Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

“A new baptism ceremony proposed for eight merger seeking Protestant denominations would allow either full immersion or sprinkling but urges the seven `sprinkling’ churches . . . not to spare the water.

“The executive committee of the Consultation on Church Union (COCU), in authorizing the distribution of the rite for use and study, also suggested last week that baptisms is as appropriate for infants as it is for mature youths.

“It described the rite as Afresher@ in language than the traditional rite.

“Whichever baptizing method is used, and whatever the age of the candidate, enough water should be used >for it to he seen, heard and felt as a forceful material sign of. God’s active power,’ according to a background paper issued by the committee . . . .

“A common contemporary practice in sprinkling, the paper said, is for the minister to place his hand in the baptismal font, wet it, and place his wet hand em the person’s head either once or three times, while receiting ( sic) the baptismal words.

“Of the eight participating churches in (COCU, only the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) regularly baptizes its members by immersion and usually no earlier than. ages 10, 11, or 12.

“The other COCU participants, which normally use a sprinkling, or sometimes a pouring, method and permit baptizing of infants are The United Methodist Church, The Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church U.S. (Southern.), and . . . the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the AE Zion Church and the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. The combined U.S. membership of the eight churches, is about 20 million . . . .” (John Dart, Courier Journal, Louisville, Ky., Dec. 25, 1972.)

Comment:

To those familiar with the teaching of the New Testament, the above article is its own refutation. It needs no words to reveal its pitiful ignorance. However, the average citizen or sectarian is not informed. The “20 million” membership of the COCU is no doubt oblivious to the appalling absurdity of its baptism rite. The need for constant teaching of the most basic, fundamental doctrines of New Testament is argued in strong and eloquent term, by this “background paper.” If someone thinks too much emphasis is given to the action, design, and subjects of water baptism, show them this article.

Merger Seekers

The “eight merger-seeking Protestant denominations”what do they want to merge? They have the urge to merge eight Protestant denominations. When they get the urge to purge the denominations out of existence, they may accomplish something. Denominations, Protestant or otherwise, are not mentioned in the Bible. What Scriptures show us how to merge denominations? Surely, the Bible completely furnishes us unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). Where, then, is the Divine blueprint for blending numerous systems of faith? The apostles neglected to draw one up. The Architect of the church planned no denominational structures, hence, He needed no denominational plans or patterns of action.

Unscriptural Suggestions

What right has the “executive committee” to suggest doctrines and practices which transgress and do not abide in the doctrine of Christ? The committee’s rite “would allow either full immersion or sprinkling.” The committee “also suggested . . . that baptism is as appropriate for infants as it is for mature youths.” (But what is “full immersion?” The difference between immersion and “full immersion” is about as easy to explain as the difference between totally and “most totally.”) Sprinkling is not immersion, but immersion is baptism, therefore, sprinkling is not baptism.

Is baptism appropriate for infants? Appropriate means “fit or proper; suitable.” The only way to tell if a thing is appropriate is to see if it is scriptural. If it is authorized by the word of God, it is proper. Infant baptism is not thereby authorized. Nothing in the Scriptures even remotely “suggests” the propriety of infant baptism. So, it is not suitable, except, of course, to the “executive committee” and its ” 20 million” disciples. Well, if one cannot speak scripturally, he may as well use >fresher’ ” language.

If infants may be baptized as appropriately as “mature youths,” would it be proper to take an unbelieving, mature youth and baptize him? If he cried and kicked and screamed, could we still be “appropriate” and baptize him? Why not? Babies often do the same thing, yet they “baptize” them, so why not a mature youth? Oh, how I, would love to place my hands, “either once or three times,” on the executive committee while reciting scriptural words concerning baptism!

“Soak ’em Good”

The ” `sprinkling’ ” churches are urged “not to spare the water,” and to use enough water “to be seen, heard and felt.” With these suggestions, there is likely to be lots of water on the floor. Why, what better way to “see, hear and feel” God’s power than to splish and splash with reckless abandon C hallelujah! Before you know it, priestly robes will have to be waterproofed.

