Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

I have before me a booklet written by various authors entitled, Teaching The Bible. The introduction and first chapter deal with the Bible class situation. A stand is taken in opposition to this practice among churches of Christ. The authors of these two sections use the prejudicial expression “Sunday School” throughout with the same effect that a person would use “anti”. I know of no sound brethren who defend the modern “Sunday School” arrangement with its organization apart from or within the church. We stand opposed to any organization larger than or smaller than the local church doing the work assigned to the church. What we do defend are Bible Classes which do not constitute another organization. The Bible Classes we defend are functional arrangements of the collective under the oversight of the respective eldership. If and when the class arrangement becomes an organization with its own laws, treasury or officers within or without the local church, I too, will oppose it.

Delos V. Johnson, in his introduction says that “the Sunday School occupies a central role in the teaching programs of most churches”. Unless he is talking about the liberal churches, I deny this. I cannot speak for the liberal churches. I can certainly say that I do not know of a single conservative church that has a modern “Sunday School”. If Brother Johnson knows of one then let him inform us of such. What he should have said is that “the Bible Class arrangement occupies a central role”. I repeat: conservative churches reject the “Sunday School Organization” method of teaching. That the booklet uses “Sunday School” to mean the modern “Sunday School” is obvious from reading G. B. Shelburne’s section (first chapter), “Teaching The Bible Without Sunday Schools.” Shelburne identifies his “Sunday School” concept as the one that originated with Robert Raikes, an Englishman, in 1780. He applies this to the Bible Class arrangement. He should know that there is no parallel between the two.

The booklet likewise opposes women teachers (p. 6). It is interesting that on page two in the introduction, 2 Timothy 2:2 is appealed to as an authority for instructing teachers to teach. But observe that this passage authorizes women to teach as well. The passage says, “and the thing that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also”. The term “men” is translated from the Greek anthropos, which is defined as “a human being, whether male or female” (Thayer, P. 46). He further says, “with reference to the genus or nature, without the distinction of sex”. Another definition reads as follows: “generally of a human being, male or female, without reference to sex or nationality” (Vine, Vol. III, p. 33).

This demonstrates that men (male or female) are required to teach. In the case of John 7:22, the context identifies the sex as male. In this passage anthropos may be used to refer to man, excluding women (Thayer, p. 45). The context of 2 Timothy 2:2 does not contextually identify the sex as male. Therefore anthropos is used without distinction of sex, male or female.

Those who argue that women cannot teach Bible classes in the church building cannot find room or sphere in which a woman can obey 2 Timothy 2:2, as it pertains to the work of a local church.

The only chapter dealing with the subject at hand is chapter one, and as suggested it is written by G. B. Shelburne, Jr. of Amarillo, Texas. He offers four arguments against Bible Classes and Women Teachers which he labels “Scriptural Objections To The Sunday School”. First, he says, “We believe that the New Testament sets forth a definite law of procedure for all public teaching assemblies of the church: men only as teachers, speaking one by one to all of the learners in one group, with the women in silence”. He cites two passages: 1 Corinthians 14:31-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

The Corinthian passage has no bearing on Bible classes today for the simple fact that it is dealing with spiritual gifts in the whole assembly and is to be taken with chapters 12-13. This passage simply does not apply to group or private teaching without removing it from its context. It has reference to the “whole church” coming together in “one place”. Furthermore, the women of 1 Corinthians 14 applies to the wives of the prophets. Weymouth’s translation (The New Testament, In Modern Speech, third edition, 1909) renders “let your women keep silence” (KJV), “let married women be silent” (p. 467). Verse 35, where the husbands are referred to, further confirms this conclusion. And then there is the word “silence”. This word means to “keep silence, hold one’s peace” (Thayer, P. 574). It means in verse 34 exactly what it means in verse 28 and 30. Absolute silence! This is not the way “silence” is used in 1 Timothy 2. The silence of I Corinthians 14 would forbid a woman to sing in the assembly. Remember, when one sings, he teaches and admonishes (Col. 3:16).

The heart of his argument on 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is that it “does not say that a woman may teach as long as she does not do it ‘in such a way as to usurp authority over the man’ ” (p. 7). He is mistaken in this. Look at the passage: “Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be silence”. Basically there are two things of significance in this passage: (1) Silence, and (2) teaching over the man.

