Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In the May, 1976 issue of Restoration Review, editor Leroy Garrett considered another one of the passages which are supposedly abused by the brethren. Of course, the only ones who abuse the Bible in the manner described by Garrett are those of us who oppose unauthorized innovations; the Christian Church people who introduced the innovations were never guilty of abusing the word of God. At least, Brother Garrett never cites any of their abuses; instead, he concentrates on the abuses of those who oppose unauthorized perversions of the worship and work of the church. His purpose is blatantly obvious: he is trying to disarm every passage which we use to ward off the false teacher. So, he turns again to consider another passage; for this month, he chose 1 Cor. 1:10. Here is the verse:

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the, same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye he perfectly joined together in the same mind and In the same judgment.

Here is Garrett’s understanding of how we abuse this passage:

Does this passage enjoin believers to see everything in the Bible alike? Does it teach that we must see eye to eye on all points of doctrine, that there can be no honest differences of opinion?

This is what we are told. We must all speak the same thing! If we study prophecy in the Old Covenant scriptures, we must come up with identical positions . . . .

On and on it goes, almost endlessly. We have to speak “the same thing” on whether congregations may cooperate and on what basis (A division has occurred In last two decades over the support of Herald of Truth TV/ Radio). We have to speak “the same thing” on instrumental music, otherwise the division must continue another century.(1)

If in your study of this passage, you understand that Christ demands Christians to speak the same thing, your interpretation of that passage is an abuse of it, according to Garrett.

1 Corinthians 1:10

Before going any further with a review of Garrett’s material, let us carefully examine what 1 Cor. 1:10 actually teaches.

Now I beseech you, brethren (parakalo de humas, adelphoi). The particle de is adversative to contrast the things for which Paul was thankful (1:4-9) with the problems with which he must now contend. Parakalo (I beseech) does not connote “to beg” as much as it does “to exhort.” Paul frequently introduced his exhortations with parakalo (Rom. 12:1; 2 Cor. 10:1; 1 Thess. 4:1; etc.). The apostle does not forget that, though guilty of promoting separations, all of the body are brethren.(2) In using this word, Paul is appealing to their better senses; the Corinthians recognize that they are all born again of the same Father. Why, then, should they be divided?

By the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (din tou onomatos . . . Christou). Every morsel of respect which the Corinthians had for Jesus is summoned by Paul to call upon them to listen to what he had to say. His authority over them as an apostle was through Jesus Christ. The basis on which he appeals for their unity is Jesus Himself. They should want to be reconciled to one another because Jesus wants them to be united. He prayed, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (Jn. 17:20-21). Thus, Paul related this earthly problem to their spiritual relationship with Jesus; the Corinthians could not maintain their allegiance to Christ and allow the congregation at Corinth to be divided.

That ye all speak the same thing (hina to auto legete pantes’). “We have here a strictly classical expression. It is used of political communities which are free from factions, or of different states which entertain friendly relations with each other. Thus to auto legein is ‘to be at peace,’ or ‘to make up differences.’ . . . Here the second idea to make up differences is the prominent one, and is carried out in katertismenol below, where the same political metaphor is used . . . The marked classical coloring of such passages as this leaves a much stronger impression of St. Paul’s acquaintance with classical writers than the rare occasional quotations which occur in his writings.”(3)Obviously, the appeal for the brethren to “speak the same thing” is to be contrasted with the existing state of affairs in Corinth: “I am of Paul; I of Apollos; I of Cephas; and I of Christ.” The confused state of affairs could not be tolerated; brethren must learn to “speak the same the same thing.”

And that there may be no divisions among you (kai me e en humin schismata). Schisma (division) was originally used to designate a tear in a piece of material such as might be caused by putting new wine into old wine skins (Mt. 9:16; Mk. 2:21). Then, the word was used to refer to the state of a community which occurs when different opinions which threaten its unity exist in it as, for example, existed in Judaism when different opinions were entertained concerning Jesus (Jn. 7:43; 9:16; 10:19). Thus, the Corinthian church was not formally divided although the differing doctrines and attitudes constituted definite tears in the community which could easily lead to an open breach of fellowship. The existence of the differing ideas in the church which threaten to disrupt the fellowship of the church cannot be ignored or tolerated. They are dangerous and must be curtailed. The manner in which Paul mentioned the schisms in this verse (e-pres. subj. of eimi) does not definitely state whether the schisms were actually present in Corinth; he waits until v. 11 to emphatically charge them with division.

