Truth Magazine

By Harry E. Ozment

There is not a single aspect connected with baptism about which there is not some controversy in the religious world. This is true in regard to its essentiality, its form, and its element. There is also controversy in the consideration of the subjects of baptism. Let us investigate the three main ideas that are held concerning this.

Jews Only

There are many people in the religious world who believe in and practice today the baptism of John the Baptist. In so doing, however, those people must accept the position that their baptism is for Jews only; for, John the Baptist preached only to Jews, and John baptized only the Jews. We read that all of John’s ministry was done only in a land that was inhabited by Jews (Matt. 3:5-6). Because John baptized many Jews before Jesus was manifested as the Christ, we may necessarily conclude that subjects of John’s baptism were not required to have faith in Jesus (see Matt. 3:5-12). This is not at all the baptism that Jesus commissioned in Mk. 16:15-16. Notice that the gospel was to be preached to “all the world” and to “every creature”-not just to the Jews alone (cf. Matt. 28:18-20; Lk. 24:47). Notice also that faith in Jesus is a pre-requisite to Bible baptism (Mk. 16:16). The baptism of John was never meant for this Christian dispensation. This can be seen in the events of Acts 18 and 19. Apollos was preaching and practicing the baptism of John until Aquila and Priscilla “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:24-28). The Ephesians had obeyed the baptism of John, but because this was insufficient for the gospel dispensation, Paul re-baptized them scripturally (Acts 19:1-5). We today, therefore, are not subjects of John’s baptism.

Infants

Infant “baptism” (it is really sprinkling, not baptism) is practiced by a great many in the religious world-the Roman Catholics as well as many Protestant bodies. This, of course, does not make it right. The scriptures condemn “infant baptism” for infants are not the proper subjects of baptism. This is true for several reasons:

(a) A baby has no sin. As we have seen, baptism’s purpose is to remit sin by and through the blood of Christ. Only a sinner, therefore, is a proper subject for baptism. Babies born into this world commit no sin, and they inherit no sin. Hereditary depravity (or, original sin) is the root of infant baptism. In apostatizing from the original pattern of the gospel, men began to believe that infants inherited the original sin of Adam. If this were true, these men reasoned, it would necessitate the “baptizing” of infants. Thus, infants were sprinkled in the Roman Catholic Church. This doctrine of inherited sin, however, is foreign to the Bible. Sin can only be committed, not inherited (see Ezek. 18:20). John shows this in defining sin: “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 Jn. 3:4).

(b) A baby cannot meet the pre-requisites of baptism. A mere dipping in water will save no one. There must be meaning and purpose behind such before it can be Bible baptism. Meaning and purpose is given to baptism when a person obeys its pre-requisites. Faith (Heb. 11:6), repentance (Lk. 13:3), and a confession of faith (Rom. 10:9-10) are all commands which-must be obeyed before one can be a proper subject for baptism. Infants cannot believe anything, for they do not have the capacity to understand what they should believe. Infants cannot repent for they have nothing of which to repent. Infants cannot confess, for they do not have the capacity even to speak. Therefore, they are not the proper subjects for baptism.

(c) There is no Bible example of infant baptism.

Many argue that the four examples of “household” baptisms necessarily infer that infants were baptized. Let us look briefly at the four cases:

(i) Household of Cornelius. Those composing this household were able to understand the words of Peter-thus they “heard the word” (Acts 10:44). This excludes infants.

(ii) Household of Lydia. This same household was able to be “comforted” by the words of Paul and Silas after their conversion (Acts 16:40). This excludes infants.

(iii) Household of Philippian a Jailor. When Paul preached the gospel to this house, all were able to believe it (Acts 16:34). This excludes infants.

(iv) Household of Stephanus. Paul baptized this Corinthian household (1 Cor. 1:16), but those of that household “addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints” (1 Cor. 16:15). This excludes infants.

