges Israel to a contest on the battlefield: “Prepare to meet thy God, O Israel.” Here in Isa. 1:18 He challenges His people to meet with Him and test their case in court. God is stating the same thing in Isa. 46:3 where he says: ” . . . let us plead together: set forth thy cause.” God has examined Israel’s sins and now He offers His compassion. God’s verdict is “guilty” but the nation has the option of returning to Jehovah. Israel has all to gain and nothing to lose by returning to Jehovah. She would lose everything by being rebellious and disobedient. This is what Israel must consider. It is acquittal or condemnation, depending upon Israel’s decision. Israel is worthy of death. Yet, Jehovah does not treat Israel according to His retributive justice, but according to His free compassion.(3)

Jehovah accommodates their differences with the words: “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” This is the overture of mercy extended to a sinful nation if it will only repent.

It is always in order for brethren to invite friends and neighbors to the study of God’s word for an honest investigation of truth. It is never in order to take a passage out of its proper setting and misapply it. When Isa. 1:18 is studied within the sphere of its background and circumstances, it can only be understood to mean simply that God invited Israel to court. There could be no actual dispute. The sins of Israel were examined, she was found guilty, and God offered His proposition: repent or perish. The offer to come and reason (plead) was extended by God to man. This was not an invitation from one man to another man. May we always make every effort to be the best Bible students possible, analyzing each Scripture as accurately as we can, with the sincere desire to always arrive at truth.

Endnotes

1. Sir George Adam Smith, The Expositor’s Bible (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1956), Vol. 3, p. 618.

2. Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1967), Vol. 1, p. 98.

3. Ibid., p. 98.

Truth Magazine XX: 49, pp. 777-778
December 9, 1976

By Bob Felkner

I am presenting this material in response to a book by Joe T. Odle, entitled, Why I Am A Baptist. The book contains sermons, testimonies, and articles by “Representative Baptists.”

The fact is, I used to be a Baptist. I grew up in an area which was predominately Baptist. I was born in Waco, Texas, the home of a large Baptist University. My mother and father are Baptists; my brothers are Baptists; my sister is a Baptist; their spouses and children are Baptists; my grandmother and grandfather were Baptists; my aunts, uncles, and cousins are Baptists; many of my closest friends are Baptists, and I want to tell you plainly, that I love those Baptists. In fact, that is the reason I am so motivated to expose the error of Baptist doctrine.

“Camelites”?

Historically, Baptists have been at odds with Christians, During the last century, there were many heated controversies between members of the Baptist Church and members of the church of Christ. Various remarks in Odle’s book show that Baptists still have strong feelings against the things we teach. An unfortunate practice among Baptists is to resort to prejudicial name-calling. This is done on page twenty-one of the book where the term “Campbellite” is employed. I used to think that the “Camelites” had something to do with camels. I certainly agree with the statement on page sixty, which says, “we must go . . . beyond Alexander Campbell . . . . ” Since the sermon on page fifty-three mentions the Church of Christ, I feel an even stronger obligation to review Baptist doctrine and expose its falsehood. Members of the church of Christ believe that there is only one church, and that is the one which Jesus promised to build (Matt. 16:18), Just any old church will not suffice. If we are going to be saved, we must be members of the true church that Jesus purchased with His blood (Acts 20:28). We cannot assume that “one church is as good as another.” A church that practices false doctrine is not as good as a church that practices the doctrine of Christ. Sincerity is not enough to save your soul. Listen to one of the Baptists: “I cannot accept the theory that it makes no difference what one believes, just so he is sincere, or that one church is as good as another. I can think of no other realm in which we would take that position” (Odle, p. 60).

Church Membership

Although Baptists claim they find their doctrine in the New Testament, I disagree. When they practice Baptist doctrine, they are rejecting the doctrine of Christ. “To the Baptists the New Testament and the New Testament alone, must be the one and final authority for all they do and preach” (Odle, p. 94). However, when we compare Baptist doctrine to the New Testament, we find no support for the Baptists. That is why I am not a Baptist.

I want to provide a few specific examples that will show the difference between being a Baptist and being a Christian. I want to show you why I am not a Baptist.

I am not a Baptist because Baptists are wrong when they say a person can be saved outside the New Testament church. “Dr. Buell Kazee says, ‘Baptists believe that all who repent toward God and put their faith in the Lord Jesus are saved, anywhere, everywhere, under any condition, without church membership, without baptism, in any church or denomination, or with any kind of baptism'” (Odle, p. 99). In essence, Baptists teach that a man can be saved without church membership. I will expose this error by showing that church membership is required.

On the day of Pentecost, those who received the word and were baptized were added to the church, for the church consisted of the saved. Those who remained outside the church were not Christians, and they did not have the benefits of Christ’s blood. Remember, He purchased the church with His blood, and that is why we must be members of it (Acts 20:28). Without church membership, we are without the blood of Christ. From the scriptures we learn that there is only one body and we are baptized into that body (Eph. 4:4; 1 Cor. 12:13). That one body is the spiritual body of Christ, and we must be in that body to be saved. It is true that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, but we are not saved by “faith only.” Take a good look at Galatians 3:26-27: “For ye are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.” This passage teaches that those who had an active faith were baptized into the spiritual body of Christ. Romans 6:3 says: “Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” Baptism puts us into the body of Christ and into the benefits of His death. When we are baptized into Christ, we become new creatures who are free from sin (2 Cor. 5: 17).

