Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

“CHICAGO (UPI)-Proclaiming bawling babies the greatest obstacle to the people of God since the barbarians, a Roman Catholic priest has launched a `Ban the Babies’ movement. The Rev. Frank E. Fortkamp, who proclaims himself the `founding Father of the Ban the Babies Movement,’ calls for `an ecclesiastical directive from the highest authority’ to bar babies from the Mass.

“The Pennsylvania priest says the constant crying from infant church-goers makes it impossible for him or any other preacher to get their messages across from the pulpit. `It’s unfair competition. Masochistic as most of them are anyway, most congregations are far more enraptured with yelping youngsters than preachers,’ Fortkamp writes in the August edition of U. S. Catholic.

“The only way to get God’s word to the people is to get the little people out of earshot by order of the highest available Church authority, he says. `Yes, I plead, Ban the Babies! And not just to that artificial wasteland the ‘cry room’ where their collective din shivers the soundproof glass. No! Ban the babies from church altogether,’ writes Fortkamp.

“‘Give me liturgy or give me death! There’s no need to give death to liturgy at the merciless hand of infantile cacophony. Surely a church so boastful of its decade of progress toward reform will soon get its priorities in line.’

“Fortkamp’s article is entitled: `Don’t trust anyone under thirty months’ ” (Chattanooga News-Free Press, August 2, 1974, p. 2).

Comments

You probably think I am going to pounce on the “Rev. Frank E. Fortkamp” with every key in my typewriter. If so, you are wrong. As a matter of fact, I would be happy to assist priest Fortkamp. His movement, if successful, will keep all “yelping youngsters” under 30 months out of Catholic Church services. It will, therefore, prevent many Catholic mothers from attending Catholic Churches for 2.’/z years. And, brother, anything that keeps parents and innocent babies from the clutches of Catholic Churches, I will heartily endorse and encourage! Do I hear an “Amen?”

Besides, after compulsory absentia bans the babies and prohibits the parents from attending for, such an extended period, how many will crank up and start going when the child is past 30 months? Not many, but if any do begin to attend, the problem will be magnified and intensified. Ask any parent who ever waited until the baby was 2 1/2 years old before taking him to his first church service. The “infantile cacophony” is nothing to be compared to the behavior of an untrained 2 1/2 year old church-goer. When the Catholic sees the difficulty of trying to tame a youngster who has had no experience in going to services, he will likely become disgusted and quit the Catholic Church. Hallelujah!

What does the “Pennsylvania priest” propose to do when “bawling babies” are presented to him for “baptism?” Would he call for “an ecclesiastical directive from the highest authority” to terminate the sprinkling of infants? Why not? After all, their squalling might shiver the baptismal font-horrors! Can we imagine that infants will be kissed, “blessed,” dabbed with water, and then kicked out of the church for 30 months? Would this be a form of earthly purgatory?

Catholicism wrests Mark 10:14, as do Protestant sprinkler systems, to prove infant baptism-” Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.” Well, how would Mr. Fortkamp answer this passage if it were pressed upon him against his proposal? I would caress my forehead, punch my chest twice, and turn my collar backwards to hear his answer.

Speaking of an “artificial wasteland” and “the greatest obstacle to the people of God since the barbarians,” the Roman Catholic Church is again disgraced from within. Will Mr. Fortkamp be disciplined? Not on your life-he will be applauded. Oh, the Pope may not approve his movement, but neither will he publicly censure it as the preposterous proposal of a man who is of the neuter gender, spiritually speaking.

If Fortkamp’s liturgy is exemplified and typified by his “Ban the Babies” nonsense, then adults ought to cry while he speaks. He ought to be put “out of earshot by order of the highest available Church authority,” but he will not be and perhaps it is just as well. Maybe some thinking soul will be sickened and repulsed by such degenerate tripe and turn in obedience to the New Testament “movement,” which says “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Stranger things have happened.

Truth Magazine XIX: 49, p. 770
October 23, 1975

By William C. Sexton

It is such a grand privilege to be a child of God that each person ought to be challenged to ask: “Who may be a child of God? How may one become a child of God?” Each should ask, “What are the results of being a child of God?” Many have not been impressed with the greatness of being a child of God, evidently, and such is one of the saddest situations in our land today. However, some who have been impressed with the greatness of being a child of God have not really been challenged to see how or in what manner such can be accomplished. They have not been awakened to the need to search out the information that will enable one to determine “who is” a child of God and who is not. Thus this article is designed to challenge us to examine the word of God relative to how one can become and be sure that he is a child of God and what the results of that relationship really means.

