Truth Magazine

By Fred C. Melton

“We stay away from church, we seldom read the Bible, but we all need something to believe in . . . .”

You know, I can remember telling those great ghost stories around a bonfire out in the backyard when I was a child but I never did think that anyone took them seriously-that is until I came to Britain. I dare say there is hardly a hamlet, castle or parish church in all the United Kingdom that does not claim to have at least one ghost lurking about. Mind you, there are plenty of “spooky” places for ghosts to hide in these misty islands. Incidentally, that is something that has always puzzled me about ghosts-why are they always hiding in “spooky” old places? And why are they persistently seen only by those who believe in ghosts already? Frankly, I have been looking for a ghost ever since I have been in England but, alas, I have not seen one yet, and I have been in some pretty scary places including old castles and country manors which were declared to be haunted by the local inhabitants. I have even felt a chill go up the ole’ spine or had the urge to look over my shoulder for some unknown and as yet unseen, movement deep within the shadowy recesses of the occasional lonely country church but no spook has yet seen fit to actually reveal itself to this solemn scribe.

The theory seems to be that if someone in the past had met a violent or macabre death, their hapless soul could possibly be suspended in sort of a limbo between life and death and hang around the scene of their “departure” for some reason no one has yet been able to explain. The Catholic and Anglican churches in particular take these “happenings” quite seriously and provide a number of priests as “exorcists” to expel or sometimes satisfy “the spiritual needs” of these forlorn spirits. If you ever hanker to go ghost hunting yourself, it may be reassuring to note it is claimed by all those who profess to be “in the know” that such ghosts would not, even could not, molest you physically in any way. This brings up another small question as to why these spirits always manifest, yea, are even able to manifest themselves in some physical way such as a creaking door, thumpings on the floor and wall, or the sudden rush of a cool breeze (sudden drop of temperature is supposed to be a sure-fire sign of a ghost). As was noted before, I myself have experienced this “tingling of the spine” which could have been mistaken for a drop in temperature, but I never calculated it to be due to the presence of a ghost.

Superstitions Replace Religion

Does it surprise you to learn that twice as many adults in Britain read their horoscopes every week (even if one-half of them do not claim to believe in it) as read or hear anything about the Bible? For example, in a new countrywide national opinion poll, nearly 9 out of 10 people claim to believe in God. But when you get down to testing this, it becomes clear that most British religion has no practical relevance to the way the people live.

When given a list of superstitions, only 7 percent absolutely denied holding any of them. Far the most common superstitions were not walking under ladders and throwing salt over your shoulder-then came wishbones, the number 13, touching wood, black cats and broken mirrors. One person in 7 has a lucky charm. More than 25 percent believe in ghosts and nearly as many believe it is possible to communicate with the dead (of those who have tried, one-half claim to have succeeded). Four out of 10 people said they have had premonitions and 5 out of 10 have had the “I have been here before” feeling.

Well over one-half of all those questioned said: They do not attend church at all. Nine out of 10 Britains said one could lead a moral live without believing in God but the same number were not willing to write off the idea of God completely. They did not think the role of the church important in the world today; however, 75 percent thought it ought to be important. The vast majority of people in this country read the. Bible seldom or never. They think death is absolutely the end of personal existence or would not say there is anything to follow it. They do not believe in hell or in the devil and even more do not expect there to be a heaven, yet superstition is dramatically on the increase. The same people simply could not explain their readiness to accept the supernatural while at the same time rejecting religious values. In fact, belief in the supernatural is in some ways more enthusiastic than religious beliefs.

Consequences

There is more than a hint here that large numbers of people would like to have a church they could enthusiastically belong to or at least they would like their churches to offer a religious view of life which they could accept and at the same time satisfy their spiritual hunger.