Sloshing water will certainly be “seen, heard and felt” when one is baptized after the New Testament order (Acts 8:38). Why did not the executive committee simply turn to the Scripture and make this matter clear in its “background paper?” But reading and heeding the New Testament is not a “common contemporary practice” of denominationalism, thus, methinks the “executive committee” ought to be “committed” for its unscripturally suggestive remarks.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:30, p.12
May 30, 1974

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

When I think of placing God first in our lives, I think of Matthew 6:33. Jesus said, “but seek ye first the kingdom of Gods, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” Obviously the most important thing is to enrich oneself with treasures which make man rich toward God,- righteousness, godliness and a host of other virtues. Placing God first causes us to deprive materialism of all its false value. We will not trust in it because we know of its uncertainty. We do not desire it because we know its dangers. We certainly will not boast of it because we know it adds nothing to our real worth. “Godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world., and it is certain we can carry nothing out” (I Tim. 6:6-7).

A godly man is content with what he possesses. He is freed from the thirst for perishing treasures because he possesses treasures of a higher and more enduring character. Placing God first, he is content. What he has is sufficient in and of itself. He knows that he “who hath God hath all; who hath him not, hath less than nothing.” God must come first in our lives.

I one a read that when the daughter of General Booth was a child, she lived in relative poverty, devoid of the common luxuries. When she grew older she began to realize how little they had in their humble home. One day she said, “Father, why don’t we have more things like other folks?” General Booth said, “get me a piece of paper and a pencil.” Making a dot in the center of the sheet, he wrote above it “things.” Around it he drew a circle and named it “man,” and a still larger circle and called it “God.” “Now,” said the general, “I have always given ‘things’ in this world the place of the little dot, I have given ‘man’ the first circle and placed ‘GOD’ at the circumference-giving Him the large place.” Asking for a second sheet of paper, he said to his daughter, “I will now place another dot at the center and name it `GOD.’ The first circle will be ‘man,’ and the outer one >things.’ Which will you have, daughter-‘God’ as the little dot, or the big circle? “The daughter said, “put God at the outer circle and let things always be the little dot!” May things always be the little dot in our lives. Place God first.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:30, p. 11
May 30, 1974

By Donald P Ames

(We continue our review of the tract by the above title written by Jim B. Miller, a minister of the First Assembly of God in Brenham, Tex., who also claims to have formerly been a member of the body of Christ-1 Jn. 2:19).

16. That musical instruments in public worship is a violation of Scripture. If Mr. Miller thinks there is no passage to defend this teaching, it is quite obvious he never understood the teachings of the word of God to begin with, and that in less than one year he did not progress “long enough” to ever learn what we actually do believe. Since there is no authority for their use, they stand condemned under 2 Jn. 9, 1 Jn. 3:4, 1 Cor. 4:6, Matt. 15:8-9, etc. Paul notes this argument in Heb. 7:14 in pointing out Christ could not be a priest on earth (Heb. 8:4) since he was not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah, “with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.” Silence did not authorize (see also Lev. 10:1-2). Since he claims to have learned more, maybe he can show us the authority for their use today.

17. That it is a violation of Scripture for a church to be called anything else other than “the Church of Christ.” Again his ignorance of what we actually believe is showing. The N.T. church is referred to in a number of different terms, such as “my church” (Matt. 16:18), “the church of God” (2 Cor. 1:1), “the household of God” (1 Tim. 3:15), “the kingdom” (Col. 1:13, Rev. 1:9), etc., in addition to being the body (church) of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23, Rom. 16:16). Since Christ is its head, savior, purchaser, foundation, and it is his bride, it logically follows that it should bear his name or one so designated by him (Col. 3:17) and so should his followers (I Pet. 4:16). Such reflects the glory to God and not to men and human actions as does denominationalism. The calling of ourselves after human names was condemned by Paul in 1 Cor. 1:10-13.