Women may teach (Acts 2:18; 18:26; 21:9; Tit. 2:34). “Silence” must therefore be qualified. She certainly is not to remain silent in the assembly in the sense of being restricted to utter a sound. She is commanded to sing, and singing involves teaching and admonishing (Col. 3:16).

On the word “silence” in this passage, Thayer says, “quietness” (Gr. heschia), “descriptive of the life of one who stays home doing his own work, and does not officially meddle with the affairs of others” (p.. 281). Vine says (Vol. 111, p. 242), “tranquillity arising from within, causing no disturbance to others.” The context therefore does not mean absolute silence, but rather a tranquil, quiet life. This is not restricted to the assembly and therefore one cannot possibly throw in 1 Corinthians 14, for the “silence” here does not apply, as suggested above.

With reference to “teaching over the man”, it should be observed that: (1) “Teach” means “to teach or speak in public assembly” (Bagster). To “deliver didactic discourses” (Thayer). There is more involved than simply to impart knowledge. (2) “Over the man” is a prepositional phrase modifying “to teach” and “to usurp”. The two latter expressions qualify “over the man”. Women can teach and have authority over some people (Tit. 2:3-5; 2 Tim. 1:5). But she cannot have authority over the man.

Shelburne’s second objection to Bible Classes is: “We find no divine authority to deviate from the procedure for teaching services of the church that is set up by command and example in God’s word”, (p. 8). This objection is meaningless for the simple fact that he has not demonstrated from the Scriptures that “one man” is to speak in one assembly which is undivided. In other words, he has not offered a valid objection to the Bible Class arrangement!

His third argument is as follows: “those who occupied the office of public teachers in the early church are listed along with apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11), and those who occupied these offices were men”. This is presented as an argument against women teachers. What he overlooks is that there were women among the prophets in New Testament times. “. . . Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy” (Acts 21:8-9). The writer cannot say that all who occupied the office of a prophet were men. Away goes his contention!

The final argument made in the booklet is simply this: “we believe that the apostles set up a norm for the church for all time” (p. 8). The conclusion is that “the Spirit did not guide them into the use of classes and women teachers in public teaching services of the church”. This writer certainly agrees that the apostles set up the norm for the church. Furthermore, I agree that women cannot teach in the public or worship service of the church. However, we have already established that women can teach in the Bible Class arrangement within the framework of the local church and in other places as long as she does not teach over the man.

Shelburne then offers some “Difficulties and Dangers Involved In The Sunday School” (p. 8). I do not see that these have any bearing in the Bible Class arrangement. As suggested above, as long as the Bible Class arrangement is kept as a functional arrangement of the local church, these dangers simply do not exist. He simply cannot take the dangers associated with the denominational Sunday School and apply them to the Bible class situation under the eldership of the local church.

The booklet concludes its objection to Bible Classes and women teachers by saying, “There Is a Better Way” (p. 10). Applying the Sunday School to the Bible Class arrangement, the author says, “the early church, to which this system was unknown, had the greatest success and the most phenomenal growth that the church has ever known”. However divided groups were not unknown to the early church. Remember, the issue centers around place, i.e., a plurality of classes under one roof. One can teach from “house to house” (Acts 20:20) and even two arrangements under separate roofs would be scriptural. But when the two classes come together under one roof, this arrangement becomes sinful, we are told. To put it another way, the objection is in opposition to a divided assembly, i.e., a group smaller than a previously assembled group retiring to another section of the building. The contention is that this constitutes another organization through which the church does its work.

The New Testament does teach that it is scriptural to conduct Bible Classes among several groups at the same time and that it is scriptural for a group to retire from a previously assembled meeting of the church. Space will permit only one example. Look at Acts 15:4-6 and observe that the controversy over circumcision at Antioch necessitated taking the matter up with the church at Jerusalem since those who introduced the issue were from the church there (vv. 13). When Paul, Barnabas and certain other brethren arrived in Jerusalem, “they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders” (v. 4). After the church met to consider and discuss the matter, the apostles and elders “came together for to consider of the matter” (v. 6). Thus from a meeting of the whole church at Jerusalem (including the apostles and elders), the apostles and elders divided and separated themselves in order to reconsider the matter among themselves.

