Truth Magazine

By Larry Hafley

The Baptist doctrine on baptism as expressed by Baptist preachers says, “Is baptism necessary for salvation? I dont beat about the bush about it at all. I come out with a plain, definite, NO! No, baptism doesnt save, doesnt help save, and Ill go even further to say that it doesnt have anything in this world to do with the saving of a soul!” (From “Good News,” Mar. 2, 1972)

Baptists say, Baptism Doth Also Not Save US.

The Bible says, “Baptism Doth Also Now Save Us” (I Pet. 3:21).

The difference between the word of God and the word of men is one letter. Merely change the “w” to a “t” and you have altered the meaning, but you cannot truly change the word of the Lord. Regardless of Baptist teaching which says, “Baptism doesnt save,” the Bible says, “baptism doth also now save us” (I Pet. 3:21).

If baptism “doesnt have anything in this world to do with the saving Of a soul, ” then being a Baptist does not have anything to do with the saving of a soul, for it takes baptism to make or constitute one a Baptist. So, being a Baptist does not help save, “and Ill go even further to say that it doesnt have anything in this world to do with the saving of a soul!” “I dont beat about the bush about it at all.”

Yes, Baptists are “plain” and “definite” when they say “baptism doesnt save.” But the word of God, a rather plain and definite book, says “baptism doth also now save us.” One is “commanded” to be baptized “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), and yet we are told that it “doesnt help save.” Well, we are commanded to repent “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). I wonder if Baptists would say that repentance “doesnt help save?” Both baptism and repentance are commanded for the remission of sins. Would Baptists say that repentance “doesnt have anything in this world to do with the saving of a soul?” What is true of one is true of the other, and it is a poor rule that will not work both ways.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 37, p. 13
July 27, 1972

By Dudley R. Spears

From all the information we were able to gather, the months of April and May are the best times of the year to go to the Philippines for a short tour of teaching and preaching. Therefore, we left Orlando airport on April 2 at 3:45 p.m. Living in the same metropolitan area has greatly helped brother Needham and me. We have been able to save much money and time communicating with each other and coordinating our trip plans. A large group of brethren from both the Palm Springs congregation where Needham preaches and the Par Ave. congregation where I preach were on hand to bid us “Bon Voyage.”

Our first stop was Dallas, Texas where we landed for only about 15 minutes and then flew to Los Angeles. We arrived there around 7:00 p.m. and by pre-arrangement met the elders of the Sepulveda church. Brother Jady Copeland was there also and we discussed the work they are supporting in Baguio City. Brother Copeland is one of those responsible for helping some of the Philippine preachers learn the truth on the institutional question. He and the other elders discussed with us the feasibility of the four of them going to the Islands to get a first hand look at the work they are supporting. It is possible that such a trip will be made in the future. Personally, I think it is a fine idea.

The flight from Los Angeles to Honolulu is a long one in flying time, though it is short on clock time, as one keeps setting the clock backwards. We arrived in Honolulu at near midnight and were met by brother Ronald Howes, local preacher for the Waipahu church. We met with the church there on Monday night and engaged in Bible study with them. We left Honolulu at 2:00 a.m. Tuesday morning. The plane was scheduled to depart at 11: 55 p.m. Monday, but as we learned about the Filipino people, starting somewhere on time does not mean too much. We flew Philippine Air Lines to Manila on the longest air leg of our journey, taking 13 hours and 40 minutes of non-stop flight. It was about 7:00 a.m. when we taxied up the ramp to the burned out international air terminal in Manila. After clearing customs, we were met by a delegation of some thirty or forty Christians from the Manila area. What a welcome sight that “Welcome Needham and Spears” banner was!