Penitent Believers

These are the proper subjects for Bible baptism. Only penitent believers were baptized in the New. Testament. Before Philip baptized the eunuch, he made very sure that the treasurer was a believer (Acts 8:30-38). The Samaritans believed before they were baptized (Acts 8:12). Cornelius and his household were commanded to believe (Acts 10:43-44). The jailor and his house believed (Acts 16:31). Without exception, every case of conversion places faith before baptism. Therefore, only penitent believers are proper subjects for baptism. I believe that this is God’s simple plan regarding baptism and salvation. If man would take God’s word alone, there would be unity.

Truth Magazine XIX: 27, pp. 419-420
May 15, 1975

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

There is hardly a subject connected with the salvation of man that has been more heatedly contested and discussed than baptism. The importance of the subject is seen in the fact that baptism and its cognate appears over 100 times in the 269 chapters of the New Testament. We’ cannot deny the importance of the subject: In spite of the fact that the New Testament says much about baptism, there is a great deal of disagreement regarding the design of baptism. Is baptism essential to salvation or is it not? The Bible teaches that the believer must be baptized to receive salvation. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate this fact.

Men Deny the Essentiality of Baptism

There are many who maintain that we are saved at the point of faith without baptism. It is difficult to see how anyone can take this position in view of the fact that the Apostle Peter said that “baptism doth also now save us . . .” (1 Pet. 3:21). Here are a few examples of those who reject baptism:

Wayne Camp preaches for the Beverly Manor Baptist Church in Washington, Illinois. He has conducted a couple of debates with church of Christ preachers. On the essentiality of baptism, Mr. Camp says, “baptism for the remission of sins is absolutely unscriptural” (Washington Courier, Dec. 17, 1969). John R. Rice, Baptist editor of The Sword of The Lord says, “baptism does not save does not help save” (The Sword of The Lord, Dec. 6, 1968, p. 1). In the great Bogard-Warlick debate, Bogard (Baptist preacher) said, “I object to the idea that baptism is necessary to salvation because, if true, it makes God dishonest” (p. 45). In the same debate he said, “either way you take it, we see that baptism is not necessary to salvation (p. 136). Mr. A. U. Nunnery, in his debate with Guy N. Woods; said, “Baptists teach that baptism is essential. Baptists even teach that baptism is essential to salvation. Baptists do not teach that baptism is essential to acquire salvation, but they teach that baptism is essential to demonstrate salvation” (Woods-Nunnery Debate, p. 5, italics mine, jt). The New Manual For Baptist Churches says, “baptism is the performance of a good work, therefore, it is not essential to salvation” (p. 45).

What the Bible Teaches

The Bible clearly teaches that baptism of the believer is essential to salvation. As a matter of fact, baptism stands between the sinner and salvation. In the great commission Jesus said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). This cannot be controverted by denominational creeds and preachers. Look at Acts 2:38: “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 Spirit.” Another passage showing that baptism is essential is 1 Peter 3:21, “the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us . . .”

Before examining a couple of these passages in detail, we call your attention to the following chart:

What Baptism Does

Puts one into Christ – Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27

Makes one a child of God – Gal. 3:26-27

Put on Christ – Gal. 3:27

Puts into one body – 1 Cor. 12:13

Saves – Mk. 16:15-16; 1 Pet. 3:21

Remission of sins – Acts 2:38

Washes away sin – Acts 22:16

Baptism Is Therefore Essential to Salvation

It can be clearly seen that baptism has its specific design. This is true of every Divine institution. The general assumption that baptism is not essential or necessary to salvation would make God have people do something in religion that is not necessary. Why would God want us to be baptized if it is not necessary? The truth of the matter is that when God commands a thing, what He commands is positively necessary in order to obey Him (Matt. 7:21). God commands baptism (Acts 10:48). We must be baptized to please God. This is necessary in order to please him.

A Closer Look at Mark 16:16

Let’s take a closer look at the statement of Jesus: “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” The statement “he shall be saved” is the principle part of the sentence. Just who shall be saved is shown by the dependent clause, “that believeth and is baptized.” Not just any person can be saved. Only the he who believes and is baptized. The individual who will fulfill the conditions of the commission shall be saved. Those who will not believe and be baptized will not be saved. If salvation is to be obtained, both of the conditions upon which it is based must be fulfilled.