Sorcery, and in my opinion the belief in sorcery in its various forms, is condemned throughout the scriptures, the witch of Endor notwithstanding. Yet, this spiritual confusion, which sometimes borders on desperation, reflects the fact that where there are no substantial religious moorings, superstitions tend to prevail whether in darkest Africa or modern Britain. Man, it seems, must worship something. He must believe in some form of spiritual values, however depraved those values may become. There is simply something in man that craves-indeed knows-a spiritual world does exist although he may seek to formally reject the idea.

Truth Magazine XIX: 30, p. 466
June 5, 1975

By Steve Wolfgang

The Civil War

The dispute with Ferguson, the missionary society question, the controversy with Richardson and Campbell, and the burning of the church’s building were not the end of the church’s troubles, however. With the coming of the Civil War, the activities of the church were even more adversely affected. From the beginning, “most young Disciples North and South carefully packed their Bibles into saddlebags and rode off to war:”(1) Enrollments at Southern colleges, particularly, were adversely affected,(2) and this included Franklin College which suspended its activities.(3) Later, as Nashville “became the leading supply depot. in the West for the supplies of the Federal armies,”(4) especially during Sherman’s Atlanta campaign, the College grounds were used as barracks.(5) While the war had many adverse effects on the church directly during the time of the military hostilities, it also, indirectly, had a much more deleterious effect on the Churches of Christ generally and Nashville in particular. The pre-war doctrinal controversies alluded to above combined with sectional animosities to sunder the body of Christ during the next half-century: “. . .sectional hatreds, added to the already emerging arguments over the society question, created strife which has lasted over a hundred years;”(6) “the scars of these wounds are yet visible in the movement.”(7)

The main representations of this division were the sectionally-representative periodicals which emerged following the war, notably the Christian Standard in the North and the Gospel Advocate in the South. We have already alluded to the influence that Fanning had, even after his death, on a host of emerging younger preachers. The most obvious illustration of this phenomenon, is, of course, the Gospel Advocate. Fanning had begun the Advocate in 1855 with William Lipscomb. This was by no means his first (or last) attempt to religious journalism. Beginning in 1844, Fanning had published the Christian Review, which later, in 1849 became the Christian Magazine, under the auspices of Jesse B. Ferguson, who later used it to further his false doctrine. Fanning had also edited the secular periodicals, the, Agriculturalist and the Naturalist, during the 1840’s.(8) Later, he would publish the Religious Historian from 1872 until his death two years later. After the Gospel Advocate resumed publication in 1866, it was largely the paper of David Lipscomb. Lipscomb had been a student of Fanning’s at Franklin College, with (among others) Elisha G. Sewell and T. B. Larimore.(9)

The years of Reconstruction and those following were difficult years for the South, and the church in the South. They saw the church grow, but halve its growth due to doctrinal division. They saw the formation of the Tennessee State Missionary Society,(10) and the evolution of the church in Nashville to become Vine Street Christian Church, replete with organ and such “progressive” preachers as R. C. Cave and R. Lin Cave.(11) While we do not have the space to go into the details of the division, it was much like the division all over the nation, involving much acrimony, recrimination, and trials over church property.(12)

By the time the division had been completed, the churches in the Nashville area emerged as strong as those anywhere in the country.

At the turn of the century, the majority of the membership of the Church of Christ centered in Tennessee, with some 41,411 members in the Volunteer State-more than three times that of Kentucky and Alabama. Of the eight, adjacent states Arkansas, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi-the total membership of all combined did not exceed that of Tennessee.(13)

Post War Developments

One significant development which would have many later implications for the churches of Christ was the founding of Nashville Bible School in 1891. The school was operated for many years under the auspices of David Lipscomb (for whom it was later renamed) and, until the early twentieth century, by James Alexander Harding.(14) In 1901, Harding left, with his son-in-law, John Nelson Armstrong, to go to Bowling Green, Kentucky, and establish Potter Bible College, and later several other colleges at various places in Oklahoma, Missouri, and Arkansas (the one in Arkansas eventually culminated in Harding College).(15)