But that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (ete de katerismenoi en to auto noi kai en te aute gnome). Paul continued his metaphor of the torn garment, a classical political metaphor, to describe the church at Corinth. The word “perfectly joined together” (katerismenos) is used to describe the repairing of torn fishing nets (Mt. 4:21; Mk. 1:19). Thus, Paul is instructing the Corinthians to re-sew the torn cloth that it may be restored to its original beauty, i.e. to mend the tears in the congregation caused by the differing opinions existing among them. Twentieth century Christians have been exposed to a divided Christianity so long that they not only accept it but also praise it. Some see virtues arising out of denominationalism (e.g. competition in evangelizing, a religious group fitted to every man, etc.). God does not appreciate rifts in Christianity anymore today than He did in 58 A.D. The church must never forget that preserving and restoring the unity of the body of Christ is still a part of its divine mission.

Several current theories for overcoming the divisions among Christianity completely ignore the divine instructions given in this verse regarding how to have unity in the body of Christ. The ecumenical movement, for example, encourages a “unity in diversity” basis of unity. The diversity to be tolerated ranges from evangelical churches to non-Christian religions. Others have sought union on the basis of some type of super organization such as the Catholic Church. Inside the Churches of Christ, some are presently promoting an ecumenical movement to reconcile the divisions among us. Like their denominational counterpart, these men are tolerant of doctrinal differences which range from the Disciples of Christ (the body which has within its fellowship modernists who deny the deity of Christ, the inspiration of the Scriptures, miracles, etc.) to the radical right-wing churches (such as the no Bible class, no located preacher, and no literature groups, etc.). This type of unity is one which ignores the issues which divided us and ignores Paul’s instructions for unity given in this verse.

Although noos (mind) and gn6mi (judgment) are synonyms,(4) they have distinctive meanings. Some understand mind to refer to theoretical understanding and judgment to be practical life. This distinction, though not totally inaccurate, is not sufficiently precise. The noos refers to the Christian way of thinking. The same word is used in 2:16 (the noos of Christ) to refer to the revelation delivered to the apostles by the Holy Spirit. Thus, when Paul urges the Christians to be of the same mind, he is urging them to have the mind of Christ, i.e. to accept the Christian revelation as the final authority in settling religious questions. The gn6me(judgment) refers to the manner of deciding a particular issue in question.(5)

Let me illustrate how the unity of the church can be maintained on the basis of Paul’s advice given in this verse. The question we shall consider is this: What is the action of baptism (baptisma)? Everybody must approach the matter with the same mind (noos); the inspired scriptures will be the final authority in answering the question. Approaching the matter in this way, the people studying the question turn to the Bible for guidance. Inasmuch as the Bible does not teach a multitude of doctrines on the subject and it is able to be understood, the different people will reach the one conclusion: Baptisma is immersion in water. Having reached the same conclusion (gnome), the body will all give the same answer (speak the same). In this manner, the unity of the church can be attained. So long as matters not authorized in the scriptures are not brought into the work and worship of the church there will be no divisions in the body of Christ. Scriptural unity can be attained or maintained only so long as brethren follow Paul’s instructions presented in this verse. Our first work is not to arrive at unity, but to conform ourselves to the standard of Divine Truth. Just as the unity of a choir is not gained by each singer striving to keep in harmony with his neighbor but by all following the prescribed notes of music, so also the unity of the Lord’s church can be attained only by all of us conforming to the revelation which He has given to us.

Having carefully worked our way through every phase of 1 Cor. 1:10, I think that we can appreciate and understand what the apostle taught and also see that what Garrett said regarding the abuse of the Scripture is no abuse at all.