In our study of this passage we cannot overlook the conjunction “and.” Jesus said, “believeth and is baptized.” “And” is a coordinating conjunction, joining elements of equal rank. With reference to the promise, “shall be saved,” belief and baptism stand together, equal in rank. If one is essential, so is the other. Just as one must believe in order to be saved, so one must be baptized to obtain salvation. A colleague has illustrated it like this: The little word “and” is like the coupling pin that connects two box cars on a railroad track. As long as they are joined one cannot move in one direction and one in another direction. Both must move in the same direction. Faith may be represented by one box car; baptism may be represented by the other box car; the conjunction “and” joins them together as a coupling pin. Both move in the same direction as long as they are coupled by the conjunction “and.” Both are essential to salvation.

Another way to look at it is to substitute the word “plus” in the place of “and,” because the word “and” means plus. Just as two plus two equals four, so belief plus baptism equals salvation. Salvation is not by faith only (Jas. 2:24). “Believe and be baptized” means belief plus baptism. Jesus clearly said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

A Look at Acts 2:38

In this passage the inspired Apostle Peter says, “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 Spirit.” Both repentance and baptism are given as prerequisites to the remission of sins. Both of them are essential. Neither of them can be omitted or ignored. Baptism sustains exactly the same relationship to remission of sins that repentance sustains. If we are to repent for the remission of sins, we are also to be baptized for the remission of sins. Both repentance and baptism are essential. Thus Peter not only told the people what to do, he stated the design or purpose for doing it.

We are told by some that the expression “for the remission of sins” means because of the remission of sins, and that we are baptized because of salvation, not in order to obtain it. But observe, if we are to be baptized because our sins are already forgiven, then we are to repent for the same reason. No word can have opposite meanings in the same instance of its usage. The word “for” in Acts 2:38 cannot mean “in order to” as related to repentance and “because of” as related to baptism. Whatever “for” means, it means it for both parts of the sentence. The Greek word translated “for” in Acts 2:38 is never translated “because of” and never looks backward. “For” looks forward to the remission of sins. Let me illustrate: the worker labors for his wages. He labors in order to receive wages, not because he has already received them. So repentance and baptism are in order to the remission of sins.

Conclusion

When it comes to the matter of baptism do not fall back on human sentiment by offering excuses to justify yourself from the responsibility of obeying God. Remember, the way of salvation is that of complete, implicit, faithful, trusting submission to the will of Jehovah God.

Truth Magazine XIX: 27, pp. 418-419
May 15, 1975

By Ricky R. Gilreeth

When the Apostle Paul wrote to the saints at Rome, his prayer for the people of Israel was “that they might be saved” (Rom. 12:1). In the next verse, Paul described their spiritual condition in these words: “For I bear them record that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” These words, written nearly 2,000 years ago, could well have been written about many religious groups today, but especially about the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is likely that most of us have at sometime made comments similar to this: “If members of the Lord’s body only had the zeal that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have, we could accomplish much more in working for: the salvation of men’s souls.” In the second chapter of his letter to Titus, Paul wrote that the purpose of Jesus giving himself for our redemption was that he might “purify unto himself a people, zealous of good works.” Too often we, as members of the Lord’s body, fail in our responsibility to those who are lost because we lack true zeal. In contrast to this stands the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a people full of zeal. They are willing to go from door to door giving away and selling literature in an effort to convert others to their belief. But we must realize, theirs is a zeal without knowledge.

For the most part, the knowledge of the average Witness was not obtained through diligent study of God’s word. He is one who has been well trained in the art of salesmanship. Brother H. E. Phillips once wrote: “They use the Bible as if they really believed it, but they are trained experts at perverting passages and taking them out of context. They have a system of brainwashing the uninformed in the scriptures by attacking translations, faith in the Bible, and religion in general.”(1) Yes, the Witness may have zeal, but by his perversion of the scriptures and attitude toward the Bible in general, he shows he is “without knowledge.”