We were taken to our hotel and after some refreshing we went to the meeting house of the Pasay congregation. Brother Victorio Tibayan is one of the preachers for this group. The first day was spent largely in orientation, getting acquainted with the brethren and trying to organize ourselves after a sleepless night. Brother Needham and I passed out information sheets for the purpose of getting better acquainted with the brethren there who are being supported by churches here. On these sheets we asked for certain matters of their family size, needs, etc. Also we asked them to supply us with a list of the books they now have and of those they think they might need in the future. This is the procedure we followed in the entire trip. We received over 130 information sheets on Filipino preachers that will enable us to help them more in the future.

Brother Needham delivered a series of lessons on the problems of preachers and their work of preaching. These were delivered everywhere we went. Following each class there was a question and answer session that often proved very lively. It is quite evident that the brethren who preach in the Philippines are well read for the most part and quite able. My part of the daily lessons dealt with denominational doctrines, such as Catholicism, Pentecostalism, Calvinism and specific matters pertaining to the Holy Spirit. The brethren in the Philippines have to deal with the issue of Manaloism. It is the doctrine that relegates Jesus to nothing more than a man. They take passages like I Tim. 2:5; “one mediator between God and man, the man, Christ Jesus . . .” and emphasize “the man” part of the verse. Like those who affirm that man is justified by “faith only,” they ignore all those verses which affirm the deity of Christ. I found myself the student in many instances while we studied this question for I had never heard of the doctrine before. However, most of the same arguments made by some of the Pentecostals here in this country are identical with the Manaloist view.

We preached each evening in the auditorium of the Philippine Christian College, a denominational school in Manila. As a result of the preaching there, and the work of several preachers, 7 souls were added to the Lord by baptism. It is a rather unique experience to baptize people in Manila. There is no heated baptistery available. We walked well over a mile from the meeting place to the Manila Bay. Out behind the very beautiful Cultural Center, we walked on a jetty about 100 yards long and from there waded out over 306 yards into the bay to find water deep enough to immerse in. The bay is filled with sediment, raw sewerage and oil spills. It was a thrill, however, to see people obey the Lord in baptism late at night, having gone through that much just to get to water. I thought of many who are unwilling to obey Christ when all they must do is take a few steps forward and then go down into a heated baptistery in clean water with clean clothing.

The first Sunday we spent in the Philippines saw brother Needham going to Angeles City while I went first to Pasay and then to a small village called Baliwag. Jim spent Saturday night with an American airman, Brother Granke, who is stationed at Clark Air Force Base. He has been a great help to the native congregation in Angeles City. Brother Castorio Gamit is one of the preachers in Angeles where Jim preached that Sunday. There were four baptized as a result of the work there. Incidentally, one of the interesting points about the baptisms there is that Jim baptized in the only baptistery we saw during our visit to the Philippines. A brother had constructed it in his back yard. A picture of it is found elsewhere in this article. The church in Angeles City has a good future. While they are only about 50 or 60 in number, they have an abundance of talent and a very fertile field in which to work. Any American servicemen who are about to be stationed at Clark AFB should contact either Brother Needham or me for the address of the ones to contact in order to worship and work with the conservative brethren there. If you know of Americans stationed there, we can put them in contact with someone who will direct them where to worship.

While Jim was preaching in Angeles City, I preached at Pasay in the morning and then rode a bus up to a place called Baliwag. We went to die city proper by bus and from there rode a “tricycle” to a farm house about 4 or 5 kilometers outside the main part of the town. I preached and brother Tibayan interpreted what I said because many of those in attendance did not understand English. There were seven baptized that afternoon in an irrigation ditch. After a long bus ride back to Manila, Jim and I were together again, having finished our work in Manila and the surrounding areas.

Our next series of lessons were delivered at Baguio City in northern Luzon. Baguio City is the summer capital of the Philippines. It is a resort city of around 90,000 people and beyond doubt, one of the most beautiful parts of the Philippines. The surrounding area is very mountainous and the mountains seem to be carpeted by the finest greenery. The trip is a rather long one over very crooked roads which, for the most part, are very bumpy. We took with us a group of brethren from Manila so that they could attend the lectures in Baguio City and keep us from getting lost.