Consistency

Garrett’s second charge regarding 1 Cor. 1:10 is that no one applies the passage consistently. He wrote,

The truth is that 1 Cor. 1:10, as abused in this manner, never has been, is not now, nor will it every be consistently practiced by any believer. The reason is simple: it is impossible. You may as well talk about our cells or genes all being alike, or our fingerprints all being alike (the FBI would be disappointed). Men do not think exactly alike about anything, much less the Bible, and it is asinine to argue that the scriptures enjoin what is so obviously impossible. In their saner moments all our party leaders will grant that there may be some differences of opinion and that some allowance should be made for diversity. Such an admission is a repudiation of their interpretation of 1 Cor. 1:10, for If that verse means what they say, on what basis can they make exceptions to its application? If we have to see eye to eye on instrumental music In order to be united, why not on every other point as well?(6)

Hence, he charged us, first of all, with an inconsistent application of our principles. He who lives in glas houses should not be throwing stones. I remind you that Garrett-the man who does not believe that we have to see all doctrinal matters alike-is the very same ma who has written approvingly of the church divisions in Cleburne, Texas and other areas which divisions occurred because the brethren could not agree to say th same thing about unity! Hence, Garrett believes that one must speak the same thing when it comes to unity that is, all brethren must agree to unity in diversity or else he will divide the church over it. At least, he has written approvingly of several such divisions in the past.

To further illustrate Garrett’s own inconsistency please read the following:

If you accept Jesus as Lord and obey him in baptism, I am to receive you, warts and all. It matters not at all of how right or wrong you may be on instrumental music or whatever your hang up might be on Herald of Truth.

Thanks be to God that we do not have to see eye to eye on all these issues that we have used as excuses for being torn asunder into separate camps. But we are to speak the same thing in reference to the Lordship of Jesus-the one faith, the one Lord, the one baptism.(7)

Notice that Garrett demands that all men believe in the Lordship of Jesus and baptism before they can be united. I have never seen any of these “unity-in-diversity” men who consistently applied their own principles. If unity in diversity is true, why must we agree that Jesus is the Son of God? Why can’t we go ahead and be one in spite of our differences over this matter? After all, it is impossible for all men to see everything just alike. “You might as well talk about our cells or genes being alike, or our fingerprints all being alike (the FBI would be disappointed). Men do not think exactly alike about anything (not even about whether Jesus is the Son of God-mw), much less the Bible, and it is asinine to argue that the scriptures enjoin what is so obviously impossible.” My brethren, the principles which must be conceded to accept unity in diversity will ultimately lead to universalism!

Garrett also charged us with another inconsistency; he charged us with making Paul contradict himself.

That very letter of 1 Corinthians shows that Paul could not have had sameness of viewpoint in mind. In chapter 8 he recognizes that some of them had “knowledge” about idols while others did not. In the early verses he states that he and other believers realize that an idol is nothing, and so whether meat has been sacrificed to an idol doesn’t matter. Then he says In verse 7: “However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak is defiled.”

Why doesn’t he tell those who did not have this “knowledge” to get with it and line up? He recognizes that such differences can and will exist. People are different, not only In temperament and background, but in their ability to make distinctions. He finally says, “if food is a cause of my brother’s falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall.” Here he recognizes an understandable difference In doctrine. He does not insist upon conformity. He rather Insists that It Is love, not knowledge, that builds up, and In that love brothers are to bear with each other. Unity in diversity! There Is of course no other kind of unity, whether it be in a marriage, in a legislative body, or in a congregation.(8)

Hence, he said that Paul himself did not believe in unity in doctrine. However, I remind you that Paul demanded uniformity in belief concerning the resurrection and even demanded disassociation from those who disagree (15:33-34) and that he demanded that all agree with what he wrote concerning the order of worship demanding that all who would not accept his authority on the matter were not to be recognized (14:37-38.) If what Garrett said about 1 Cor. 1:10 and unity in diversity is true, Paul did a poor job of following his own advice!