A witness is one who has seen something or can testify to something. Paul was a witness to the things he had seen and heard. He could testify or bear witness of those”things (Acts 26:16). Likewise, the apostles were eye-witnesses of the resurrected Lord. There is not a person living today who can testify that he has seen the resurrected Lord or Jehovah and yet, this meaning is inherent in the word “witness.” These people claim to be witnesses of God but by the definition of witness it is impossible for them to be a witness because John declared, “No man bath seen God at any time” (Jn. 1:18). It was not until 1931 at a convention in Columbus, Ohio that the name “Jehovah’s Witness” was adopted by this organization. Note the following quotation taken from a Watchtower publication:

In 1931 their representatives from many countries assembled in convention in America, resolved that they desire to be known as and called by the name which the mouth of the Lord God has named, to wit, `Jehovah’s Witnesses’: ‘Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah’ (Isa. 43:10; 44:8).(2)

We might well note here that if Isa. 43:10 teaches that those who are God’s true witnesses must be designated by the name “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” then God had no witness until the year 1931.

The “Witnesses” teach that Christ was the “faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God,” and takes preeminence amqng all the witnesses. Furthermore, they teach that Jesus appointed others to be witnesses in His words spoken in Acts 1:8. The New Testament teaches that only a select group of people were to be witnesses, and this in a special sense. Jesus gave the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit to those who were to be His witnesses-the apostles (Acts 1:8). It is apparent from the context that only the apostles were being addressed. Who were to be witnesses? The twelve apostles. For a Witness to cite Acts 1:8 is damaging to them in still another way. Keep in mind that God said to Israel, “Ye are my witnesses” (Isa. 43:10). In Acts 1:8, however, there is a change in the one of whom a person is to be a witness. Speaking to the twelve. Jesus said, “Ye shall be my (Christ’s) witnesses.” There is a clear shift in the one concerning whom testimony is being given. Of this, Van Baalen observes,

The clear shift from the command to be Jehovah’s witnesses to my witnesses’ in Acts 1:8 is ignored because to note this change to ‘the only name under heaven that is given among men wherein they must be saved’ would be to put our Lord Jesus Christ on a footing of equality with God.(3)

Thus one can readily see that these people are witnessing for the wrong personality. Their zeal in this respect falls under the same category as did Israel’s-zeal without knowledge. Certainly zeal is an attribute every Christian should possess. But in our zeal, may we always strive to have a zeal governed by a pure knowledge of God’s word, something the Jehovah’s Witnesses are without.

Endnotes

1. H. E. Phillips, “The Jehovah’s Witnesses Cult,” Truth’s Appeal, Vol. 4, No. 22 (Sept. 2, 1970), p. 2.

2. Let God Be True, 2nd Edition, (Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), p. 213.

3. J. K. Van Baalen, The Chaos of the Cults, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1962), p. 262.

Truth Magazine XIX: 26, pp. 413-414
May 8, 1975

By Warren E. Berkley

Joseph Franklin Rutherford was president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society from 1917 until 1942.(1) During and subsequent to his tenure, millions of his writings were distributed by “Jehovah’s Witnesses.” If “Pastor” Russell’s writings formulated and initiated Watchtower doctrine (and they did), Rutherford’s essays became the sustenance of the “Jehovah’s Witness” movement. Our present inquiry is this: Was J. F. Rutherford inspired by God to impart the doctrines he published? “Jehovah’s Witnesses” hold Watchtower officials in high esteem. They view Russell and Rutherford in the same category as Abraham, Moses, the apostles of Christ, and even the Lord (Let God Be True, p. 222)! On a back page advertisement in Rutherford’s book Religion, he is exalted as “an acknowledged authority on questions concerning the Bible . . . .” Too, the Watchtower organization demands that its adherents can understand the Scriptures only as interpreted by Watchtower leaders (Let God Be True, pp. 223, 225).(2) We are persuaded, therefore, that the question at hand is essential to an examination of Watchtower claims.