Conclusion

The booklet under review, Teaching the Bible, is not the strongest defense of the non-Bible Class and women teachers’ position that this writer has seen. Since the booklet has no publisher stated in the foremat I assume it is published by Gospel Tidings. You may obtain a free copy of the booklet by writing them at P.O. Box 21, South Houston, Texas 77587. I believe that in this writing with space permitting, we have given the booklet a fair review.

Truth Magazine XX: 36, pp. 560-570
September 9, 1976

By Denny A. Diehl

I was recently conversing with a Christian who had seven years previous ‘put on Christ.’ We were talking concerning denominational doctrines and the use (or misues) of the Greek language by some groups when translating. He was amazed that I had been a Christian for a period of four years and prior to that I had had virtually no Biblical teaching, but yet I was acquainted with these things. (Allow me to state that I am not trying to compliment myself because I am quite aware of my intellectual shortcomings.) It has been apparent to me in the short time that I have been a part of Christ’s church that many Christians are complacent with studying the Bible only twice a week (if then) and are not concerned with pressing on to a greater understanding of the Truth that has set us free from sin.

Dull Of Hearing

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews faced this same situation. He was writing to the Hebrews how that Christ was “a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:10). “Concerning him” he had “much to say,” but to his dismay it was “hard to explain” because they had become “dull of hearing” (Heb. 5:11). The word that is translated dull is nothros. It means ‘sluggish,’ ‘obtuse,’ ‘slow moving in mind,’ and ‘mental listlessness.’ It can be used of a person who has the imperceptive and lethargic nature of a stone (Wni. Barclay). These people had become lazy in their responsibilities to themselves and to God. ‘You have become’ shows that they had not always been in that state of dullness. There probably had been a time when these Hebrew Christians had searched the Scriptures with diligence, rejoicing in their new-found faith. They had had their attention aroused and their thoughts exercised when they had first heard the preaching of the gospel, but since that time it had become commonplace to them and had long ceased to be exciting to them. They had become spiritual sluggards. Turn to Proverbs 24:30-34 and read: “I passed by the field of the sluggard, and by the vineyard of the man lacking sense; and behold, it was completely overgrown with thistles, its surface was covered with nettles, and its stone wall was broken down. When I saw, I reflected upon it; I looked, and received instruction. ‘A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest,’ then your poverty will conic as a robber, and your want like an armed man.” This passage has spiritual application for the person who has become ‘dull of hearing.’ When we forsake the command given in 2 Peter 1:5,10, in that we are to be “applying all diligence” and “be all the more diligent” then we are like the man who is ‘lacking sense.’ Our spiritual lives will be ‘completely overgrown with thistles’ and ‘covered with nettles’ so that the ‘stone wall’ of the gospel that has protected us from “the corruption that is in the world” (2 Pet. 1:4) is ‘broken down.’

Brethren, how this is true of us today. Christians who have had the seed of the gospel sown in their hearts (Matt. 13:22), but because of the thorns of worldly worry and deceitful riches that were there to choke out the word, they became unfruitful (dull of hearing), and then their ‘poverty will come as a robber.’ But this all arises because Christians become ‘dull of hearing.’ They are tired of hearing the same old gospel preached, and studying the Bible has become a burden to them; they have left their first love (Rev. 2:4). The love of the truth has grown old and slipped away and the writer of Hebrews describes the results of that person in 6:4-8.

You Ought To Be Teachers

The writer substantiates his charge against them in v. 11, when he writes in v. 12, “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for some one to !each you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.” How many Christians are there in the world today who have not “increased in the knowledge of God” (Col. 1:10) since they were “like newborn babes, longing for the pure milk of the word, that by it” they “may grow in respect to salvation” (1 Pet. 2:22). Brethren, we have an epidemic on our hands of spiritual drowsiness. Don’t let the contentment of ‘a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest’ overtake us, but let us receive “the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily” (Acts 17:11).

‘For by this time you ought to be teachers’ is another way of saying: Consider how long you have been Christians, how long you have been partakers of the Divine Truth, and consider the growth that should have been accomplished on your part by now, even to the point that you should be helping others to a deeper understanding of the Truth.