But, why could Paul tolerate differences in opinion regarding eating meats sacrificed to idols? First of all, he did not always tolerate these differences. Paul absolutely forbade (hence, unity in doctrine) any Christian to eat meats sacrificed to idols in an idol’s temple (cf. 10:14-22. However, in cases where the eating of meats sacrificed to idols was morally neutral (i.e. it made no difference in one’s relationship to God whether one ate or did not eat), he allowed a brother either to eat or not to eat. Hence, in matters of indifference brethren do not have to agree. Before this passage can be of any benefit to Garrett, he must prove that instrumental music, missionary societies (whether under a sponsoring church or independent), church support of benevolent and educational institutions, etc. are matters of indifference.

Conclusion

Once again the editor of Restoration Review has attempted to remove another passage from our arsenal of defense to be used against false teachers. Brethren, wake up to what he and others are doing. The time to arm ourselves for the fight is now!

Endnotes

1. Leroy Garrett, “The Word Abused . . . That You All Speak The Same Thing,” Restoration Review, Vol. 18, No. 5 (May, 1976), p. 282.

2. Many troubles and faults were to be found among the Corinthians and yet these do not sever the fraternal tie that binds them to Paul. While this is true and dare not be minimized, a deduction such as the following would be wholly contrary to Paul’s intention: that congregations may settle down permanently into evil conditions like those which existed in Corinth without impairing their fraternal relations with Paul and with those who are true to the word of God. For this entire letter is directed to remove the faults and the evils that had begun to show themselves in Corinth.

3. J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles of St. Paul (London: Macmillan and Co., 1904), p. 151.

4. The writer in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament sees no difference in their meanings in this verse.

5. Cf. Godet, Meyer, Vincent, and others.

6. Garrett, cit., p. 283.

7. Ibid. p. 286.

8. Ibid., p. 284.

Truth Magazine XX: 41, pp. 647-650
October 14, 1976

By Ed Welch

A light shines in my eye.

I turn and see a pure, multi-faceted diamond laying on a black velvet cloth. The light that glitters from this precious jewel is from the sun.

I reach and grasp this jewel in my hand and draw it close to my eyes. There are many fine cuts arranged in order. For each cut (facet) there is an adjacent cut (52 in all). These act as mirrors to the bright light. As I look through one of these mirrors I can see the facets on the other side, all arranged in perfect order.

I draw back and marvel at this precious stone. It is complete, perfect, and precious. It is its own perfect description. Any attempt to describe how each facet related to all the rest would require many volumes, especially if a description of each cut was included. A complete written description would be long and boring, and it could not compare with the original jewel.

The written word of God can be compared to a perfect, multi-faceted diamond. Let’s appreciate this gem for what it is and thank our Lord for giving it to us.

As a cut diamond proves there is a diamond cutter; because of its pattern, the word of God proves there is a Writer because of its written pattern. From Genesis to Revelation the pattern is God’s plan of salvation for man. Man falls in Genesis because of the serpent. Man is saved through Christ and the serpent is defeated in Revelation. The pattern is obvious.

A diamond has many facets and they all relate to each other to form the whole pattern. The individual lessons of the Bible relate to each other to reveal God’s pattern for man. When we study a lesson we can always see fringes of other lessons touching it. As we look closer at a lesson, many lessons can be seen that do not touch directly on the lesson we are looking at. The lesson of the Ethiopian conversion is an example of this. Books could be written on other Bible conversions, yet volumes could be written on how the Ethiopian might have used what he learned from Philip to convert others in Ethiopia.

As we grasp this Bible and move it away from us, we see this jewel with its many lessons glittering back at us from the utter darkness of the world. This light does not glitter in our eyes but, in our hearts. The light from God reflects from His lessons. Nothing is as complete, precious, pure or indestructible as His word (except God).

This precious jewel is freely given to all (rich or poor). Let us grasp this volume, treasure it, apply its lessons in our lives and thus be saved through Christ.

Truth Magazine XX: 41, p. 647
October 14, 1976

By C.W Scott

This question was forcibly and searchingly placed by the apostle Paul upon the hearts of the Hebrew Christians. Hebrews 2:1-3 is equally a challenge to Twentieth Century Christians. Early disciples of Christ either faithfully discharged their responsibilities or they neglected to teach or preach the gospel of Christ to others. We thank God for those who were active and faithful but with every generation there comes the need for more and more faithful brethren in the work of enlightening of others concerning that which provides salvation from sin and the hope of eternal life.