When we are baptized into the one body, which is the body of Christ, we are then members of His church. A little logic will clarify this truth:

The church is the spiritual body of Christ – Col. 1:18.

We must be in the spiritual body of Christ to be saved.

Therefore, we must be in the church to be saved.

The one body is the church – Eph. 4:4; Col. 1:18.

Christ is the savior of the body – Eph. 5:23.

Therefore, He is the savior of the church.

From the scriptures we see that one must be a member of the New Testament church in order to be saved. Baptists teach that a man can be saved “without church membership,” and that is why I am not a Baptist.

Baptism

Another reason I am not a Baptist is because Baptists are wrong when they say that baptism is not essential for salvation. Let us again compare Baptist doctrine with the doctrine of Christ. “Baptism, to the Baptist, has nothing to do with making a person a Christian, but when a person is baptized it is to proclaim to the world that he is a Christian” (Odle, p. 105). Our Lord speaks to us today through His inspired word, which says, “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21). There are many things which save us. We are saved by the grace of God (Eph. 2:8); we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1); we are saved by the blood of Christ (Rev. 1:5), and we are saved by baptism (1 Pet. 3:21). But in an attempt to defend their false doctrine, Baptists will explain that baptism is “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God” (1 Pet. 3:21). Evidently, they think we have never noticed the rest of that passage; but we have, and we know that the purpose of baptism is to take away the filth of the soul, and not “the filth of the flesh.” Baptists will also say that the purpose of baptism is to “have a good conscience toward God.” But if you understand the scriptures, you cannot “have a good conscience toward God” while you are still in your sins. That is why baptism is essential, because baptism is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). When a person is baptized, he is indicating his desire to “have a good conscience.” When he is baptized scripturally, he becomes free from sin, and that is when his conscience is made clear. He can then go “on his way rejoicing” (Acts 8:38-39). If a Baptist preacher had preached to the Eunuch, he would have had him rejoicing two or three weeks before his baptism.

Another good example is that of the jailor. He was baptized for the remission of his sins, and his conscience was clear. It was after his baptism that he “rejoiced greatly” (Acts 16:33-34). There is no doubt about it, “baptism doth also now save us.” Jesus expressed the same truth when He said: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). As they do with 1 Peter 3:21, Baptists like to ignore the first part of this passage and emphasize the latter part. This is done in an attempt to e-emphasize the essentiality of baptism. But the first part of the statement is clear enough to show that every man must believe in Christ and be baptized to receive the forgiveness that is in Christ. Certainly, there would be no need of baptizing an unbeliever. To be valid, belief must precede baptism. When Baptists begin losing the argument about the meaning of this verse, they will assert that it is a spurious text. Although two of the oldest and best manuscripts do not include Mark 16:920, it is imperative to observe the positive evidence. “In favor of Mark 16:9-20 there are a host of witnesses: the Alexandrian Manuscript, the Ephraern Manuscript, Codex Bezae, other early unicials, all late unicials and cursives, five old Latin authorities plus the Vulgate, the Old Syriac manuscript, the Syriac Peshitta version, and many other versions. Besides, there is a plain statement from Irenaeus (early Christian writer) which clearly shows the existence of Mark 16:9-20 in the second century and the belief that Mark was its author” (Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got The Bible, p. 38).

Baptists say: “Baptism has nothing to do with salvation” (Odle, p. 53). They contend that “baptism is not essential for salvation” (Odle, p. 107). However, the passages we have already cited disprove the Baptist position. In addition, Acts 2:38 declares: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Look at the obvious conflict between Baptist doctrine and the Bible. Baptists say, “baptism is not essential for salvation,” but the inspired writer of the New Testament says baptism is “for the remission of sins.” Now, which one should we believe? I chose to believe the inspired writer, and that is why I am not a Baptist.

Baptists say that baptism “identifies one with a movement. This is the exact reason Christ was baptized. Baptism, for him, was not to wash away his sin – he had committed no sin” (Odle, p. 53). Since Christ had committed no sin, we cannot compare our baptism with His. We have committed sin; therefore, we should be baptized for the same purpose as sinners during New Testament times. Saul (Paul) was a sinner who was told to be baptized. But what was the purpose of his baptism? Was it to identify him with a movement? Did Ananias tell Saul to “arise, and be baptized, and identify with a movement”? Certainly not! Then what did he say? What was the purpose of Saul’s baptism? Ananias told him to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). In this statement, we see the purpose of baptism; it is to “wash away thy sins.” During all the years that I was a Baptist, I never heard a Baptist preacher quote that verse. I have never heard a Baptist say, “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins,” and that is another reason why I am not a Baptist.

Baptists claim: “Baptism is not an obligation, it is an opportunity” (Odle, p. 53). In contrast to Baptist doctrine, the Bible teaches that baptism is a command that must be obeyed. When Peter preached to the household of Cornelius, “he commanded them to be baptized” (Acts 10:48). Baptists say it “is not an obligation,” but the Bible says it is a command. You should readily see why I am not a Baptist. (Continued Next Issue)

Truth Magazine XX: 49, pp. 775-777
December 9, 1976