18. That one must affiliate with the “Church of Christ” denomination in order to be a true Christian. If such a denomination exists (begun by Alexander Campbell or any other man), no true Christian can be in such and please God who disapproves of denominationalism and division (Gal. 5:19-21). On the other hand, one cannot be pleasing to God, do His will, worship as He prescribes, and get to heaven without being a part of His body or church. The churches of men are a clear affront to His very will (Matt. 15:8-9, 13). We find in Acts 2:47 that the Lord adds to the church those who are saved, and 1 Cor. 12:13 points out we are “baptized into one body” (see also Eph. 2:16). Thus, upon obedience to his will, we are automatically added to His body by Him-that which He promised to build (Matt. 16:18), over which He is the head (Eph. 1:22), which He died upon the cross to purchase (Acts 20:28), and the only institution He has promised to save (Eph. 5:23). No one can be a true Christian and not be a member of the body of Christ because being one is equated with being in the other. Again, Mr. Miller does not know what we actually believe, and perhaps this is why he claims to be an “Ex-Campbellite.” He never was a true Christian at the beginning, but merely following the teachings of men rather than the word of God, and as such, never comprehended the true nature of the body of Christ.

19. That elders are chosen by election or function in any other office than that of preaching and teaching God’s Word. If Mr. Miller thinks all there is to being an elder is to run for a political election, he evidently has not read the qualifications set forth in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. That the office of an overseer, presbyter, bishop, or elder involved more than just preaching the word is evident from 1 Pet. 5:13, Heb. 13:17, 1 Tim. 5:17, Acts 20:28, etc. To oversee inherents within it authority, just as to rule does, yet such must be done according to the will of God and not to suit their own fancies. Paul recognized this office in Phil. 1:1 and many other passages. And, if all their work is in just teaching and preaching, one is made to ask why must they be married and have children (read 1 Tim. 3:5)? Paul was authorized to preach, but he did not have to have these qualifications, hence the two are not the same office (note that they are treated separately in Eph. 4:11 as well-“pastors” are elders). Again, Mr. Miller’s lack of understanding is evident.

20. That the Gift of Tongues ceased in the Apostolic Age (1 Cor. 13:8, 12: 1 Jn. 3:2; 1 Cor. 1: 7-8). Why just the “Gift of Tongues”? Why not all the gifts mentioned in Mark 16:17-18? It is interesting to note Mr. Miller refers to 1 Cor. 13, and does not call attention to verses 8-10. Paul here shows that when that which is perfect is come (the completed revealed will of God-James 1:25), there was to be no more need for partial revelations, prophecies, etc. Hence the futility of quarreling over who was going to get to employ what gift-they were only of a temporary nature to begin with, as the context of the 12th through 14th chapters reveal. But since the revealed word of God makes us “thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and these things “are written that ye might believe” (Jn. 20:30-31), we affirm the word of God is sufficiently powerful to save the sinner (Rom. 1:16). The miracles were given to confirm that word (Mark 16:20, Heb. 2:4), and once it had been clearly demonstrated to the people to be the word of God, it did not need further confirmation (Gal. 3:15). Thus, the miracles are recorded that we might evaluate all the evidences and be led to believe (Jn. 20:30-31). Furthermore, only the apostles could pass on the ability to perform these miracles (Acts 8:14-15), and since the apostles have ceased and thus there is no longer a transmitting power in the world today, then the powers ceased also, in confirmation with Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 13:8-10.

21. That there was ever an AApostolic Age.” In view of the fact Mr. Miller himself used the term in the previous question, it is obvious that this is just a quibble on words. The term, used today in an accommodating way, merely describes the period of time the apostles lived on the earth. This question is about like asking for a passage that mentions “denominations,” when all recognize what is clearly under discussion, and serves absolutely no purpose but to take up space.