Let us examine the situation. Most probably among these Hebrew Christians were some who had been called to the Lord on that first Pentecost 30 some years before when “Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them” (Acts 2:14) the gospel of Christ. “So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41). And it says that “they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42). A little later “Peter and John were going up to the temple” (Acts 3:1) when Peter healed a man “lame from his mother’s womb” (Acts 3:2). This gave opportunity for preaching and because of it, “many of those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand” (Acts 4:4). Here we see that “the disciples were increasing in number” (Acts 6:1) to the extent that, as is seen in chapter 6 of Acts, it was easy to get lost in the crowd. Later, “a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles” (Acts 8:1). This left a small church behind in Jerusalem, but it was attended by the apostles, and such men as Barnabas and Paul (Acts 9:27), Silas (Acts 15:22), and an eldership which included James, the Lord’s brother (Acts 15). Now, if there ever was a church in which a Christian could just sit back and let the leaders do the work, it seems that this would have to be the one. It certainly would have been easy to let the apostles, elders, and teachers do all the preaching and studying of God’s word. Even though we can see them starting out with great enthusiasm after their conversion related to us in Acts 2, it is understandable how they could lose it, when it is taken into consideration all the talented men that were serving the Lord in that congregation. With all the training that they had available to them, they should have, at least by this time, been teachers, How many are there of us who fall into this category? How many are there of us who have not taken it upon ourselves to study God’s word because it is easy to let the preacher, elders, and teachers do it for us? How many are there of us who are called upon to teach a class (or should be called upon, but because of our lack of knowledge we are not) but have to refuse because we are not, by this time, teachers.

You Need Some One To Teach You

Instead of teaching the word by the time that they should have been ready, they were, in fact, in “need again for some one to teach” them “the elementary principles of the oracles of God” (Heb. 5:12). Spiritual slothfulness not only prevents progress in the Christian’s spiritual life, but it produces retrogression. These Hebrew Christians had failed to do what Peter commanded: “Supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge; and in your knowledge, selfcontrol, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness; and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, Christian love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacks these qualities is blind or shortsighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins” (2 Pet. 1:5-9). This was the condition of the Hebrews; after they had believed in Christ, they failed to grow into Christ. A person can lose recollection of knowledge unless he uses it. They had been stagnant for such a long period of time that they needed some one to sit down with them and tutor them through “the elementary principles of the oracles of God” (Heb. 5:12).

These ‘elementary principles’ are the rudiments or the foundation which must be laid for the person to become a disciple of Christ. The word used here for elementary is stoicheia. “In grammar it means the letters of the alphabet, the ABC; in physics it means the four basic elements of which the world is composed; in geometry it means the elements of proof like the point and the straight line; in philosophy it means the first principles with which the student begins” (Win. Barclay). The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews was deplored at the condition of these Christians. They had been Christians for years and still needed to be taught those basics with which a person begins his spiritual life. Let us draw a picture: Imagine a normal man, 30 years of age, sitting in a kindergarten class still learning his ABC’s. It would certainly be funny if it was not so pathetic. Here is a person who after 25 years has still not taken it upon himself to learn. Do we have any Christians who are 25 spiritual years old who are in the same condition?

The Jews said to Jesus, “Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’ Jesus therefore said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world’ ” (Jn, 6:31-33). When the children of Israel were being led out of Egypt by Moses, they came to the wilderness of Sin. It was at this time that God gave them manna from heaven. “There was a layer of dew around the camp. When the layer of dew evaporated, behold, on the surface of the wilderness there was a fine flake-like thing, fine as the hoarfrost on the ground. When the sons of Israel saw it, they said to one another, ‘What is it?’ For they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them, ‘It is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat.'” (Ex. 16:13-15). God was providing for their physical sustenance, just as He is providing for our spiritual sustenance, with bread from heaven. We have the bread that gives life, but we have to use it. Bread cannot penetrate into our system by osmosis, it has to be eaten and digested; so it is with spiritual bread. It will not do anybody any good when this ‘bread of life’ just sits on a shelf or a table; it has to be used. Look what happened when Moses told them to use up the manna. “They did not listen to Moses, and some left part of it until morning, and it bred worms and became foul” (Ex. 16:20). When bread is not used, it spoils. The manna bred worms because it was not used-are there any worms in your Bible? Have you checked lately?