One cannot close a discussion of the earlier history of the church in the Nashville area without reference to the debates and large assemblies at the Ryman Auditorium. It had been built in 1892 by Captain Thomas G. Ryman, prominent Nashville citizen and affluent steamship magnate, who had been “converted” by the famous revivalist, Sam Jones. Originally named the Union Gospel Tabernacle, it was changed to honor Ryman after his death on December 24, 1904.(16) In the twentieth century, it became famous with the advent of radio as the “home of the Grand Ole Opry.” But it was also the scene of some significant religious gatherings. In the fall of 1921, plans were made which culminated in the first of the Hardeman Tabernacle meetings the following year, from March 26 to April 18, 1922.(17) Shortly thereafter, F. B. Srygley, one of the editors of the Gospel Advocate, received a letter which ultimately led to the discussion between N. B. Hardeman and Ira M. Boswell from May 31 to June 5, 1923.(18) The Christian Churches’ “Commission on Unity” had distributed a book by O. E. Payne on the Instrumental Music question, and was responded to with a challenge for public discussion with its chairman, John B. Cowden.(19) The outcome was not only the Hardeman-Boswell oral discussion in the Ryman Auditorium, but a written discussion between H. Leo Boles, President of David Lipscomb College and editor for the Gospel Advocate,(20) and M.D. Clubb, Christian Church preacher who had succeeded Cowden as editor of the Tennessee Christian.(21) Boles also carried on a written discussion on the premillennial controversy with R. H. Boll.(22) The premillennial controversy had plagued the churches of Christ since Boll first introduced the teaching on the front pages of the Advocate while he was on the editorial staff in 1915.(23) By the early 1930’s when Foy E. Wallace, Jr. had moved to Nashville to assume the editorship of the Gospel Advocate, the battle was at its peak and involved a number of public discussions.(24) The Hardeman Tabernacle Meetings of 1938 were also affected by the controversy,(25) which eventually involved a number of prominent Tennessee preachers, including G. C. Brewer,(26) as well as Boles, Hardeman, Wallace, and others.

While this is admittedly a brief sketch, hopefully it will shed some light on the early history of how the Lord’s church came to e1jist in this area,(27) and can provide background information for another article on the more current history of the Cause in the Nashville area.

Endnotes

1. David Edwin Harrell, Jr., Quest For a Christian America: Disciples of Christ and American Society to 1865 (A Social History of the Disciples of Christ, Volume I; Nashville: Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1966), p. 153.

2. Ibid., p. 155.

3. Wilburn, pp. 210-211; Norton, Tennessee Christians, p. 70.

4. Jesse C. Burt, Nashville: Its Life and Times (Nashville: Tennessee Book Company, 1959), p. 55.

5. Wilburn, p. 221.

6. Edward G. Holley, review of Wilburn, Discipliana, XXIX:4 (Fall, 1969), p. 78.

7. Harrell, op. cit., p. 170. See also chapters 4 (“Slavery and Sectionalism: An Entering Wedge”), and 5 (“Pacifism and Patriotism: The Cleavage Deepens”) especially pp. 170-174. See also idem., “The Sectional Origins of the Churches of Christ,” Journal of Southern History, XJCX (August, 1964), pp. 261-277; and The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900 (A, Social History of the Disciples of Christ, Volume II; Atlanta: Publishing Systems, Inc., 1973), especially chapters 1 and 13.

8. Wilburn, pp. 42-43, 58-60.

9. Ibid., p. 100.

10. Norton, Tennessee Christians, p. 189. See also chapter 05, “Reconstruction, Resentment, and Retaliation:” There were also numerous debates with sectarian preachers during this period. For example, David Lipscomb debated a Baptist named G. W. Griffin at Gallatin in January,’1872; in December of 1873, T. W. Brents of Lewisburg debated Jacob Ditzler, a Methodist debater, at Franklin (Wilburn, pp. 255-256). Brents, author of the widely known book, The Gospel Plan of Salvation, also debated an Indiana Baptist, E. D. Herod, at Franklin in March and April of 1887 (Gospel Advocate, XXIX:14 (April 6, 1887). There were many more such debates throughout the area; these are merely examples.