22. That healing for the sick (James 5:14-16) in answer to prayer is not valid today. This is merely a repetition of the question under point No. 20.

23. That physical healing for the church is not a part of Christ’s atonement (Matt. 8:16, 17; Isa. 53:4, 1 Pet. 2:24; Isa. 53:4 and Matt. 8 have nothing to do with our atonement. The word atonement simply means “reconciliation,” and was accomplished by the death of Christ on the cross (Rom. 5:10-11). While the miracles demonstrated Christ to be the Son of God (Jn. 10:25), they were not used as part of the plan of God to reconcile men to him throughout eternity, but rather Isa. 53:10 points out that by the death of Christ we shall be saved from our sins. The context of 1 Pet. 2:24 shows the same application, just as does Psalm 41:4 and Matt. 13:15. That healing of the physical body was not part of the atonement of Christ is seen by such passages as James 5:14-16, 2 Tim. 4:20, 1 Tim. 5:23, 2 Cor. 12:8-9, Phil. 2:27, etc. Thus we see I Pet. 2:24 is carrying the same message as Matt. 26:28, and not dealing with physical healing (nor so quoted in Matt. 8 either).

24. That Christ does not heal today. This point has been thoroughly dealt with under No. 20 and 23.

25. That the Gifts of the Spirit enumerated in I Cor. 12:810 are not operational today. This is a repetition of the same question again. We might just pause here and ask Mr. Miller, in turn, what evidences he can produce to show his alleged “miracles” today are any more authentic than those used by other sects whom he would brand as “false”? Is God today confirming (conflicting) doctrines other than that which He confirmed to be His divine truth in the word of God?

26. That the Bible teaches more than one “law of pardon.” To answer this question, one must first of all determine what is under consideration. The alien sinner is given plain instructions what he must do to be saved (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 22:16). However, in Acts 8 we find a man who has already complied with those terms (8:13), and then became guilty of sin. Does he have to be re-baptized every time he becomes guilty of sin? Does Christ have to be re-crucified that his blood might be shed again for every Christian (Heb. 7:27)? The blood of Christ can serve its purpose, and so can baptism. Thus, the Christian is not told to be re-baptized, but to repent and pray God (Acts 8:22, I John 1:9).

27. That there are no longer apostles and prophets in the ministry (Eph. 4:11-16). These were to abide until we attained the unity of “the faith” (4:13), which has reference to the completed will of God (Jude 3, Gal. 3:25-27), at which time all prophecies were to cease (1 Cor. 13:8-10). Since apostles were eye-witnesses of the resurrection and personally familiar with Christ (Acts 1:21), we know they do not exist today since none are eye-witnesses. Paul mentions he was born “out of due season” (1 Cor. 15:8), and also that such required the signs of a true apostle to have to be done by him on many occasions to prove he was such (2 Cor. 12:12), and he was indeed an eye-witness even during the life of Christ. None today can fulfill that role, hence we know they no longer exist.

28. That to be `filled with the Spirit” means to be `filled with the Word of God. ” Like so many other Pentecostals, Mr. Miller sees “filled with the Spirit” and it just automatically means one being “baptized” with the Holy Spirit to him. Yet, in Eph. 5:18 we are told to be “filled with the spirit,” and in the parallel passage found in Col. 3:16 we are told, “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you.” Thus we see in this instance the “word of Christ” is equated with being “filled with the spirit.” Again, we offer him the following to also ponder: If being “filled with the spirit” always means being “baptized,” how do you account for Luke 1:15, 41, 67-all three of which were before the baptism of the spirit was ever promised?

