Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

In the thinking of many religionists baptism is no more than a ritual. Its meaning is explained in a variety of ways, and to some it has no real meaning. While there is widespread agreement that water is the element prescribed in the New Testament for baptism, few acknowledge that baptism is necessary to the obtaining of forgiveness of sins.

If Baptism Is Not Necessary, Why Did Jesus Make It a Condition of Salvation?

After instructing the apostles to preach the gospel to every creature, the Lord said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15, 16). Note that Jesus did not say, “He that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved.” And He did not say, “He that believeth shall be saved whether he is baptized or not.” To the contrary Jesus said, “He that believeth and Is baptized shall be saved.”

On another occasion Jesus said, “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man . . .” (Matt. 7:24). This makes both hearing and doing essential to our being like a wise man. In like manner, Mk. 16:16 makes both belief and baptism essential to our being saved. Hearing without doing does not make one wise, and belief without baptism does not result in salvation. If two and two make four, two minus two cannot equal four. Belief and baptism must not be interpreted to mean belief minus baptism.

If Baptism Is Not Necessary, Why Did Peter Teach That It Is for Remission of Sins

On Pentecost, Peter preached that Jesus is both Lord and Christ. His hearers, pricked in their heart with conviction, asked what to do. Peter replied, “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” (Acts 2:38). How can one admit that repentance is for (unto) the remission of sins but deny that baptism is for that purpose?

When Peter said in Acts 3:19, “Repent ye therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,” no one takes that to mean that repentance is necessary but being converted is non-essential. If Acts 3:19 makes both repentance and being converted necessary to blotting out of sins, Acts 2:38 makes both repentance and baptism necessary to remission of sins.

If Baptism Is Not Necessary, Why Was Saul Told To “Be Baptized And Wash Away Thy Sins?”

A disciple named Ananias was sent to Saul, a praying penitent man, in Damascus. “And now why tarriest thou?” said Ananias “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name, of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Were Saul’s sins already washed away? If so, why was he told to “wash away thy sins”?

It will not help to say this washing was symbolic. One might as well argue that the arising was symbolic rather than real, or that the baptism was symbolic rather than actual, or that the calling on the Lord was only symbolic rather than genuine calling, as to contend that the washing away of sins was only a symbolic portrayal. The language of Ananias clearly implies that Saul was still a sinner until he was baptized.

If Baptism Is Not Necessary, Why Did Paul Regard It As a Prerequisite for the New Life?

Paul wrote, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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” (Rom. 6:3, 4).

Baptism stands between the sinner and his entrance into Jesus Christ. Baptism puts one into Jesus Christ. And baptism puts one into the death of the Lord where the benefits of His shed blood are to be received. Furthermore, baptism enables one to enter into “newness of life.” The theory of salvation before baptism would have one walking in newness of life before the old man is buried.

If Baptism Is Not Necessary, Why Does the Bible Say That It Saves?

According to the apostle Peter, “eight souls were saved by water” in Noah’s day. The water saved them in that it carried the ark with its occupants from the old sin-cursed world to a new beginning. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21).

Baptism doth now save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ! That is the gist of Peter’s statement. Just as water “saved” eight people who were in the ark, baptism “doth also now save us.” Many argue that baptism doth NOT save us. Peter said baptism doth NOW save us. Which do you accept, the teaching of the Bible, or the teaching of fallible men?

Reader, if you have not obeyed the Lord in baptism for the remission of sins, do it today.

Truth Magazine XX: 45, p. 706
November 11, 1976

By Guthrie Dean

I call your attention to a study of 2 John 9-11. False guides, who teach “the Man without the Plan,” maintain that “the doctrine of Christ” refers only to the teaching regarding the deity of Jesus. This fits into their man-without-the-plan theology. Brother Ketcherside and his associates also contend that “the doctrine of Christ” refers only to the deity of Jesus. This fits into their “fellowship-everyone-who-believes-in-Jesus” theory. But the word “doctrine” here is didache and refers to “the doctrine which has God, Christ, the Lord, for its author and supporter” (Thayer’s Lexicon). The Analytical Greek Lexicon, Green’s Lexicon, and Vine’s Word Study, also define “doctrine” as “teaching, instruction, what is taught.” Though this “doctrine of Christ” might well include what He taught about His deity, it nevertheless refers to what Christ taught. Brother Guy N. Woods, in his Commentary on 2 John, writes: “The ‘teaching of Christ’ here is not teaching about Christ, or teaching which is Christian in substance or nature; it is the teaching which Christ did personally and through those whom he inspired. It is the teaching of Christ, because he is, in the final analysis, its author, and from him it issued. It is thus an infallible standard, and no deviation from it is possible without apostasy.”