Many Christians and knowledgeable persons in the Lord’s church today face a fearful judgment because of a neglect in obeying the Lord’s last commands and commission for his followers to go into all the world preach, teach the gospel, baptize and in continuation oi the beginning works: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I “(Christ)” “have commanded” (Matt. 28:20). There is really no need of our trying to apologize for or hide our negligence of this all-important charge and duty. Surely, too many religious professors of our day have been too interested in secular matters, worldly pleasures and entertainments to permit the degree of concern that would insure the meeting of the Christian’s obligation of getting the saving gospel of Christ to those who so badly need it. I am afraid that we have made a very poor effort to get the truth to the poeple, our neighbors, our associates and even our own kin of brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives. Comparatively few people adjacent to the homes of Christians and places of worship have ever heard of the New Testament church’s life, work and worship.

The church of the Lord is identified by the Holy Spirit as being, “The pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). The Lord cannot possibly be satisfied with our failure to support and uphold the church and its work of getting the gospel unto a sinful world. Seriously, can you, my brother or sister in Christ, point to or name someone that you were instrumental in leading to the truth of Christ? Is there someone that became a Christian as a result of your revealing unto them the .gospel during the past year? Or, the last three years? Or, the last ten? Really, have you ever led anyone from a life of sin to that of a life of righteousness? If you have not, how do you expect to be saved? “Oh,” you may say, “Brother Scott, I always thought that such gospel activity was the work of preachers.” Now, it is true that a gospel preacher is to do such work but no one should overlook the fact that it is not his responsibility alone. Individuals can reach and convert those that the preacher can not reach with his sermons. If we refuse to carry the gospel to others we are refusing to heed the Lord’s very last command. To reject His charge and fail to aid others in becoming obedient to the gospel we are inviting the Saviour’s rejection of us.

In Romans 10 the inspired apostle Paul declared, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call upon him whom they have not believed? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!” In Ephesians 3:9-11, we are instructed that the plan of God is for the manifold wisdom of God to be made known through the church.

Sinners are lost and must hear the gospel. “For it” (the gospel) “is the power of God unto salvation, to everyone that believeth” (Rom. 1:16). Every person knowing the truth and enjoying ills blessings and privileges are, without question, obligated to tell others of the sweet story of the Cross of Christ personally and will also welcome the opportunity to support others morally and financially that give their life completely to the ministry of the word of God. One, however, is not exempt from doing his duty, endeavoring to teach others simply because they can truthfully claim they supported a gospel preacher in his regular support. It is the business of every child of God to study diligently the Bible and be able to point others to the “lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.”

Faithful Christians are teaching others the way of Jesus at every opportunity but there are others that are making little or no effort to convert the lost. Paul wrote Timothy (2 Tim. 2:24), “The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach” (read that again), “patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” In the second verse of the same chapter we have these words, “The things that thou has heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” Again, I question, what are you, what am I doing to reach others with the gospel of Christ? Have you or have I been careless and indifferent in the matter of teaching others? Has there been a serious default or neglect regarding the necessary support of those who have dedicated their lives to this great work? Let us awaken from the sleep of indifference and let us heed the instruction of the Lord who knew the world’s need in the First Century as well as the Twentieth Century. Jesus charged, “Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest” (Jn. 4:35).

Truth Magazine XX: 41, p. 646
October 14, 1976

By Cecil Willis

This week we are further concentrating our attention to a study of the purpose of baptism. In our last lesson we studied the statement of the Lord Jesus Christ made to His apostles just prior to His ascension, and saw that on that occasion, He sent the apostles into all the world with the responsibility of preaching a prescribed message. He commanded them to preach, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:16). It was seen that this passage was inspired of God, in spite of the claims of those who deny the necessity of Baptism that it is spurious. We furthermore saw that the Lord stated two requisites to salvation: faith and baptism. On the same criterion that one can say that baptism is not necessary, another could say that faith is likewise irrelevant, but with Jesus, both faith and baptism are indispensable to one’s salvation.