11. Alfred Leland Crabb, Nashville: Portrait of a City (Indianapolis: Boobs-Merrill, 1960), p. 158.

12. See Norton, Tennessee Christians, pp. 208-225.

13. Corlew, et. al., p. 421.

14. Norton, Tennessee Christians, pp. 183-185.

15. See Lloyd Cline Sears, The Eyes of Jehovah: The Life and Faith of James Alexander Handing (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1970), and For Freedom: The Biography of John Nelson Armstrong (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Publishing Company, 1969). After Harding left, Lipscomb deeded the current site of the school to the college, which now stands just off Granny White Pike in Nashville. Norton, Tennessee Christians, p. 185; William Waller, editor, Nashville: 1900 to 1910 (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1972), p. 288. For biographical information on David Lipscomb, see Earl I. West, The Life and Times of David Lipscomb, (Henderson, Tennessee: Religious Book Service, 1954).

16. William Waller, editor, Nashville in the 1890’s (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1970), pp. 120, 278.

17. See “History and Description of the Meeting,” by N. B. Hardeman, Hardeman’s Tabernacle Sermons (Nashville: McQuiddy Printing Company, 1922), pp. 9-14; and James Marvin Powell and Mary Nelle Hardeman Powers, NBH: A Biography of Nicholas Brodie Hardeman (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1964), chapter 15, “The Tabernacle Meetings,” pp. 169-183. The Ryman Auditorium was said to seat 6,000 to 8,000 persons, and, reportedly, it was filled to capacity and an estimated 2,000 more persons were turned away on the opening day of the series, March 28, 1922. Other similar series were held at Ryman in 1923, 1928, 1938, and 1942 (Powell and Powers, pp. 176, 179, 180, 182).

18. “Introduction” in Boswell-Hardeman Discussion on Instrumental Music (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1957 reprint), pp. 5-24.

19. Ibid. See also Norton, Tennessee Christians, p. 251. F. B. Srygley estimated that between 6,000 and 7,000 people heard this discussion, (in Powell and Powers, p. 194).

20. Leo Lipscomb Boles and J. E. Choate, I’ll Stand on the Rock: A Biography of H. Leo Boles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1965, pp. 160-165.

21. The exchange was carried simultaneously in the Christian. Evangelist and the Gospel Advocate (Norton, Tennessee Christians, pp.249-252).

22. H. Leo Boles and R. H. Boll, Unfulfilled Prophecy: A Discussion on Prophetic Themes (Nashville: Gospel Advocate’ Company, 1954 reprint). This written discussion was first published in the Gospel Advocate between and including the issues of May 19 and November 3, 1927. See Choate and Boles, p. 167; Edward Fudge, “Millennialism in the Restoration Movement,” Gospel Guardian, XXI: 12-14 (July 24-August 7, 1969), pp. 181-185.

23. See the issues of the Gospel Advocate from March 11, 1915 to February 24,1916.

24. Probably the best known of these was the Neal-Wallace discussion in Winchester, Kentucky, in 1933.

25. See Powell and Powers, pp. 180-182.

26. See The Anchor That Holds: A Biography of Benton Cordell Goodpasture (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1971), pp. 140-146. For the biographical information on Brewer, see A Story of Toil and Tears of Love and Laughter (Being the Autobiography of G. C. Brewer, 1884-I956), Murfreesboro, Tennessee: DeHoff Publications, 1957).

27. In 1958, the religion editor of the Nashville Tennesseean estimated that there were over 110 Churches of Christ in Davidson County (metropolitan Nashville). See James W. Carty, Jr., Nashville as a World Religious Center (Nashville: Cullom & Ghertner, 1958), p. 11.