Brethren, let us grow up in the word, “let us press on to maturity” (Heb. 6:1), and “grow in respect to salvation” (1 Pet. 2:2). May God give us the strength to take the advice of the proverbist when he says: “The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, but the soul of the diligent is made fat” (Prov. 13:4).

Truth Magazine XX: 36, pp. 567-568
September 9, 1976

By Cecil Willis

In our last article entitled “Who Should Be Baptized?”, we pointed out that infants were not subjects of baptism, for a subject or candidate of baptism must have the intellect capable of being taught, must be a believer in Christ, must repent of his sins, and must confess his faith with his mouth. An infant could not do any of these, and therefore, an infant is not a subject of baptism. This week we want to continue our study about the unscripturalness of baptizing babies.

There are several large denominations, representing literally millions of people, whose common practice it is, to take children, when they are eight days old, and baptize them for the remission of their sins. It is our purpose to focus the attention of the people in these denominations upon the fact that there is no scriptural authority whatever for such a practice.

The Practice Began in Error

The inception of the practice of baptizing infants was in error. The reason men began baptizing babies was for an unscriptural purpose. Incidentally, when I speak of “baptizing” babies, I am using the word “baptism” unscripturally. It is unscriptural because of two reasons: First, people usually sprinkle the babies when they “baptize” them, and sprinkling, in the light of the scripture is not baptism, and therefore it is a misuse of the word baptism to say that it is sprinkling; secondly, since babies are not subjects of baptism, it is improper to speak of “baptizing” them. But inasmuch as so many denominations speaks of baptizing infants, I am using the expression, with the reservations that we have just stated. It is unscriptural from beginning to end.

As we said, though, men have a very definite reason for baptizing babies. They believe the delusion that the infant is born into this world guilty of sin. They think that the baby is inherently totally depraved. In other words, these false teachers say that because Adam sinned, all infants are sinners. Therefore, they used to baptize an infant to free him of his Adamic sin. To teach this doctrine is to deny both what Christ and Paul said. In Rom. 5:12-21, Paul argued that whatever man lost unconditionally in Adam, he gained unconditionally in Christ. Paul said that the blood of Christ is as capable of limitless universality as the unrighteous act of Adam. Christ died to free us of the effects of Adam’s sins. Notice just one verse of this chapter to see that this is what Paul is teaching: “So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life” (verse 18). Christ further taught, “Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3). Does it seem that the Lord taught that children are born totally depraved? He said that unless these disciples become as little children they cannot enter into the kingdom of God Did Christ say that unless they become totally depraved they cannot enter the kingdom of God? That would be absurd! Christ was teaching the purity of the little children.

If there is any time that one is pure and holy in this life, it is when he is a little baby. Mothers, look at that little child of yours and think, “Is he pure, or is he totally sinful?” Certainly he is pure, and sinless. There is no point in baptizing an infant in order to have his sins remitted, for he has no sins to be forgiven. The baptizing of infants was begun upon an erroneous premise, and must be denounced, and repudiated, if one is ever to be saved.

The infant is sinless. That is why we said last week that an infant is neither saved nor lost, but that it is safe. One cannot be saved until he has been lost, and since the infant has never been lost, then he cannot be saved. He cannot be lost, for he has done no sin, and so the baby is safe and neither saved nor lost. Christ taught the purity of the child, and not its total depravity.

The Practice Continued in Error

Another reason why some baptize babies, is not in order to forgive their sins, but to admit them to the kingdom or the church. They baptize them in order to put them into the church. But just as babies cannot be baptized, neither can they be members of the church. The church is comprised of baptized individuals, or of the saved, but men and women are saved by obeying the gospel. Luke said, “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47). Luke already had told us what these people did in order to be saved as he recorded Peter’s command to them to “repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). They obeyed the gospel in order to be saved, and being saved, they were added to the church. A baby cannot be in the church for it cannot obey the gospel, as we saw in our study last week.