It is our purpose to further study the word of God concerning the reason one is to be baptized. It might be that there are some who think that we are spending too much time on the subject of baptism, and that we are giving too much emphasis to this specific commandment of the Lord, but be it remembered that not any of us can emphasize the importance of this commandment as did the Lord and His apostles. So many people are teaching error on the subject of baptism that we want to devote extra time to an exposure of this error and the elucidation of truth. Prior to our study of baptism, we consumed twelve lessons in studying the theme of faith, and four or five on repentance, and therefore I make no apology for spending several weeks studying this much misunderstood commandment of the Lord.

The Issues

To restate the issues that we are investigating might be worthwhile. The issue is: Is it necessary for one to be baptized? Is baptism essential to one’s salvation? For what purpose is one to be baptized? From Acts 2:38 it was seen that the purpose of repentance and baptism was “for the remission of sins,” and Mk. 16:16 said that faith and baptism were in order to be saved.

Now we are ready to introduce another passage from the New Testament that tells us the answers to the questions we are studying regarding baptism. “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). This statement is taken from one of the accounts of the conversion of the apostle Paul. Paul was not always a Christian, but in his early life, he was a very violent persecutor of the way of Christ. When the men of Jerusalem took up stones to kill Stephen, the preacher, the Scriptures say that they laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul. He, is called both Saul and Paul. Even Paul himself later testified that he “verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 26:9). Paul said, in Gal. 1:23, that the brethren in the churches of Judea did not know him by face, but they marveled when they heard that “He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc.” Even at the time that the Lord appeared unto Saul, he was on his way to Damascus that he might seek out and find all those that worshiped Christ. Paul described himself, during this period, as the “chiefest of sinners.”

What Must One Do?

There are three separate accounts of the events relating to the conversion of Paul recorded in the book of Acts. One account is in the ninth chapter, one in the twenty-second chapter, and the other account is in the twenty-sixth chapter. Paul and his company were on the road that went to Damascus, when a great light appeared unto Paul, a light which he described as being “brighter than the noonday sun.” Saul was blinded and fell to his feet, and a voice from heaven called out, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” And Saul answered, “Who art thou Lord?” And the voice of heaven answered and said, “I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.” Saul was then aware of the fact that he had been fighting against God, and so he cried out, “Lord what wilt thou have me do?” Jesus answered him and said, “Go into the city of Damascus, and there it will be told thee what thou must do.” Having been blinded by the great light that he had seen, the men in Saul’s company led him into the city of Damascus.

In the meantime God had appeared unto Ananias and told him to go and tell Saul what he must do. Ananias, having heard of the terrible acts of persecution wrought by Saul, was rather reluctant to go to him, but nevertheless, at the command of God, he went. When h6 arrived he found Saul, just as God had said he would be found: praying. Paul himself told of his conversion, and spoke of it like this: “And one Ananias, a devout man, according to the law, well reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there, came unto me, and standing by me said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And in that very hour I looked upon him. And He said, The God of our fathers hath appointed thee to know his will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his mouth. For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:12-16).

In answering the question, “Is baptism essential to one’s salvation?”, let us notice the statement made to Saul by the Lord. Christ told Saul to go into the city of Damascus, and there it be told him what he must do. Those things to be told him in Damascus, were not a group of needless commands, but they were things that he must do. When Ananias, the God-sent preacher, came to him, the very first commandment that he gave him, was to arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins. Certainly, this was a necessary commandment. It is a must command.

One of the things that I have never been able to understand is how one can read in the Bible that certain things are “musts” and conclude that one disobeyed God who did not do them, but then he could come to other commands which the Bible says are “musts,” and then he takes the attitude, “Oh, one can do it if he wants to, but if he should choose not to obey the command, God will not be at all displeased.” Believing is a “must” command. Paul (if he be the writer of the book of Hebrews) said, “and without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him” (Heb. 11:6). Should someone argue that faith is not necessary, every denominational preacher would use this passage, and stress that the writer says that one must believe. Jesus also said: “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish,” or you must repent or perish (Lk. 13:3). Could one be saved without repenting? Jesus said, ye must repent, and therefore it is indispensable to one’s salvation. Jesus also said, ye must be born again, or as it is stated in His words, “Except one be born of water, and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5). In each of these instances in which mention is made of faith, repentance, and the new birth as being a “must” commandment, all men would agree that they are absolutely necessary, but Ananias gave the ,’must” commandment to Saul to be baptized, men have concluded, that it was not really necessary. If “must” does not imply necessity, I wish someone would tell me what it does imply. Baptism is a “must,” and therefore one cannot be saved without it, just as repentance and faith are “musts” and one cannot be saved without them.