On the way to Baguio City we stopped in a small place called Bagbag of the barrio Bauang. Here we both spoke in the back yard of the house of Brother Joseph Cruz. Brother Castorio Gamit also spoke, summarizing what we both had said and spoke in Tagalog, the native language for most on Luzon. We had to leave around 3:30 p.m. in order to get to Baguio before darkness came, but there were five baptized there in the South China Sea that afternoon. While we were there we learned that there are a few churches in the area of Bagbag that are not accessible by car, jeep or whatever.

Brother Cruz and another preacher both walked back across the hills for an hour and a half to get to a place they called Santa Monica. They do this each week and report that the church there is sound and that people are receptive to the word.

The trip to Baguio was a very difficult one. The bus was packed to the limit. The roads were extremely narrow, winding and rough. The bus driver drove as fast as he could get the antiquated machine to travel. I saw a breath taking scene behind us of the sun setting over the China Sea. As hard as I tried, I was not able to get a suitable picture of it with my camera because of the roughness of the road and the swiftness of our bus. We arrived in Baguio just after sunset and were greeted by several of the brethren. We went to our hotel for the night. Our series of lessons began the next morning in the rented basement of the meeting house owned by the United Church of Christ in the

Philippines. In the next installment I will report on the events that took place in Baguio City.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 37, pp. 8-10
July 27, 1972

By Grant B. Caldwell

Points in the life of Christ go as far toward proving him to be the Son of God as do any other forms of proof. Two particular points the virgin birth and the miracles-must be viewed and understood and believed in order to have a true understanding of the Sonship of Jesus Christ.

The Virgin Birth

Modernists have been endeavoring for some time, now to explain away the virgin birth and the New Testament teaching on the matter. But try as they will, the Bible affirms that Jesus Christ was to be and was born of a virgin. By this, we simply mean that it was a matter of prophecy, and Jesus fulfilled that prophecy.

Prophecy: There could perhaps be several ways of discussing the virgin birth of Christ, but it would seem best to simply look at the advance notice made by God concerning the matter and then note how He carried out the matter.

Perhaps the first reference to this event is made at the time when it became obvious that man would need a redeemer. In Genesis, 3 -15, after man had fallen from his state of bliss and the Lord was ready to predict the one who would bruise the head of the great enemy of man, it is stated that this victor would be of the “seed of woman.” This is strange language in which to refer to a human being — strange even for the Bible. It is customary to refer to the seed from the male and not the female.

The most forceful of all the prophecies, however, is the one found in Isaiah 7:14. “Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel.” The scholarship of our day often seems to gain great enjoyment from ridiculing and finally rejecting the virgin birth. They affirm that the word translated “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 only means a young woman and not necessarily a virgin. There are three Hebrew words that indicate a young female. Two of the words do not necessarily mean a virgin. However, the third word Almah- (used seven times including Isaiah 7:14) always means A young virgin.

Should we grant for the sake of argument that the word only means “a young woman,” the passage would no longer make sense. The prophet said that this would be “a sign.” How is a young woman bearing a child a sign? Young women do that every day and there is nothing significant about it. But it is indeed unusual for a woman who is a virgin to bring forth a child.

Fulfillment: In the first chapter of Matthews gospel, he gives the account of the fulfillment of these prophecies. Matthew states several key points of consideration:

1. This was before Joseph and Mary came together. (vs. 18)

2. Joseph wanted to put Mary away for he knew the child was not his. (vs. 19)

3. The angel said that the baby was of the Holy Ghost. (vs. 20)

4. Matthew regards this as the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. (vs. 22)

Some have said that this tale was invented by Joseph and Mary to cover up for “their mistake” and that Jesus was simply illegitimate. This too makes no sense. Consider the facts. When Joseph found that the woman was with child, he was ready to put her away. If he and Mary had “come together” it would not have been a shameful thing, for they were espoused but because of custom had, not come together. It would have been no more than a violation of custom. Joseph never tried to hide anything and even allowed it to be thought that the child was his.