Therefore, by examining the text of Gal. 3:26-29 and the context, we wish to establish these three points: (1) That all who are children of God, are such “by faith.” (2) That to be a child of God, “by faith” one must have acted on his faith; (3) That all who are children of God by faith have a common inheritance. So, being a child of God “by faith” involves:

1. Being Distinct from the Law! Notice the “for” in these verses and in some other significant verses in this chapter: For ye are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ” (v. 26). The Greek word translated “for” here is gar, a conjunction. The Greek word is defined by two authorities: “II, It adduces the cause or gives the Reason for a preceding statement or opinion,” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, p. 109); “Conjunction used to express cause, inference, continuation, or explain” (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 151). In English, of course, the word “for” may be used as a preposition or a conjunction, and it is defined by Webster, “because; seeing that; more formal than because and used to introduce evidence or explanation for an immediately preceding statement,” when used as a conjunction. So, the “for” of this verse is a conjunction, connecting what is to follow with what has preceded, giving an explanation or as evidence of the previous statement. By backing up to v. 19 we can see that the following points are made: (1) Why the law was given-it was added because of the transgression four hundred years after the promise had been made to Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3); it was to be in effect “till the seed” should come to whom the promise had been made; it was educational, a school-master, making men aware of sin. (2) Now, the faith had come! Therefore, the law was no longer effective! As evidence of this-“ye are all the children of God by faith” and not by the law! Whereas under the law men became children of God by having Jewish parents, under the faith men and women became children of God by learning to “know” Him (cf. Heb. 8:11). Most of these Galatians were Gentiles, not Jews; thus his argument was effective in getting them to see how they were children of God-“by faith”-thus showing that the law had ended and the faith was now operative.

As further proof that this line of thinking is correct, notice the real purpose of the book of Galatians! Those Galatians had been converted by the preaching of Paul, the apostle, as he presented the gospel. However, after he had gone on to another part of the country, other teachers had come in and tried to persuade the Galatians that they need a supplement to the gospel. These Jewish teachers had argued that the Galatians really needed a part of the law, especially circumcision if they were going to be saved. Paul expressed his disappointment in them, because they had turned to “another gospel” so soon (1:6-10). He tells them that there really is just one gospel, and he had preached it. So, when they turned to something else, they were really turning away from God! So, here the word “for” is used to show that the law was no longer in effect-its purpose had been fulfilled and its time had expired.

2. As to the Manner! The word “for” in v. 27 introduces the manner in which they had become children of God “by faith.” “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” May we ask how many were the children of God “by faith?” Paul’s answer: “as many of you as have been baptized into Christ . . . .” Some questions are in order. What has to precede baptism, in order for these people to be baptized into Christ? This passage does not tell us, but there are many others that do. Let us look closely at some relevant passages. (1) From Hebrews 11, we learn that one must believe two things relative to God: that He is, and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. However, in John 8:24, we learn chat faith in Jesus’ deity and Sonship is essential, too! Thus, faith in God and Christ constitutes a prerequisite to being baptized “into Christ.” (2) In our search further, we find that repentance is essential before one can be baptized into Christ (Lk. 13:5; Acts 17:30-31). Thus he who has not repented cannot be baptized into Christ. (3) Matthew 10:32-33 reveals the fact that confession is essential, and Acts 8:37 presents the same truth, while Paul in Romans 10:9-10 tells us the same thing. So, without confession by mouth that Jesus is Christ and Lord, one cannot be baptized into Christ!

The interested reader should be interested in what happens in baptism. Looking closely at passages, we determine that one is “buried with him by baptism into death” (Rom. 6:4). Also one will notice that he is “baptized into his death” (Rom. 6:3). With close observation of the text in Galatians, one will see that he puts on Christ in being baptized. Then he will notice that it is in baptism that he is raised to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4). Now, one who is really interested in ascertaining the truth will recognize that this is what the Lord has said and not man, and even if this is so contrary to what he has heard man teach he will still accept the Lord’s teaching in preference to man’s.

Are there children of God “by faith” who .did not become such by this act? I am aware of the fact that many preachers teach that all children of God are such before and without ever being baptized. In fact they say, “if you have to be baptized to be saved, then that means water salvation.” However, where is the passage that teaches there are any children of God other than those who are such “by faith?” There is no passage, and all who say that there are children of God “by faith” without having been baptized are doing so on the authority of men alone! I have people tell me, “You are saved by faith and not by baptism.” Beloved, notice this passage closely: see that we are saying that you are saved “by faith” when you, by your faith, are baptized into Christ! All spiritual blessing are in Christ (Eph. 1:3). How did you get into Christ? Look at Gal. 3:26-27 and Rom. 6:3-4. Beloved, there is not one way for some people to become a child of God by faith and another way for other people! The same terms are for every person, rich or poor, black or white, young or old, American or foreigner (Acts 10:34-35).