Truth Magazine XIX: 29, pp. 460-462
May 29, 1975

By Ron Halbrook

The Program Services Dept. of the Tennessee Baptist Convention (P.O. Box 647, Brentwood, Tennessee 37027) is circulating a tract by J. Walter Carpenter entitled Water Baptism. God commended the people of Berea because they carefully examined the message of Paul by searching the scriptures daily, whether those things were so (Acts 17:11). Surely Mr. Carpenter and the Baptists of Tennessee will not object if we do the same thing.

The author of the tract says he had to study Greek and go to college majoring in Greek before he could show baptism was not necessary for the forgiveness of sins. It seems he once believed it was necessary as a part of “the plan of salvation” and even preached it from “the age of sixteen.” Apparently, if he had continued to preach what the Bible says in the English language, he would still be preaching baptism “is essential to salvation.” But after “hundreds of hours” study in “Greek grammar and the Greek text,” he finally decided he could write an article proving baptism is not necessary (contrary to the admitted teaching of the. English translations). This raises an interesting question. Cannot we find the truth in our English translations, or must we be Greek scholars to be saved? Many of us do well enough to understand ordinary English; if the Lord has hidden the truth from all but scholars of ancient histories, languages, and grammars, then many of us will be lost! The common man just cannot make it to heaven! It is strange indeed that when Christ taught, “the common people heard him gladly,” and when Paul preached, “not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, nor many noble” answered the call of the gospel (Mark 12:37; I Corinthians 1:26).

“Jesus answered, verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Mr. Carpenter says on page three that John 3:5 does not refer to baptism. Being “born of water” refers to “natural physical birth.” This will not work because Nicodemus asked the Lord to explain the new birth, not the old one. Jesus said in verse 3, “Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The natural physical birth was no mystery to Nicodemus and he did not ask about it. But the idea of being “born again” did puzzle him, so he asked, “How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” (vs. 4). Jesus spoke of being born again and Nicodemus asked how does it happen. When Jesus answered the question of how to be born again, he said, “Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” No matter how hard men try to make it go away, Jesus put the water in the new birth just as surely as he put the Spirit.

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). Mr. Carpenter says in discussing this passage, “This Scripture bothered me more than any other” (pp. 4-7). He has decided baptism cannot be for the remission of sins for the following reasons:

(1) Salvation is ” ‘by grace’ on God’s part.” We all agree salvation is the gift of God’s grace. Nothing we can ever do can make us so wonderful and worthy that God would be obligated to save us. Still, a gift of God may be conditioned upon obedience; in other words, He gives the gift when we obey what He commands. In Joshua 6:2, “The Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thins hand Jericho,” and in the next few verses He commanded the people to. march “about the city” for six days, one time per day, then seven times on the seventh day, and then to “blow with the trumpets.” When they obeyed, “the wall fell down flat” and they received the gift (vs. 20). A gift does not exclude obedience. Baptism is required for the gift of salvation.

(2) Salvation is ” `through faith’ on man’s part.” We all agree that faith is necessary for salvation, but faith does not exclude obedience. Faith pleases God and brings His grace when faith moves man to obedience. “By faith Abraham . . . obeyed” (Hebrews 11:8). Faith does not save before obedience, but faith saves at the point of obedience. By faith we must be baptized for the remission of sins.

(3) “We are saved by the blood of Jesus without any merit on our own.” Salvation by the blood of Christ does not exclude obedience. Christ shed his blood “for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28), yet we must be baptized “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). “Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8), but “know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:3).

(4) Mr. Carpenter says the word “for” in Acts 2:38 (“for the remission of sins”) is similar in meaning to the word “at” in Luke 11:32 (“at the preaching of Jonah”). In other words, we are to be baptized “at (by which he means because of) the remission of sins,” not for the remission of sins. He tries to make his argument by discussing technicalities of Greek grammar which it took him “hundreds of hours” to master.