Paul further states that Christ was “made of a woman.” (Galatians 4:1-4) This could hardly be anything but a reference to his virgin birth.

Some have said that Jesus was a product of parthenogenesis. This is simply virgin or self reproduction. One professor at a certain university went to great lengths to argue this point. It should be noted, however, that this form of reproduction has never been known in higher life forms, much less in man. And besides this, genetically Christ would probably have been a woman if parthenogenesis was the method of his conception.

Too many today are following the reasoning of Harry Emerson Fosdick who said, “Of course I do not believe in the virgin birth or in that old-fashioned doctrine of the atonement and I do not know any intelligent Christian minister who does.” Maybe I am “old-fashioned” and I know I would not be classified by Mr. Fosdick as intelligent, but I believe in both. I will go one step further; if the minister does not believe in these, he is not a Christian.

The Miracles

No study of the divinity of Jesus would be complete without some discussion of the miracles he was credited with performing. Only one authorized by the God of heaven could heal the blind, cast out devils, raise the dead, cause the impotents to walk, and the leper to be pure. Jesus did all of this and more to prove that he was indeed the son of God.

In John 20:30-31, John said, “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

In this brief resume of the proof of the sonship of Jesus based on his miracles, we would like to limit our investigation to a few of the miracles found in the Book of John. John writes this book, often referred to as the Gospel of Belief, with the specific purpose of proving through the miracles that Jesus is the Christ.

Examples: In John 2, the record of the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee is found. The report says that Jesus turned six water pots full of water into water pots full of good wine, wine better than had, been purchased for the occasion. The skeptic, of course, would deny this actually happening and probably label it as a fable. However, it should be noticed that this was no mean feast. With servants and a feast ruler, this surely was a party of size. Who would claim such an event as this, transpiring in an audience of such magnitude had it not actually happened? Material substances could not contain Jesus.

In John 4, he healed the Noblemans son. This he did without coming into the boys presence. He thus proved that distance could not contain him.

In John 5, we read concerning the man who bad been lame for thirty-eight years. Surely, there could be no doubt about this mans affliction. He was known to be an impotent fellow. Longevity could not contain Jesus.

In John 6, Christ fed the five thousand and persuaded them by this deed that he was from God. Lack of quantity could not contain him.

Also in John 6, Christ walked on the water, thus, proving that natural forces could not contain him.

In John 11, he raised Lazarus from the dead, showing that death could not contain him.

These few examples are cited to illustrate the power that Jesus used while here on earth. Christ affirmed that if people could not believe in him because of what he said, they could “believe me for the very works sake.” (John 14:11)

Modernists have openly and aggressively denied the miracles of Jesus. It seems foolish to me for someone who was not there to take it upon themselves to deny what they do not know. There is no record of anyone who was with Jesus denying that he performed these things. Oh, they denied the power by which he did them, but no one denied that be did the things lie claimed to do.

Testimony: Listen to those who were there. Nicodemus, “No man can, do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.” (John 3:2) This man was a ruler of the Jews and John was willing to identify him. At the time of this writing, many would know whether or not such an event could have transpired.

The scribes said, “By the prince of devils casteth he out devils.” (Mark 3:22) Notice: They denied the power Christ claimed, but not the actual miracles.

Josephus, the Jewish historian, said “he performed many wonderful works.” So impressed was this man with Jesus that he thought it not right to call Jesus a man.

Jesus said, “The works that I do in my Fathers name, they bear witness of me.” (John 10: 25) Surely, only the Son of God could do the things that Jesus did. They prove him to be the Christ.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 37, pp. 5-7
July 27, 1972

By Cecil Willis

There are many passages that teach that brethren in the Lord should love one another. Let us all read carefully the following scriptures. “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if you have love one to another (Jno. 13:34, 35). Paul added, “Let love be without hypocrisy…. In love of the brethren be tenderly affectionate one to another” (Rom. 12:9, 10). Peter enjoined love also: “Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently” (I Pet. 1:22). Of course, the apostle of love had much to say on this subject. “Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is begotten of God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love” (I Jno. 4:7, 8). John also said, “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for be that loveth not his brother whom he bath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen. And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also” (I Jno. 4:20, 21). The Hebrew writer used the words from which the title of this article is taken, “Let love of the brethren continue” (Heb. 13:1).