The Design of Baptism

The fact that baptism is a necessary commandment also has bearing upon its design. But the specific purpose of baptism is here stated and summed up on the words “and wash away your sins.” The design of baptism is said to be to wash away one’s sins. This expression, “and wash away your sins” means exactly the same thing as the statement of Peter on Pentecost when he told the Jews to repent and be baptized” for the remission of sins,” but inasmuch as we spent a whole lesson studying the meaning of this expression, we will not revert back to a further study of it at this time. They both mean that we are to be baptized in order to have our sins forgiven.

In this passage, baptism is the process by which one is made clean of his sins. Individuals will often take very violent opposition to one’s statement concerning baptism’s washing sins away, and will argue that the blood of Christ is that which washes the sins away, and certainly I agree with them that the blood of Christ does wash the sins of men away, but the blood is efficacious only when one had met tile conditions laid down by Him whose blood was shed. Not every person in the world has his sins remitted by the blood of Christ, although the Lord made provision for all to have their sins blotted out. The reason why some still have unforgiven sins, is they refuse to do what the Lord said do in order to receive the remission of sins.

Some very scornfully and ridiculously refer to the commandment of the Lord, and say that we believe that the water literally washes away sins. No, I do not believe the water literally washes away sins, nor do I believe that the blood literally washes away sins, but I do believe that the Lord Jesus Christ forgives us our sins, when we have completed obeying the commandments of the gospel, and not before.

It is when one is baptized that he receives the benefits of the death of Christ, and it is with this understanding that one can comprehend how it is said that both the water of baptism, and the blood of Christ can take away sins. Paul, the one to whom the statement to “arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins” was made, commented upon this action in Romans 6: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein? Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:14). It is here said that we have died to sin, that is, the practice of sin; we were buried with Him in baptism into death; and were then raised to walk in newness of life.

One can easily see the design or purpose of baptism in this passage by noticing when the new life came. It came after one’s obedience in baptism. It is said that we were baptized into His death, referring to Christ’s death, which can mean nothing other than that we are baptized into the benefits of his death. Jesus himself said that His blood was shed for many for the remission of sins. So as one is baptized into Christ’s death, he contacts the blood of Christ which was shed in His death, and therefore receives the benefits of His blood, which Jesus said was in order that man might have the forgiveness of sins. Paul continued to discuss the new life into which they had entered in this sixth chapter of the book of Romans, and he told us when they entered this new life: “But thanks be to God, that whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching where unto ye were delivered; and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:17,18). Notice that they obeyed that “form of teaching.” Paul had just told them what that form of teaching was in the first part of the chapter. He reminded them of how they had died to sin, that is, how they had repented or changed their mind about sin; how that they had been baptized into the death of Christ, or into the benefits of His death, even the forgiveness of their sins; and then he reminded them how they had been raised from the burial in water to walk a new life. This was the form of doctrine. It was the likeness of the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord.

Now in these, last two verses we just cited, Paul told them that at one time they were the servants of sin, but they had obeyed from the heart that form of teaching of which we have just referred, and after they had done this, they were made free from sin, and became the servants of righteousness.

Friends, all the passages in the New Testament that instruct us as to why we should be baptized teach the same thing, even though they may be differently worded. Jesus said in Mk. 16:16 that it was to be saved; Peter said on Pentecost, as recorded in Acts 2:38 that baptism was for the remission of sins; Ananias told Paul that it was to wash away his sins (Acts 22:16); Peter later said that it was to save one (1 Pet. 3:21); and Paul said in Romans 6 that it was to be made free from sin. The man does not live that can show that the Bible teaches baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is for any other purpose than to remit one’s sins.

Truth Magazine XX: 41, pp. 643-645
October 14, 1976