Commenting on verse 9, Albert Barnes suggests that it is the doctrine which Christ taught, thus agreeing with Macknight whom he mentions in this connection. Johnson has it “The teaching, the Gospel.” Rowe and Klingman apply it to “what is revealed in the gospel.” N. T. Caton, in his commentary, states: “One abiding in Christ, observing his doctrine, possesses both Christ and the Father.” Pulpit Commentary reads: “The doctrine of Christ, we understand as meaning the truth which Christ himself taught.” Vincent’s Word Studies states: “Doctrine of Christ. Not the teaching concerning Christ, but the teaching of Christ Himself and of His apostles. See Heb. 2:3. So according to New Testament usage. See John 18:19; Acts 2:12; Rev. 2:14, 15.”

Translations that render it anything besides simply “doctrine” or “teaching” all seem to agree that Didache (doctrine) refers to Christ’s Teachings. Among these translations are The Jerusalem Bible, Morlie’s Simplified New Testament, J. B. Phillips, The Living New Testament, An American Translation, Centenary Translation, the Amplified New Testament, and the Berkeley Version. The Amplified reads: “Anyone who runs on ahead (of God) and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ-who is not content with what He taught-does no have God.” Please study the text again before you are willing to give up on the “orthodox” usage we have made of 2 John 9-11 down through the years. It still reads the same, and still means what it says. We cannot fellowship those who do not teach the gospel that Christ taught. We cannot bid them Godspeed.

Truth Magazine XX: 44, pp. 701-702
November 4, 1976

By Irvin Himmel

For twenty-five years (1917-1942) the Watch Tower Society, hierarchical organization of the group known today as “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” was under the leadership of J. F. Rutherford. Of the many writings that came from his pen, none is more vivid than a 128-page book entitled Millions Now Living Will Never Die! The book was published in 1920.

World Ended in 1914

Rutherford argued that the word “world” in the Bible means an epoch or dispensation of time. He reasoned that a “world” existed from the time of Eden to the flood, then a new “world” began which was to last until the coming of the Messiah’s kingdom. He declared that 1914 marked the end of the second world and the beginning of a new period

“We therefore propose to prove in this argument that the social order of things, the second world, legally ended in 1914, and since that time has been and is passing away; that the new order of things is coming in, to take its place; that within a definite period of time the old order will be completely eradicated and the new order in full sway; and that these things shall take place within the time of the present generation and that therefore there are millions of people now living on earth who will see them take place, to whom everlasting life will be offered and who, if they accept it upon the terms offered and obey those terms, will never die” (p. 12).

A clever system of interpretation still used by Jehovah’s Witnesses-a conglomeration of figures from assorted passages wherever needed-made possible the arbitrary date of 1914. So Rutherford wrote with the sound of confidence in 1920:

” . . .that the old world legally ended in 1914 and the process of removing the worn out systems in now progressing, preparatory to the inauguration of Messiah’s kingdom” (p. 19).

Abraham and Others to be Resurrected in 1925

By a similar method of calculation, Rutherford announced:.

“That period of time beginning 1575 before A. D. 1 of necessity would end in the fall of the year 1925, at which time the type ends and the great antitype must begin. What, then, should we expect to take place? In the type there must be a full restoration; therefore the great antitype must mark the beginning of restoration of all things. The chief thing to he restored is the human race to life; and since other Scriptures definitely fix the fact that there will be a resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other faithful ones of old, and that these will have the first favor, we may expect 1925 to witness the return of these faithful men of Israel from the condition of death, being resurrected and fully restored to perfect humanity and made the visible, legal representatives of the new order of things on earth” (p. 88).

“As we have heretofore stated, the great jubilee cycle is due to begin in 1925 . . . They are to be resurrected as perfect men and constitute the princes or rulers in the earth . . . Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews chapter eleven, to the condition of human perfection” (pp. 89, 90).

“Based upon the argument heretofore set forth, then, that the old order of things, the old world, is ending and is therefore passing away, and that the new order is coming in, and that 1925 shall mark the resurrection of the faithful worthies of old and the beginning of reconstruction, it is reasonable to conclude that millions of people now on the earth will he still on the earth in 1925” (p. 97).

Rutherford died in 1942 and his calculated resurrection of Abraham and others had not taken place. In 1943, the Watch Tower Society published a book called “The Truth Shall Make You Free, ” in which it is stated, “there is hope that these faithful men of old may be resurrected in the near future” (p. 358). It is now more than thirty years later, and still no appearance of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob from the dead!