3. As to the Benefits! Being a child of God then breaks down distinctions, (vs. 28-29): “for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Nationality is no longer an important factor when it comes to being blessed as a member of God’s family. Neither social status, nor sex distinctions are of importance in being an heir of God. Being “one in Christ,” then entitles one to all of the benefits. He is Abraham’s seed, and he is an heir according to the promise made to Abraham long ago (Gen. 12:1-3). Peter describes the inheritance (1 Pet. 1:3-4) as being incorruptible, undefiled, reserved in heaven and kept by the power of God. Thus it is that which will last forever, never becoming tarnished in any way, and no one can ever take it from us-because it is held by God. Paul, then tells us that we have reason to “rejoice” (Phil. 4:4). We should then be the happiest people in the world, that is, if we are indeed children of God “by faith.” As the man from Ethiopia went on his way rejoicing (Acts 8:39), all who having demonstrated their faith in repentance and confession are baptized into the Lord have reason to. rejoice. They have their sins forgiven, and are added to the body of Christ, the kingdom of heaven, the family of God. They then have the greatest opportunity available to man: teaching the unsearchable riches of Christ (cf. Eph. 3:8).

So, in closing, may I challenge you to answer in your own mind-what it means to be a child of God by faith. Are you real sure that you are? Have you become such in the same manner that Paul says the Galatians became such? If you think that you became a child of God “by faith” without being baptized into Christ I challenge you to do two things: (1) show me the passage that so teaches; (2) tell me what this passage means. My only concern is that we all may spend eternity in heaven. If I am trusting in the wrong thing, then please teach me; if you are not following the Scriptures, then you are not trusting in the right one and you are lost. I want you to be saved, and I promise to keep trying to get you to save yourself (Acts 2:40) before the period of grace is passed.

Truth Magazine XIX: 48, pp. 765-766
October 16, 1975

By Thomas G. O’Neal

Several months ago the following short article appeared in several church bulletins:

PRE-CAMPBELL CHRISTIANITY

“In a recent article this interesting quotation appeared as a documentary research of .Dr. Robinson, principal of Overdale College, Birmingham, England.

“`In the Furness District of Lancashire-in N.W. England -there existed in 1669, during the reign of Charles II, a group of S churches of Christ. Most of them are not now in existence. An old minute book has been found on the year 1669 and it shows that they called themselves by the name of Church of Christ, practiced baptism by immersion, celebrated the Lord’s Supper each Lord’s Day and had elders and deacons. There was also a church, of Christ In Dungannot, Ireland in 1904 and in Allington, Dangighshire. In 1735, John Davis, a young preacher in the Fife District of Scotland was preaching New Testament Christianity twenty-five years before Thomas Campbell (Alexander Campbell’s father) was born.’ “

Wanting to check the correctness of this information, I wrote Dr. Robinson on Nov. 20, 1973, quoted the above article and asked him, “Is this correct? Could you give me any more documentation on this? Any additional information that you could supply to me would be very much appreciated”.

I have a letter written by Mr. David M. Thompson’ Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, CB3 ODG, dated April 15, 1975, which is self-explanatory.

“Dear Mr. O’Neal,

Your letter of 20 November, 1973, which was addressed to the late Dr. William Robinson (he died in 1963) has found its way eventually to me, as Secretary of the Churches of Christ Historical Committee in Britain.

“I can give you some help on your quotation, though not much. The churches in the Furness District of Lancashire were, in fact, Baptist Churches-it was common for dissenting churches to use the title `Church of Christ’ to describe themselves (though I don’t think Dr. Robinson realised this). I cannot tell you very much about the churches in Dungannon, Allington and John Davis: but I think the main point Dr. Robinson was wishing to make was that the call for a return to New Testament Christianity did not begin with Thomas and Alexander Campbell, nor has it been found only among Churches of Christ. I suspect that this is as true in America as it is here.

“I cannot help you further at present, though I am expecting to publish a history of the British Churches of Christ soon, which may be of interest to you.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 48, p. 764
October 16, 1975

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

I wonder if anybody else is as tired of hearing about “ministries” as I am. For the past few years one could hardly pick up a “brotherhood” paper or bulletin without reading about some kind of “bus ministry,” “bookstore ministry,” “tract ministry” and on and on. This is of course true only to a limited extent with regard to conservative brethren; it has become an established trait, however, among institutional brethren. It is not hard to trace the source of this sudden invasion of “ministry” terminology: it has been drafted from the nomenclature of the modern denominational world along with such other sub-Scriptural lingo as “devotional,” “chapel,” and “witnessing.” Brethren have appropriated “ministry” as a ready-made suffix to give their various projects a self-consciously pious tone.