Rutherford’s Prophetic Blunder

Rutherford’s most famous book, Millions Now Living Will Never Die, is a clear manifestation of his unreliability as a prophet. He predicted that 1925 would be the end of the present order of things and the beginning of a new era in which millions then living would never die (p. 88).(3) But, obviously, it did not happen! Fortunately for Rutherford, the Mosaic law was not in effect at the time of his blunder! Had the law been operative he would have died! God said, `But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And you may say in your heart, `How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’ When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him” (Deut. 18:20-22). This single point cannot be taken lightly! We urge our “Jehovah’s Witness” friends to devote earnest thought to this fact. Anyone who honestly considers this argument will naturally suspect -the present appeals of Watchtower ministers. But there’s more!

On The Deity of Christ

It is the great proposition of the Bible, and the grandest truth known to the human mind, that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God; He was, and is, in His own person no less than God (John 1:1-18; 3:16; 5:18; 8:23; 20:30-31; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:3; Rom. 1:1-4, etc.). But Rutherford, the “acknowledged authority on questions concerning the Bible,” expressed a hearty distrust in the divine nature of God’s Son. The following quotations from his writings leave no doubt:

“The sinless life that is accepted in the place of the man Adam, who committed sin, must be a perfect human life. It could be nothing more, and certainly nothing less, in order to meet the requirements of God’s law” (Riches, p. 17, emphasis added, web).

“Some have earnestly believed that Jesus was God himself. But such a conclusion is not warranted by the Scriptures” (The Harp of God, p. 19; also, see page 101).

This is not without significance! The man who played a major role in the formation .of the Watchtower doctrines currently propagated by `7ehovah”s Witnesses” denied the deity of Jesus Christ! One cannot be a Christian while denying the divine nature of Christ (Acts 8:37; 1 John 4:15). Are we, in the light of these facts, to regard J. F. Rutherford as an inspired man, or an “acknowledged authority” on Bible subjects?(4)

Sufficiency of New Testament Truth

Christ promised the Holy Spirit to His apostles (Rutherford excluded), to guide them (not Watchtower officials), into all the truth (see John 16:13; Luke 24:4649; 1 Cor. 2:1-16; 2 Pet. 1:16-21; Gal. 1:6-12). This promise was fulfilled and the New Testament was completed about 1,700 years before the birth of J. F. Rutherford! (See also Heb. 1:1,2; 2:3,4; 2 Pet. 1:2,3; Jas. 1:25; Jude 3.) The complete and sufficient nature of the New Testament revelation of truth, as attested to by the passages just cited, negates the possibility of Rutherford being inspired-as well as ‘any and all Watchtower officials! We do not need the Watchtower, the Pope, or any other source of latter day, extrabiblical revelations. The New Testament is sufficient!

Conclusion

Obviously, we have only touched the surface of a vast maze of error. What we have said amounts to this: Current “Jehovah’s Witness” doctrine reflects the seeds of, error planted and nurtured by J. F. Rutherford-clearly, an uninspired man. The whole religious system of “Jehovah’s Witnesses” hangs on the validity of Watchtower creedmakers-a host of fallible humans. We earnestly plead with our friends who are under Watchtower bondage to seek freedom in the truth, for “the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

Endnotes

1. Rutherford is sometimes called “Judge” due to his legal background.

2. Detailed documentation available from the following sources: Jehovah’s Witnesses, Vol. 1 by Maurice Barnett (Printing Service, Cullman, Ala.), pages 8-12; Jehovah’s Witnesses by Anthony A. Hoekema (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich.), pages 25-44: “The Jehovah’s Witnesses” by Gene Frost in Truth Magazine, Vol. 10, No. 1, pages 19-21; and “They Shall Know That A Prophet Was Among Them,” in Watchtower, April 1, 1972.

3. A careful reading of Rutherford’s publication will reveal that this “prophetic blunder” was one among many.

4. “Jehovah’s Witnesses” do refer to Christ as the “Son of God,” but they place a construction (misconstruction) on the title that eliminates the meaning assigned to it in the New Testament. This infidelity is reflected in their mistranslation of John 1:1 in their own New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. (See their lengthy footnote at John 1:1.)

Truth Magazine XIX: 26, pp. 412-413
May 8, 1975