The tensions and conflicts among brethren the past two decades or so have severely tested our love one for another. Of course, some brethren think that the mere fact that we have any disagreements at all is evidence that we do not love one another. Others think that when a person mentions the name of a brother with whom he differs that brotherly love is absent. Actually, the brother who believes his brethren are in error and that their souls are jeopardized must seek to correct them. God loves us, and thus He corrects us and chastens us by His word.

But we have now for many years been engaged in heated conflict with many of our brethren. We all should have waged our battle on the basis of principles rather than merely against personalities, if we have not. There is no justification for character assassination of brother against brother. There is a manly and an honorable way in which to differ with a brother.

Unfortunately, not every person who has participated in the controversies, both past and present, has conducted himself as he should have. Neither has all the wrong been on one side. Possibly nearly all of us have, on some occasion, said or done something that is somewhat beneath the standard of acceptable conduct.

Every person who has been knowledgeable to the controversy could recite the occurrence of untoward incidents. I have known of occasions when brethren became so heated in their disagreements that they actually engaged in physical combat. How ridiculous can brethren get? Imagine, sinfully engaging in physical combat over a Bible subject. In a number of other instances, brethren have become so worked up and lost control of themselves so that they have shouted at one another, and in other instances pushed and shoved one another around. One preaching brother wrote me from the Philippines that a liberal brother had gotten after him “with a long barreled gun.” But again I state, all the sinful anger and reproachable conduct have not been on one side.

Sometimes brethren are downright childish in their reaction to another brother. At other times, perhaps the word asinine would better describe the dishonorable conduct. When I lived in Kansas City several years ago, we had a peculiar incident to occur. The congregation for which I was preaching had built and paid for a large highway sign. When the sign was put up, differences between brethren had not become so intense, so the names and addresses of another nearby congregation or two had also been given on the highway sign as a courtesy to the other congregations. After severe differences developed between congregations, you know what action someone took? Rather than asking us to remove the names and addresses of the other congregations from our sign, someone went out, and painted out the name of our congregation on our sign. That was an audacious and childish deed.

Another incident, about equally childish, just came to my attention. Last fall the Lennon Road church in Flint, Michigan conducted a ladies lectureship, whatever that implies. The small conservative church in Flint was also invited to attend, as I imagine were all the other congregations in the city of Flint. Sometime later, after someone had discovered that the invitation had been sent to the “Anti” church, Brother Andrew Ashlock, one of the Elders at Lennon Road church, wrote the following letter to the Ladies of the faithful 12th Street church in Flint: “Dear Ladies: You were mistakenly included on our mailing list for the Christian Ladies Lectureship. We did not intend to extend the invitation to you and we hope you understand that you would not be welcome at this event. We are sorrowfully and prayerfully yours.” Then the letter is signed “For the Elders” by Andrew Ashlock.

This is the kind of reproachable and childish action that we could so well do without. If I were one of the 5 Elders and twelve Deacons whose names appear on the letterhead, or “Minister” Kenneth Jarrett or “Missionary” E. Ray COX” I think I would want to apologize to the 12th Street church and to let them know that I was not a party to, nor in sympathy with, the childish letter signed by Elder Andrew Ashlock.

Disagreements among brethren are bad enough. Division in the Body of Christ is deplored by every right thinking person. But even in our sincere disagreements, and even when division becomes necessary in order to practice what one believes to be acceptable worship to God, at least we can be manly, honorable, and brotherly in our dealings with one another. Indeed, “let brotherly love continue.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 37, pp. 3-5
July 27, 1972