29. That the elect were not chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4, 2 Tim. 1:9). This is a play on words, as Mr. Miller obviously does not mean the same thing the Bible is talking about. It is true we are elected and called in Christ before the foundation of the world, but that was accomplished, not by the modern day doctrine of Predestination as advanced by John Calvin, but through the gospel (2 Thess. 2:13-14). God does not want any to perish (2 Pet. 3:9, 1 Tim. 2:4, Acts 10:34), and thus has not already condemned specific individuals to Hell, but has predestinated that all who obey His gospel (thus are “in Christ”-Eph. 1:3) shall be saved. Thus we find Bible predestination is dealing with the class of men rather than the specific individual in the mind of God. If Mr. Miller means what he affirms here, he might as well quit preaching the gospel, forget about right and wrong, and go his own way. After all, if God has “elected” him, he cannot be lost regardless of what he may do; and if not, he cannot be saved regardless of how much he might desire it. This makes a mockery of the very death of Christ on the cross (Jn. 3:16).

30. That Christ was not the Head of the Church before Pentecost. The reply to that is found in Eph. 1:20-23, which shows Christ was made the head at the time God raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand. Note also that the church is in the future tense prior to Pentecost (Matt. 16:18, 16:28, Mark 6:l, Acts l:8), and in the past tense afterwards (Acts 2:47, Col. 1:13, etc.) Thus we find the death of Christ purchased it (Acts 20:28) that he might reconcile all men unto God through it (Eph. 2:16). Also, if it existed prior to the death of Christ, it was in existence without His will to govern it (Heb. 9:15-17).

Challenges to Mr. Miller

Without being repetitious and detailed, we now pose just a few simple pointed questions to Mr. Miller which, if he examines them in the light of God’s word, will show him who is teaching the word of God. Please find for us:

1. One passage that says one is saved by “Faith only” (Jas. 2:24).

2. One passage where Christ or the apostles ever commanded anyone to be baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5; 10:47-48).

3. One passage that talks about both baptism and’ salvation in which one is said to be saved before and without baptism (Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Pet. 3:21, Mark 16:16, Rom. 6:37).

4. One passage where instruments of music were used in the worship of the N.T. church (Eph. 519, Col. 3:16, 2 Jn. 9).

5. One passage setting forth qualifications for an apostle of today (Acts 1:22).

6. One passage justifying a state or national board to oversee the work of the church today (Eph. 1:20-23, 1 Pet. 5:1-3, Phil. 1:1, Acts 14:23).

7. One passage authorizing the existence of a human creed (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Gal. 1:6-8).

8. One passage that says Christ failed to do the job God gave him to do (Jn. 17:4, Dan. 2:44-45, Matt. 16:28, Col. 1:13, Heb. 12:28, Rev. 1:9).

9. One passage that says Christ will ever set foot on the earth again (2 Pet. 3, 1 Cor. 15:24-26).

10. One passage that says God will save a man who does not obey him (2 Thess. 1:8, Heb. 5:9, Acts 6:7, Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16).

I believe these questions will readily reveal Mr. Miller not only never learned the truth of God’s word, but while still “learning,” became entangled again in the ways of the world and turned back to “believe a lie.” We pray this review will assist those running into his material, and perhaps Mr. Miller himself, in finding the true church of Christ revealed in the pages of God’s sacred writ.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:30, p. 9-11
May 30, 1974

By Bruce James

The thought of unity is to me a very thought-provoking and emotional subject because it is that which most religious people wish for many times. As I ask myself, can unity be obtained today, the thought also enters my mind in the form of another question: what is the cause(s) of division in the church and in the denominational world today? And really, when you stop and think about it, unless we answer the latter question it would be useless to try and answer the former question.

You and I know that there are a lot of reasons that can be given as to why divisions have come about in the past (personal matters, selfish ambition, rule of opinion, unscriptural policy, inactivity, etc.). But after all is said and done, I believe the real reason is that of misunderstanding and misinterpreting God’s word, the Bible. Biblical interpretation has long been neglected by the average man of this day. God has revealed His will in the Bible, but since man has been endowed with the power of choice, having been created a free moral agent, God does not seek to force His will upon him. It is for this very reason that man must make an effort to learn what God has said if he really wishes, to know His will regarding him. (2 Tim. 2:15).