Whether one knows Greek or English, he can understand the clear parallel of Acts 2:28 (“for the remission of sins”) and Matthew 26:28 (“for the remission of sins”). Matthew says Christ shed his blood ‘for the remission of sins.” What does that mean? (a) He shed his blood because of our sins having already been forgiven before he shed his blood? or (b) He shed his blood in order to obtain the forgiveness of our sins? The answer is obvious. Whatever “for the remission of sins” means in Matthew 26:28, it means in Acts 2:38. When Jesus shed his blood, that was the divine part in salvation-bringing remission of sins. When we . are baptized, that is our part in salvation-bringing remission of sins.

Furthermore, Mr. Carpenter will not apply his own explanation! He says, “Acts 2:38 may correctly be translated ‘repent and be baptized in (or on the basis of) the remission of sins.’ ” If this means one is saved before baptism, it means he is saved before repentance. But Mr. Carpenter does not believe one is saved before repentance because he says, “Repentance is clearly demanded as the first step.” So he thinks repentance is the very first thing that must happen before salvation. He destroys his own doctrine of repentance when he says Acts 2:38 means one must repent and be baptized to show that he is already saved.

Mr. Carpenter apparently claims to have studied the Greek very carefully as a Baptist. “When God gave me the answer from the Greek text I knew that I was a ‘Baptist’ . . . .” But Baptist scholars who have studied the Greek and translated the New Testament do not translate Acts 2:38 like Mr. Carpenter says it should be. Here is how his own Baptist scholars translate: (a) “Peter said to them, ‘You must repent-and, as an expression of it, let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ-that you may have your sins forgiven;” (Charles B. Williams Translation, 1950 edition). (b) ” ‘Repent,’ answered Peter, ‘and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins . . .’ ” (H. B. Montgomery Translation, 1924).

“And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Mr. Carpenter found it difficult to change the meaning of this verse, as he says, “This verse was the last to clear up for me.” After doing much additional study on “the Greek tense,” then giving much thought for “several years” more, he finally decided “that the phrase ‘and wash away thy sins’ logically went with the phrase which followed, ‘calling on His name.’ ” So then he decided “Paul was saved when he called on the Lord on the road to Damascus . . . .” Baptism would be needed only to show others “Saul had genuinely become a child of God ‘by means of calling on His name’ ” (see pp. 7-9).

If Saul had already been saved when he spoke to the Lord on the Damascus road, why does Ananias now tell him three days later, “Why tarriest thou? Arise . . . and wash away thy sins.”His sins were not yet forgiven!

It is true that “wash away thy sins” is connected to the last part of the verse (“calling on the name of the Lord”). But it is equally connected with the first part of the verse (“arise and be baptized”). The word “and” is a connecting word; “and” joins things together. A simple reading of the verse shows “wash away. thy sins” is joined and connected with “arise and be baptized” as well as with “calling on the name of the Lord.”

Mr. Carpenter ,makes two major errors: First, he says Paul’s sins were already washed away when the Bible says they were not. Ananias tells Paul to do what Mr. Carpenter says Paul had already done-“wash away thy sins.” Second, he chops off the first part of the verse and says “wash away thy sins” is connected only to the last part. We cannot chop up the Bible that way and please God.

“. . . In the days of Noah . . . few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:20-21). This is amazing! Mr. Carpenter is going to try to add the word “not” to 1 Peter 3:2021. The verse says in part, “baptism doeth also now save us” and Mr. Carpenter wants it to say that baptism doth also now not save us. Here are the arguments he gives to prove baptism does not save us (pp. 9-10):

(1) The people in the ark were saved “not by immersion, but by riding on top of the water.” But Peter’s comparison is not based on whether some one is in or on top of water; it is based on the simple fact of being “saved by water.”