Russell, Rutherford, and others of Watchtower fame have set dates when there is no Biblical basis for such calculations. Rutherford was manifestly wrong in his interpretations about 1925, so why put confidence in such a nian and his teachings? Today’s publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses are largely a rehash of Rutherford’s books and pamphlets. The Bible, not Watch Tower literature, should be man’s guide in all that pertains to his faith and practice.

Truth Magazine XX: 44, pp. 700-701
November 4, 1976

By Ron Halbrook

Each of the following errors will enlarge the circle of unity and fellowship. But this enlarged circle is wholly manmade. It is not Bible unity. Since it is not scriptural unity, it is not pleasing to God.

I. We Are All Brethren In Error. (i.e., every Christian and all congregations are involved in the sinful practices of doctrinal error). The grace of God is ours if we obey the “gospel.” Error in “doctrine” does not remove us from God’s Grace. Those in one kind of doctrinal error can accept those in another kind.

This concept rests partly on a supposed distortion between “gospel” and “doctrine.” The distortion is false. After Jesus taught on such basic concepts as (1) the importance of humility, repentance, and longing after God if man is to be spiritually blessed” (2) “no man can serve two masters; (3) “enter ye in at the strait gate;” (4) “not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but, he that doeth the will of my Fattier which is in heaven;” after his speaking on such basic principles as would admittedly be included in the “gospel,” Matthew observes, “The people were astonished at his doctrine” (Matt. 7:28).

Furthermore, after one becomes a Christian, if he then teaches the necessity of day observance or circumcision that would have to fall in the so-called “doctrine” department. In which case, such teaching would not be a matter of “gospel” nor would it remove the teacher from God’s grace. Yet Paul’s letter to the Galatians deals with those teaching such “doctrinal” error and charges them with perverting “the gospel of Christ” (1:7-9; 4:10; 5:6). Paul says of those who abide such things, “Ye are fallen from grace” (5:4).

The truth of the matter is, then, that, “Whosoever committeth sin trangresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 Jn. 3:4) The Bible knows nothing about sin which violates the gospel as distinguished from sin which violates the doctrine, as though the results were any different. The sinful practices of error will cause us to be lost if not repented of.

II. None Of Us Knows Everything About The Word Of God; therefore, the argument says, all of us are involved in sin of one kind or another. Those who practice one sort of sin are received in God’s grace along with those who practice another sort. Since God accepts us in this situation, we should accept one another.

The problem here is passing from a true promise to a false conclusion. Truly, none of us knows everything in the Bible. The argument says therefore we are all continuingto practice sin of one kind of another. Non sequitur! In Rom. 14:2-3, Paul deals with certain brethern who did not understand that a Christian may eat any food. But he does not argue therefore they sinned, and since all of us are continuing in sin one way or another we ought to accept these sinful brethern. In effect he says what 1 Cor. 8:8 says, “But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.” In Romans, he puts it this way, “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men” (14:17-18).

We may have any number of misunderstandings; all of us certainly need to grow in grace and knowledge. But sin is some specific violation of the law of Christ; we call misunderstand a passage without violating any law; we can eat meat or never eat it, without violating any law. Sin is clearly defined in the word of God. It is not an intricate subject. One does not have to live a lifetime before he knows what it is. God’s revelation does not weave a web of philosophy which one must learn to unravel before he can understand what sin is. So while we will continue in a study of many things in the Old and New Testaments throughout our life, that does not mean we continue in the practice of sin throughout our life. Study and growth must be a habit, a constant pattern in the life of a Christian. (2 Pet. 1:5ff). Sin cannot be a habit, a constant pattern in the life of God’s child (1 Jn. 3:9).

III. The Personal Obedience Or Righteousness Of Christ Is Imputed To The Christian instead of the disobedience or unrighteousness the Christian might practice. Some claim the personal righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Christian to make up for only certain kinds of sins, and some say all sins in the life of a Christian are taken care of this way.

The Bible teaches predestination, but not John Calvin’s theory of it. Even so, the Bible teaches imputed righteousness, but not John Calvins theory of it. In brief, Calvin explained imputed righteousness this way. God transfers or imputes the righetousness of Christ (the perfect obedience of Christ) to the account of the Christian (who, oil account of his inherited sinful nature, continuously breaks God’s law). It is interesting to notice the Catholic theory which Calvin sought to escape. Supposedly, a “treasury of grace”–the obedience and good works of deceased saints–existed; God could transfer or impute the merit of righteous deeds of dead saints to the Christian who breaks God’s law, or even to a mail in “Purgatory.”