The Scripture further tells us who it is that may enter the kingdom of God in Jn. 3:5: “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” This omits the baby, for he is neither born of water nor the Spirit. As he reached the age of mental maturity, he may then be born of both the water and the Spirit. To be born of the Spirit means to be begotten by the Word of the Spirit. Peter gave us a commentary on the birth of the Spirit when he said, “having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which lives and abideth” (1 Pet. 1:23). To be begotten of the Spirit is to be begotten of the Word of the Spirit. So when one believes upon the testimony of the Word of God, he is begotten of the Spirit, and may then be born of water. Both of these requirements of entering the kingdom of God omits a baby. A baby has not the mentality to be begotten of the Spirit, for it cannot become a believer by hearing the Word, neither is it born of water. Sometimes people argue that a baby is born of water when he comes from its mother’s womb. They say that the fluid that accompanies a natural birth is water, and that this is the birth of water. But this is not true. The fluid accompanying a natural birth is not water, but amniotic fluid. Therefore a baby is born of neither the water or Spirit, and therefore cannot be the kingdom of God. To baptize a baby to put him into the kingdom is an impossibility, even though there are thousands that are trying it every year.

Infant Baptism has no Scriptural Authority

Let us establish a premise and approach the subject of infant baptism from another aspect. Anything that had its origin this side, or outside of the New Testament is not of New Testament sanction. Infant baptism has its origin both this side and outside the New Testament, and therefore the New Testament does not approve it.

Historically, let us notice that baptizing infants was begun later than the New Testament era. Any practice that did not begin until after the completion of the New Testament, that was not in existence until the death of the apostles, certainly could not be a part of New Testament Christianity. One may read the New Testament through, and nowhere in it will find a single instance of an infant’s being baptized, either for the forgiveness of “Adamic sin”, or to put him into the church. If you want to read the first statements made about the baptizing of infants, you must go to the end of the Second Century. The first mention one finds of baptizing infants is by Tertullian in 190 A. D. That is about 100 years too late for it to have the approval of the New Testament. Denominationalists now admit that the New Testament does not sanction the baptizing of infants, or at least the majority of them do. We might notice what one propagator of this doctrine of baptizing infants said about the practice. Mr. Henry Ward Beecher said that he had no authority from the Bible for the baptism of infants, and that he needed none; that he had better authority for it than if even the Bible commanded it; that he had tried it, and knew from actual experience that it was a good thing; he had the same divine authority for it that he had for making an ox-yoke – it worked well – and, therefore, it was from God. Now isn’t that some statement coming from a man who must some day stand before the God of heaven to be judged by the things written in the Bible? Historically, infant baptism has no support.

Justice would not be done to the arguments of those who contend that infants should be baptized, were we to fail to mention the scriptures that they suggest which they contend authorized baptizing infants. The only way anyone can ever use the Word of God to prove this contention is to read into the text what the Bible says absolutely nothing about. In Acts 16 we read a very interesting story of where Paul and obviously, Luke, the author of the book of Acts, met with a group of women down by the river side, or at the place of prayer, and instructed them in the way of the Lord. They had receptive hearts, and upon the hearing of the Word of God, they accepted it. Lydia is the main one mentioned in this instance, and the Scripture says “And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us” (Acts 16:15). Notice, and remember this passage, and what it says about the infants that were baptized for we want to refer to it again. It says that Lydia and her household were baptized. For this to be an argument for baptizing infants, one must assume that this household had infants in it. The passage does not say so. It is an assumption.

In this same sixteenth chapter, we read the story of Paul and Silas’ being cast into prison because they cast a spirit of divination out of a young maiden. When her masters saw that their hope of gain was gone, they caused Paul and Silas to be cast into prison. The jailer put them in the inner prison, put their hands and feet in bonds. About midnight they were singing and praying to God, when suddenly there was an earthquake and their bonds were loosed. The prison doors were also opened. The jailer was about to kill himself, fearing lest the prisoners had escaped, but Paul exclaimed, “Do thyself no harm, for we are all here.” The jailer asked what he must do, and Paul told him to believe on the Lord. He also repented for he took them and washed their stripes that he had been instrumental in inflicting. And then it is said that he “was baptized, he and all his, immediately” (Acts 16:33).