(2) The people in the ark received “escape from death, not a salvation from sin.” Peter’s comparison l is not based on exactly what some one was saved from, but on the simple fact of being “saved by water.”

(3) “Only Jesus saves . . . .” Jesus is our only Savior, but he will save us only if we obey his will (Heb. 5:8-9). The question is not what Jesus does, but what we must do to receive salvation; the Bible says, “baptism doth also save us.”

(4) Baptism must be taken with the phrase “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.” We agree the purpose of baptism is not to wash dirt off the body. The question is this: does baptism also now save us? What does the Bible say?

(5) Baptism is for “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” We agree on this. The question is, what shall we teach the consciences of people: (a) baptism doth also now save us? or (b) baptism doth also now not save us?

Mr. Carpenter’s effort to insert “not” in 1 Peter 3:21 is no better than Satan’s effort to insert “not” in Genesis 2:17 (“in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”).

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16). Here is another amazing case. The Bible says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Mr. Carpenter tries to explain it so as to get the word “not” added in; he wants it to read, “He that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved.” Here are the reasons he gives for claiming Mark 16:16 does not require baptism for salvation (pp. 10-12):

(1) This is a “spurious” passage; that means someone “added” it to the Bible-a claim that simply means Mr. Carpenter wants to subtract it or take it out. Remember, he wants it out because it does not have not where he wants it.

(2) The verse might mean, “He that believeth and is committed (to Christ in heart and life) shall be saved.” If that is what it means, what must be done in order to become saved and fully committed to Christ? Be baptized! How does this help?

(3) “. . . salvation from sin is ‘by faith’ on man’s part . . . this `one essential’, is mentioned first . . . .” The verse does not say anything about one essential; it gives at least two. The verse includes faith, but he wants it to say “faith only’=”he that believeth only and is not baptized shall be saved.” Shall we obey Christ or Carpenter?

Mr. Carpenter’s last argument is that the Bible “will not permit the salvation of a soul from sin to be based upon faith plus any kind of work.” So, now he wants to take a “not” out of the Bible! Listen to James 2:24, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not q faith only.” The Bible says not by faith only. We must take either the word of men or the word of God-there is no middle ground.

The very scriptures Mr. Carpenter tries to remove still stand unmoved. The word of God liveth and abideth forever. Let us search the scriptures to know what is true. Then let us obey God’s word-“seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth” (1 Pet. 1:22).

Truth Magazine XIX: 29, pp. 458-460
May 29, 1975

By Larry A. McKee

Every generation has its rebels, idealists, drop-outs, and anarchists. We have ours but they have developed no new insights into life’s problems, nor are they any worse in their reactions or less radical in their solutions than their predecessors. Many Christians view this anarchy which exists in many quarters as an unsolvable problem and as proof that an end has come to our way of life. Yet this does not have to be the case. It is the purpose of this article to reflect on a period of history very similar to our own and, through it, to understand and hopefully help the young people in our homes and churches.

Few periods of history more closely parallel the anarchy presently among some of our youth than that of Russia in the late 1800’s. A study of this period is a study of Nihilism. Nihilism is defined by Webster as “the doctrine that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake, independent of any constructive program.” The term was first used in 1862 by Turgueniev in his celebrated novel Fathers And Children. However, the best discussion of Nihilism I have found is in the Encyclopedia Britannica (the 17th edition, 1911), Vol. 19. (The “scholarship” of modern liberal intellectuals has become so biased that they cannot treat the subject objectively.)