“For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness . . . . . it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe oil him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:3, 23-25). We come to God by obedient faith and maintain our relationship with Him by obedient faith, just as is seen in, the life of Abraham, “As it is written, The just shall live by faith” (1:17). A Christian will sin from time to time; none will be able to say to God, “I lived a sinlessly perfect life.” God by grace counts or imputes our obedient faith “for (eis, in order to, unto; cf. Acts 2:38) righteousness.” He first recognizes or counts to us the sins we commit; then as we meet the required conditions for forgiveness, He washes those sins away through the blood of Christ (Acts 8:21-24; 1 Jn. 1:7-9; 2:1).

“Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without word saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to Whom the Lord will not impute sin” (Rom. 4:6-8). When did David know the blessedness of having righteousness put to his account in place of sin which he had committed? When David met the condition of forgiveness- -obedient faith–in this case, confession of his sin! Paul is quoting David from the 32nd Psalm. Before he met the condition of forgiveness, he did not know the blessedness of forgiveness. “When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring (i.e. groaning, suffering, misery) all the day long.” But then, “I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin” (vv. 3-5). By obedient faith David received forgiveness and knew the blessedness of an imputed righteousness– certainly not an earned righteousness, for he had in fact sinned. If he had never sinned, if he “were justified by works, he hath whereof to glorry . . . . Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoried of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness (Rom. 4:1-5).

Since many Christians in this generation are unacquainted with the Calvinist’s theory of imputed righteousness, perhaps some resource material will be of help.

In 1536 the first edition (and in 1559 the final one) of John Calvin’s famous work appeared, In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter XI (“The Way We Receive The Grace of Christ”), Section 23 says,

“From this it is also evident that we are justified before God solely by the intercession of Christ’s righteousness. This is equivalent to saying that man is not righteous in himself but because the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation–something worth carefully noting. . . For in such a way does the Lord Christ share his righteousness with us that in some wonderful manner, he pours into us enough of his power to meet the judgment of God . . . . To declare that by him alone we are accounted righteous, what else is this but to lodge our righteousness in Christ’s obedience, because the obedience of Christ is reckoned to us as if it were our own?”

Calvin tries to prove his theory by quoting, “For as by one mail’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall iliany be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19). Calvin thought Adam’s “disobedience” was imputed to us, and then, Christ’s “obedience.” Adam’s sin actually made only Adam guilty; our sin makes its guilty; it is true Adam’s one act of sin introduced sin and death into the world. Similarly, Christ’s one act of obedience brought forgiveness and life into the world. What was that obedience? “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God . . . . we are sanctified through the offering of the body-of Jesus Christ once for all . . . . he . . offered one sacrifice for sins for ever” (Heb. 10:7-12). Down goes Calvin’s theory!

Protestant Reformation “divines” further systematized many of Calvin’s theories in The Westminister Confession of Faith of 1647. Chapter XI, Section I says,

“Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing (Sic) wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them. . .”

The Westminister Shorter Catechism of 1647 asks in question 33, “What is justification?” The answer given is, “Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.”

Presbyterian and Baptist churches have been especially noted for perpetuating these theories of Calvin. The Baptist Encyclopedia of 1881, Vol. I, as well as many modern Baptist publications, contain such statements as (under the heading “Justification”), “He imputes or reckons his righteousness to every one of them, and it becomes their own just as really as if they had ‘wrought it out’ for themselves.” “By the righteousness of Christ we are to understand his complete submission to the precepts and penalties of the law of God, his perfect earthly obedience . . . ; these he places the credit of each member of his elect family.” The Constitution of The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (1960) contains the Westminister Confession and Shorter Catechism as quoted above.

In recent years, some brethern have imbibed these theories. Discussing “Truth, Error, and the Grace of God,” one brother said, “Because of His obedience, those who are in Him can be saved although they do never achieve perfect obedience themselves.” “But there is a sphere where sin is not imputed to the sinner and that sphere is in Christ.” “Christ is . . . a representative law-keeper who justifies others by His obedience” (Edward Fudge, Gospel Guardian, Feb. 12, 1970). Brethern are applying Calvin’s theory to those who use instrumental music in worship, centralization and institutionalism in church organization, social-gospel-ism, and such doctrines as premillennialism. With Calvin’s theory, concepts of unity and grace can be broadened to include such erring brethren.

Truth Magazine XX: 44, pp. 698-700
November 4, 1976