Contrary to the belief that the Bible is so plain that ii. needs no interpretation, I believe God expects us to use His book in becoming acquainted with His character and in gaining a knowledge of His will. Nothing has ever been written that all people at first understood alike. Age, change in customs, religious attitudes and sentiments, and change in the meaning of words make Biblical interpretation necessary. But we must understand that God does not inspire the interpretation. This is an individual duty and responsibility (John 7:17; Matthew 13:12).

I do not believe that it can be emphasized too much that there never has been, and there never will be a greater book than the Bible; but with all of this greatness, its message will never be understood by those who read it without the proper kind of study. Paul said, “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15-emphasis mine, BJ). This passage clearly indicates that there are both right and wrong methods of Bible study. If we can know the things that will hinder as well as the things that will help us to understand the word of God, then a major battle will have been won. So, for right now, we shall look at six outstanding hindrances.

1. A desire to please the world. I am not saying that all desire to please the world is wrong (Romans 15:2), but what I am talking about is that desire to please the world, regardless of what the Lord has said. This is what causes the trouble. Paul said, “For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? . . . if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ” (Galatians 1:10). There are men who will preach popular, though erroneous, doctrines because they desire to please those who sincerely, though incorrectly, hold them to be true. There are also those who will refuse to preach the whole truth in order to remain in the good graces of those who are not willing to consider all that God has said in His word to man (see 2 Tim. 4:5).

2. Another hindrance is to regard the Bible as a property of a favored few. The creeds which govern most Protestant and Catholic bodies are based upon the interpretations of their leading men, and they are the standards of faith and conduct, rather than the Bible itself. This attitude is also true of those who claim to be “Christians” only, to an alarming degree. There has descended to us a kind of reverence for authority found in great names that is very hurtful. In this way, errors are handed down from generation to generation without being suspected of being untrue. When men and women allow others to do their studying and thinking for them, they are breaking a direct command of God (2 Tim. 2:15) and will ultimately be led to eternal destruction (Matthew 15:14).

3. Using the Bible to prove doctrines is another hindrance.

We should always remember that the Bible is not a book with which to prove doctrines; it is the doctrine itself (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The Scriptures are used wrongly, so that instead of searching for what they may contain, the doctrines are first assumed and then the Bible is forced into some sort of recognition of them. The context should always be considered, and conclusions should not be drawn from less than all the truth upon a given subject. You and I cannot “prove just anything by the Bible.”

4. Another Hindrance: Reading the Bible without expecting to understand it. This may be done by reading from a sense of duty, or simply to have it said that the Bible has been read through. We must strive to know its thought and purpose. It is done by reading irregularly and without any system. The “random method” is useless (a psalm one day, a chapter from the gospels, and then one from the prophets). What would be the result if chemistry, medicine, law or history should be studied in this way? One is hindered by reading only favorite passages. I even know of one woman who cut the passages out of her Bible because she did not like what they said. How sad! How sad!

5. Interpreting the Scriptures from sinister motives. This is done quite frequently to save property or in justification of some questionable business interest, to satisfy a desire to do as we please; to continue our customs or begin new ones, and in justification of sectarianism.

6. A last hindrance is a desire to be known as persons of leading thought. This is done when men want to exalt themselves rather than the God of heaven. “Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

But let us not forget to look on the positive side as to what we can do to help make Bible study profitable. I list them for your consideration:

1. We must have a desire to know and do the truth.

2. We must remove all religious prejudice.

3. We must exercise common sense.

4. We must have faith in the inspiration of the Scriptures.

5. We must get the setting of the passage under consideration.

6. We must be willing to investigate or employ mental industry as did the Bereans in Acts 17:11-12.

Yes, unity can be had if correct interpretation is practiced by all of the modern religious world and if selfish ambition and carnality are removed. God expects us to use His book in becoming acquainted with His character and in gaining a knowledge of His will. A correct interpretation is indispensable in our efforts to reach heaven.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:30, p. 8-9
May 30, 1974