External Manifestations of Nihilism

This revealing article relates that Turgueniev noticed among the students of the universities, “young men and women in slovenly attire, who called in question and ridiculed the generally received convictions and respectable conventionalities of social life, and who talked of reorganizing society on strictly scientific principles. They reversed the traditional order of things even in trivial matters of external appearance, the males allowing the hair to grow long and the female adepts cutting it short and adding sometimes the additional badge of blue spectacles. Their appearance, manners and conversation were apt to shock ordinary people, but to this they were profoundly indifferent . . . and rather liked to scandalize people still under the influence of what they considered antiquated prejudices.” Does this not sound familiar? The three methods used to “shock ordinary people” by 19th century Nihilists are the same used by 20th century revolutionaries. Their appearance, manners (morals), and conversation say little of civilization, “intellectualism” or even intelligence. It is true we are shocked by the filthy language and immoral behavior of these “saviors of the world.” Their actions are calculated to alienate not only the hard-core revolutionary but all young people from decent, moral, and respectable persons and polarize themselves into a community bent upon destruction.

It might be well to make an observation at this point. Many parents and preachers make the mistake of opposing the trifle (old clothes, etc.) with the same fervor as immorality, even putting them in the same class. This helps no one but the rebels because it only clouds the real issues. Our young people are honest and intelligent. If you present the facts to them in a reasonable manner, they usually will see the truth and take the proper action. But when, for example, their style of dress (not decency) is made a condition of goodness and they are forced to conform to the traditions of their elders, they are blinded to the real problem and are made to chose between their peers and their parents. Many times the choice is made for rebellion because we got the cart before the horse. Jesus compared this to making the outside of the cup and platter clean but not the inside. There are vital issues involved here which must be impressed on our young people if they are to make a rational choice. It is sad when adults try to keep teenagers off the wrong path but are not able to discuss anything deeper than trivia, leading them to believe that blue jeans and old army coats are the issue.

For those who live like the ostrich with their heads in the sand, let this encyclopedia spell out what is to be destroyed. “Among the antiquated institutions which had to be abolished as obstructions to real progress, were religion, family life, private property and centralized administration. Religion was to be replaced by the exact sciences, family life by free love, private property by collectivism and centralized administration by a federation of independent communes” (emphasis mine, LM). Remember, dear reader, these quotes afire not about the United States in the 1960’s and 1970’s but of Russia in the 1860’s and 1870’s. They do not tell of the terrorism, murder of police and government officials or the liquidation of comrades suspected of treachery. Yet it reads like one of our local newspapers simply because the same underlying cause is involved, namely, youth without real values. You see, they too had been taught the “fashionable doctrine of evolution” which takes God away from man and replaces Him with a pseudo-science devoid of morality. Man, to the evolutionist, is just an animal. An animal has no morality. He has no decency. He has no respect for authority or the rights of others, or even himself. With this theory of evolution as their spiritual standard, they helped bring about the slavery not only of the Russian people by Communism, but also of one-third of the world’s population. Now we see our own youth being led down the same road with the same lies. As you can see freedom and morality, yea, even Christianity, are the real issues.

You Must Take the Offense

But there is an answer, an answer to every fearful, tearful, and prayerful parent. Take your children, while they are small, and fill them so full of God, His love and His laws that there will be no room for the foolishness and wiles of the devil. Teach them respect for you, for others, and for themselves by teaching them respect for God and His will. It’s up to you as a parent to follow the direction of Almighty God given in Deut. 6:7-9. “And thou shall teach them (the words of God-LM) diligently unto thy children, and thou shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.”

It’s an awesome responsibility to be a parent. When teenagers go through their “stages,” looking and acting like teenagers, it takes the patience of Job. When teenagers are faced with temptation from every side, it takes the wisdom of Solomon. When teenagers are bombarded with evolution, atheisn4, and immorality, it takes the faith of Abraham. Children cannot raise themselves to serve God, and they cannot avoid the pitfalls of life without our experience. If we do not begin today to train our children in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord,” we will lose everything. We will lose our freedom, our homes, and our opportunity to save souls. But most important of all we will lose our children. Either we will mold them into faithful children of God or watch them prepare for a burning hell as children of the devil. You will make the difference!

Truth Magazine XIX: 29, pp. 457-458
May 29, 1975