Now friends, these two instances are the strongest proof from the scriptures that men have ever offered for infant baptism. When it mentions that these two households, the Jailer’s and Lydia’s, were baptized, they imagine and assume that in these households, there were infants, and that they were baptized. You remember that the Scriptures offered no proof for infant baptism, but that the passages that men used to prove their doctrine were no proof at all, unless men read into the text that there were infants in these households. What do these passages say about the baptizing of infants? Not a thing in the word. And I repeat, these are the strongest arguments that they can make from the Scriptures for baptizing infants. If you think you can make a stronger one, I would be glad to have you write me telling about it. If I know my heart, I am open minded, and would appreciate being corrected in this matter if I am in error. If you know of a passage in which babies were baptized, let me know about it. If you are a member of a church that baptizes infants, and never gave thought to the scripturalness of it, search the Scriptures for just one passage authorizing it. If you cannot find it, then ask your preacher to help you. If he cannot find it, ask anyone else you might know that could help you, If no one can find it, give up the error and leave that error-teaching group.

If infant baptism is not in the Bible, then you have had to go outside the Bible to get it. We stated a premise earlier that still holds true: Anything that has had its origin this side or outside the New Testament is not to be done by the Christian. The Bible and the Bible alone is adequate for men and women who want to please God. Infant baptism had its inception this side of (in fact, it began no earlier than 190 A.D., almost a hundred years too late), and outside the New Testament. The historical part of it is of but little significance. If you were to find accounts in history of infant baptisms, going back to the First Century, that still would not be enough. What you need to find is an instance in the New Testament where an infant was baptized. It is not to be found, and no denominational preacher will ever pretend to find it.

The Bible is our complete and final guide. Paul said, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16,17). Peter also said that his “divine power hath granted unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that called us by his own glory and virtue” (2 Pet. 1:3). If the Bible can furnish us to every good work, and it says nothing about baptizing of infants, what must God think about it? Certainly He does not approve it!

Seeing that infants cannot render intelligent obedience to the gospel of Christ; that they cannot be members of the kingdom of God for they cannot be born of either water or Spirit; that there is no reason for baptizing them for they are not tainted with Adamic sin; that there was no baptizing of infants until one hundred years after the New Testament era; and most important of all, that the New Testament does not authorize infant baptism either in command, example, or necessary inference, we plead with you to remove yourself from any body of people that is teaching this error. Christ said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:12). This doctrine which we have been discussing is not truth, but error, and only the truth can make you free. Error is not a substitute for truth. We are hoping that you will leave your error, not because we say to, but because it is foreign to God’s Holy Word, and because you want to do exactly what He says do-nothing more or less.

Truth Magazine XX: 36, pp. 563-565
September 9, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Ohio: “Enclosed is a question that was answered in ‘The Christian Echo.’ I disagreed with the answer. Would you please comment on it in Truth Magazine?”

REPLY:

Immediately following is the excerpt from the April, 1976, issue of The Christian Echo.

“Ques.: While in the world, I married a woman who had a living husband; they did not-separate because of fornication. Later, we decided to obey the gospel. Did we have to repent for the act, or under what conditions were we to enter the church?

“Ans.: If a divorce was secured by the woman you married while in the world, the laws of the land were complied with, hence you were not under condemnation by marrying. Romans 13:3. If you were legally married, when you obeyed the gospel, there is no repentance required for your marriage; go on and live the Christian life.”

Comments As Requested

It would have been far better if The Christian Echo had merely cited a few plain passages of Scripture. “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matt. 5:32). “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9). “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery” (Mk. 10:11,12). “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (Lk. 16-18). “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man” (Rom. 7:3).

Nothing in the verses above sounds like the answer in The Christian Echo. Of course, one must abide by the laws of the land, but, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). The man who married a woman with a living husband is living in adultery. The woman who was divorced for a cause other than fornication and who has married another is living in adultery. Constitutional law does not negate or nullify divine law.

To Those Without These Problems

As we said before, so say I now again, now is the time to prevent marriage problems. If you are unmarried, realize the seriousness and the sacredness of the marriage relationship. Do not enter into it lightly. It is a sacred status that must be consecrated by God and governed by His will. If you are married, remain that way if it is at all possible-both husband and wife should learn to love one another if they do not. If you have children, teach them from their youth regarding marriage. Tell them of its beauty, of its privileges, and of its sacred laws.

Truth Magazine XX: 36, p. 562
September 9, 1976