Contemporary trends notwithstanding, when the Scriptures speak of a “ministry” they have in mind: (1) the specific “ministry” of the apostles (Cf. Acts 1:17; 2 Cor. 4:1); (2) a specific “ministry” to be performed such as the care of the needy and indigent (Cf. Acts 6:4; 12:25; 1 Cor. 16:15; 2 Tim. 4:11); or (3) the general responsibility or “ministry” of all to teach the gospel (Cf. Col, 4:17; 2 Tim. 4:5). The basic meaning inherent in the Biblical use of the word “ministry” is that of serving and serving primarily-not other saints (though that is an obvious by-product)-but the Lord.

But the taking on of “ministry” to one’s activity has become popular of late; it gives an otherwise mundane and ordinary task a certain superficial profundity. It is a term that appeals to man’s pride-it is a term that the “natural man” can appreciate. After all, you must admit it has a flair to it! Many are thus fond of inventing to themselves terminologies that promote themselves and their brainchildren-at the expense of Jesus and His word.

But perhaps even more distressing is the widespread disposition to call preachers by the ostentatious “title” of “minister.” I have been alarmed by the sudden proliferation of articles asking the question, “Why do preachers quit the ministry?” I did not even know that we had a “clergy” to worry about! We have good men who have become obsessed with the appellation, “Minister of the church of Christ,” broadcast to the world on their stationery, bulletins and calling cards. But pray tell, where do New Testament evangelists ever refer to themselves as “ministers” of anything but Christ or His word? Certainly, I would agree, these men “served” or “ministered to” various churches, but they resolutely resisted any temptation to exalt themselves above their brethren with any stuffy titles or self conscious claims to superiority (see Paul’s argument in 1 Cor. 1-4). No doubt if Paul and Timothy had been like some of us they would have addressed their letter to the Philippians, “Paul and Timothy, ministers of the church of Christ to the Philippi Church of Christ.”

But some will protest, you are just “disputing about words to no profit.” I think not. Our speech betrays the bent in our thinking; there is a decided clerical ring to the vocabulary among us which emphasizes the denominational drift that has made inroads into the Lord’s body. When churches or individuals go out of their way, beyond Scriptural boundaries, to elevate themselves or their activities through the use of contrived, self-centered vernacular, the fatal step to sectarianism has been taken. Clearly, the emphases of many are on the “Church of Christ” as a denominational body rather than on Christ and the gospel. It is no wonder we hear “brethren” speaking in terms of “belonging to the church of Christ” instead of Christ; or of doing something because “the church of Christ teaches it;” or of exhorting someone to “become a member of the church,” instead of submitting one’s will to Christ.

“New Testament Christianity” will not be “restored” until we clean up our vocabularies. Then perhaps we can get down to the very real business of saving souls-without all the promotional gimmicks and egotistical fanfare that accompany them. It would be good for us to reflect upon the memorable words of Harris J. Dark spoken during the Florida College Lectureship of 1955:

“Remember that the church of Christ is a group of people. It Is true that they have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. I admit that I am prejudiced In their favor, but after all is said and done, the church Is still composed of human beings. Whatever is said of the church is said of a group of people. This group of people does not constitute a standard of authority. Having been unconsciously influenced by the Catholic concept, Christians sometimes use the expression `the church of Christ teaches’ when they should say ‘Christ teaches.’

“Occasionally someone undertakes to set forth ‘the distinctive plea of the church of Christ: As long as the church follows the Bible, its most unique characteristic among religious groups is that it does not have a plea. The plea-the doctrine-came from Christ, not from the church.

“Many years ago when just a boy preacher, I undertook to write a tract on the topic ‘Our Plea.’ The more I considered the term ‘our,’ whom it included, what right we had to a plea, and what authority or merit our plea would have even if it existed the more I became discouraged. Finally, I decided it would be better to write on ‘God’s plea.’ Let us speak of the plea of Christ, the doctrine of Christ, but not the doctrine or plea of a group of people” (Ancient Faith in Conflict, pp. 33, 34).

In the midst of a flood of sectarian jargon, bro. Dark’s words flow like the breeze of a fresh spring wind. Can we all truly affirm as Paul, “For neither at any time were we found using words of flattery, as ye know, nor a cloak of covetousness, God is witness; nor seeking the glory of men, neither from you or others. . .” (1 Thess. 2:5, 6)?

Truth Magazine XIX: 48, p. 763
October 16, 1975